1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 13

[ Page 8995 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House His Excellency

Se�or Arnoldo Lopez-Echandi, the Vice-President of Costa Rica. He is visiting us today, accompanied by His Excellency

Se�or Carlos Miranda, the Ambassador of Costa Rica. They are accompanied by Se�or Antonio Arriaga-Vald�s, the consul general of Costa Rica in Vancouver. Would members of the House please join me in making them abundantly welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: At some point in our life, all of us must have had the opportunity to hone our skills with the media and take advantage of a naive and young reporter -- or editor, as the case may be.

I see in the gallery today -- I won't call him naive -- a good friend of mine who's here visiting. He's someone I met a long time ago when he was the editor of the Ubyssey. He's gone on to do a lot of excellent work in the health care field and has contributed to our knowledge of health care issues through his journalistic endeavours. Certainly, it's a great pleasure for me to be here introducing a long-time friend Chris Gainor.

Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting in the gallery today is a member of the Swedish Parliament Mr. Roland L�ben. I would ask the House to join me in making him very welcome.

Also in Victoria, and in the gallery today, is my son Harvey Cashore and his wife, Alisa. They're visiting here from Toronto. Would you please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

K. Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. The opposition has a copy of the 63-page search warrant sworn by the RCMP commercial crime unit. This document alleges illegal activities on the part of a number of organizations, including the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, the Nanaimo NDP and Marwood Services Ltd. Can the Attorney General tell us whether Ted Hughes reviewed the allegations in this warrant before issuing his final report on the constituency funds which were directed to Marwood Services Ltd. by some members of your caucus?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I can't, hon. Speaker.

K. Jones: To the Attorney General. The search warrant is a public document available at the Vancouver courthouse. Since it contains serious allegations against Marwood, is the Attorney General saying that this could actually be a definitive report on constituency allowances without Mr. Hughes having access to this warrant?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On a number of occasions during this session I have indicated that I would have nothing to say about the continuing RCMP investigation.

The Speaker: I will recognize another supplemental, hon. member, keeping in mind the minister's reply.

K. Jones: Two months ago the opposition asked the Attorney General questions about the progress of the investigation. Why did he not tell the House at that time that the search warrant had been issued and was available to the public?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It has been a public document for many more months than that.

A. Warnke: My question is also to the Attorney General. The search warrant alleges that the Nanaimo NDP association filed false documents with the gaming branch to acquire a charity bingo licence. Given that these documents are on file at the gaming branch, will the Attorney General agree to suspend the activities of the Nanaimo NDP association until this investigation is completed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I have made it clear on a number of occasions that while the RCMP investigation continues, I will have nothing to say about this matter.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member, again keeping in mind the minister's reply.

A. Warnke: My supplemental is to the Minister of Government Services. According to the information supplied in the warrant, it is alleged that a number of charitable societies in Nanaimo were involved in kicking charitable donations back to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, including the Nanaimo Centennial Museum Society, the Nanaimo Theatre Group and the Nanaimo Duncan Labour Memorial Society, among others. All were alleged to have received charitable donations from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and kicked back a portion illegally.

Therefore will the Minister of Government Services act immediately to suspend the activities of these organizations under the Society Act while the RCMP investigation is continuing?

Hon. L. Boone: I will wait until the RCMP investigation is completed, giving due process to all those groups.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: My final supplemental is to the Attorney General. According to documents at the gaming branch, the Nanaimo NDP association, under

[ Page 8996 ]

the name of the B.C. Tomorrow Benevolent and Education Association, made a successful application for a bingo licence. In light of these documents, will the Attorney General undertake to verify a statement by Dave Stupich, recorded in the warrant, that states: "As treasurer of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, my responsibility was to record the financial transactions of the B.C. Tomorrow Association, as well as the Nanaimo NDP Association."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can only repeat that there is an investigation under way.

CASUAL NURSING JOBS AND HEALTH UNION ACCORD

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Can the minister explain why she has not spoken up on behalf of the 8,000 casual nurses who were deprived of their occupations as part of the union agreement? Can she tell us who represented their interest? It certainly wasn't their union, and it certainly wasn't the Minister of Health. Was the Minister of Women's Equality asked to participate in the decision that deprived these women of an opportunity to work in British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: This accord was negotiated between the Health Labour Relations Association, representing the employers in the province, and the three unions: the Hospital Employees' Union, the Health Sciences Association and the B.C. Nurses' Union. In fact, the final accord, which has been ratified by the employers and will be put to vote by the employees, was mediated by Vince Ready at the invitation of all parties.

When we entered into these negotiations, we recognized that one of the goals was to manage an orderly downsizing of the acute care part of the system that involved a 10 percent reduction in employees. This accord guarantees the maximum security to all those employees in the system and an orderly transition of those services to the community.

J. Weisgerber: I might as well go to the Minister of Health, I guess. It's pretty obvious that the minister knew there was going to be this downsizing for some time -- a 10 percent downsizing of the number of nurses working in British Columbia, at the same time as that minister was recruiting nurses from across Canada. How can the minister possible justify her decision to advertise across Canada for nurses, knowing that she was going to put 5,000 nurses in British Columbia out of work?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: The Leader of the Third Party is considerably out of date, because we went into that matter at length during my estimates debate. Those positions that were advertised nationally -- and filled primarily by people from this province -- are part of the shift of jobs from the acute care sector to the community sector. The labour accord has been put in place to ensure that every nurse and hospital employee working in this province right now will have an opportunity to move into those positions -- and not only move into them but, if necessary, get the adequate training to do so.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to go back for the final supplemental to the Minister of Women's Equality. We've heard a lot of lip service from the minister about job retraining for women. Can the minister tell us what specific programs she has initiated to ensure that these casual nurses can continue to practise nursing in British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: The labour adjustment programs of this government will benefit these women. The member should be aware that as part of the negotiated accord all casual employees have a window between now and October 31 to apply for regular positions. I encourage them to do so.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier: given the fresh allegations of money-laundering and illegal activities by Marwood Services, which are contained in the warrant, will the Premier agree today to ask Ted Hughes to reopen his investigation of all constituency allowances which were directed to Marwood? Given the new damaging information in this warrant, will he act today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The opposition must be running out of questions to ask, because they have found a report by Mr. Hughes that made it very clear that the MLAs had properly run their constituency allowances, and that they had quite properly followed all of the accounting procedures that should have been followed. Quite frankly, that question does not relate to me as the Premier but as an MLA, and to the other MLAs here. It is a question that the member, who is now wise in the ways of the Legislature, knows is out of order.

W. Hurd: According to information contained in the warrant, it is sworn that Marwood Services was involved in recording fraudulent transactions, which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars, on behalf of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Since Marwood Services was receiving constituency allowances from the Minister of Finance, how is the public to be assured that legitimate money from this Legislature wasn't being mixed with illegally obtained money from charities in Nanaimo?

The Speaker: Before I allow the answer, hon. member, I would appreciate it if the member would demonstrate how that relates to administrative responsibility. If the member will do that, I will allow the question.

W. Hurd: It's the opposition's impression that the Premier was the one who asked for an investigation by

[ Page 8997 ]

Mr. Hughes of constituency allowances that were forwarded to Marwood Services and any other charity in

Nanaimo.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As a matter of fact, the motion was put forward by the Attorney General. Mr. Hughes found very clearly that the MLAs' rent cheques, their cheques for their employees, their telephones and for some modest advertising in the local newspapers in their riding were done quite properly.

Not only is the opposition turning allegations into fact, not only are they depriving legitimate agencies of due process, not only are they destroying the presumption of innocence, they're now saying that when MLAs have been given a clean bill of health on how they have conducted their affairs, that they're somehow or other not doing the proper job for their constituents. It's astounding where the members are going.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The Premier must be aware that in his second interim report on constituency allowances tabled a month before this warrant was sworn, Mr. Hughes stated that many of the NDP constituency offices were being subsidized by party funds. If these party funds themselves may have been illegally obtained, does this in itself not warrant a reopening of the Hughes investigation?

The Speaker: I am going to go to the next questioner, the hon. member for Chilliwack.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT CHILLIWACK CARE FACILITY

R. Chisholm: To the Minister of Labour: the BCGEU strike at the Eden intermediate care facility is now in its seventeenth day, and the families of the seniors are still complaining about the lack of essential health care. Has the minister had any contact with the LRB about this labour dispute? If he has, what is this government going to do to ensure that the strike is not affecting the health care of the seniors?

Hon. M. Sihota: Firstly, the hon. member should know by now, because he has raised the issue in the House before, that the employer can make an application to the Labour Relations Board to increase essential service levels. Secondly, the hon. member should know that the employer has made an application on one occasion, and has indicated a desire to go back to the Labour Relations Board to seek higher essential services levels if they are required to deal with the needs of the constituents.

The hon. member is raising this issue in this House as a cheap forum to try to generate some headlines in his local constituency, knowing full well that the employer is doing its job in making the application to the Labour Relations Board, but the hon. member is not doing his job in representing these people adequately.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: It is unfortunate, hon. Speaker, that the minister doesn't have any sense of responsibility toward the seniors in this province. Just for your own information, hon. minister, Eden intermediate care facility is before the LRB right now; they went in at 1:30. The BCGEU claims that essential services are being maintained, but the Ministry of Health has just produced a private report recommending that union staffing levels be increased. Obviously essential health care is not being maintained. What is this minister prepared to do today to direct the LRB to ensure that these increased levels of essential health services be implemented?

Hon. M. Sihota: A minute ago the hon. member said that he knows an application is being made by the employer to the Labour Relations Board. If he knows that, one has to wonder why he is standing up in this House asking questions about essential service levels. The employer is doing its job, hon. member; it is making an application. The Labour Relations Board will do its job; it will hear the application and it will, as it has, make decisions based on the representations. The fact of the matter is that this hon. member is engaging in remarkably cheap politics, and in so doing, has served only....

The Speaker: Order, please. If the minister is just concluding his reply....

Hon. M. Sihota: In so doing, the hon. member has embarrassed himself and further shown his incompetence.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for 1992-93.

K. Jones: I ask leave to table documents.

The Speaker: The subject matter of the documents, hon. member?

K. Jones: The document is the search warrant issued to the RCMP commercial crime unit investigating the operations of Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society.

