1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Pre-build

section of Alaska gas pipeline. Mr. Macdonald –– 3404

Staffing of Infant Development Program. Ms. Brown –– 3405

Rock blasting in Alice Arm. Mr. Passarell –– 3405

Water pollution in greater Victoria. Mr. Hanson –– 3405

Long-term care review team. Mr. Cocke –– 3406

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Mair)

Votes 114 to 124 inclusive approved –– 3407

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

On vote 162: minister's office –– 3407

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that we have a friend in the gallery

today who lived in Vancouver at one time and now resides in Victoria. I

wonder if the House would welcome Mrs. Bunty Ward.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a statement and move a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: ...I move....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. member, the Chair made no indication that a

"no...." The obvious move at that time was for a member to indicate to the Chair

that a "no" was expressed. I have that expression. The motion cannot

be moved, hon. member, without unanimous consent. There is not unanimous consent.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the House is not informed that this is a motion dealing

with the fact that the federal House of Commons is debating an

important matter related….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear a "no."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair was clearly informed that a "no" was given.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, you called on me to proceed, and I started. Then he said

"no" after I was called to proceed. Once being recognized, I should

proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I

clearly identified a "no." Unfortunately, you didn't hear it. I

repeated it to bring to your attention that I wasn't supporting the

statement from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I chose this particular route because

the matter of the pre-build natural gas line is important to all

British Columbians and this is the best way of dealing with this issue.

I heard no one over there say "no."

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is obliged, when a "no" is

brought to the attention of the Chair, to rule that unanimous consent

is not given. Unanimous consent in this case has not been given. My

hands are tied.

MR. BARRETT: On the point of order, I

was called and recognized to have the floor after I asked for leave.

You called on me saying that I had the floor. I was then prepared to

move and only then was any move made. Whoever said "no" was out of

order because I already had the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, with all due respect, the Chair has an obligation that

when unanimous consent is asked for and the Chair hears no ''noes" and

allows the member to proceed at that time, as has happened in this

House before, it is the obligation of an hon. member who has said "no"

to stand in his place or to let the Chair know that in fact he did say

"no" at that time. That has been done. Hon. members, the Chair cannot

allow, under our standing orders, a member to proceed with unanimous

consent when in fact there is not unanimous consent.

MR. BARRETT:

I'll ask again, so that it can be clearly spelled out. I am asking for

leave to make a statement on a debate that is taking place hour by hour

in the House of Commons affecting energy needs. I ask leave to make a

statement and move a motion so we can go on record in this House as

being opposed to the pre-build.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that there's no opposition over there to the pre-build.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, I bring this up so that I can ask you to look into

it. During this last session every time a member of the opposition gets

up and asks for leave to make a statement, the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon Mr. Chabot) says "no." There's no point in having this

rule in our book if at some time it isn't allowed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is straining to find a point of order.

MR. LEA:

What I'm asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to come back to this House

and report on the relevancy of having this rule in our rule book when

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says "no" every time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, it is not the task or role of the Chair to report on the

standing orders. If members are not happy with the standing orders,

there are means open to each and every member of this House. The point

is well made by the member.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be incumbent upon the Chair to ask

those in the chamber who may say "no" in such an instance —

particularly in this instance — to identify themselves in their place

by saying "no," because even though the rules prevent it,

[ Page 3404 ]

there's

nothing to stop someone in the gallery from hollering out, "no," and

the Chair hearing that. In this particular instance it was the minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) himself

who said "no" to such a request for leave, and that should be on the

record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member is

clearly now engaging in a debate on the subject. The point that the

member raised is well taken. Nonetheless, our standing orders are clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't well taken if it's against the standing orders.

MR. HOWARD:

But it is a well-taken point of order that you should seek that the

person stand in his place and say no. That's my point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not part of our standing orders, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, with us this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Karl Muldowan.

Karl and Ursula are from Vancouver and are visiting in our capital city

this afternoon away from their busy schedule. I'd like the House to

make them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction also.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in extending a....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Would you call the Premier to order, Mr. Speaker, so everyone can hear this important message?

Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming the Paul

Sorensen family from Revelstoke who are visiting in the capital today.

I would ask you to extend a warm welcome to them.

Oral Questions

PRE-BUILD

SECTION OF

ALASKA GAS PIPELINE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. In view of the grave legal doubts as to whether the federal

cabinet, under

section 20 of the Northern Pipeline Act can, by order-in-council,

repeal the substance and intent of

section 12 of the act, which requires that

financing be in hand to complete the whole natural gas pipeline by 1985 before

part of it can be authorized, has the minister sought legal advice with a view

to challenging the position of the federal government with respect to this pre-build,

which threatens our markets?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A legal question has been asked.

Interpretation of a legal question....

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I asked him whether he had sought legal advice. I didn't

ask him for the contents of it or to give a legal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

The answer to the question is simple: yes, we have. In terms of our

intervention at the National Energy Board, for instance, a

representative of the Attorney-General's ministry appeared for the

government of British Columbia at the National Energy Board hearings.

We have had legal advice throughout all of the period in which this

pre-build has been open for debate. Friday last, the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), as co-chairmen of the British Columbia

pipeline committee, sent a Telex to the Hon. Bud Olson, who is the

chairman of the committee for economic development for the federal

government and the chairman responsible for the pipeline matter. The

Telex was sent to them, asking them for the full details of what Ottawa

expected to happen. All through that, as well, legal advice has been

sought and given to the provincial government.

MR. MACDONALD:

Having legal advice, has the minister decided to challenge legally the

order-in-council of the federal government which threatens the market

for natural gas of the province of British Columbia? Is he prepared to

take this fight into the courts? Have you made that decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, we haven't made that decision at this point.

MR. BARRETT: Check with Alberta.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I might ask that the Leader of the Opposition might have legal advice

because he is seriously misinformed about the matter in terms of what

the federal government plans to do. We would like, first of all, to

find out exactly what the federal government intends to do, in terms of

both condition 12 of the pipeline agreement, and

section 20 and all the

other sections which relate to the guarantees that are required to be

put in place. Until we have that from the federal government I am sure

it would be most difficult for British Columbia to decide that any

legal action should be taken or not taken. As soon as that happens, the

co-chairmen of the pipeline committee, one of whom is the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), will be making recommendations to

this government. Until that happens, however, there will be no

precipitous action.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a

further question, does the minister not know that last Thursday the

order- in-council was passed rescinding the essentials of condition 12,

which sets out the conditions? If you are going to take action, why do

you put it off day after day? You have that information. It is either a

valid order-in-council or it isn't. Why are you not prepared to take

action now? Are you serious about your opposition to this pre-build, or

did you agree with Premier Lougheed on that and is he really running

this province? You're not serious about challenging it.

[ Page

3405 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know that that has happened, and neither does the

second member for Vancouver East. That's one of the reasons we don't

want to jump off the edge of the cliff — until we know what the facts

are. It is my understanding that Senator Bud Olson….

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the opposition understand exactly what has happened and what hasn't happened.

Senator

Bud Olson has been quoted as saying that he is waiting this week for a

recommendation from the National Energy Board about whether or not the

terms of condition 12 have been met. Until that happens and Senator

Olson has said he is sure what the National Energy Board will

recommend, until we know exactly the position of the federal

government.... Again, I must say that a Telex went off immediately we

knew that this matter was before the federal cabinet. Until that

happens I doubt that it would be possible for any further action to be

taken.

MR. MACDONALD: It happened last Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do? Do you have a copy of the order-in-council? I'd sure like to see it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There was no order-in-council.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not up to date. I'll come and see you and fill you in.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Show me a copy of the order-in-council.

MR. MACDONALD: You're just playing games.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

STAFFING OF INFANT

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Can the minister

confirm that in Kelowna the Infant Development Program, an extremely

worthwhile program which works with assisting handicapped children, has

been granted an additional part-time worker to help deal with their

tremendous problem of understaffing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, although in an interview just

recently I was asked if I was aware of that. I haven't had it confirmed

by my staff, but it was intimated in an interview that they did have

another half-time worker, I believe. I'm pleased that the member made

reference to it being such a good service, because it is true,

throughout this province, that the Infant Development Program has

proven to be an excellent service.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister confirm, therefore, that there is a province-wide

freeze on the addition of staff to all other Infant Development Programs, despite

the fact that there is an overwhelming need to improve and expand this very

excellent program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. All of our programs have been

expanded, as the member would know, according to the budgetary

allotment to my ministry, which was increased by 17 percent this year,

through the budget that we debated in this House.

The

applications for either increasing or adding to any of the programs are

done on a regional basis; the decisions in our ministry are made at a

regional level, not here in Victoria. So some areas of the province, if

they wish to augment their Infant Development Program, would perhaps

increase staff, and in other areas would augment yet another program

depending on what the need is in that particular area.

The

member who has asked the question should know that the regional

director in each area has that area's concerns most close to his or her

mind and makes the decision on that basis.

MS. BROWN:

Is the minister suggesting, then, that the freeze on hiring which was

recommended by her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), I think, does not apply to your ministry? Is that what the

minister is suggesting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When I

was asked questions regarding a freeze on hiring, I suggested very

clearly that none of the programs in our ministry, the Ministry of

Human Resources, would be cut back; that was not a request of the

Minister of Finance. We are not cutting back any services; we have not

deleted any services; and any intimation that the member has just made

that we are cutting back services just is not true. We have not cut

back services, and indeed we have a statutory obligation to fulfill all

of those services which we presently have going.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, if I might just correct the minister, I did not use the

word "cutback;" I used the word "freeze." Can the minister tell the

House whether the freeze on the hiring of future staff, which was

recommended by her colleague, does not apply to the Ministry of Human

Resources?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Where there is a

demonstrated need for services and as the regional directors have

requested staff, those staff positions will be filled.

ROCK BLASTING IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a short snapper to the Minister of Environment, Amax Mines have

asked the federal fisheries department to permit blasting and dumping

of rock in Alice Arm. Has the minister made representation to the

federal fisheries minister demanding that the current ban on blasting

be maintained?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

WATER POLLUTION

IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Minister of Health. As difficult as this is to believe, the marine waters

[ Page 3406 ]

adjacent

to the capital city of British Columbia and the adjacent municipalities

are so polluted that they are a hazard to health. Nine beaches have

been closed. The regional health officer indicates that the coliform

levels are so high in some beaches that they are not even monitoring

them anymore.

In view of the increasing concern that this is

raising in this area, have you recommended to your colleague, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), that full

sewerage treatment for the region should be established to counteract

this problem?

HON. MR. MAIR: The short answer to the

question is no, I haven't. I certainly will take the question the

member poses under consideration, and if my investigations or my

ministry's investigations indicate that any communication between

myself and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the Ministry of

Environment is necessary, then I will make such recommendations.

