1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1213 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973 (Bill 110).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1213

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Smith — 1213

Mr. Gardom — 1213

Mr. McGeer — 1214

Mr. Wallace — 1214

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1215

Mr. McClelland — 1216

Division on amendment to

section 7 — 1216

section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1216

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1217

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1217

Mr. McGeer — 1217

Mr. Phillips — 1217

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1218

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1218

Amendment to

section 8.

Mr. Chabot — 1219

Mr. McClelland — 1220

Mrs. Jordan — 1220

Mr. Phillips — 1220

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1221

Mr. Chabot — 1221

Mr. Morrison — 1222

Mr. Williams — 1222

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1223

Mr. Gardom — 1223

Mr. McClelland — 1224

Mr. McGeer — 1225

Mr. Wallace — 1227

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1227

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1228

Mr. McClelland — 1229

Mr. McGeer — 1230

Mr. Chabot — 1232

Division on amendment to

section 8 — 1233

Amendment to

section 9.

Mr. Wallace — 1233

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1234

Mr. Wallace — 1235

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1235

Mr. Williams — 1235

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1235

Mr. Smith — 1236

Mr. Wallace — 1236

Division on amendment to

section 9 — 1236

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1236

section 16.

Mr. McGeer — 1237

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1237

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1238

Division on third reading — 1238

Motions (See appendix for wording of motion).

No. 10. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1239

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1239

Mrs. Jordan — 1240

Mr. Williams — 1240

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1241

Mr. Curtis — 1243

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1243

Division on motion 10 — 1244

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 114). Hon. Mrs.

Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 1245

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1973

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Railway

Company Grant Act, 1973 .

Bill 110 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 49, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the amendment standing in

the name of the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the amendment, for

the final time of asking — at least for myself — I think we

exhausted the points last evening as to why we feel this

amendment should be accepted by the cabinet benches and by the

Minister responsible for housing in this province (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson).

I don't intend to reiterate the points that I made last

evening, but I do suggest that all during the debate we did not

hear one valid reason from the Minister as to why this

amendment should be so unacceptable to the government. If it is

a recognized fact that a similar amendment is used in the field

of municipal affairs to settle an impasse when it comes to the

matter of dealing with individuals and private citizens for

property which they may not wish to sell or dispose of to the

government, or to any Crown agency of the government, there is

a provision there that can be used.

My suggestion is that the same provision should apply to protect people in

the event of property being acquired for purposes of housing in this province.

It's a simple, straightforward amendment, Mr. Chairman; it does nothing that

takes away from the bill and it just reinforces the rights of individuals. For

that reason I would ask one more time: will the Minister accept this amendment?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The opposition

argument, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, has for

its validity a very historic concept and that is that a power

not intended to be used should not be granted in the first

instance and a power which has a capacity of abuse ought not to

be enacted.

Mr. Justice Thorson, when he was the head of the Exchequer

Court of Canada, in assessing the concepts of expropriation in

British Columbia mentioned that we have the most arbitrary

methods of expropriation of any area in the civilized world

outside of the Soviet Union. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that

this Minister is certainly going out of his way to ensure

permanent top billing and he's winning hands down.

It's quite a departure from the continuing and bogus attacks

on corporations to give shafting powers unto this Minister to

hamstring homeowners. You used to hear the expression, "I've

come for the rent." Now, under this bill, it's "I've come for

the house," when, if and how you choose to do that,

without hearing and without compensation.

Your only argument in support of this is that we wish the

power but we won't use it. Once again, we run into the plural

"we." And we must question whether these "we's" who seem

to be in favour of this measure while not intending to use it

are going to be the continuing set of "we's" or whether

we're going to have a different cabinet there who will

definitely go ahead and exercise this expropriative power.

The Minister has also suggested on a couple of timorous

occasions that perhaps the power is not there.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): He said it's

definitely not there.

MR. GARDOM: No, no. The Attorney General, I now see, is

going to take

part in debate. I'm glad to hear that, because he

is assuring the people of the province of B.C. that the power

is not there. It is very questionable, Mr. Attorney General.