The Speaker: Is leave granted? Unfortunately, hon. member, I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. As all hon. members know, the process in the House is to ask for leave to table a document, and if the Chair hears a nay, then leave is not granted.

Hon. M. Sihota: Quite frankly, if the opposition wishes to put the motion forward to the House again, I would be quite happy to accommodate them.

[ Page 8998 ]

The Speaker: If it is the will of the House, the Chair will ask again: is leave granted to table documents?

Leave granted.

K. Jones tables documents.

The Speaker: With that, hon. members, I wish to state that on Tuesday last the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rose on a matter of privilege relating to questions he had placed on the order paper....

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will begin again, hon. members. On Tuesday last the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rose on a matter of privilege relating to questions he had placed on the order paper which had not as yet been answered. First, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in providing the Chair with notice in accordance with practice recommendation No. 7.

Second, the Chair wishes to comment briefly on the manner in which the matter of privilege was raised in the House. Our guidelines are stated on page 36 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, and one of the essential elements required is "a brief written statement of the matter, which the member reads to the House." This statement is intended to inform the House of the facts on which the matter is based and, in addition, any applicable authorities which may be of assistance to the Chair.

In this instance, regrettably, the Chair could not allow the completion of the statement in that several parts of the statement imported argument and conclusions. The Chair, however, has the full text of the hon. member's statement and has considered all the relevant submissions therein. In his statement, the hon. member makes the following submission: "The government's refusal to answer written questions on the notice paper impedes my ability as a member of this assembly from doing the job that my constituents sent me here for."

As this appears to be the essence of the matter, I refer hon. members to the decision of a former Speaker of this House recorded in the Journals for 1932, pages 22 to 29, wherein it was ruled, and I quote: "A refusal to answer [a question] cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal."

While the hon. member may feel he has a grievance, the ruling to which I have referred clearly precludes the Chair from finding that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established.

Presenting Petitions

V. Anderson: I present a petition asking the government not to put in private adoptions but to restudy it before this is brought forward.

H. Lali: I would like to present a petition on boundary restructuring of Coldwater Road.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 62.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that Bill 62 be now read a second time. This bill introduces amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act that was passed last year. It represents the results of a year-long public consultation process with information-seekers as well as the local public bodies who will be covered by this legislation. These include municipalities, school boards, police agencies, colleges, universities, self-governing professional bodies and public-interest groups such as the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

This bill reflects a consensus on how to extend information and privacy rights to local public bodies in British Columbia. These amendments will fine-tune the provincial legislation to deal with issues unique to local public bodies while maintaining the principles of information rights and privacy protection contained in Bill 50. An important feature of this bill is the process by which it was developed.

I want to thank and commend my colleague the member for Burnaby North for his hard work and dedication to the public consultation process and for his report in February, which has formed the blueprint for the bill before us now. My comments are going to be very brief -- in fact, they are almost concluded. With the indulgence of the House -- if there's agreement on the other side -- I would encourage members to hear from the member for Burnaby North next so that all members can have an appreciation for the way in which this consultation process was conducted over the last number of months.

Although this bill deals primarily with the extension of information and privacy rights to local bodies, it also contains a number of other housekeeping amendments to the bill we passed last year. The member quarrels with my notion of the term "housekeeping"; we can have a chance to debate that in committee stage later on in this session. With that, I look forward to the debate.

B. Jones: I would like to add a few comments to those of the Attorney General in encouraging members opposite to support in principle this very important and progressive piece of legislation -- I'm sure all members will want to do that. First, though, I would like to thank the Attorney General who, while being very modest about his own contribution and leadership with respect to the whole area of freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy legislation, is very generous about my contribution in acknowledging my interest and enthusiasm for this area. I want to thank him for trusting me to carry out the consultation process, which was fascinating. It was a privilege to

[ Page 8999 ]

deal with the heads of public bodies around this province, with individuals and groups like the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the Civil Liberties Association.

I also want to thank him for giving me a free hand. I think there's often the assumption that when people write reports for government they're basically told what to do. I did have a free hand; I wrote exactly what I wanted to write, in terms of this area. I take full responsibility for all recommendations I made; I tried to push the envelope as far as I could. I'd also like to thank the cabinet caucus committee, who adopted most of the recommendations I put forward.

We're at the second stage in terms of development of freedom-of-information legislation. By way of context, I'd like to mention to members that this is part of a package that we might not appreciate in a partisan debate, but I hope in retrospect all members will see this as part of what we call the good-government package. It's a series of bills that have come or will come before the House that will make this province and this and successive governments more open and accountable.

It's legislation like the best conflict-of-interest legislation in Canada, like an independent commissioner to look at the remuneration and other benefits of MLAs, like electoral reform, like extending the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, like abolishing appeals to cabinet, and like the kinds of things I think most members have participated in -- in terms of active participation in select standing committees of this Legislature -- to seek out the opinions of British Columbians and bring them forward to this place.

These kinds of proposals, in my mind -- and, I think, in the minds of most British Columbians -- were but a dream three years ago. We have, before this House, already adopted most of those things.

Bill 62 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that was passed a little over a year ago, Bill 50. I think that legislation has been recognized as the leading legislation of that kind on this continent. One international expert -- whom this House has just selected as the commissioner for this legislation -- describes our legislation that way and is very anxious to come here and see that legislation live.

In second reading we should talk about the principle of the legislation and what this act does. I would take issue with the Attorney General, who describes it as housekeeping. It's a critically important piece of legislation. It extends fundamental rights in a democratic society that citizens should enjoy across the entire broad public sector. It also very clearly increases the accountability and openness of all public bodies in this province. This is important, because another important principle there is an attempt to try to restore faith in our democratic system and in our public bodies.

After this legislation is passed, citizens will have access to information as a fundamental right. They will have the same standards of access and protection of privacy, whether they're dealing with a larger ministry -- the Ministry of Health, say, with 100,000 people involved in delivering health care in this province -- or the smallest village in British Columbia.

The purpose of this legislation is the same as that of the original bill that was passed last year. I just want to reiterate the purposes of that bill, because it is critical to understanding what we are extending to public bodies across the province:

1. The right of access to information in the custody and control of public bodies. With very limited exception, citizens have access to that information.

2. The right of access of individuals to their own personal information. Because public bodies collect this information, a percentage of that information is incorrect. An important principle of this legislation is to guarantee the right to request correction of that information.

3. Preventing the unauthorized use, collection and disclosure of personal information. This is critically important, and, as I mentioned earlier, the commissioner is one of the world's leading experts in terms of privacy and protection of data.

4. Creating the office of the commissioner to allow for completely independent review by an officer of the Legislature, who will review decisions made by this Legislature and who has the power to order the Premier of this province to disclose information on the threat of a $5,000 fine.

This is the finest legislation of its kind in North America. The amendments contained in Bill 62 will improve that legislation, based on the kind of consultation that has taken place in the last year. It will extend Bill 50 rights to all public bodies, with a uniform standard of access and privacy across the province, and it will tailor the original Bill 50 to meet the needs of those local public bodies.

Let me quote from a document that I think all members received recently, one that I think members who have had experience on councils will be interested in. It is the latest document of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which has described what was happening here as a tsunami of legislation -- which isn't true, of course. They say in their latest publication:

"The act contains 30 sections which are intended to tailor the existing legislation to meet the needs of local government and other local bodies. The sections pertaining to local government reflect, to a very large extent, the series of recommendations developed by UBCM with the assistance of the MOA members. This process was long and arduous, but evidently worthwhile, in the long run."

So we did have a consultation, we are tailoring legislation to meet local needs and it was a long and arduous, but worthwhile consultation process.

What we have, after this House hopefully approves Bill 62, is a new, improved bill. In the fall, when this legislation is proclaimed, it will apply not only to the ministries, Crown corporations, boards, commissions and agencies of provincial government -- some 200 public bodies -- but to all public bodies, and there are over 1,000 of those. We are moving from a situation where the provincial public service has 30,000 public employees, to the broad public sector where there are some 300,000 public employees. We will be extending this legislation to municipal government and its agencies -- all their medical health agencies, law enforcement agencies that are not covered by the

[ Page 9000 ]

federal legislation, the library boards and other boards of those local public bodies, school boards, schools, hospitals, colleges, universities and also self-governing professional bodies. The powers of self-governing professional bodies are delegated by this Legislature to regulate themselves in the public interest and, as such, I think it is important that they uphold the same high standards as other public bodies in the province. This inclusion of self-governing professional bodies will make this legislation the first of its kind in Canada.

As a result of this extension, we in British Columbia will have freedom-of-information legislation that will have the broadest scope of any in the country. I believe it's a major advance in terms of openness, accountability and privacy protection for individuals.

The consultation process was almost a year in duration. It involved numerous meetings with groups and individuals. My reaction was one of being very impressed with how very quickly public bodies became knowledgeable about the legislation; they raised concerns but also raised constructive suggestions. Virtually every public body was concerned about the costs of implementation. So I think it's very important....

Although it's not in this legislation, it's certainly part of the package to see that, when public bodies are dealing with budgets that are stretched, the government does everything it can to ensure that the implementation process impacts on them in a reasonable way. That includes such things as having simplified directory requirements, and a lead time before proclamation -- the fall of 1994 seemed to be a reasonable time for most public bodies -- to provide them with assistance in terms of policy manuals and records management information that will help with the implementation process.

[2:45]

British Columbia is in a most fortunate situation: we can benefit from the experience of other jurisdictions. What we've seen in terms of cost with those other jurisdictions is that the impact is much less than originally anticipated. For example, in the review of the Ontario legislation we found that it had to be a city the size of Ottawa, with a population of some 300,000, before one full-time-equivalent staff was needed in order to implement the legislation.

I'd like to make a comment on health care records, because one of the things that I have found is that of all the records held by public bodies, the ones that the public seems to care the most deeply about and are most passionate about are their personal medical records. This legislation will extend the right of access and privacy protection to those kinds of records in all public health care facilities, but not in the private sector -- for example, not in doctors' offices. The Seaton Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs made a different recommendation.