MR. HANSON:

I have a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Have you

decided to notify the local authorities, the Capital Regional District,

to advise them that you're prepared to pay the full three-quarters

funding under the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act. so that full,

long-range remedial action could take place on this important problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Capital Regional District would have to make the application and present the case to the ministry.

LONG-TERM CARE REVIEW TEAM

MR. COCKE:

My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that

Mr. Paul Hanbury of Kamloops is departing as chairman of the minister's

long-term care review team prior to the completion of the work of the

team?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

MR. BRUMMET: Read it again!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if the illiterate member for Peace River was just congratulating me on reading a question....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member to withdraw the word, which was inadvertently used. Would the member so withdraw?

MR. COCKE: I withdraw; there was nothing inadvertent about it.

Can

the minister confirm that Mr. Paul Hanbury of Kamloops is departing as

chairman of the minister's long-term care team prior to the completion

of the work of the team?

HON. MR. MAIR: I think the

member for New Westminster must have some of Mr. Vander Zalm's

licorices, which probably prevented me from hearing the full question

the first time round. I know the handicap one is under with those

licorices.

My understanding is that Mr. Hanbury has not left

his position but has completed his work and is now writing his report

from Kamloops. It will be in my hands, I am told, in a couple of weeks'

time.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister advise whether Mrs.

Jan Thibedeau — a nutritionist from Nelson — announced by the minister

on May 27 as a member of the team, is no longer serving in that

capacity?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I can't advise one way or the other on that. I'll have to find out and get back to the member.

MR. COCKE:

In light of the minister's refusal, announced by his assistant deputy

Isabel Kelly, to accept a member of the health employee workers as a

member of the team, is the minister now prepared to cooperate with the

hospital workers with respect to the team?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess I've been engaged in here too long. I don't

have anybody looking around for questions to ask me, so I'm going to

have to go and check on that with my ministry. I had understood that we

had extended an invitation to the unions to get themselves involved in

this study. It seemed to me I had some exchange with either Mr. Gerow

or a person in his office. I had understood that that was to be the

arrangement, but perhaps I'm wrong. I'll check again with my ministry

and get back to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, the Chair has noticed that there is different attire on some

members today. I would point out that under standing order 9 the

Speaker "shall preserve order and decorum" in the House. The ruling of

the Chair will be that the male members shall wear shirts, ties and

jackets in this chamber and would appreciate that members would....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I am not going to enforce the regulation today, but tomorrow that will be the rule of this House.

MR. BARRETT: On this point, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point for debate, hon. member. It is a ruling by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

I bring to your attention that there is a ruling in existence from

Speaker Schroeder that contradicts the statement you just made. I would

ask that the House be advised that if rules are to be changed,

notification be given members beforehand to avoid any confusion among

members coming into the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I pointed out, the regulation was to come into effect tomorrow, for the benefit of those members.

MR. LEA:

I need a bit of clarification on the Speaker's ruling. Are you saying

that there is going to be a rule how males will dress in here, but none

for women?

[ Page

3407 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of the member, no dress

of female members of this chamber has ever had to come to the attention

of the Chair.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the

House is guided, of course, by the parliamentary authorities and rules

but also by practice and by previous Speakers' rulings. I would urge

that before hard and fast positions are taken, members and Mr. Speaker

refer to the ruling of Speaker Schroeder, with which I am not

intimately familiar, before taking such a thing into consideration. I

should say that in the years that I've been in this House, since 1972,

there have been some considerations made for certain members in terms

of their dress; it has been a practice that one or two persons do wear

slightly non-conforming attire, wearing not a jacket but I believe a

type of caftan. I would think that eight years of practice would

actually set the practice of the House. I would ask Mr. Speaker, with

respect, to consider that before next day.

MR. LEA: I

would also ask that you look at the Constitution Act, because I believe

that it says there can be no rule that applies differently to one

member than to another.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. LEA:

I will get the section, because it does say that in there. I think that

your ruling would fly in the face of our Constitution Act, which

governs us all. I think the Speaker agrees with me, and I think that

the Constitution Act will not allow that rule.

MR. BARNES:

I would just like to ask that, when you are considering the new

regulation you give us some indication as to what is defined as a

shirt, what is defined as a jacket and what is defined as a tie.

Because I would point out to the Speaker that last year, in rather

onerous times, we were required at least to review the rules and

everyone was wearing shirt and tie, for obvious reasons; it was common

sense. The weather is changing now, and we may find ourselves in a

similar position, and you may be imposing a regulation that will be

most difficult even for you, sir, to adhere to.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, conditions of this chamber have changed

dramatically in recent years. The chamber is now air-conditioned. It

might have been a burden on the members to adhere to proper decorum in

the House in the past, but it is no longer that situation. I just want

to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a ruling brought down by

Speaker Murray in 1967 regarding decorum. I wish you would refer to

that one as you do your research.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

Vote 114: minister's office, $165,162 — approved.

Vote 115: administration and support services, $25,080,048 — approved.

Vote 116: preventive services, $41,525,910 — approved.

Vote 117: direct community care services, $257,891,426 — approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Vote 118: Hospital Programs, $795,254,313 — approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 119: Medical Services Commission, $345,837,500 — approved,

Vote 120: Emergency Health Services Commission, $34,071,000 — approved.

Vote 121: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, $5,126,889 — approved.

Vote 122: Alcohol and Drug Commission, $12,797,336 — approved.

Vote 123: building occupancy charges, $30,919,000 — approved.

Vote 124: computer and consulting charges, $2,317,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 162: minister's office, $165,465.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this committee, to

debate the estimates for my ministry, and hopefully to address any

concerns that might be expressed by any of the members here. I am very

pleased that I have the benefit of very competent staff. They haven't

arrived quite yet, but they are on their way. As a matter of fact,

things went a little more quickly in the last few moments than I had

anticipated.

We are certainly very pleased in my ministry to

have a very competent deputy minister, Mr. Bill Long, who is

undoubtedly the most respected senior official in the province in the

area of municipal affairs. He has had a long-time experience in both

Municipal Affairs finance and planning. I have also had the advantage

of the advice of my assistant deputy ministers, Mr. John Taylor and Mr.

Chris Woodward. Mr. Long and his two assistants, along with the

directors and staff in the ministry, have competently provided

expertise and support to all of the municipalities and regional

districts throughout British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

Ministry of Municipal Affairs is noted for its quality of staff, as

opposed to quantity. Ours is one of the smallest ministries in

government in numbers, yet it is the fifth largest ministry in

budgetary expenditures.

[ Page 3408 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to preface my introduction to the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs estimates with some remarks about recent

accomplishments of the ministry. Recently we were able to announce the

percentage decrease for the contributions by municipalities with

respect to welfare costs. This has been reduced from 10 percent to 7

percent. In 1980, now that there are no budgetary restrictions and

higher total provincial welfare program costs, the rate would have been

$1.72 per capita if the old percentage sharing formula had remained at

10 percent. However, with the percentage of 7 percent the rate has been

reduced to $1.20 per capita.

The size and distribution of

the 1980 municipal revenue sharing program is also very positive. For

1980 the revenue sharing formula will yield $176.2 million, an increase

of $34.5 million or 24 percent over last year's total of $141.7

million. The revenue-sharing program distributes benefits through the

seven subprograms, which are: (1) the basic grant, $4.2 million or 2

percent of the total amount; (2) the water facilities grants, $12.2

million or 7 percent of the total; (3) the housing growth grant, $10

million or 6 percent of the total; (4) the municipal major highway

grants, increased recently to $15 million or 9 percent of the total;

(5) the regional district grant. $2.2 million or 1 percent of the

total; (6) the municipal planning grant, $1 million or 1 percent of the

total; and (7) the unconditional grant, $131.6 million or 75 percent of

the total revenue-sharing program.

The municipal basic grant provides $30,000 to each of British Columbia's 140 municipalities, regardless of size.

The

water facilities grant covers 75 percent of annual debt repayments in

excess of 2.5 mills for approved municipal and regional water systems.

The

housing growth grant distributes $10 million in proportion to the

number of housing starts in municipalities and regional districts. The

provisional unit value of the grant in 1980 is approximately $300 per

housing start.

The regional district grants comprise basic

and administrative grants with a combined value of $40,000 for each of

British Columbia's 28 regional districts.

Cost-sharing for

planning grants also falls under this subprogram. The municipal

planning grants can reimburse municipalities for up to two-thirds of

approved planning costs. The maximum grant of each municipality is

determined on a sliding population scale.

The unconditional

grants account for the bulk of shared revenue. They are calculated for

each municipality according to its relative population, budget and tax

base. The announcement of each individual municipality's 1980

unconditional grant was made in early February in order to give

municipalities the opportunity to provide their budgeting accordingly.

Unconditional grants for 1980 total $131.6 million, up 19.7 percent

over the 1979 level of $109.9 million. An increase of this magnitude

should help municipal councils — or did help municipal councils, I

think we could certainly say now — to restrain property taxes in 1980.

This

increase reflects the province's encouraging prospects for economic

growth on 1980 and 1981, as well as our past record of sound economic

management. It also confirms the growing values of the revenue-sharing

concept that we committed ourselves to in 1977.

The major municipal road-grant program under the Revenue Sharing Act has been

increased to $15 million, as I mentioned earlier. That's an increase from

$4 million last year, so it's certainly a substantial increase. The municipal

highways grant pays 50 percent of approved road projects.

addition, time limits within which municipalities must complete highway

projects or lose provincial grants have been relaxed. The one-year time

limit which was stipulated in the regulations caused problems, in that

some municipalities were unable to complete projects on time due to

external circumstances, including strikes and bad weather.

Noncompliance with the time restriction exposed some municipalities to

the risk of losing the grant. The provincial government has now amended

the regulations to allow municipalities to carry forward into the

following year any inadvertently unexpended grant moneys.

Several

British Columbia municipalities and regional districts were designated

to share a total of $25.2 million in 1980 under the Community Services

Contribution Program funded by the federal government and administered

by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Community Services

Contribution Program funds are allocated by the ministry on the basis

of the financial condition of the community. The technical

characteristics of the project and local environmental circumstances

are also considered. The funds are given as a 20 percent grant of total

capital costs.

I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, at this

point, that the Revenue Sharing Fund affords municipalities an

opportunity to share in the revenue strength of the provincial

government. This fund will receive $176.2 million in 1980-1981 — an

increase of 24 percent from the previous year's allocation.

The

Urban Transit Authority is budgeted to receive $69 million in

1980-1981, to reflect the provincial contribution of 75 percent of the

shareable deficits of local transit systems. With the metropolitan

transit system now in this program — or having come in last April 1 —

the organizational agreements are in place for transit development in

the 1980s.

Although we cannot exactly predict what form

future transit systems will take, it is clear that very soon now

circumstances may require large capital expenditures in urban transit

networks. Therefore it is proposed to set aside, through the

legislation which was before us earlier, a $55 million fund to be

devoted to covering the province's contribution to the future capital

requirements of the Urban Transit Authority.