They even went as far as to say that "the hiding of personal medical records in doctors' offices is no longer acceptable in the 1990s." We also had a Supreme Court of Canada decision in June 1992, the McInerney v. MacDonald decision, that guaranteed patients the right of access to their medical records. So what we have now is a common-law right of access. While this legislation will allow access to medical records held in public bodies, it does not guarantee the right, set standards of access and privacy and codify that process for doctors' offices.

It's my hope that legislation will be developed in the near future that will codify access and privacy protection, as is the case in hospitals and all other public bodies, so that personal medical records, wherever they are held, will be subject to the high standards of access and privacy that this Legislature has approved.

At the outset I said that I hoped all members would support this legislation in principle, and that one of the principles is to restore faith in our democratic institutions. I think that principle is important to all members here. Let's put our partisan natures aside just for a minute and think about the kind of public reaction that we saw during the constitution debate. Let's recognize that there was a Decima poll in which 73 percent of the public said that they had lost faith in their representatives to serve the public interest.

Let's be aware of the report of a survey done a few weeks ago in the United States, which said that the majority of Americans would rather spend one week in jail than four years in the White House as President. We will appreciate then how turned off many citizens are about the kind of process that we are engaged in. Some members opposite have participated, at least in part, in the Parliamentary Reform Committee that has toured this province, and have seen the same kind of thing: the same anger, the same frustration and the same feeling of alienation.

We do have an adversarial system here, and that in a sense brings out the disagreement. It ignores the fact that we agree on 90 percent of what we do, and focuses on the 10 percent that we disagree on -- and we could argue about the percentages. But what is seen in the adversarial system is the negative side of things, and what comes out in the media is the negative side of things. We have members of the media who believe that members sitting in this chamber are clowns, and describe them as such. I think we have a very difficult road....

C. Serwa: Not all members, surely.

B. Jones: All members, especially government members, are viewed as clowns by members of our press gallery. We see this negativism come out in here, and we see it focused in the media. In many ways, we probably feel like Rodney Dangerfield: we can't get any respect.

But it behooves us to ask the question: what can we do about this? There is probably very little we can do, but we can do everything possible in terms of reforming our system so that it is more open and accountable -- so that we ensure a higher degree of accountability in this place, the provincial government and all public bodies in the province. We can open up the process, and inform and encourage participation by the public to influence the decisions here. It's important that we share the intricacies of government with them, and this legislation does that.

Hopefully, when they see some of the intricacies, they will appreciate the efforts of elected representatives on their behalf. This will enhance our

[ Page 9001 ]

democratic institutions and our appreciation of our elected representatives.

The extension of freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy legislation across the broad public sector is only one small step in this process. But I don't think we should be cynical at any point in this process, when we are making these kinds of advances. There may be sections of this act that members opposite don't appreciate, but I'm hoping there will be strong support in principle. We had an election in 1991 that elected not just a new government. It elected a new opposition and new faces, primarily on the part of the third party.

That election was -- probably more than any other election in the last 40 years -- about change and hope for something different. It was about trying to find a better way of doing things, and better representing the citizens of this province. I believe this legislation is a small step along that way; it's part of delivering on those public expectations. I hope all members will see fit to support this bill in principle.

A. Warnke: About a month and a half or two months ago as I recall, there was all-party agreement on one issue. To be quite honest with you, I've forgotten the issue. I believe it had something to do with the aboriginal question. Strangely enough, it didn't receive one iota of mention in the press. It prompted me at the time to consider that maybe the way to attract attention to it would be to have an artificial fight across the House and then perhaps create a schism, and that way attract some attention to the issue. I can appreciate the remarks by the hon. member for Burnaby North.

I think he certainly has a point, that the negative side of politics -- and especially where schism, conflict or confrontation occurs -- attracts attention.

I think this is one of those issues where in fact we're going to see considerable support in this chamber, at least in principle. I suppose the reason -- at least from our standpoint as the official opposition, where we support in principle any such move and development -- is generated by our concerns over the years as well. Indeed, I believe the hon. member for Burnaby North recalls that one of the first initiatives to develop something akin to an access-to-information act -- and I believe it was called Access to Information Act -- was originally introduced in this chamber in June 1976 by Gordon Gibson.

By the way, in no way is referring to Mr. Gibson necessarily an endorsement of his present candidacy.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: "I wonder why not?" says the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

I could stand to be corrected, but that was introduced in June 1976, and I don't think there was an access-to-information private member's bill before that.

An Hon. Member: January 1972.

A. Warnke: I stand corrected by the hon. member.

At any rate, it shows that -- at least in 1976 -- members of the Liberal opposition were also advocating something akin to an access-to-information act. Over the years, they have contributed in many different ways to extend freedom of information and the protection of privacy to public sector organizations outside the provincial government as well as within it.

The present changes amending the existing Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to cover municipalities, school boards, hospitals, police, universities, colleges and self-governing professional bodies is certainly a move that extends freedom of information and protection of privacy, which we support in principle. I believe that British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada to cover self-governing bodies, but perhaps I will be corrected again on that.

There are many aspects of Bill 62 that elaborate on last year's passing of Bill 50 on freedom of information and protection of privacy. Overall, the principle is maintained of ensuring the development of the right of access to information. I want to compliment the Attorney General and especially the member for Burnaby North on being sensitive to the idea of the protection of personal privacy. This is always extremely important to keep in mind.

While one can advocate -- and as lawmakers we increasingly want to advocate, and encourage -- access to information, by the same token, we do not want to jeopardize individual and private information which should be the prerogative of the individual to keep private. The individual's interest in that context is extremely important. It seems to me, in evaluating Bill 62 as a further development of last year's Bill 50, that the sensitivity of keeping some sort of balance has been maintained.

Perhaps due to the modesty of the member for Burnaby North, there is another aspect that members of the public might be concerned about. To what extent is criminal intelligence regarding repetitive crimes or organized crime available through freedom-of-information legislation?

Interjection.

A. Warnke: I am tempted to expand, but I will not.

There is access to that kind of information, and there is a certain kind of information with regard to criminal intelligence that obviously -- and the police in particular have made a strong case here -- we would not want to make available to unscrupulous groups or individuals who would tap in and see what kind of information police and other agencies have on them. Common sense dictates that that kind of information is not released. It is extremely important to emphasize that in this legislation as well as in the legislation developed last year, criminal intelligence and that kind of information is not available to those people. It would jeopardize the safety of our communities.

[3:00]

I recognize the sensitivity of the authors of the report and the member for Burnaby North and the government in responding to the report. I recognize the sensibleness with which they received the report and what should be included in terms of any development of access to freedom of information. On that note, I certainly want to extend my compliments.

[ Page 9002 ]

Some people have expressed concerns about why we exempt B.C. Rail, the CNR or Via Rail. We will explore some questions to clarify why certain agencies or bodies are included and some are not. We will be doing that at committee stage.

I recognize also, as mentioned by the member for Burnaby North, that health care records are extremely sensitive. I agree with that member that, for most individuals, the extent to which private records are released is a very sensitive subject, especially about one's health and so on -- there's that magic phrase of mine again. The difficulty of putting together amendments to really deal with the problem of personal health care records really has to be understood. Hence I appreciate the difficulty of drafting such legislation and being in constant consultation with the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

On this side of the House, we hope, of course, that somewhere along the line, we can draft appropriate legislation that will protect individual interests, yet at the same time appropriately enhance information that should be freely accessed.

Since I'm talking a bit about health, I would like to elaborate on one amendment very briefly. This is the amendment that covers the TB Vets' Association. As it stands, the amendment gives the TB Vets' Association continued access to government data banks. I think almost everyone in Canadian society is very familiar with this program. The association is given continued access to government data banks containing the names and addresses of car owners -- and, obviously, their licence numbers as well -- for charitable fundraising through its key-tag program.

Actually, I believe one improvement we've made over the years is that the actual licence plate number is no longer on the key tag. It was at one time, and that was sent out to people. Even that easily violated one's personal privacy. You had the name, address and licence number. Of course, most people are familiar with what appears now: the licence number is not on the key tag, but a number which the TB Vets' Association can look up, correlate with the licence plate and get in touch with the appropriate party.

I think it's easily said: since this amendment concedes continued access to government information to the TB Vets' Association, will other charitable organizations, on application, be provided with such information? If so, what does it do for the protection of an individual's privacy? This is a very important question. On the surface, it seems that the TB Vets' Association is that foot in the door, or window, that would allow a whole host of associations and charitable organizations to have access to one's personal data.

I want to strongly emphasize at the outset that there is a general consensus -- and the opposition has talked a little bit about this, and I hope this is the general consensus of everyone here -- that since the TB Vets' Association program has been around for literally decades, since World War II, and it is an extremely credible program, we have no problem conceding that the TB Vet's Association program may have such approval. But when it comes to other charitable organizations trying to establish a similar program, we essentially have to draw the line.

On this side, that is one area that I want to pursue with the Attorney General at committee stage for some clarification, if nothing else, and perhaps for some commitment. I certainly recognize -- and we have discussed it on this side -- that the TB Vets' Association program is one that we would not want to suspend simply because it seems prima facie to contradict the whole idea of protecting an individual's privacy.

What also must be clarified is the provincial financial assistance that will be afforded local governments, other public sector bodies and self-governing bodies for the implementation of the freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy program. We want to take up some of the concerns that were expressed at second reading and at committee stage last year. One of the concerns is the whole problem of costs pertaining to local governments, including staff, retrieval and implementing the program. These are some of the questions.

While any attempt to enhance, develop and refine the legislation is appropriate -- and Bill 62 seems to do that, which would certainly prompt support in principle of this bill -- there are a number of questions that obviously have to be pursued to sharpen the intent of the legislation and develop and enhance it. It's in that context that a few questions will be addressed at committee stage.

In

summary, I want to re-emphasize that the opposition continues on its support of Bill 50, and commends the hon. member for Burnaby North for the report that was written and submitted to the government, and the government's response to that. In that context we will support the bill in principle.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 62, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. I think I can say at the outset that in comparison to our reaction to Bill 50 last year, we certainly stand in support of the philosophy and principles contained in this piece of legislation. I have no difficulty there. As I go through my second reading debate, I will point out a number of potential shortfalls and problems that I believe are inherent in the bill, and we'll certainly use the opportunity to expand on that in committee stage.

I acknowledge that it's new and very complex legislation, and undoubtedly, as the years go by and as the fine-tuning process takes place, there will certainly be a number of amendments coming forward.

We have a fairly strong interest in freedom of information and protection of privacy, and in 1991 we brought in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a sort of forerunner by the previous administration. There is generally a strong commitment. I think all government members recognize that the public's right to access information has to be guaranteed in a legal sense. The hon. member for Burnaby North, who has done a great deal of work on this, spoke substantially on the credibility of governments, and this is one step.

As I speak, I'll be addressing other aspects, but I'm quite confident that the member is right, mindful of the statement of the astronaut who stepped onto the surface of the moon: "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

[ Page 9003 ]

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Did I reverse it? I'm not certain. In any event, hon. Speaker, it is one of the elements to develop that credibility and to mitigate the cynicism out there. There are a number of things we can do and must do, and I agree that this is one of them.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there has been a fairly substantial cost associated with the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It has been estimated that $13 million was spent over the last two years to implement Bill 50, and Bill 62 will probably amount to a considerable cost element for local government and other publicly funded bodies: universities, police, doctors, lawyers, etc. At the present time, apparently more than 70 employees in the government are working on issues to do with freedom of information and protection of privacy in connection with government.

Obviously, with the appointment of the new commissioner, David Flaherty, we're looking at 15 to 20 more employees in that central office, and it's a very big job. The challenge will be to handle the apparently conflicting statements on freedom of information and protection of privacy. I note that the hon. member for Burnaby North, in his comments, made reference to Ottawa, where it appears they had to hire one additional person for 300,000 people. If we look at the figures with reference to the province of British Columbia, we are looking at at least 100 people for our present population of 3.3 million.

So somewhere along the line I think there is an understatement with respect to the cost to municipalities, and there is some genuine concern with that, although, again, that's not to minimize the necessity for the protection of privacy and public access to information that should be implemented by public bodies.

The member for Burnaby North mentioned the aspect that Bill 62 does not extend patient access and privacy rights to health care records held by private practitioners. I am confident that there must be a great amount of legal liability involved in that particular situation. Whether it impacts directly on doctors or clinics or whatever, undoubtedly this is behind that. At what point would a patient initiate a lawsuit against a medical practitioner: when they didn't detect something in its very early stages, perhaps a cancer or something else that was terminal?

I suppose that our concerns with respect to that go along with the Attorney General's. Fundamentally, with design parameters incorporated, it is abundantly clear that individuals should have access to personal private records, whether they are medical records -- if we can mitigate the liability-type concerns -- or, obviously credit records, where a bit of wrong information may get into the system and the individual has no way to access and dispute it, simply because they don't know what is there. There are genuine concerns, and again, this should mitigate them.

[3:15]

A great deal of the language in Bill 62 is very subjective. It leaves the door open to a variety of

interpretations. Perhaps it is necessary because it is new legislation; the current government is certainly producing a great deal of legislation that seems to be wide open. But it may not give sufficient direction to either the commissioner or the other public bodies that will now be impacted by Bill 62. Again, it is imperative that the language provide the necessary direction so that it is consistent throughout the province.

I think a number of self-regulating professional organizations are having some difficulties with this particular act. There are an enormous number of different, self-regulating professional organizations with different agendas, obviously, and different concerns, and it is very difficult to develop legislation that is sensitive to specific concerns. I understand the challenges, and I am quite confident that the hon. Attorney General and the member for Burnaby North, in their submissions, were sensitive to this and probably tried their best. But the magnitude and diversity of the task is such that it's an awesome challenge, and it may not have been successfully met in this legislation.

I am going to refer to a few notes I made when the Attorney General and the member for Burnaby North were talking on the philosophy and principle of this bill. The hon. member for Burnaby North indicated that this would restore faith in the democratic system. As I said earlier, I think it is one element that should work in a positive fashion to do that.

We have had Bill 50, and now we are debating Bill 62. I am looking at the current government that supported these two pieces of legislation, and I note standing in the orders of the day are a whole series of questions put forward some months ago that have not been responded to by the government. I have a great deal of

[ Page 9004 ]

concern with this type of thing. The public can see something hypocritical in this. On the one hand, we are professing an open, accessible government with the noble objective of enhancing respect for politics and politicians, and certainly respect for government. Law and order follows along with it. Then we find elements like this. We find a reluctance on the part of this government to immediately release polls on various issues that confront government. They are very selective in their ability to disseminate what should be public information on polls.

The information leaks out slowly over a period of time, and slowly it becomes public. But the actual poll is not seen, the questions are not seen, the actual responses.... It's sort of the rumour mill that carries it. It seems to me paradoxical that a government that is so strong on advocating this legislation seems to hold the cards so close to their chest. There is an inherent conflict there.

I have no doubt in my mind that the hon. member for Burnaby North really believes in this, but I question whether the executive branch of the government sincerely believes in it. It seems to be a tool that we can take advantage of. But you are either in or out; you can't believe partially in it. You can't believe that information on what happens in the ministries should be freely accessible, but that government controls and makes a determination of what should or should not be available.

There has to be a consistent approach, so that everyone is comforted that the cards are face up on the table and that the government of the day is going to be effective in governing British Columbia. They have nothing to fear from putting their cards on the table. We are looking for quality government and the delivery of quality service. The better the quality of the information we get, the greater the opportunity to assess what government is doing.

There seems to be a little bit of a conflict here. I know that I had the opportunity -- with the hon. opposition critic and the hon. member for Burnaby North -- of serving on the special committee that chose the commissioner. It was a very enlightening and interesting experience, because we had the opportunity to interview some of the top people in the world in this field. What was really interesting was the consistent and devout belief in the rightness of freedom of information. I point that out. The government is at the moment in conflict with their intended change.

It was also made very clear during the course of interviews that the primary and long-lasting concern will be the protection of privacy. They consistently felt that it was an attitudinal change that would provide freedom of information. For the government of the day, it will take an attitudinal change on whether to answer questions on the order paper or to release polls as soon as they get them. They are funded with public dollars, and we should all have knowledge of and a sense of the direction of that type of information.

It will take an attitude shift in the bureaucracies of various ministries to provide information. Fundamentally, information is power, and if you hold that information, you hold the power. Inherent in all of us, I'm afraid, is the reluctance to give up power and depend on the merit qualities of the reasoning behind the decisions. We will work, in a small way, to start building a better society with this.

I have great concerns with the protection of privacy, as we all rightfully should. More and more information is being collected on computer systems by local, provincial and federal governments -- and by all governments. The potential for cross-referencing or combining these massive computer records is there. It is truly Orwellian in its potential. I have a great deal of concern about that.

I'm a relatively free individual, as free as one can be, living in an organized society, which restricts all of us -- and perhaps rightfully so -- but I have a great deal of difficulty appreciating the amount, the capacity, and the ability to combine all these records. There is no question at all that these records will, at one point or another, be available to various private interests, who may use them in any way, shape or form they require. There are very valid concerns on this. The extension of this legislation to the various public bodies throughout the province is very necessary.

Otherwise, we may find that we will develop into a society that we will have a great deal of difficulty surviving in.

Accountability and openness of all governments have to be a primary responsibility, and I will expand on some of the concerns raised by the member for Burnaby North. This is one small element.

There are a number of other elements that we can all collectively participate in to enhance the credibility of this Legislature -- for example, fairness and balance in the treatment of all members in this Legislature, the opportunity for government private members to participate in significant debates, and the latitude on the part of government private members, if they so wish, to debate in opposition to their government and to participate in free votes. In the mother parliament in Great Britain, as you're well aware, government members have defeated government bills.

Governments do not fall on that, because it's not an expression of loss of confidence.

All of these things, coupled with legislation such as Bill 62, will strengthen the faith and confidence of individuals in the operations of government. When information comes out that is objective and clear -- and that is what we're striving to do in this piece of legislation -- then the public has another source of information that is not controversial. Objectivity shines. Rather than resorting to dependence on the media, who have other interests in the publishing of information.... They are commercial operations.

They have to have readers, viewers and listeners, and so the type of information they often propose has to be controversial in nature. Those are the economics of the media system. Hopefully, we can establish a system which is truly objective in nature, that is accessible and that will encourage openness in government. I think that has to be the way of the future. On that basis, I have no difficulty in supporting the philosophy and principles of this bill.

The hon. member for Burnaby North indicated support from the UBCM for this particular measure. I think the word was that it was a tsunami -- a big wave -- of information. There is also a danger that it can be

[ Page 9005 ]

like a snow job, and you get covered in both examples. I have some concerns, because not only must we use the words and have the attitude and the belief, but we must also display that in deeds. There's a greater responsibility on the part of the government of the day not only to speak about freedom of information and protection of privacy, but also to be open, honest and accessible in their actions from now on, and to provide the necessary type of information. I appreciate that a series of stepping stones will be built, but if the attitude changes are progressive, then this legislation will build a better tomorrow.

Hon. Speaker, I could probably continue on and on. I think it is an improved bill, and I agree with the members and the Attorney General on that. I think it's only reasonable that all public bodies be faced with the necessity of addressing this specific type of legislation.

[3:30]

We're concerned about the cost, and we will be concerned about other elements as we go through committee stage

section by section. As we do that, we will give the public a greater idea and awareness of the elements. There are many positive things that I can continue to say about it, but there are also a number of concerns that we have. Perhaps some of them are worthy of consideration for amendments. We will address that as we go through committee stage. In any event, the public and the bodies that will be impacted by this legislation will have the opportunity to listen to the debate and become more aware of its impact. The public as a whole will become more aware of the potential advantages of Bill 62.

D. Mitchell: I too would like to speak briefly on second reading of this bill, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. It's with some mixed feelings that I speak to this legislation, hon. Speaker, and you won't be surprised to learn that. While I supported the initial legislation that was introduced last year by the hon.

Attorney General -- the enabling legislation -- and while I certainly support the philosophy and principles of Bill 62, I have some very serious concerns about the government that brings this forward, in terms of its hypocritical attitude toward freedom of information and its claims to be an open government. For those reasons I have some very mixed feelings about this legislation, but I feel the need to speak to it.