Through direct

grants to municipalities and school districts, and by the homeowner

grant, the province is playing a major role in restraining the growth

of local taxes. Direct grants to school districts will increase $29

million in 1980-1981, restricting the increase in the basic mill rate.

The $100 increase in the homeowner grant introduced last year, and

again provided for in this year's budget, is another measure to keep

the taxes down especially, of course, for those who are receiving the

bulk of the benefit — that is, the seniors and the handicapped.

a step in ensuring the continued vitality of central city areas, we'll

soon be discussing new legislation with respect to downtown

revitalization. For this purpose we have provided $25 million, to be

allocated to those areas that are eligible for the program. Grants

under this program will be made to municipalities for the provision of

public facilities in designated downtown improvement areas. Grants will

also be made to reduce the interest-cost base for private owners who

borrow funds to restore building exteriors, etc.

We have a

very active Municipal Act Review Committee, representing all facets of

municipal affairs, currently developing recommendations for the

complete rewrite of the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act has not been

substantially rewritten since 1957. Many provisions are outdated —

[ Page 3409 ]

they've

been there since 1914 — and redundant. A large number of innovations

may now be incorporated into the new Municipal Act.

Also,

Mr. Chairman, there have certainly been a great many discussions with

municipalities respecting the need for a municipal training officer.

This has been pointed out time and time again by municipal people, and

we are now establishing in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs an office

for that purpose, in order to assist municipalities with respect to

their training programs.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

mentioned the provincial homeowner grant earlier, but certainly too

we're very pleased that we were able to provide in the new Home Owner

Grant Act opportunities for the 99-year lease holders.

hope that we might receive a number of questions with respect to the

budget; I'm sure we will. Of course, I'll have staff available then;

they're here now. I'm pleased to attempt too answer all of the

questions posed during the ensuing debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many days?

MR. BARBER: The Whip says 14.

First

in 1976, again in 1977, 1978 and 1979, the official opposition proposed

a royal commission on local government which would do precisely what

the government has finally agreed to do — long overdue. The Municipal

Act clearly needs a major rewrite. Once again I congratulate the

official opposition for having succeeded in its arguments. I

congratulate especially the official opposition critic for municipal

affairs for making such an articulate and persuasive case that finally,

after five years of trying, the government agreed with what we said

five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. BARBER:

I don't remember his name, but Sam Bawlf does. I congratulate all of my

colleagues, and myself, for persuading the ministry that finally a

major rewrite of a fundamentally inadequate statute should be

undertaken. There are, of course, various features that rewrite should

include. We trust it won't take five years to encourage the government

to see it our way concerning those features, but I'll get to that in a

few moments. Nonetheless, congratulations are due to the official

opposition for persuading the government to rewrite the Municipal Act.

Congratulations

are also due to the official opposition for persuading the minister to

change his mind totally regarding 99-year lease holders being eligible

for the homeowner grant. Once more, I congratulate all my colleagues

for persisting over five years. It is, I think, a measure of the

success of the official opposition in this parliament that we are able

to take credit for so much good legislation coming forward from the

government.

Having gotten off on that rather unusual course,

I'd like, if I may, to talk about the problems with this

administration's attitude toward local government, the problem with

Social Credit's attitude toward neighbourhood integrity and public

transit, the problem of the attitude of car dealers everywhere toward

the necessity for a successful and well-financed public transit system.

I'd

like to point out that, as we might have expected from a Social Credit

Minister of Municipal Affairs, his entire remarks concerned money. As

far as we can tell his entire reply will concern money. One of the most

damning indictments of Social Credit has always been, from every

quarter including their own, that they lack vision. One of the most

consistent attacks on Social Credit, and most certainly in regard to

its Municipal Affairs policy, is that they lack wit and imagination,

and have no shared or value-based notion of what an urban community is,

or should be.

Lewis Mumford once said that cities are the

storehouses of civilization. Mumford and many others argued that

cities, being the storehouses of civilization, require thereby a level

of care and respect, a level of public policy that appears to be far

beyond the grasp of this most literal-minded minister, who seems to

know no more about urban affairs than urban budgets, who seems to care

no more about urban life than taxes, who seems to have no more

imagination about what it means to live in a vital urban community than

to repeat at some length the list of financial contributions his

government proposes to make to certain programs.

It's been

observed a number of times, but it has to be observed again today, that

not once yet have we had from this minister any philosophical,

spiritual or learned statement in any regard about what urban life

means in North America. We hear instead endlessly and boringly repeated

lists of budgetary donations, budgetary interests and budgetary facts —

at least as the government would have us believe them. There is one

point in regard to all that which should be made when one examines the

minister's comments on revenue-sharing. The minister said that

revenue-sharing has produced increased revenues. The program this year

has produced, I think, $140 million. I'll look it up in the estimates

in a moment. The minister neglected to point out that when revenues go

up, revenue-sharing goes up, and when provincial revenues go down,

municipal revenue-sharing also goes down. I want to predict the

obvious, that if there continues to be a significant shortfall in

natural gas and forest revenues this year, municipalities must now be

prepared to reduce accordingly the amount they will expect to get next

year from the municipal revenue-sharing program of this administration.

I recall very clearly, in 1977, inquiring of the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs as to whether or not the converse was also true, that

when provincial revenues went up municipal revenues went up, and when

provincial revenues went down so did municipal revenues. He agreed

clearly, but that's the basis of the formula; that's the way in which

the law works. The minister today could have said that because of the

shortfall in provincial revenues, especially in the field of natural

gas, municipal governments should today be notified — as I today notify

them on behalf of the official opposition — that if the continuing

shortfall occurs in the field of natural gas revenues, next year local

governments will have to expect a noticeable reduction in those

revenues for their own purposes.

A prudent minister who

appears to be interested in nothing else than lists of financial

commitments and with no idea, philosophic or broader, of what urban

life should be about and some notion of how to obtain it, could at

least just as prudently have made mention of toe fact that if the

current trend continues, next year municipal revenues will be down

under the provincial revenue-sharing program.

Interjection.

[ Page 3410 ]

MR. BARBER: The minister agreed and nodded and said: "That's right." Well, of course, he has to agree. That's how the law works.

think it would be a sensible thing for the minister to announce during

the course of the next 14 days' debate on his estimates the extent to

which he can anticipate now that municipal revenues will be down next

year, in order that they'll be forewarned. At the very least, in

mid-September of this year at the UBCM, we would expect him to make a

plain, candid and blunt admission of the extent to which municipal

revenues will be down next year and will have to be compensated for by

reductions in service or by new taxable items being created for the

municipal budget or by a combination of both. It's important that in a

plain and candid way the minister admit what the problems are with that

aspect of revenue-sharing.

I want to get back to the notion

of urban life, and I want to talk about the most spectacular area of

neglect for which the minister is personally responsible. That lies in

the whole field of conflict of interest. I'm going to be disclosing

certain things in the next several hours which the minister is likely,

or most certainly should be, personally aware of in regard to conflict

of interest at the local government level. I'm going to be describing a

pattern, ominous and dangerous, in which it has been made clear to us

that it has been the deliberate intention of Social Credit for three

years to ignore all of the evidence, to refuse to deal with any of the

material facts available to them and to refuse to accept responsibility

for creating a conflict-of-interest statute in this province that has

teeth, intentions that are serious and which has applications that are

real.

For three years this government has been on notice in

regard to the failure of its conflict-of-interest legislation. For

three years we have seen case after case presented to the people, and

most recently to the courts of British Columbia, which make it clear

that the conflict-of-interest statutes are grossly and indefensibly

inadequate.

One of the things that people have a right to

expect of all government is that its practitioners be personally

honest. One of the problems with local government has always been the

problem of conflict of interest when you find real estate developers

and land speculators active in circles of local government. The current

law is gummy and toothless in almost every regard. It has not served to

protect the 17 communities in British Columbia where this month, and

for some months past, the RCMP and other police have been investigating

alleged conflicts of interest by persons who appear not to know their

duty and who clearly know that the law does not require of them the

honourable duty in regard to stating and removing themselves from

conflict of interest. I'll be referring to some very specific cases in

the hours ahead.

It is a shameful thing that for three years

this administration has sat on and ignored a significant body of

proposals put to them by the Union of B.C. Municipalities in regard to

cleaning up this act. For three years they have done precisely nothing

to act on the legitimate and responsible recommendations of the UBCM.

For three years, therefore, we have waited in vain for this government

to propose any statute or any amendment to a current statute which

would deal with the problems that not just the official opposition and

not just the RCMP and not just local police and not just neighbourhood

groups concerned about conflict of interest, but also the UBCM itself,

have acknowledged as legitimate and authentic and troublesome.

is a damning thing that under this government it should be stated

publicly, as it was some weeks ago, that there were and are 17 separate

investigations underway into alleged conflicts of interest. Now if

there were one or two, it might be understandable that one or two

foolish and stupid and perhaps criminally intended people had thought

they could get away from and ignore the requirements of a tough

statute. If there were only one or two people, you might understand it

that a tough statute couldn't apply to every crook in the land,

regardless of how motivated by self-interest that crook may be. But

when you deal with the situation wherein the RCMP themselves say that

there are 17 investigations running simultaneously — that is a matter

of public record — then you have to ask whether or not there is

something wrong with the law and not just the 17 individuals who

allegedly are involved in conflict of interest. Surely if the law were

tough, clear, direct, blunt, to the point, understood and enforced, the

likelihood of, in any one week in the year, 17 different investigations

for a very serious offence, the gravity of which is that it undermines

public confidence in local government.... That is the most serious

aspect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe the law is too tough.

MR. BARBER:

"Maybe the law is too tough," the Attorney-General says. Well, hardly.

Unless, of course, you think Mr. McKitka had a point after all. Surely

no one would think that. "The law is tough," the Attorney-General says.

He hints that maybe it is too tough and that is why we have too many

investigations. That is what you said. You said: "Maybe it is too

tough." In fact, the law is clearly inadequate, and I'll be

demonstrating that in a few moments.

I will be talking

about, chiefly, the apparently wilful neglect by this minister and his

predecessor in the field of conflict of interest statutes. I will be

talking about the fact that on November 24, 1977, the executive

committee of the UBCM made a report on conflict of interest. This

report, I am advised, was submitted to the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Curtis. The general proposals on conflict of interest

occupy four pages. They include comment, a discussion of legislation in

British Columbia, legislation in other provinces, controls over local

government staff, ethics legislation and a series of recommendations:

1(

a) through (f), 2(

a) and (b), 3(

a) through (c), 4(

a) and (b), 5 and 6

as well.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has, in a detailed

and thoughtful and helpful way, put forward recommendations which this

government has sat on and done nothing about for three years this

November 24. Why is that? Why would any government where we have seen

mayors found guilty in criminal court and where it is a matter of

common knowledge that those stories abounded for years in advance and

nothing was done until finally the RCMP made a break, not with the

assistance of provincial law but finally under the provisions of the

Criminal Code…? Why was any situation like that, and several others,

allowed to come to such a pass?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let

me talk about how the law, at the moment, deals with conflict of

interest. Present legislation dealing with this is limited to three

statutes alone.