First of all, I'd like to offer my compliments to the Attorney General for continuing with the initiative he started last year with the freedom-of-information package. This bill, which extends the freedom-of-information legislation to bodies such as municipalities, universities, school boards and other publicly funded agencies, is a good and necessary step in a much-needed reform.

I thank the member for Burnaby North, who has done a very commendable job in terms of the consultation with numerous public interest groups that went into the report he tabled, which is very comprehensive. I think he too deserves some genuine praise and plaudits for the constructive consultation process he engaged in. I think both he and the hon. Attorney General deserve to be complimented for this in a very sincere manner.

I know that this is a good reform, because it's not easy to strike a balance between the need to provide freedom of information to the citizens of our province and at the same time to protect the privacy and the rights of individuals. That's a very difficult balance to achieve. I know that the government has struggled over that, as all members of this House have. The new commissioner, an officer of this Legislature who has been recently appointed, is going to have to struggle with that further. That's going to be a huge challenge. So we must all, as members of this House, wish good luck to our new commissioner, who is going to administer this act.

I too have some concerns about this bill, which I think can be raised more appropriately during committee stage. In particular, one of the concerns that I want to go into relates to the cost. While we all support this in principle, the costs that have been referred to need to be delineated further during committee stage. It has been suggested that some $13 million has already been spent on the process to date, and this legislation has not yet been implemented. Some 70 public servants throughout government are now working full-time on freedom of information.

Our provincial archives, just across the street from the Legislature and now known as the British Columbia archives and records service, has transformed its function from being a provincial archives -- where I worked some years ago -- to now being the main repository for this legislation. So this legislation has had a big impact on specific institutions such as the archives and throughout government as well, and we don't understand yet what the true cost of implementing freedom of information will be.

I might just point out that during the review of spending estimates for various ministries this year, when individual members of the executive council were questioned on the cost of implementing freedom of information, it was very difficult -- in fact, impossible -- for many members of cabinet to explain whether or not they had budgeted sufficiently not only for their own line ministries but for the other agencies of government that will now come under this legislation. So there are some costs there.

I don't think we understand quite what they are, but because they are tax dollars provided by the citizens of British Columbia, I believe it will be necessary to be much more specific in defining what the costs of implementing this reform will be.

I have a more fundamental concern related to the attitude of the government, which came to office on the claim of being an open government. They said they wanted to be an open government and, of course, a government that claims to live in the spirit of freedom of information. Yet this government refuses to answer questions when they are posed, either in this forum or outside the House. Hon. Speaker, I know you made a ruling today on the question of privilege I raised with respect to written questions on the order paper, so I'm not going to refer to those questions. I don't think that would be appropriate in this debate.

[ Page 9006 ]

The point is that when a government disregards legitimate procedures in this parliament that will satisfy the information-seeking role of a member of this assembly and when for four months it does not answer questions that are posed, then we have to question its sincerity and whether or not the messenger can really be trusted. The message of Bill 62 is a very good one, but can the messenger be trusted?

Hon. Speaker, there are numerous other examples I could refer to, aside from the issue of the written questions on the order paper. There is, for instance, the issue I raised in this House earlier in this session with the Minister of Finance, who failed to table the final report of the compensation fairness commissioner, Mr. Neil Haggquist, who issued his final report over a year ago. Yet it was never released, never made public and never tabled in this House. One wonders why the government would hide information like that, when this government claims to believe in freedom of information and claims to be an open and honest government.

The government doesn't practise what it preaches, plainly and simply. This is no reflection on either the sponsor of this bill today or the member for Burnaby North. It's a reflection on the collective political direction of this government, which does not practise what it preaches or live up to the spirit of the freedom-of-information legislation that it puts forward. It is put forward as one of the jewels in its legislative program, and I can say honestly that this bill should be considered the jewel in the crown.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo is indicating that he doesn't believe questions should be answered. I look forward to the participation of the member for Nanaimo in this debate when he rises on his hind legs to speak.

For the moment, I would simply like to flag the point that this legislation, as good as it is, as honourable as the intention of the sponsor is, and as sound as the work from the member for Burnaby North has been in this process, is all for naught because of the government's close-minded attitude. Its political direction does not allow the spirit of freedom of information to be practised.

D. Lovick: The analogy is totally false, and you know it. Use your intellect for a change.

D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo is going to enter this debate later.

I would like to conclude my comments on second reading of Bill 62 by indicating that as good as the work is that has gone into this bill, and as much as I would like to support the principle and philosophy of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993, I have grave and very serious difficulty in supporting such legislation, given the attitude of the government, the hypocrisy that is practised collectively and politically by this government, and the fact that this government refuses to live up to the spirit and the intent of the legislation that it is putting forward.

H. De Jong: I am pleased to take

part in the debate on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. I am rather surprised that the government would bring forth an extension of the bill that was passed in this House last year. Only three weeks ago the commissioner was hired specifically for this purpose. He certainly has a large responsibility; I don't think that any of us should take lightly the responsibility that is placed on that individual's shoulders. He has complete authority over what was proposed in last year's bill, as well as the extension of it under this bill.

I would suggest that the commissioner has barely had time to look at what was in last year's bill. He has barely had time to evaluate what that bill specifically said, what is allowed under that bill, and what the consequences of the provisions are in that bill.

Last year, on another bill, I spoke briefly on the rights of the individual. We can argue until the cows come home about the right of individuals to receive information. At the same time, those rights also bring a limitation on others. In so many cases, people will say: "I am not going to give that information; that is none of their cottonpicking business." I suppose there is a lot of truth in that, because it is not clear to me -- and, I am sure, to most members in this House -- what information the commissioner can disseminate about people, businesses and the health situation -- the list goes on and on.

While I am not opposed to having a broad spectrum of information made available to the public, I am very concerned about this bill, because I believe that it has been done with haste.

So I'm not opposed to freedom of information, but I'm opposed to the hasty way that this bill was put on the floor of this House, while the commissioner has not had time to give a full evaluation of what was there already, what it meant and what the financial cost will be -- and also the cost of the freedom of the individual in British Columbia.

[3:45]

[ Page 9007 ]

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 62, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. I think the title itself suggests two separate areas: one, freedom of information, and two, the protection of privacy. I think all members of the House would in fact endorse those principles, and I would suggest that they have been following the principles suggested in the title in their own lives. Otherwise, I'm sure we wouldn't be here as elected individuals representing our constituents and discussing this particular bill.

Over the course of the last 20 months that I've been in the Legislature I've seen and heard from my constituents and other constituents throughout the province about the need for the government to put better priorities on government spending, and to put what little dollars it has into specific areas of need.

In northern British Columbia we have many needs, and the $13 million we've spent over the last year implementing Bill 50 and on the more than 70 government employees we've put in place in order to deliver this service could have been much more wisely spent, I think, and those energies much more wisely directed. Over the course of the last 20 months I have not had one individual in my constituency or anywhere else in the province suggest to me that the ability to achieve information or to protect their privacy from government was a large problem.

But many individuals around British Columbia have suggested that we have a need for services. Certainly within my own constituency, there is a need to improve health and educational services, address other social issues and build roads and infrastructure so that we can accommodate, build and provide the opportunity to create jobs and thereby improve the economy of our region.

I see how this well-intentioned legislation has been a tool that has, up to now, allowed the government to escape making information available immediately, because it can suggest that it is following the direction under the act. It can be used as a tool to suggest that it's going to be open and honest. That's something that we're still waiting to see from this government.

I want to talk a bit about the hypocrisy of this government bringing in this legislation. Looking back over the course of the last year, I recall last spring when the Minister of Labour conveniently escaped making known to this Legislature who helped him pay his legal fees by suggesting that if he stated who it was, he would be breaching a confidentiality clause that he had made with that particular individual or group that helped him. That's hypocrisy. This bill is suggesting that it should have been within freedom of information, and yet that individual, by suggesting that he had a confidentiality clause, didn't have to comply with his own government's legislation.

We see this government refusing to tell concerned people in British Columbia who makes up the NDP provincial council. They also to refuse to tell the people who their constituency presidents are. They don't really believe in freedom of information. Their actions speak louder than their words, and I believe the truth comes out in those actions.

This bill will add to the bureaucracy, which now has 70 employees. I have to wonder: at a cost of $13 million, how many requests have they had for access to the information made available by Bill 50 last year? When you divide that $13 million up, what has been the expense to government of delivering what limited information it could to those people who made those requests? This bill will add another ten to 15 employees to this bureaucracy; we will now have 85 to 90 employees under this act, at a horrendous annual cost to the provincial government.

And not only that, now we're going to lay that on municipalities; we're going to put that on hospital boards; we're going to make that service available from all the smaller elected boards and municipalities, which will cause them to incur substantial costs just to set up the structure. For what? For how many requests a year? I often make reference to the fact that I was a mayor for eight years. I'm not aware of one problem of any of my constituents within that municipality to ever access information -- not one problem over eight years.

Yet that municipality now is going to have to comply with the legislation before us, and put this bureaucracy and network in place at an expense they can ill afford, just to accommodate this government and its appearance that it respects freedom of information and protection of privacy. Those are genuine concerns.

When we look at other actions of this government.... We've seen the Premier in the last few days questioned on what his portfolio is this fall, and what kind of dollars he's going to spend travelling around the province promoting the federal NDP, when one particular member doesn't even want him to do it. When we look at the polling this government has done, at the taxpayers' expense.... They secretly hold on to those results. That information is not available, nor is it forthcoming. That is not living up to the spirit of Bill 50 or Bill 62.

They are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars conducting polls to find out what the Premier's image is and what kind of impacts the budget had. We saw every one of these members sitting in this House writing back form letters to those people who sent back their information sheets. In fact, my wife, because she's a union member -- she happens to be a member of the HEU -- got one of their requests. I read it with some interest. I was tempted to fill it out and send it back. That information has not been shared with the rest of the House, yet it was paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

If we're going to have and live up to the principles of this type of legislation, then we should do it by example. We have not yet seen this government make any kind of effort to play the lead role in setting an example for others in the province. In fact, they hide behind this legislation more than promote it. That's one of the problems I have with this particular bill. I find it unfortunate because, as I said right at the outset, the principles of this bill are something we should be able to support. And I do support the principles of freedom of information and protection of privacy.