The first is the Criminal Code, which, of course, is

[ Page 3411 ]

written

by the House of Commons in Ottawa. The Criminal Code applies, in

particular, in sections 108 to 114 and

section 383. The Criminal Code

is the first, but clearly not adequate, protection against conflict of

interest.

The second is the Municipal Act, sections 50, 51,

59, 155, 183 through 188, and 189 and a couple of other provisions

which only remotely and indirectly lessen the possibility that

conflict-of-interest situations will arise.

The third is the

most recent, a statute brought in during 1974 by our administration,

viciously attacked by certain opposition members then and viciously

attacked by certain developers active in local government. I am

referring, of course, to the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure

Act. This particular legislation requires written disclosure of

specified financial and other information every six months by

provincial and municipal elected officials and candidates, and by

employees if they are designated by the cabinet or council or regional

board. Employees' statements are not available to the public unless an

employee is prosecuted under the act and the court decides to release

the documents. Penalties are invoked only if statements are not filed

in accordance with the act. There is no provision for the disclosure of

the immediate families' and the officials' business interests which may

create a conflict. Violation of the act does not mean that an official

may lose his or her seat or that an employee may be dismissed. I think

of the recent failure of disclosure on the part of the mayor of a

northern Vancouver Island municipality.

The Municipal Act

itself, however, is clearly the principal statute with which we are

concerned. Among the many failures and omissions of that act are those

which do not state what constitutes conflict of interest except by

implication. There is no clear statement in law as to what shall

constitute a conflict of interest in the current Municipal Act except,

of course, by implication. That is grossly inadequate. It does not set

out procedures to follow if conflict-of-interest situations should

arise and it does not penalize officials and employees for behaving

improperly in ways which are specified in the act. The restraints under

the Municipal Act are limited to disqualifications from office for

certain prohibited employments and contractual interests, and the oath

of office. Generally these restraints do not apply, in fact, to local

government employees. The use of privileged or confidential information

for improper purposes is not dealt with, nor is the issue of gifts and

rewards.

There are two important debates in regard to

conflict-of-interest law: one is that which centres around the notion

of criminal activity; the other is that which centres around the more

delicate, the more difficult to describe and circumscribe, grey area of

conflict of interest, where it can be demonstrated in an honest debate,

but not necessarily demonstrated to the satisfaction of the fine point

of laws as currently written, that clearly a conflict of interest took

place. I'll be referring at some length, of course, to the well-known

events in Chilliwack, where a certain developer was made chairman of

the committee to rewrite the zoning bylaws, and where, lo and behold,

certain of his own property interests beneficially appreciated. This

is, of course, the subject of a current RCMP investigation. I should

now inform the minister, while he queries his staff, that I in fact

have met with the RCMP inspector, Mr. Dane, and we have turned over to

him long ago our own investigations and research on the file. To the

extent that we ourselves have been able to assist the RCMP in this

investigation of potentially criminal activity, we have done so. I met

with the inspector, in the presence of a witness, and notes were taken.

The material was turned over entirely to the inspector. and I hope it

is of some help.

Once again we have to examine the

possibility that the criminal law is not always adequate for the

protection of the public interest against those in positions of

conflict of interest where you cannot clearly demonstrate mens rea,

guilty intent, and where you cannot clearly demonstrate a breach of the

Criminal Code, over which this House has no authority. As the Chairman

knows, the Criminal Code is written in Ottawa, not in Victoria.

Therefore, if the Criminal Code is inadequate, it is necessary for a

responsible government to determine the extent to which, if any,

provincial statutes might beneficially be rewritten in order to cover

those grey areas between the currently weak and inept provincial law,

which has been on the books weakly and ineptly for many years, and the

heavy hand of the criminal law, which may not always be able to prove

criminal intent, even though clearly a conflict of interest took place

by any honourable standard and measure.

The centre of all of

this debate, of course, has to be found within the BNA Act. I'll refer

to it just briefly, in order that the minister shall be persuaded of

his authority to act in these matters, although for the last three

years he has apparently not been persuaded of the necessity to act,

judging by the UBCM and by his own statement.

Criminal

corruption and other criminal offences related to conflict of interest

and improper behaviour are within federal jurisdiction by virtue of its

criminal law powers under the BNA Act. However, a too narrow and

literal

interpretation of that creates the following five problems in

regard to the correct administration of municipal law in British

Columbia.

1) Municipal officials and employees are not

always subject to Criminal Code offences by, against or involving

public officials. That much is self-evident.

2) Control over

unethical or improper behaviour now rests largely with the federal

government due to its criminal law powers and its assumption of

jurisdiction in the area and due to the ineffectiveness and inadequacy

of provincial legislation.

3) The criminal laws are much

harder to enforce, since the standards of proof are higher and,

generally, criminal intent must be shown. I'll return to that in a

moment.

4) Clearly, while the province can legislate

disclosure requirements — and the New Democrat administration was the

first to do so in 1974 — there is some doubt as to how far the province

may go in its enactment of quasi criminal legislation to control the

behaviour of public officials.

5) The Criminal Code

prohibits "corrupt behaviour," not improper behaviour, and the Code

offers no guidance as to proper conduct.

On a number of

occasions I have sent material to the inspector of municipalities in

regard to allegations that have come to my attention concerning

conflict of interest. On every occasion I have been pleased with the

speed and the reply. I have not ever, however, been satisfied that the

inspector of municipalities has the tools in law in order to deal with

all of the clear but, in law, grey areas — pardon the paradox — of

conflict of interest.

My colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) will shortly be demonstrating the

total failure of this law in regard to certain allegations concerning

the adventures of a few people in Langley. This has somewhat recently

come to public attention; more of it will come to public attention now.

[ Page 3412 ]

I mentioned before, I too will be dealing with certain allegations made

in Chilliwack. I will be dealing with the handling of the case at the

Central Okanagan regional district, and I will be making inquiries

about a couple of other cases that have recently been brought to the

minister's attention. One is in Castlegar — the minister may want to

consult his notes now — and a few others that will come up in the days

ahead.

I want to open the whole debate, however, by telling

the minister that one of the deepest concerns of the official

opposition, in regard to his portfolio, is his wilful neglect in the

field of conflict-of-interest law. One of the deepest concerns we have

in the official opposition is the fact that there may be a few people

who believe that they can prosper as developers by getting elected to

local councils. I want to put on notice on behalf of the official

opposition that we will not tolerate for a moment the possibility that

even one crooked developer will think that he or she can advance his or

her cause one iota by getting elected to local government in British

Columbia and, ignoring conflict of interest, proceed to act in any way

beneficial to themselves.

This is an area which we have been

studying for three years. This is an area which the official opposition

has been concerned about in a detailed and research-based way for the

last three years, and this year we're making our case as well as we

can. For the last two years we've been doing homework, asking

questions, meeting with police officials and meeting with people in

local government who are as desperately concerned as we are that the

proverbial few rotten apples not be allowed to contaminate the whole

barrel. For three years the official opposition has been waiting for a

statement about conflict-of-interest legislation from this government,

and for three years we've been waiting in vain.

I do note that on March 19 of this year — working from memory — the minister

said that he too was now concerned about the issue and hoped that something

or another may come forward in the way of a statute or an amendment. I also

note that in the same press statement the Attorney-General was quoted as saying,

perhaps incorrectly, that he didn't share the concern and he thought present

law was adequate. I hope he was misquoted. If not, he shall be quoted to his

shame, and embarrassment repeatedly during the next provincial campaign. No

responsible Attorney-General should be satisfied with the sorry and pathetic

state of conflict-of-interest law in this province. No minister of Municipal

Affairs should be either.

it were tough, then the few sleazy characters who think that they can

advance their own cause by sitting on bylaw committees, promoting

themselves and their friends for public office and writing law which

they know will benefit their short-term or long-term interest, would

not even think for a moment that they could get away with it. The

problem is that apparently some still do think they can. Apparently a

few yet believe they can get away with this trash, and one of the

reasons they believe it is because this government has been wilfully

and neglectfully silent during its whole administration.

municipal affairs critic for almost five years now, I cannot remember

one significant statement ever coming from that government concerning

this problem — not a single one in all this time. Is it because

everything is squeaky clean, because no mayor of Surrey was ever

prosecuted, or because none of the other stuff that's occurred and will

shortly occur in the courts has ever occurred at all? Of course not.

These things have happened because a climate, once again under Social

Credit, has been established in this province that encourages a few

people whose personal, financial and developmental interests are

greater than the public interest to think they can get ahead. Sure

enough, in a few communities it appears they've succeeded. The public

documentation for that is, to say the least, nearly overwhelming in at

least two or three spectacular instances.

The problem is

that if the current law is inadequate, then the only other law

available is criminal law. As our research office clearly demonstrates

in these papers and others, which I will be quoting from at some

length, the burden of proof in the field of criminal law is vastly

different, and the precedent in criminal law is not terribly helpful.

The Criminal Code of Canada itself is very difficult to apply in cases

of obvious conflict of interest where you cannot necessarily prove

conspiracy or guilty mind and criminal intent, but where you know from

a clear reading of the law before and after — and you can determine who

bought property at what time and for what purpose and who in the long

run benefited from those acquisitions — that conflict of interest

should in fact be demonstrable. If it cannot be demonstrated by law

that is 30 and 40 years old, maybe that's not the fault of the intent;

maybe that's the fault of the law, which should be significantly

rewritten in order to take into account the modern, sophisticated and

clever ways by which some people seek to advance their personal

interest through local government.

The matter of the recent

criminal proceedings is a matter of public record. Surely no one will

deny that those criminal proceedings, to the extent that they reflected

criminal behaviour, were welcome and necessary things. I will not

comment on those currently under appeal; that's not appropriate. But I

will observe — and the official opposition is pleased to do so with one

voice — that where it has been possible to demonstrate patent criminal

intent, it would appear the police have done a good job; and I

congratulate them for it. I have no criticism of that. I am concerned

about the area of conflict of interest where you cannot necessarily

meet the tests of the Criminal Code, but you could, if you were tough

about it, meet the tests of a provincial conflict-of-interest code

which would satisfy the requirements, on the part of people who are

concerned about local government, that there not be a single rotten

apple spoiling those barrels, because the integrity of those barrels is

desperately important.

Someday someone will write a history

of the way in which the Fraser Valley was exploited by developers, and

the way in which compliant persons in public office allowed the

exploitation of the human and agricultural resources of that vast

valley for the most selfish and short-sighted purposes.

There

is another area of conflict of interest as well, and we'll be getting

to that in a few moments. Meanwhile, I see the red light's on and I'll

take my place for a moment.

MR. LEVI: I thought we

would hear something from the minister on the county system. He was

very vocal about that some little while ago. He's nodding his head.

That's to get your glasses down to the end of your nose, though, isn't

it, or is that an answer?

Well, if he's going to talk about that, I'm going to sit down and let my colleague continue.

MR. BARBER: If it were within the rules, the opposition

[ Page 3413 ]

would

be pleased to put forward, for the minister's consideration, a model

conflict-of-interest law. In fact, we have it largely prepared, and I

hope that by the end of 14 days' debate on municipal affairs we will be

able to perhaps table it in the House. I realize that at the moment

under our system it's not possible.

MR. BRUMMET: Can you make it for that long?

MR. BARBER: You bet. When you examine the record of this minister, it's easy.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. For all members' edification, committee debates really

debate the administrative actions of the minister and do not allow for

talk of legislation, current or past. I'm sure the hon. member is aware

of that.

MR. BARBER: That's right. That's why I'm

talking specifically about the failure of the minister to act on the

recommendations of the UBCM, dated November 24, 1977. It's on the basis

of those recommendations that all this debate is fully in order, as I

know the Chair acknowledges. So I can't put forward a model

conflict-of-interest law, although we would like to. I can't refer at

too great length to the law elsewhere, although we are permitted to do

that within certain limits, in order to further require of the minister

his attention to these matters. I'll do that in a moment.

There

are three basic choices this government may make in regard to

conflict-of-interest law. The first is to continue with the choice they

have already made, which is to do nothing. Quite why they find it

reasonable to do nothing, as they have done for five years — as they

have done for the three years since the UBCM recommendation went to

them — I don't know. It may or may not be because of the traditional

involvement of Social Credit members in development of and speculation

on land in British Columbia. That may or may not have anything to do

with it. But clearly the first choice for Social Credit is to do what

they've done for the last three years, which is nothing. Make no

statements, issue no guidelines, make no appearances on the subject at

UBCM, consult with no one on the issue, and until recently not even the

RCMP, although they did have that seminar with the commercial crime

division of the RCMP — and that's a good thing; it was three years

late, but it did occur and it's better than nothing. Or they could

consider two other steps.

The first, of course, is to

persuade the national administration — if they're still talking to them

these days — that it s necessary to rewrite those sections of the

Criminal Code I referred to earlier: sections 108 through 114, and 383,

in order, as I said before, to help deal with the more modern,

sophisticated and clever of those who would seek to take personal

advantage by becoming involved with local government, and the awesome

ability local government has to reward landowners by rezoning their

property. It's a canard — but let me repeat it anyway — that clearly

the great gift that local government can make to local developers is

to, with the stroke of a pen, double, triple or quadruple the value of

their land.

Strangely, the same developers who always insist

on that privilege seem not to accept the counter-argument, which is the

right of local government to downzone their property without penalty.

Any time local government wants to upzone any developer's land, that's

always permissible, especially if he makes a big, quick profit that he

did not earn. However, should local government have the nerve and gall

to downzone property, then of course the same developer is the first to

scream blue murder. Why? Well, of course, because selfishness rules and

not logic. Why? Because his self-interest tells him that upzoning is

fine but downzoning is never permitted. Why? Because sometimes local

government has not had the guts, nor has the Municipal Act given them

the fortitude they should have, to take on the developers who attempt

to take them to court for the allegedly heinous crime of downzoning. If

upzoning is good enough for developers, downzoning should be good

enough as well. If they don't like downzoning, they should be prepared

to abandon the benefits of upzoning.

Where does conflict of

interest come into it? Sometimes directly there. When a developer or

his pals have some say in local office, the ability to rezone — which

is to say to upzone the theoretical value of land — is, to say the

least, no small charm; conflict of interest is often difficult to

measure in those cases. Now if, say, we had a mayor of a municipality

who knew that a landowner was going broke and who commissioned a secret

study by the land branch of that municipality into the value of that

land and then turned around and got one of his relatives to buy the

land subsequently on the basis of secret information to which no one

else was privy, then you might wonder whether or not a conflict of

interest had occurred, and you might even be able to prove it in a

court of law, at least under the Criminal Code. However, the far more

difficult proposition at hand is the one which this government has

refused to address; that includes four basic features.

First

of all, is disclosure itself an adequate mechanism? Is it enough to

simply trust people to tell the truth on their disclosure forms and to

stand up at council meetings and say: "By the way, colleagues, I or my

friend or my relative have this interest in this property, which will

be affected by this bylaw, and therefore I remove myself from the

debate"? Well, clearly it is not. Were it so, then the recent cases

before criminal courts in British Columbia would never have come to

pass, because disclosure would have prevented them in the first place.

The logic clearly follows: if disclosure were an adequate prevention,

we would have none of these cases before the criminal courts. So,

clearly, disclosure is not, although it's the first step.

Secondly,

we now have to examine the cases at hand of allegations, a few of which

have also made their way into the courts recently. Employees in local

government have taken improper advantage — or are alleged, depending on

which case we're discussing and which is under appeal — to have taken

improper advantage of the position of privileged knowledge they would

appear to have had by virtue of their employ within a municipality. So

the second examination that must be made is whether or not the current

carte blanche that municipalities have in regard to disclosure by

employees is adequate. I think that clearly it's not. I would refer you

to Surrey, which on or about May 13 of this year for the first time

approved a conflict-of-interest policy for municipal employees, which

reads in part: "…prohibiting employees from engaging in any business

activities within the municipality which might conflict with the

municipality or with the exercise of an objective judgment by the

employee in the performance of his duties for the municipality. " The

new bylaw provides exceptions for employees if they receive written

permission from their superiors. That loophole is

[ Page 3414 ]

really

much too large and, in my own opinion, shouldn't be in there at all.

Nonetheless, one municipality which has been plagued with these

conflicts for a long time, or at least with the allegations of them —

and again, I don't want to comment on a case that may or not be

appealed — has chosen to exercise its option to require of certain

employees that they disclose their interests. I would argue once again,

though, that admirable as the intention may be, the execution will be

found weak and inadequate. But that's the second aspect; the first was

disclosure by the elected officials themselves and the second is by

employees.

Thirdly, the government could — and I argue again

that they should — implore Ottawa to rewrite the Criminal Code and

those sections which I indicated, to allow for a more differentiated,

for a more subtle and for a more delicate reading of conflict of

interest to take place. When you have federal court judges reading into

the record their own concern that the law restrains them from being

just because it requires them instead to be literal, and the judge

appears to suggest that he knows something was wrong here, but because

of the narrow and clearly out-of-date technical requirements of the law

justice cannot be done, then that judge just might be worth listening

to.

It may well be that when police officers themselves say

to you in private — as some of us have heard in private — that they

know that something has gone wrong, that privileged information has

been used and abused. When they know full well that someone in local

government has exploited his position but they can't prove it

criminally and the next best step is to prove it under a provincial

conflict-of-interest statute, which in B.C.'s case does not exist and

which, within the Municipal Act, is clearly lame, inadequate and

frail.... When that police officer leaves your office shaking his head,

saying, "You'd bloody well better not blame me for this, because we've

looked into it and the law isn't good enough to allow us to do what we

know we should do," then you think maybe it's possible that police

officer has got a case. Maybe when the law officers themselves are

telling us that the law is inadequate to do what we want to have done,

the judges and the law officers and other disinterested and objective

persons just might be telling us something that we should be listening

to.

So, clearly, the third possible remedy lies within the

field of persuading the national government to amend the Criminal Code

to allow more subtle, more supple and more adequately differentiated

distinctions to be applied in regard to conflict of interest. The

current law is simply a crude, heavy hand that is difficult to prove

and difficult to apply; clearly it is not adequate.

The

fourth area is the area in which this administration could, if it

wished, take the initiative. That is in regard to amending the Public

Officials and Employees Disclosure Act and the Municipal Act, and

perhaps even bringing in an overall conflict-of-interest statute.

According to our research the most ancient of them we can find is the

one which has traditionally been in place regarding employees of the

Ministry of Mines. According to our research, for years it has been an

offence on the statute book of this province for an employee in the

Ministry of Mines to own shares in mines. Years ago it was wisely

recognized that persons in that position are, at least theoretically,

temptable. So years ago the original conflict-of-interest law — as far

as we can trace it back — came into what we now call the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. As far as we can find out, that

law has not changed in all these many years. We cannot find any

significant rewrite of that law anywhere. But rather, for years and

years it's simply been the traditional one in which they're not allowed

to hold shares. Clearly, in that portfolio, that law is not adequate

either.

It may well be that there are other cases. One

thinks, for instance, of certain unfortunate incidents surrounding the

office of the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) three and four years ago, when employees in his

office were found to have purchased shares in a pipeline company,

where, sure enough, the provincial government was making key decisions

in the disposition of it, and where they lost their jobs and their

reputations as a result. Once again, there was no comprehensive

conflict-of-interest law which attached itself to all provincial

interests.

There are arguments pro and con on such a broad

statute, but the four options that I've described are those which can

be minimally entertained by this government — recognizing that

disclosure by itself is not adequate for elected officials, nor for

employed persons; recognizing the limitations of the Criminal Code and

the fact that conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute a

criminally intended matter but is most certainly an abuse of the public

trust; and recognizing, finally, the possibility that there is within

the provincial ambit ample opportunity, to write statutes comprehensive

and narrow, without and within the field of local government in this

province.

I want to say it for the third time: this

opposition is today putting the government on notice that we will no

longer tolerate the silence, inaction and neglect of this

administration in the field of conflict-of-interest law. Seventeen

investigations running simultaneously is an insult to the law and the

people of British Columbia. If the law were adequate there wouldn't be

anywhere near so many investigations going on. Clearly some people have

persuaded themselves that it's worth the risk and they can get away

with it. Those 17 investigations are, I am informed, only those now

being conducted by police authorities; they do not necessarily include

those being conducted within the ministry, or, as it so happens, by the

media. The media is currently working on at least two more new ones

that I know of, and there may be others in the works. But those are the

ones that I've been informed about, because some of us receive the same

brown envelopes as the media do. We ourselves, through our own research

officers, are continuing to examine those. So there may well be 19, or

even more.

It is the duty of this administration not only to

set the law, but also to set the standards. The way in which an

administration sets the moral tone of government is really crucial

here. If you have an administration that turns its back on allegations

and proofs of conflicts of interest, you have to wonder what kind of

moral tone is being established in B.C. When you have an administration

which sits for three years on serious and reputable recommendations

made by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, you have to ask

what sort of moral tone is being set here in this province. When you

have an administration that has never made one statement that we can

find any record of — and, to the very best of my knowledge, none in

this Legislature at any time in five years — on the subject of conflict

of interest, then you have to wonder about the kind of moral tone

that's going to be established in B.C.