But I don't believe we need a bureaucracy of 85 to 90 people, at a budget of somewhere between $13 million and $20 million over the course of the next year, to implement this kind of policy and legislation. I believe

[ Page 9008 ]

the requests coming forward do not substantiate this kind of cost.

We may find out that we're going to be in the same situation as Ontario. They have this big bureaucracy, and one of the main issues it deals with is public employees wanting to find out information about their own situation. One of the key ingredients in the requests is public employees, not the public at large. I hope that we have revisited and looked at the costs of delivering this program. This program should in fact be an automatic situation. We shouldn't need 85 people to deliver it. We shouldn't need 85 people to filter the requests the way we presently do.

It's a huge growth in bureaucracy at a huge cost to British Columbia taxpayers. What are we getting out of it? Very, very little. It is for those reasons that I find myself speaking against the legislation -- not against the principle of freedom of information and not against the principle of protection of privacy. But I speak against the way this bureaucracy is being structured when there are so many other priorities on which to spend money. This government has decided that it's going to spend approximately $20 million this year on this bureaucracy.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Add up the numbers, hon. member. You were part of the process. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the cost of 75 to 80 employees.

Interjection.

L. Fox: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and that member for Burnaby North -- with a calculator that I could loan him -- could work that out very quickly, as I did.

It's really unfortunate that this government doesn't know how to control its spending, doesn't know where to put the proper emphasis, doesn't know how to set priorities and doesn't know how to draft legislation. In fact, the legislation that we have seen in the House this spring is the worst that has ever been tabled in this Legislature. They have had to go through more amendments.... They have had to dump them all at one time, so they couldn't be explored by the opposition in the proper manner. The actions of this government are absolutely despicable. This legislation and the priorities of this spending reflect exactly those values that we see in other actions of this government.

[4:00]

I will be voting against this bill, not because I don't support freedom of information, not because I don't support protection of privacy, but because I don't support setting up a large bureaucracy such as we see here, forcing that bureaucracy onto other tax collectors in British Columbia just so this government can stand up and say: "Hey, we developed the Freedom of Information Act." I haven't had anybody asking me about this act. But obviously it's important that this government has something to champion. This government wants to build up a large bureaucracy so that it can hire more employees and create larger governments. That's the main motivation behind this legislation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's interesting to listen to a debate that's a year old. The principle being debated this afternoon is the principle of Bill 50, which was introduced and passed by this House last year. The principle that appears to have been debated by most members of the opposition relates to privacy and freedom-of-information issues with respect to the provincial government.

No doubt some amendments in this bill will relate to that, but the principle of this bill is to extend coverage beyond the provincial government itself; to extend it into the community, to municipalities, to the universities and to self-governing professions; to put it out there so that people can have some confidence that two very important principles will be protected. One is that information collected about them by public bodies will be collected for the express purpose stated when collecting that information and not used for some other purpose.

They will also know that they will be able to gain access to records that are being held on them, so that they can check to see whether those records are accurate and appropriate.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What's wrong with that? The member says: "What kind of priorities does this government have?" Why is this a priority? Protecting people's privacy is a high priority for us. In fact, it is such a high priority that following the election of 1991, we made it a point in the throne speech that as part of our open government policies we would make freedom of information one of the top priorities of government in this term of office.

We intend to keep that promise; we intend to ensure that these important issues are brought to the fore and developed in a legislative package that provides citizens in this province with the protection they deserve and also with the information they properly should have in their possession.

Anyone who spends any time at all, even casually, following current events around the world in this new age of technology in which we all live knows full well that we are on the verge of getting into very dangerous situations with respect to personal information: privately held, publicly held, held in ways that, I think, are an affront to anyone's human dignity and must be dealt with. We have the federal commissioner, Mr. Phillips, talking about the extent of invasion of privacy that occurs.

Anyone who speaks against the principles in this legislation isn't aware of the issues that exist out there, not only in our country but around the world, where records that are collected for one purpose end up being used for an entirely different purpose -- often inappropriately, often for commercial advantage and all kinds of reasons that all of us should be offended by.

Some members talk about costs. If government records had been organized historically with a philosophy and perspective of openness, which is opposite to the secrecy that has pervaded governments in this province, we wouldn't have the costs that might

[ Page 9009 ]

now be incurred -- because we wouldn't have to reorganize the system's collection methods in order to make sure that records are easily retrievable. We wouldn't have any costs.

Members talk about 85 employees and talk about.... The figure got up to $20 million during the course of the debate; it went from $6 million to $13 million to $20 million in the course of an hour. For this fiscal year, the actual numbers are less than $6 million. Approximately $1 million is allocated for the legislative office of the new information and privacy commissioner. Unlike C.D. Howe's view of it, $1 million is a lot of money. But it's an appropriate amount to conduct this very essential and important initiative, which we are proud of on this side of the House. It's one that we think is going to be a hallmark of our term in office and one that we are proud to put out to the public.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member talks about costs. The costs are primarily in trying to get systems in place so that documents and information can be easily retrievable. That should have been in place years ago. It wasn't, because the former government had a view.... If it ever got back in power, it would still have the view that if the government gets it, somehow it doesn't belong to anybody and they should keep it private; they should make sure the records are unavailable. That we reject.

The member for Prince George-Omineca says that in eight years as mayor of Vanderhoof -- he was at least on council; I can't remember if he was mayor -- there wasn't a single problem. Everybody who wanted information was able to get it. Therefore why should Vanderhoof be subject to costs? If Vanderhoof didn't spend any money providing that information in those eight years, it won't spend any money in the future providing the same information -- none -- unless it has some information locked away that it hasn't been making available, which the public hasn't asked for because they know they can't get it.

If that isn't the case, then there won't be any cost. The citizen will come in and say: "I want such and such a record that is available under the legislation." The clerk will say: "Here it is." And that's done. What cost is there? No cost. If there was no cost, there won't be any cost. It's a red herring to suggest that there are going to be excessive costs as a result of this legislation. I will repeat it: the real reason we have any costs now is trying to get systems in place to allow for easy and ready retrieval.

The members, in continuing their red-herring debate, talked about the hypocrisy of the government in its failure to release this, that and the other. Every single poll conducted by the government has been released.

An Hon. Member: When?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If members would simply read the Vancouver Sun on occasion, they would see reports of those poll results following their release to the Sun, which in turn follow the request from the Sun for their release. It all happened.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I generally don't get into this frame of mind in this Legislature, but I need to respond to the term "hypocrisy" that is being thrown around. It is somewhat hypocritical for that political party to talk about freedom of information and look anybody straight in the eye, given the record of God knows how many years since 1952 when not a single public opinion poll was released. All of them were paid for by public money, and none of them was released. The first time the Vancouver Sun and some other media asked for release of polling that our government had done, the polling results were released.

No big deal. We released them. And that's the policy of this government -- we do that even in the face of not having proclaimed the legislation. We do that voluntarily. The law doesn't require us to do it; this law isn't proclaimed. We do it voluntarily.

[4:15]

Let us get back, for just about the first time since the member for Burnaby North spoke, to the principle contained in this legislation. What we are talking about is extending the principles of freedom of information and protection of privacy to other public bodies. It's as simple as that. I believe that anybody who votes against this legislation is demonstrating a viewpoint that belongs back in the fifties.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was going to say antediluvian, and then I was going to say Dark Ages, and then I thought I'd be fair and say the fifties.

An Hon. Member: Jurassic.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not even Jurassic. It's an attitude that belongs in the days of Social Credit.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: "No one spoke against the principle," says the member for Prince George-Omineca, who not only spoke against the principle but announced he was going to vote against it. I challenge the member for Prince George-Omineca to vote against this legislation. Having heard earlier from the member for Okanagan West, it sounded like a support speech. I encourage the member to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I challenge the member to be on the side of those who don't believe in protecting privacy and to be on the side of those who don't believe in sharing information.

[ Page 9010 ]

The Speaker: The motion before you is second reading of Bill 62.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 62, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: It was a pleasure to see such unanimous support from all members of the House for another piece of good legislation from this great government.

I call second reading of Bill 73.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This legislation repeals and replaces

part 8 of the Land Title Act. The existing legislation entitles the landowner to annex an unused road or other dedicated area adjacent to his or her land if it is no longer being used for its dedicated purpose. The existing legislation is based on the rationale that the original subdivider who dedicated the highway or other area is entitled to get it back if the highway or other dedicated area is no longer used for its dedicated purpose. The existing legislation is anachronistic. In almost every case, the original subdivider has long since sold his or her interest in the land. As such,

part 8 only serves the current owner, who had nothing to do with the original dedication. Hence the current legislation usually provides a windfall benefit to the current owner, at public expense. The rationale for the existing legislation only makes sense when the original subdivider wishes to cancel his or her subdivision plan and start over again for commercial or other reasons. Only in these circumstances should an owner be able to resume ownership of all dedicated areas without compensation.

This bill enacts a new version of

part 8 that addresses the windfall benefit and public resource issues by: (1) eliminating the entitlement of landowners to annex adjacent dedicated roads and other areas without compensation, except in the case of the original subdivider; (2) enabling municipalities to convert an unused highway for use as a park or a public square; (3) empowering municipalities, regional districts, local trust areas under the Islands Trust Act, and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to oppose the cancellation of any highway that is still being used for its dedicated purposes; and finally, (4) ensuring that if a highway or other dedicated area is ever cancelled, a landowner other than the original subdivider must pay market value for the land if he or she wishes to acquire it.

The amendments clearly eliminate the right of landowners to annex an adjacent area of unused highway or other unused dedicated area. For example, under the former version of the legislation, if a petitioner could establish that there was no further public use for a road, he or she was entitled to cancel and annex the area. The amendments ensure that, on cancellation, title to the land is registered in the name of the Crown. Any subsequent determination to dispose of the land to the petitioning landowner will now be made exclusively by the Crown. This means that government policy under the Land Act respecting the sale and disposition of Crown land, including market value policies, will apply.

The amendments give municipal governments the power to change a dedicated use from highway to park or public square. The power must be exercised by bylaw, and constitutes the means by which a municipality can preserve the public status of land that is no longer needed for road purposes. Under the former version of the legislation, a petitioner who established that the highway was no longer required for its dedicated purpose was entitled to annex the land over the objections of the municipality. The new rededication power empowers any municipality to close the door on this windfall situation by changing the unused road into a park or public square.