This government and that minister have been wilfully

[ Page 3415 ]

neglectful

in the whole field. It's not as if there are no reports they could

study. It's not as if they have to commission original evidence. It's

not as if they have to go any further than the provincial library to

read the Salmon report, for instance.

I wonder if the

minister, after consulting with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith), has even read the Salmon report. Do you know what it is? No,

apparently not. The minister does not know what the Salmon report is.

I'll give you a hint. It was written in the United Kingdom and it

concerns conflict of interest. With that second hint, can the minister

tell us whether or not he's read the Salmon report on conflict of

interest in local government in the United Kingdom? No, he's not read

it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's your argument?

MR. BARBER:

The argument is that the minister is grossly and wilfully uninformed

about the problems of application of conflict-of-interest law and about

the necessity to describe and differentiate new and more appropriate

conflict-of-interest law to deal with crooks in the 1980s rather than

crooks in the 1930s. That is where the problem is. Now that you know

it, will you persuade your colleague to bring it up?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, what we don't know, we take the trouble to learn, unlike some opposite.

The Salmon report said that it was constituted

"to enquire into standards of conduct in central and local

government and other public bodies in the United Kingdom in relation to the

problem of conflict of interest and the risk of corruption involving favourable

treatment from a public body and to make recommendations to the further safeguards

which may be required to ensure the highest standard of probity in public life."

The

Salmon report, which the minister should know about and be concerned

about and which should be one of the basic documents considered when

examining conflict-of-interest law in the British parliamentary system,

expressed no concern about the integrity and sense of public duty of

the bureaucracy as a whole but did conclude that a significant minority

did not measure up to acceptable standards. This was particularly true

in the municipal sector, where most police inquiries into public

conduct were taking place. Most serious crime had centred around

municipal contracts and development control. Doesn't that sound

familiar, Mr. Chairman?

The commission wrote:

"Conditions created by Parliament in the field of planning

law and in urban housing development have put greater strain than has generally

been realized upon our system of locally elected councils whose members may

enter public life with little preparation and may find themselves handling matters

on a financial scale quite beyond their experience in private life."

The

commission itself made a number of important recommendations which I

propose to read into the record for the minister's consideration. Why?

I am reading it now because apparently the minister hasn't read it for

himself. He didn't care enough to find out about this precedent, read

the report and become informed about the issue. This Legislature

frequently examines British precedent because, of course, our entire

system is premised upon it. We have frequently referred to British

precedent in this area because they have done a darned good job of

attempting to police themselves. I think it is important that the

Legislature know what worked elsewhere and what might have a chance of

working here.

The Salmon commission felt it was essential to

find more effective ways of bringing corruption to light by

strengthening investigatory powers and the machinery available for

receiving complaints and acting upon them. However, they were not

recommending ''any measures that would tend to weaken the effect of

management of public bodies at the operational level." Essentially the

commission recommended that laws disqualifying contenders for municipal

office for certain contractual conflicts of interest be relaxed and

that requirements for oral and written disclosure of private or

conflicting interests be strengthened. This is what they concluded in

section 45 of their recommendations:

"The main safeguard is for a public servant to declare his

private interests whenever they have a bearing on his official duties. The normal

result of such a declaration is disqualification from taking

part in the particular

piece of business in question. There is also a more general need to ensure that

a public servant will avoid any situation in which it might reasonably be supposed

that conflicts of interest are particularly likely to arise; thus the need for

annual written disclosure."

This is very similar to the UBCM position, which the government has ignored

for three years.

The

Salmon report was willing to leave conflict of interest with the common

law — breach of trust — the criminal corruption statutes, the local

government statutes — with some minor amendments — and the official' s

own judgment, aided by an administrative code of conduct and

legislative disclosure requirements. Appendix 4 sets out the relevant

recommendations of the Salmon report and the Redcliffe-Maud committee,

which looked into the same matter at an earlier date, as well as the

statutory provision controlling conflict of interest in the local

government sector then in effect and a proposed code of conduct.

Essentially

what they did — which may or may not be adequate for our purposes but

which is surely worth debate — was to enunciate a code of conduct in a

public and declarative way which would be applied to every person

elected and appointed who, in the field of local government — and in

other governments too, but those are the only ones I am referring to at

the moment — might have a beneficial interest at stake and would thus

and thereby be prohibited from taking advantage of that beneficial

position.

They did not themselves propose in any fashion to

re-examine the common law insofar as it pertained to breach of trust.

However, we in Canada don't have that liberty because, of course, that

bulk of common law does not exist in common law form in this country.

It exists, rather, in written form in the Criminal Code. So that

particular aspect of their recommendation, unfortunately, is

inapplicable here. Rather, it has been pre-empted by the Criminal Code

itself, which deals in a number of ways with breaches of trust, be it

fiduciary trust or other aspects of trust which are of concern here.

What we need, however, is an examination of every aspect of the

recommendation of the Salmon report which may pertain to the extent to

which we retain British common

[ Page 3416 ]

law

here. And if they have made sensible recommendations — there are a

number of them — where British common law still applies as Canadian

common law, then we should know about them, those recommendations

should be made clear and public here in our context, and we should be

prepared to act upon them. However, I suspect that what we will find,

certainly what our research so far appears to indicate, is that because

of the pre-emption in written law of current common law in Britain, we

don't have the liberty of simply adjusting it by court decision and

regulation. We don't have that liberty. In fact, it's more codified in

the Canadian system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

commission said that municipal and other public employees should be

subject only to administrative rules and staff codes of conduct. I'm

paraphrasing. They concluded that officers of public sector bodies

should not be required by law to file disclosure statements. Now that's

really a paradox, because here they are, in a very tough report,

telling us that disclosure is not required. Well, I wouldn't want the

minister to read that too literally. The reason the Salmon report

argues for that is because they make far tougher and more compensating

gestures in another field of law and in the codification of law than

our disclosures ever imagined. So what, basically, they are saying is

that, as far as I can read it, disclosure law is by itself not adequate

and in some cases not even necessary, because we have at hand the

rigorous application of this other law and this other code of conduct.

That's how the commission read it.

However, they did make

some procedural recommendations designed to open the government's

system for closer scrutiny. Let me quote from a few of them, because

they are, I think, material and germane here in British Columbia, and

could well be applied.

"

(22) Public bodies should ensure that they have adequate

machinery to take delivery of any complaint that may be received from a member

of the public.

"

(24) Legislation should be introduced to require the minutes

of a local authority's committee meetings to be open to public inspection

in the same way as the minutes of the authority itself.

"

(25) The relevant government departments should urgently

consider the need to give local authorities fresh advice on the selection of

contractors and consultants.

"

(31) Legislation should be introduced to enable the ombudsman

to transmit information to the police."

Some

of those are really very daring recommendations. Many of them derive

from the unfortunate British experience with demonstrable, but not

necessarily provable, conflict of interest. We have the same

unfortunate circumstance in British Columbia.

In a little

while I'll be referring to the American approach, and will be examining

in some detail the precedent established at the national and state

levels in the U.S. Council of State Governments reports on the subject.

I don't know if the minister is familiar with that report, either. Let

me ask him now. Have you read the U.S. Council of State Governments

report on the subject of conflict-of-interest law?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got enough to do in B.C., let alone get too concerned about Britain and the U.S.

MR. BARBER:

If you were more concerned about what others have done elsewhere, you

would be better able to handle the same problem here, Mr. Minister. And

about them being translated from cornflakes boxes, if that's your

phobia about reading foreign material.

If this minister were

better informed about precedent elsewhere, he would be more able to

deal with problems here. But typical of Social Credit, as it has always

operated in British Columbia — the party of the know-nothings and the

funny-money disciples — they have always preferred to believe that they

could ignore all precedent, reports and experience elsewhere, and just

proceed in their own lame way here in this province as if nothing else

counted and no one else had anything to offer.

The U.S.

Council of State Governments reports had a great deal to say on the

matter, which I will shortly be debating. But the minister should be

aware that we do not propose to let this subject go by quickly or

lightly. We have a great deal of precedent to refer to. We have a

number of proposals to make, and we have, unfortunately, in the last

two and three years a series of genuinely scandalous decisions made by

a few people in local office, benefiting themselves, that should never

have been permitted in the first place, nor, indeed, if the law were

adequate would we even find they were the proper subject of debate

today.

It's precisely because the law is inadequate that

these offences have been so numerous and continual. It is precisely

because the minister has been so neglectful that we will, I expect,

proceed for some days yet before the minister stands up and accepts the

latest proposal of the official opposition, so many of which have

previously been accepted and acted upon, to establish a committee on

conflict of interest which would include the police, the UBCM, and

members of this Legislature, and would call as witnesses persons in

local government, persons who have been convicted of these offences and

are now repentant, and, as documents, evidence from other jurisdictions

where they appear to have dealt with this problem much more ably than

we have.

Meanwhile my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi) will now proceed to document for you one of the latest cases

of patent conflict of interest, which went unattended by the minister

for some time, and which has now, unfortunately, received a lot of

public press, and which will, of course, further impair the confidence

in local government that people in British Columbia have — thanks to

the neglect of this administration.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I have just a few very brief comments, Mr. Chairman. First, I think the

member must be aware that laws don't solve all the problems. Certainly,

while we as a body can make all the laws in the world, there will still

be problems. As a matter of fact, we probably have more laws now than

we've ever had, and we've also got more problems than we've ever had.

So to assume initially that if you create a law it somehow resolves all

problems — and that's the assumption in the way it was presented — is,

I would suggest, totally wrong.

The whole area of conflict

of interest is undoubtedly very difficult. As the member mentioned,

Britain is many centuries older than we are in Canada, and they have

not yet found the solution to the problem — in order to bring about

legislation which will perhaps prevent people from acquiring prop-

[ Page 3417 ]

erty

or doing things which may not be totally in keeping with their office.

We've had inquiries from other countries — Africa, Europe, Asia — where

they too are having similar problems. It's not an easy problem.

The

member also knows full well that the New Democratic Party was in office

for three years and all they could do was bring about a reporting

procedure. They too had the opportunity of coming forth with some

legislation with respect to conflict of interest. They did not. As a

matter of fact, we have gone a whole lot further than what was done

during their particular term of office. I would like to outline some of

the things we've done. Let me reiterate once more: it's a very, very

difficult area.

Where do you draw the line? The member made

mention of a situation in Castlegar. Yes, certainly there's a charge

there that perhaps some council member was on a committee that decided

that a water line be extended to a property — not only that property

but a property among other properties — in which that particular member

of council had an interest. Granted, it could be a conflict. The matter

is being investigated.

We are very fortunate in British

Columbia. We have a great many people involved in local government,

people who stand for office year after year, who serve these

communities extremely well. Perhaps some of these people are also those

very same people who are busy people in the community — the doers, the

movers, the shakers, those who have been reasonably successful in their

own fields. They're not all people who have no assets at all. There may

be those with no assets; there's nothing wrong with that; certainly we

need a mix of people. But the fact that a person happens to have

acquired a piece of property — or possibly that property was left to

him by his elders — should not disqualify him from office, nor should

he be eliminated from every decision that could somehow impact on every

one of those. It's very broad. This is where the difficulty comes in.

The

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) knows full well that his own New

Democratic Party, at a recent convention in Penticton, came out very

strongly in support of members running for municipal office under the

New Democratic Party ticket. It's one of the goals of the New

Democratic Party that people run for municipal councils or regional

districts — in that village, in that town and in that city — under the

New Democratic Party ticket. The assumption must be that, somehow, when

you run under the New Democratic Party ticket you are then faithful to

the New Democratic Party philosophy, and possibly that makes you a

better alderman. I can only guess that that's the assumption.

Similarly,

I suppose it's assumed that that person will be faithful to the wishes

of the New Democratic Party provincially, and that therefore there's

some alliance, some connection between the provincial New Democratic

Party and those members who might be elected to that village council.

Does that then, hon. member, also suggest that if you have a council in

the city of Nanaimo, which is largely composed of New Democratic Party

members…?

MR. BARBER: Tell Frank Ney that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If you follow through on getting New Democratic

Party members elected, does that council abstain from voting on anything proposed

by Ramada Inn because Ramada Inn has a connection with the New Democratic Party?

Incidentally, Ramada Inn is a large multinational conglomerate that builds hotels,

and there's a connection between Ramada Inn and the New Democratic Party

in Nanaimo. Do all those council members then not only abstain from voting on

anything to do with Ramada Inn, but are they also forced to vote against Holiday

Inn? Or are they forced to vote against Travelodge, because it could be competition

for Ramada Inn? The success of Ramada Inn could, in the formula devised with

respect to rent, depend on the lack of competition. So the better they do, the

better the New Democratic Party in Nanaimo, does.

You

can take this area of conflict of interest a long way. Certainly we

could devise legislation. But I warn the member that it's not easy,

particularly if political parties become involved in municipal

politics, as the New Democratic Party is proposing. Then you really

open up a whole new field.

If I were someone proposing to

develop a Travelodge in Nanaimo and I was appearing before an NDP

council and that NDP council had a connection with the New Democratic

Party in Nanaimo, which had a contract with Ramada which said that we

get a piece of the volume along with so much per month, I, as that

Travelodge, would feel terribly uncomfortable. So I appreciate that

this whole conflict-of-interest problem is a difficult problem. The

first member for Victoria, having attended that NDP convention in

Penticton, should be more aware than anyone that it's fraught with

problems. It's very difficult.

Realizing that, however, we've moved a long way. We recently…. I agree, we

received a report from the UBCM.

But

you know, hon. members, granted there may be 17 investigations by the

RCMP with respect to people who may have been involved in something

criminal at the local level, it must be remembered that the RCMP can

deal with 100 charges and there may only be a couple that are

legitimate. So just because there are 17 investigations doesn't

necessarily immediately mean that there are 17 crooks on various

councils throughout British Columbia.

Let's assume that

there were 17 crooks out there someplace. I think we ought to certainly

do whatever we can to bring them out and make them answerable and

eliminate them from municipal councils. By and large, fortunately, in

the absence of some all-encompassing legislation, the electorate has

done a pretty fair job, because there are over 1,000 people involved in

local government. When you have that many people involved in local

government, regardless of how many laws there are, you'll always have a

problem. That comes back to the earlier point that the law itself won't

cure the problem. But the electorate, fortunately, has a pretty good

handle on this, and our people in all of those communities throughout

the province generally keep a fairly close eye on those that they elect

to municipal office. That's perhaps one of the advantages of municipal

office — it is a government close to the people. Perhaps the people are

better able to judge those who are elected to municipal office then

they are those who are elected to provincial or federal office.

am very pleased with and actually very proud of all of those.... Of

course, I and most of my colleagues on this side of the House have been

involved in local politics at some point in time. It's not for this I

say it, but I'm generally very proud of those people who are dedicated

to local government and serve our province well in their own local

communities.

As I started to say, the UBCM did a report some

two or three years ago. It was referred to my predecessor, and

following my appointment to this office I was requested to

[ Page 3418 ]

advise

the UBCM as to what would be done with this report from them. I have

had more meetings with UBCM, I guess, than any minister has had during

the course of only one year as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I keep a

very close liaison with the UBCM, because I feel that is the one body

that can present a voice for all those municipal councils that are out

there throughout the province. I feel it's certainly a part of my job

to keep a regular contact with UBCM. I do, and I must.

Certainly

I advised the UBCM very early on that we had taken their report and

referred it to the Municipal Act Review Committee, and they were

generally pleased. As a matter of fact, the UBCM executive was pleased

with that particular move.

The Municipal Act review

committee is made up of Mr. Whelen, who's in charge of research; Mr.

Lidstone, research, who also drafted a memo with respect to this

particular report done by UBCM; Galt Wilson, who's counsel to the

committee, and he's delivered results of research to the municipal law

section; and Stu Fleming, who's a municipal manager with the city of

Kelowna, and he has done some work with respect to conflict-of-interest

provisions affecting municipal officers. All of these committee members

have participated in the various UBCM seminars, particularly the one on

conflict of interest.

So we're certainly moving in the right

direction. But I want to assure, or perhaps warn, the hon. first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that no law that I could present to the

House today would perhaps satisfy him, because I think he would say

it's not enough. If I took it back, redrafted it ten times and came

back to you again, you would perhaps again say: "It's not enough." We

could have a law which would obviously be too much. We could say:

"Look, we want British Columbians to participate in local government

providing they have nothing, they mustn't ever have anything, they

mustn't ever be involved in anything except whatever job they have

there and their function on council. "

I think we're very

fortunate in a wonderful, democratic, progressive province to have

people of all walks of life who are willing to become involved in local

government. I'm grateful to all of those people. I would encourage them

to continue coming forth and giving of their time and their varied

expertise to ensure British Columbians the best decision-making

possible at the local level.

MR. LEVI: We've just

heard from the Hodding Carter of the Social Credit government — the

master of gobbledegook and onopedadontia. He just stood up, waved his

arms, said something and.... As my father used to say, he speaks but he

says nothing. He hasn't said anything at all, and he was up there for

ten minutes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You weren't listening.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I was listening all right. I was listening so much I almost fell asleep.

may be right about one thing: laws don't cure everything. What we're

suggesting here is that first of all you look at the problem of

conflict of interest. The member may recall that when he was the mayor

of Surrey there was an inquiry in Surrey. It was an inquiry that was

conducted by Mr. Donald White. The purpose of the inquiry, which was

set up by order-in-council, was to look at land transactions and

rezoning in the municipality of Surrey. I'm not going to go into what

took place, but I want to bring the minister's attention to the

recommendations that Mr. White felt it was necessary to make after he'd

finished. What he did, in fact, was to make a number of suggestions. He

wasn't saying: "Go to the provincial government and get a bill." He was

saying the municipality of Surrey could, and should, do a certain

number of things.

One of the things he said was:

"In

view of all the foregoing I'd like to make the following

recommendations. Members of council are in need of some guidance in

being able to recognize potential conflict-of-interest situations.

Therefore I would suggest some form of codified rules, no matter how

briefly stated, should be published for the benefit of municipal

councils, setting out some fundamental principles."

He's

talking about rules; he's not talking about laws. He's talking about

councils trying to devise some of their own rules and check with the

department.

He goes on:

"I would

recommend that any public official who is a director of a company

carrying on business within a municipality whose business will in any

way touch upon land dealings or any other business in which the

municipality is involved should resign his directorship and take no

active

part in the management of the company."

Then he goes on to make some recommendations about the planners:

would recommend that the planners should not be subject to requests for

confidential information from any or all members of council."

Bear

in mind, Mr. Chairman, that what he's saying is: set out a code of

behaviour. This is the recommendation that came out of the White report.

He goes on to say:

"Rather,

the planner should only be required to disclose the information to the

manager, who in turn would pass the information on to the individual

member of council making the request. All inquiries from council for

the confidential information should be channelled through the manager

who in turn consults the necessary heads of department."

These

are fairly lengthy suggestions in respect to the planner. It's the

fourth recommendation in respect to the planning department.

Under the fifth recommendation he says:

A formal written contract of employment should be entered into between

the municipality and any employee who, by the nature of his or her

work, is to have access to the confidential information. There should

be three specific terms inter alia set out in the contract of

employment."

Just to remind the minister again, these were

recommendations that were made as a result of an inquiry that was

conducted in the municipality of Surrey. His recommendations were that

this is the way you should handle the thing from here on in and then it

might avoid some of the problems.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was the date of the report?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: The order-in-council was on May 10, 1973. It was when the previous administration was there.

[ Page 3419 ]

a result of the inquiry.... I'm not dealing now with what was material

to the inquiry, but rather what came out of the inquiry by the

commissioner making recommendations about what, in fact, some of the

municipalities should do. He specifically talks about employees. Again,

what is he doing? He's making suggestions about how people can avoid

the suggestion of conflict of interest. He says:

formal written contract of employment should be entered into between

the municipality and any employee who, by the nature of his or her

work, is to have access to confidential information. There should be

three specific terms inter alia set out in the contract of employment:

(

a) the employee covenants to refrain from disclosing any confidential

information; (

b) the employee covenants to return copies of any

confidential documents which may be in his or her possession upon

terminating employments; and (

c) the employee covenants and agrees not

to enter into any business involving land transactions or rezoning

applications, neither directly or indirectly, within the municipality

for period of two years."

Altogether, Mr. Chairman, he makes

some 12 recommendations about a code of behaviour for people involved

in city councils. For the interest of the minister, the report was

actually completed and delivered on January 28, 1974.

Now

there are some indications of a commissioner who presumably has some

expertise in these areas and made some recommendations. Perhaps the

minister will tell us whether he's aware of whether any of these

recommendations were followed. Again, we're not talking about creating

laws. If it is possible to do it that way at the local level, fine. But

if it doesn't happen on the local level and you get, as my colleague

has pointed out, some 17 different inquiries, then you can't just rely

on local municipalities doing it; you've got to have some kind of

legislation. In creating some legislation, you obviously remove some

legislation — the legislation that doesn't work.

What I want

to return to now, Mr. Chairman, is the matter of the inquiry that took

place in Langley in 1979. I want to read a letter that was sent by Mr.

R.W. Long, the inspector of municipalities, to Mr. Lloyd Parish in

Langley, in which he writes:

"Dear Mr. Parish,

"The

ministry has completed its examination of the matters you raised

regarding the city of Langley. I have concluded that a formal inquiry

under the provisions of

section 728 of the Municipal Act is not

required and would serve no useful purpose. Our examination disclosed

no infraction of the Municipal Act. However, I have made a number of

suggestions to the council for their consideration regarding their

procedures relating to land transactions.