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

The veto power of the Attorney General contained in the former version of the legislation is now transferred to local governments. The Minister of Transportation and Highways also has a veto power. The transfer of these powers will ensure that cancellation issues will be dealt with by the level of government that has primary responsibility for land use control and development. These are best dealt with at the local level rather than in the Attorney General's office.

In effect, the veto power will enable local governments to oppose the cancellation of a highway, park or public square where the local government determines that it is still required for its dedicated purpose. Upon recording their opposition with the registrar of titles, he or she is directed not to make any order that operates to cancel the highway, park or public square. The only exception to the new regime arises in the case of the original subdivider who wishes to cancel the entire plan and start over again.

In these circumstances, the petitioner will be entitled to recover all dedicated areas without compensation and the land will revert to its former unsubdivided status. At such time as the land is again subdivided, existing subdivision and zoning laws will ensure that sufficient allowances for highways, parks and public squares will be secured.

This bill ensures an appropriate balance between private and public interests. Local authorities are given greater control over the future use of public lands without having to resort to legalistic arguments such as whether or not pedestrian access, of itself, is a legitimate highway use. In the final analysis, local authorities are given the means to determine whether the retention of an unused road or other dedicated area in the public domain is necessary in the public interest.

These amendments also clarify the plans cancellation process. While they are new provisions, the policy underlying them was implicit in the former legislation. The objective is to ensure that all interested parties can

[ Page 9011 ]

participate fully in the quasi-judicial processes associated with the plans cancellation hearing. The amendments also clarify that the registrar must hold and conduct the plans cancellation hearing in the same manner as a judge of the Supreme Court under the rules of court. This does not elevate the registrar to the status of a Supreme Court judge; rather, it ensures that the registrar will operate within a well-defined set of judicial principles and processes, and will be better able to decide matters involving both public and private interests.

This legislation is brought forward at a critical time. As lower mainland and other urban communities struggle to maintain open spaces and other public amenities against the pressures of development and annexation by private landowners, the new version of

part 8, together with the Municipal Act amendment, will provide them with a new range of land use and planning controls. Similarly, the amendment to the Land Act will ensure that if a specific road or other dedicated area truly has no further public value, landowners may only acquire the land from the Crown at market value.

Almost all municipal governments across the province have urged this government to bring

part 8 of the Land Title Act into the reality of the 1990s. I am confident that these measures will achieve this.

In conclusion, may I just say that I attended the UBCM convention last September in Vernon, where a resolution asking the provincial government to do just this was debated briefly and enthusiastically and passed unanimously, and we are reflecting the wishes of the UBCM convention delegates. Following that, I received letters from many municipalities in British Columbia urging that we enact this kind of legislative change. I had indicated to municipalities that it was our intention to proceed in this way, and I received no negative commentary whatsoever from any local governments. So I think what we are doing here is very much in the spirit of cooperation with local government.

With that, I look forward to listening to the debate. Hopefully, we'll conclude this one fairly quickly.

A. Cowie: It gives me pleasure to stand and support Bill 73. Historically, the land title system in this province has been excellent. However, there is a need for the amendments that have been put forward in this bill, and I certainly welcome them. The minister has clarified the main issues that essentially guarantee a balance between private and public interest. I have a few comments to make, including the fact that our critic will be putting forward some minor amendments that have been noted. They are minor in nature and do not affect the content or the meaning of the bill -- especially the meaning.

This bill deals primarily with the unused road portions along waterfronts or at street ends leading into agricultural lands, for instance. This has always been a pet argument of mine. In the municipality of Delta, for example, older subdivisions have street ends going out into agricultural land, yet the municipality fights very hard to preserve these lands. It seems they are in direct conflict with the objectives of the municipality. This legislation will enable the municipalities to regain these portions of land for public good.

It's important, as the minister says, that when these street ends are reclaimed, they should be used either for parks, public squares or, at least, pathways to an open-space system.

While I don't want to specifically name a number of municipalities, I will name a couple: the city of White Rock and the city of Delta have taken back property at street ends that is not required, and sold those properties as lots to put houses on. That's fine, but over the years the adjacent owners have recognized that those parcels of land should either be used as street ends, which was the primary purpose, or for some public good.

I would like to see the adjacent owners, at least through a public hearing process and notification, have a right to say what the future land use of those properties will be, so that those properties are not lessened in value. I'd like the minister to clarify that at third reading. I notice that in the bill there is improved and proper notification to the public. I also welcome the addition where any land that is taken over by the municipality or the Crown in these situations will be sold at market value, which is only fair.

[4:30]

I want to make one comment in second reading, and I will deal with it in more detail when we get to third reading, about the role of the approving officer. This bill requires the approving officer to give a report. We all know that approving officers are appointed by the province. However, they are usually the director of planning or deputy planner of a municipality. In some cases, it's the engineer or even the deputy engineer. In these particular cases, very seldom would the approving officer act against the wishes of the council.

But I just want to note that the approving officers are in fact a law unto themselves. They are independent of councils, and they report to the province, although they are in great jeopardy should they act against their own councils. Their own jobs wouldn't be terribly secure if they did it more than once.

Again, we welcome these changes to the land title process, which has traditionally been a good one. We welcome the opportunity to deal with a few minor amendments at third reading.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and speak about this amendment to the Land Title Act. I think the changes proposed raise some interesting questions.

As I understand the essence of this legislation, currently the Crown can require a subdivider to set aside land for roads, parks and other public uses without any compensation to the landowner. That seems to be an appropriate part of the development process, and I don't have any great difficulty with that.

But the Crown now suggests that if there was no need for that land -- if in fact the decision requiring the subdivider to set aside that land, at least in retrospect, turns out to be unnecessary -- the owner of the adjacent property should in fact pay market value to the Crown. It seems to me there are two standards here.

I know that the Attorney General went out of his way to explain that if the subdivider wanted to buy

[ Page 9012 ]

back or re-annex the property, there wouldn't be a need for compensation. He didn't explain what might happen if the subdivider kept one of the lots adjacent to the land they wish to annex. That seems unclear. In a small subdivision of six or seven lots, if the original subdivider or owner of the property kept one piece of property adjacent to the land set aside for a park or road right-of-way and wanted to annex the property back to a subdivided lot.... That area seems to lack clarity, from what we've heard so far from the minister.

I'm concerned also with the kind of influences this change will have on the decisions to require land to be set aside. It seems to me that if the local government or planners made a mistake, certainly there shouldn't be a windfall profit for the people who incorrectly required the land to be set aside. I think there are two sides of that argument. I think we see implicit in this legislation, at least to a degree, another assault on private ownership and the rights that flow from ownership of property. The minister seems confused by that.

But clearly under the existing legislation there were rights that flowed to the property adjacent to the land set aside. This legislation takes away those rights; that surely must be clear. This legislation removes from certain properties rights that existed under the former legislation. This legislation proposes to take away rights from certain properties.

One of the things we want to ensure is that any changes to legislation introduced would serve the needs of the community and would see sufficient land set aside to meet the needs that might result from the subdivision. But I don't think there should be any encouragement to require more land to be set aside than might be required. Legislation shouldn't be constructed to simply encourage the planners to err on the side of caution. There is certainly no incentive or drive to discourage planners from requiring larger set-asides.

In fact, one might argue that all the encouragement says to planners: "Take as much land from subdividers as you might ever need. If at the end of the day there turns out to be no use for it, you can always sell it back at market value either to the owner of adjacent property...."

Again, I didn't hear from the Attorney General whether or not these pieces of property could be sold individually. I didn't hear -- and I didn't get a sense from the legislation -- whether or not there could be separate titles created out of this land that was set aside and not necessarily used.

A number of questions flow from this legislation. I think it's important that land set aside for a roadway, which later turns out to be a pedestrian pathway, for example, be maintained for the general use of the people in the community. I don't have any argument with that. But I believe that if land is taken away at no cost, is not used, needed or wanted and is desired to be annexed by the original property owner, there seems to be a fundamental lack of fairness in saying: "We will take it away, and we will require you to contribute land with no compensation, but the only way we're going to return it is at fair market value."

I can understand the support and enthusiasm of the Union of B.C. Municipalities for this kind of legislation; it's consistent with meeting the goals that a municipality would have. I will continue, though, to watch with some concern any legislative assaults on property. I think we've seen in this session of the Legislature a willingness of the government to enact legislation that is unfriendly to property owners. We've seen taxation legislation which suggests that certain valuable properties in Vancouver and in other parts of British Columbia should pay an additional property tax.

We've seen the removal of the homeowner's grant from other properties, and now we see rights taken away from properties that exist. There are properties now that have rights under the current legislation, and the minister is simply, by the stroke of a pen, taking away those rights and requiring instead that those property owners pay for property that may be returned to the person who was first required by government to provide, at no cost, land for roadways and parks.

I'm going to listen very carefully to the debate -- and perhaps there will be some extended debate -- because I certainly want to hear more about this before I'm convinced that what we're doing is fair to all of the people concerned.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to enter into debate on Bill 73, the Land Title Amendment Act, 1993. I rise after our leader. It seems that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has somewhat faltered in its task in the past two or three weeks and is no longer voicing any opposition to anything. It's rather regrettable. I'm stating that because it's unusual to have the third party members get up time after time and debate in opposition to the government measures.

This is a very interesting act. Real problems undoubtedly existed. If real problems or challenges hadn't existed, there would otherwise probably be no legitimate reason for the presentation of this package of legislation. In all honesty and sincerity, there had to have been other options and tacks that could have been taken rather than the presentation of this type of legislation.

In the opening speech of the hon. Attorney General, it was not made clear that there is already a legitimate process that attends to the interests of municipalities, regional districts and other levels of public government. Land cannot be returned without notifying those areas. The Ministry of Lands will not do that. It all goes through a process of approval channels before permission is given to the current property owner.

If somehow the process failed but there was a legitimate process in place to address those specific concerns, or if the process wasn't as clearly followed as it should have been, then it's obvious that it could have been emphasized. Perhaps more effort could be put into the development of that process rather than into formalizing this particular aspect in legislation.