Sincerely,

R. W. Long."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Langley city problem —

yes, I think we should refer to it as a problem — was first raised by

Mr. Parish in June 1978. The reason I'm raising this with the minister

is because I've had meetings with Mr. Parish and some of his people —

I'll talk about their names later on — in which they expressed major

concern about some problems in the municipality vis-à-vis the mayor....

I'm not now identifying the mayor as such, but the council and the

company that was set up, the Langley City Development Corporation. On

June 15, 1978, he wrote a letter to the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, and he said:

"Re: City of Langley

believe the city council — Mayor Duckworth and most of the alderpersons

— are spending the taxpayers' dollars in a questionable manner. The

average tax increase or ripoff is between 35 and 50 percent. When

questioned on this severe increase, they lay the blame squarely on the

provincial government. I don't believe that this is true; I believe

it's mostly a result of wild spending and questionable land purchases.

"Unfortunately

most voters are blinded by the city's propaganda and would likely hold

the provincial government accountable come next provincial election;

this would be disastrous for our province.

"I would like to submit a few examples for your reaction:

"(

a) Purchase of barren property, $169,000, listed by Doug Mooney, salesman

and part-owner of McBride Agencies Ltd., husband of alderperson Iris

Mooney, for close to a record high price of $10 a square foot. (Copies

enclosed.) "

He went to a great deal of trouble in that one; he documented it and he sent the information along.

"(

b) Purchase of half an acre of swamp next to the Nicomekl floodplain on

one side and on the other side next to the 30-acre city sewer lagoon

property for $50,000 — $2 a square foot. Purpose, in the mayor's words

— 'domination of the area.'"

In sending that he also enclosed a series of news clippings.

"(

c) Purchase of Srigley property — questionable purchase as to method. The

purchase was paid for and registered January 24, 1978, in the land

registry office. Over two months later a bylaw is first introduced and

passed approving the spending of the money that was already spent. What

would happen if approval wasn't granted for some reason? (Langley

registry property and council minutes enclosed.)"

That's the third item, He gave a great deal of information.

"(

d) Enclosed is a map of the city-owned properties purchased 'with bleeding

taxpayers' money.' This 16.6 percent removal causes an immediate 20

percent increase to the balance of the taxpayers plus the principal and

interest when required to complete these purchases."

He goes on to say:

"Along

with the wild spending the city is unable to share costs of work with

the municipality of Langley, causing a very expensive duplication of

service. The city is continuously wasting time and taxpayers' pay

bickering and squabbling with the municipality on all or any

development coming to the area.

"This city is

unfortunately run or controlled by a few greedy little merchants who

are concerned only with themselves and their holdings or whatever, at

an expense to the taxpayer. If houses around the residential area begin

to depreciate and fall apart, the city council does not tax the

merchants to improve or rebuild the residential area. Consequently

residential and other taxpayers pay the cost to redevelop or revitalize

dying commercial core. I believe this situation is very serious and

warrants further investigation. Your response in these matters would be

greatly appreciated.

"Lloyd Parish."

[ Page 3420 ]

Presumably

as a result of this and other information there was an inquiry made.

The result is characterized in Mr. Long's letter. The minister may not

be aware of this. He certainly wasn't aware of it in 1978 and 1979. In

1980, if you look in the newspapers.... The Langley Advance ,

which is a local newspaper, covers most of these. I frankly don't know

the political persuasion of the newspaper. I can assure the minister it

is not pro-NDP. That newspaper has covered at great length some of the

situations that have been going on. As a matter of fact, in the June 4,

1980, edition of the Langley Advance

there is a big headline: "Victoria Officials Pore Over Land Deals."

After I read this I think there should arise a number of questions.

Bear in mind that we dealt with Mr. Long's report, which he completed

and wrote to Mr. Parish in July, so that report is at least a year old.

On Wednesday, June 4, 1980, the Langley Advance dealt at some

length.... I want to read to you, Mr. Chairman, some of the remarks

that have been made.

"Officials from the

provincial Consumer and Corporate Affairs department were sifting

through files of Langley city hall on Tuesday morning at the start of

their inquiry into the land transactions of both the city and its

private development company, Langley City Development Corporation."

This

is June 1980, a year before there had been an inquiry. The inspector

for the municipality reported that everything was okay except for one

or two suggestions he had made. We should also bear in mind that

besides the Corporate and Consumer Affairs people going through files,

the RCMP commercial crime squad had been out there asking a series of

questions. The newspaper goes on:

"Prompting the investigation is a revelation in the Vancouver Sun

that the real estate consultant, Ray Olma, hired by the city for a

number of transactions, did not have a real estate licence at the time

of his involvement with the city. Whether either party has violated the

Real Estate Act was the subject of the department's investigation."

That is a question we can ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

"Olma,

according to the newspaper report, maintains he was hired as a

consultant for a fee and not as a real estate salesman on commission

and thus didn't need a licence. The administrator, Dave Christensen,

said he did not know Olma's licence had expired. He said: 'To the best

of my knowledge and belief I was not aware of his status.' Further he

argued that whether Olma had a real estate licence or not is

irrelevant. He was not acting as a real estate agent. "

They then go on in the newspaper to catalogue a number of purchases

that were made. What interests me in terms of the

article in the

newspaper and the letter written by Mr. Parish.... He had written a

letter to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. He had written to the

local MLA, who is the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He also

wrote an open letter to the mayor and council of the city of Langley.

Everything was done very openly and it was done over a great period of

time. As a matter of fact, on June 10 he wrote another letter to the

editor of the Langley Advance . He said the following:

"We citizens, taxpayers and business people of

the city of Langley agree with the concerns expressed in your editorial

in the June 4 issue of the Langley Advance

regarding land dealings of the Langley city council. Enclosed is a copy

of a telegram sent today to the Hon. William N. Vander Zalm, Minister

of Municipal Affairs, which speaks for itself." The telegram, which

presumably the minister remembers, says:

WE CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LANGLEY

WISH TO EXPRESS OUR IN DIGNATION OVER THE ALLEGED CONDUCT OF THE MAYOR-IN-COUNCIL

OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LANGLEY IN LAND DEALINGS, AS REPORTED RECENTLY

IN VARIOUS PUBLIC MEDIA. FURTHER, WE URGE YOU TO CALL UPON THE INSPECTOR OF

MUNICIPALITIES TO HOLD AN IMMEDIATE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNDER

SECTION 28 OF THE MUNICIPAL

ACT INTO ITS CONDUCT. OUR ITEMS OF CONCERN ARE THE POSSIBILITY OF 1) CONFLICT

OF INTEREST, 2)SECRECY OF LAND TRANSACTIONS, 3) BREACH OF PROVINCIAL STATUTE,

4) INEQUITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN LAND DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.

JOHN B. JEFFERY

AGNES B. HERLIHY

HERBERT CULHAM

JOHN SALSNEK

LLOYD T. PARISH

JAMES P. GRANT

FRED COX

W. PESME

BETTY COX

K. PESME

J. LINDGREN

E . LINDGREN

C.M. JEFFERY

There

are a dozen people who have gone on record publicly making a number of

accusations. A couple of them have been making the same accusations for

over a year — in fact, almost two years. An inquiry was conducted. The

inspector of municipalities said:

"I have

concluded that a formal inquiry under the provisions of

section 28 is

not required and would not serve a useful purpose. However, I have made

a number of suggestions to the council for their consideration in

regard to the procedures relating to land transactions."

Here

we are, a year later, with 12 people — most of them business people —

in Langley making a public declaration about their concerns, and one of

them is secrecy of land transactions. For a year before, Mr. Long has

said that he was going to make some recommendations to the city council.

Mr.

Minister, you have a situation out there, which from the public point

of view has been known for two years. In 1979 the inspector — your

deputy minister — went in and came out and said what he said, and a

year later it's up again. But on top of that, you've got Consumer and

Corporate Affairs and the RCMP crime squad looking at it.

Now

I know that at this stage of the game to have a public inquiry is very

difficult. After all, the RCMP have been inquiring into this matter, to

my knowledge, for almost a year. They've spent a great deal of time and

effort, so I suppose at this particular time to say let's stop

everything and have a public inquiry would be a complete waste of the

public money and of the RCMP's time, and it may very well be that they

are putting together sufficient evidence to lay charges.

But

there's a very specific problem with the way these things carry on.

It's amazing that in some of the cases which have been successfully

concluded to prosecution and conviction, they have their antecedents

several years before. It always starts with rumours, allegations,

letters by people, and there is something missing in terms of what kind

[ Page 3421 ]

action

should be taken at the time when the rumours first start to happen,

They start in small communities. The minister knows this in his tenure

as mayor of the municipality of Surrey. This was a constant problem,

always being dealt with. The government has an obligation to find a

better mechanism of dealing with these things so that they don't

continue to go on and they don't fester. In some cases, where the

rumour started several years ago, people are now going to jail.

This

is one of the problems, it's true, with the whole matter of commercial

crime and white-collar crime. It takes a great deal of effort to put

together a successful prosecution. There's no question of that. We just

have to look at the kind of idiocy that we go through constantly with

the Combines Investigation Act, where we'll spend $2 million chasing

some sugar company, successfully convict them, and fine them $400,000,

then they go to the supreme court and the whole case gets quashed. So

there has got to be a better mechanism. A better mechanism really

relates not to the question of beefing up the investigatory services,

but rather making it possible to deter people from doing the kind of

thing that is going on. That can only be done by having a code of

behaviour in which people fully understand the consequences of being

involved in a conflict-of-interest situation.

You know, the

conflict-of-interest question came into this House under the present

government in one of the throne speeches. They said they were going to

bring in — I think in 1977 — conflict-of-interest legislation. Well,

they haven't done so. We're probably going to have less chance of

getting it now, because the minister tells us we've got too much law

anyway. So if we've got too much law, let's lie back and hope everybody

will not do anything wrong.

But that's not the question. The

question is: what kind of mechanisms can you put in place to deter

people from this? We don't want to set up large bureaucracies, but

there has to be some procedure.

I would remind the minister

that the White report, in 1973, made 12 very good recommendations that

the minister could take, if he reads them tonight, and say to the

municipalities: "As a start, let's put these recommendations in. Let's

follow these. We won't bring in

an act." Do it and see what happens. He

has made some good suggestions. It might reinforce my case if the

minister gets up and tells me that after reading the report, because he

was the mayor at the time.... Did they implement those recommendations?

That's a good start towards avoiding the problems of conflict of

interest.

I know you can't legislate common sense. We know

that, but something has to be done, particularly in the question of the

problems that have been raised in Langley. There are problems. Some

responsible citizens there keep ringing the bell and saying to the

minister, the previous minister, the Premier — they also wrote to him —

and to the member of the Legislature (Hon. Mr. McClelland): "There's

something wrong out here." They're obviously not satisfied with the

report