I have a great deal of concern when we start to see this. It's not unusual for the government of the day to do this, because the government doesn't believe that there should be private property ownership. That is alien to....

Interjections.

[ Page 9013 ]

C. Serwa: There's a great deal of laughter, but unless there has been some harsh cleansing with the severest of laundry soaps, I would suggest that the retention of that concept -- that the private individual should not own land -- is still in strong vogue in the socialist group that governs British Columbia today.

It was evidenced in the Agricultural Land Commission, where rights under British common law were stripped in a legislative effort without any compensation whatsoever. If something is taken away from a legitimate property owner, in all honesty and sense of fairness there should be compensation at market value, as the Attorney General suggested. They had no compunction about taking away development rights of property held under British common law and stripping those property rights at the stroke of a pen without compensating those property owners. My concern here is that this legislation is not dissimilar in its nature. I think it's a flagrant violation of established property rights.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Maybe the hon. member doesn't own anything other than his own home, so he's not concerned, but one of these days you won't own the ground that your house stands on -- just as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That was the same thing. Laugh, but in all of the manifestos starting at the Winnipeg and Regina....

Deputy Speaker: On a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Quite frankly, I'm always glad to hear these guys go after the government, but this is getting beyond the ridiculous and into absolute incredulity. I wish the member would stick to the issue of the bill and not deal with Soviet Russia, because we have a lot of work that we need to do here. Debate should be timely and exhaustive, but it should also be relevant and intelligent, and I think we have strayed from all those.

[4:45]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. In second reading, as the Speaker frequently says, there is latitude of debate. I would ask the member to direct his comments to second reading of Bill 73, the Land Title Amendment Act, 1993.

C. Serwa: If the hon. member who rose and made his point of order had been listening, he would understand that that's exactly what I am talking about, hon. Speaker. It's rather interesting that there aren't enough members of the government of the day, with 51 here in the House. The official opposition has to defend the government and, as a matter of fact, appears to be warmly welcomed on the government side.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, it's really interesting.

In any event, we've enjoyed some latitude in talking about the philosophy and principles of this bill. I'm talking about philosophy that is consistent with what was displayed previously, and that's entirely appropriate within the parameters of second reading of any bill. If the official opposition isn't going to cave in, if they are going to continue to stay here, I'd invite the hon. member to speak on the bill himself.

There is a great deal of concern with the designation of a windfall situation with respect to a property owner. We're not dealing specifically with municipalities. Again, in his address the hon. Attorney General spoke about municipalities and the UBCM. That's fine. That is only one facet of what occurs, but many occurrences have taken place where an old road access was put in and is no longer used. There has been additional development; they may be enlarged rural properties. That's not a windfall situation. A new road is built.

Perhaps the old roads were built narrow and steep and in situations that were not consistent with traffic safety as we know it today. In many cases throughout the province, those rights-of-way were properly returned to that parcel of property for utilization by the owner. I don't think that anyone can legitimately complain about that -- or talk legitimately about a windfall situation. It's apparent in this particular piece of legislation that what is good for the goose is not in fact good for the gander.

Municipalities have the ability to take land at far less than property value. The government of the day has that opportunity through a variety of processes and utilizes them to take land from a property owner and not compensate fairly for it. I have a great deal of concern with that. If there is going to be fairness and balance in legislation, then legislation cannot be developed on the basis of one particular issue.

It's significant that this issue appears to have developed because of a situation that existed in White Rock, where several ocean-front property owners used this ability to annex property that was not being used for the purpose it was taken, and they were able to utilize it as an addition to their property. Prior to that, it was simply filled with brambles and weeds. Nobody wanted it; nobody used it; nobody cared for it. Now that has become a concern, but it's a legitimate concern that could have been addressed through the existing process available to the Crown.

An Hon. Member: Obviously it wasn't.

C. Serwa: Well, I don't know. If the Crown wanted to exercise stronger.... We are looking at an example of the philosophy that the Crown should have that right. The rights of property owners are again further eroded. Often it is inappropriate to utilize land for parks, for public squares or access. We are not talking specifically about developed urban areas; we are talking about situations that exist throughout British Columbia in very rural areas. But this legislation is applicable in a manner that is consistent for all areas in the province.

Hon. Speaker, I will talk about a situation that exists in your constituency. There are abandoned railway lines on the north-south Great Northern route -- going down

[ Page 9014 ]

to the border and coming up through to Penticton, the West Kettle Valley line and abandoned railway rights-of-way that are now in the possession of the Crown. What about the situation that occurs when these rights-of-way go through reserves? If this legislation is going to be honoured in a consistent fashion throughout the province, and if the public interest is going to be a concern of the present government, what is the present government going to do with respect to abandoned railway lines that have now been acquired by the Crown? Many individuals in your consistency, hon.

Speaker -- and throughout the province -- want these preserved as linear parks. The West Kettle situation -- from Hope right through to Midway -- could be a world-class destination linear park, going through all....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Just listen up, hon. member, and we will get to the point I am trying to make.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, that's fine. Be patient. It's nice to see you here; you're not often here.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, please direct your comments through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order. The member for Okanagan West has been ranting and raving here for a while, and now he's throwing other remarks towards myself and other members of the opposition. I think it's important for him to do his job as an MLA and address this legislation rather than fire insults at other members of the House.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members to direct their comments through the Chair. Please continue, hon. member.

C. Serwa: In any event, we have a concern here. If this legislation is to be applied in a consistent manner throughout British Columbia, then it is incumbent upon the Crown to preserve the potential linear parks that the people are strongly in favour of. I have described several specific areas that are available right now.

There is also a strong demand from previous property owners, saying that those potential linear parks -- now Crown land -- should be returned to the adjacent properties. If the hon. Attorney General is going to be consistent, will he return the land in this specific case to the bands? If he utilizes that breach of this legislation and the principle and philosophy in this legislation, how can he be other than consistent in the treatment of other British Columbians? That's the point that I was trying to develop and to make.

We are not looking at something that is specific -- oceanfront or lakefront property, or within a densely populated urban area -- that we can have all sorts of reasons for. We are looking at legislation that applies throughout the province. If it is going to be applied throughout, it has to be fair and balanced, and reasonable in all circumstances.

I believe that the existing legislation and the policies of the land branch were abundantly fair. What has happened in the past -- whether it was the acquiring of abandoned rights-of-way and other accesses being built -- is water under the bridge. The fact remains that that potential is still there. It is reasonable, fair and balanced, and it does respect the rights of the adjacent landowner. I don't think anyone who owns a piece of property would want to give the type of authority that....

Let's say it's lakefront property or something, and all of a sudden we can create a public park or an amusement park or whatever we want to do with the municipality that has control. The rights of the adjacent property owner have to be respected.

An Hon. Member: It is respected.

C. Serwa: No, it's not respected. This is a strong erosion of the rights of the private property owner. I have a great deal of difficulty with the bill. I think there are specific reasons, obviously, for the necessity of some stronger form. I don't think it's appropriate that this specific piece of legislation be put forward to address unique or unusual situations or circumstances. They have to be attended to on an individual basis. If we are going to develop legislation that is consistent through-out the province, then the hon.

Attorney General now has some examples and awareness of the complexity of the issue when you're making legislation that is applicable to everyone in the province from the south to the very northernmost border. I too have concerns with this. I will conclude my second reading on that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have to participate somewhat in this debate and perhaps correct some of the -- quite frankly -- ridiculous comments that were made by the member for Okanagan West.

It seems that every time pieces of legislation come up in this House, that member in particular tries to take the absolute most extreme position that one could ever conceive of -- not even within the realm of reality, but beyond the realm of reality. He makes it seem as though the red hordes are screaming over with Stalin at the front, waving red flags and singing songs that they are going to come in here and crush private property or enterprise.

I too like to push the government and find out what the limits of legislation are. That's the job of the opposition, and we do that all the time. We do it in second reading, and we do it in committee stage. It happens all the time in this House, no matter what day or month it is. The fantasies of the member for Okanagan West don't relate very much to the reality that often exists in legislation.

This bill is a more or less innocuous piece of legislation. There are some problems with it, and we have amendments being drafted which will go before this House. We'll have a chance to improve the legislation and make it fair. I think the overall intent of the bill is to say that there isn't just private property in the province. There is also property that belongs to all

[ Page 9015 ]

the people in the province. There is public property that exists for the use and enjoyment of all British Columbians. What this bill is trying to do in that respect, anyway -- it's not a perfect attempt, but at least it is an attempt -- is ensure that the property that belongs to the public remains in the public and isn't taken over by an individual for their own personal gain or windfall.

All we're trying to do here is preserve the right of access of the public to use the land that belongs to the public, so that individual landowners in the province will not have the right to go out there and annex that land without having to pay the public for it or having to give up something in order to pay for it. It's just trying to be fair in that respect.

So in all honesty, as a British Columbian and as an MLA who is responsible for members in my constituency -- some 45,000 people who own rights to some of this land -- it's my job to stand up in the House and say yes, as the general public we have rights to this land. No individual person -- however well-intended or greedy they are -- should have the right to annex that land without either paying compensation to the people they are taking it from or at least giving the public the opportunity to use it first.

I'm not afraid to stand up here and speak in favour of this concept of the bill, because I have constituents in my riding who say yes, we have a right to that land. It's their land. Why should one individual be able to annex that land without compensating the rest of the people who should have access to it?

[5:00]

If the member for Okanagan West would put his ideology in his pocket, instead of just going along with some right-wing.... He calls some members of this House communists. Well, I could call this fascist if I wanted to be as extreme as he is, but I'm not going to.

If he would put his ideology in his pocket and realize what's really best for his constituents, instead of trying to stand up here and make some absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous statements in the House, I think he would find -- while there are problems with this bill and it is the job of the opposition to highlight those problems and put forth the amendments, which we will be doing -- that he would be able to speak for his constituents. He would be able to ensure that the rights of his constituents as a group are also protected, and not just their rights as individuals.

Time and time again in this House we have debates, and sometimes we have members of the government who are always speaking for the public or collective groups. We saw that particularly during the debate on Bill 84, and we've seen it at other times. Then we have the Social Credit group, and particularly the member for Okanagan West, who always talk about the rights of the individual and forgets about the rest of the people. The fact of the matter is t