What does the word "acquire" mean to you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It means to go out and purchase.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Well, then why don't you put that in? Why didn't

you say it means to "go out and purchase and pay fair

compensation"? If you happened to go ahead and properly define

the

[ Page 1214 ]

concepts of this bill, you wouldn't be running into the

attack that you're receiving from the opposition. And it is a

very, very valid attack. There's no question that this thing at

the present time does contain an expropriative power. It does

contain an expropriative power; if you do not wish it to

contain that, say so in plain and simple language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you

call for the vote when debate is finished. We haven't heard

from the Minister yet this morning. I don't know whether he

lost his tongue overnight. Perhaps he's under instructions from

the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. McGEER: Not from the Attorney General. The Premier? Did

he give him instructions?

The Minister of defence over there? Did he give the…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

confine his remarks to the amendment?

MR. McGEER: We've asked a series of questions of the

Minister, and we're very anxious to hear what his replies are.

If the Members here haven't popped to their feet immediately,

they all are as interested as I am in hearing what the Minister

has to say in defence of his particular bill. Naturally we

hesitate to get up because we're certain that he's going to

stand and give us replies.

This is a pretty fundamental point: the expropriation of a

man's home and the whole principle that you can take something

without fair compensation, lease it back and change the terms

of the lease at any time.

As my hon. colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) says, you

don't come for the rent, you come for the home. And that's a

pretty fundamental change in our whole concept of housing. It's

a change in our concept of home ownership. It's a change in our

concept of fairness in natural justice. And the Minister has

nothing to say, nothing to say.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think you should be encouraging the Minister to stand up

and explain what his thoughts are, if any, overnight — whether he has considered

the virtues of this amendment that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. D.E.

Smith) is putting forward. If he has alternative suggestions about how it might

be reworded, that he really wants to see these safeguards in the legislation

but thinks perhaps some alternate wording would be appropriate, we are very

broad-minded on this side of the House. Naturally we will consider supporting

any worthwhile amendments or changes which he might see as helpful to that legislation

from the amendment put forward by the Member for North Peace River.

The principle the Minister enunciates is wrong. The

principle that the Member for North Peace River enunciates is

right. What we have to do before this particular

section passes

is to see that the correct principles are embodied in the

wording of the legislation. If the bill needs to be hoisted

temporarily at this particular time while these details are

worked out, that might be the best and fastest way to go.

There are many other pieces of legislation, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, that need to be considered before we prorogue. The

government side has made a number of commitments next week. I'm

sure that they want to fulfil those commitments; we want them

to be fulfilled. At the same time we shouldn't precipitously

rush through legislation that will put undue powers in the

hands of that or any other Minister which would be harmful to

the interests of British Columbians who at this moment perhaps

have a false sense of security about the ownership of their

homes.

Perhaps the Minister would consider recommending the

committee rise and report progress until he has a chance to

consider what amendments would be best to bring forward. I

wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could hear from the Minister

now?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It seems to me that so often in

this House it's rather regrettable that when the two sides of

the House have an honest difference of opinion on the

interpretation of words that are either in the legislation we

are debating or, are absent from the legislation, that we spend

hours, I wouldn't say uselessly — but I think there is a very

honest difference of opinion. We have lawyers on both sides of

the House and I don't think that this is being done on any

partisan political basis. I really don't believe that about

this debate, Mr. Chairman.

I really believe that the Members on this side of the House

feel that there is a threat to the homeowner in the hands of a

corporation which may be set up by the Minister.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Speak for yourself.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I am speaking for myself but I am

expressing an honest concern that has been expressed by the

Members of this side of the House. I don't want to recapitulate

all the arguments, I merely want to try and make the point that

if, as the government states, our fears are groundless then

surely put into language in the bill a clearly-understood

written phrase or sentence to reassure our fears. Make it

unmistakably clear that

[ Page 1215 ]

expropriation is not included and that a person whose house

the government wishes to acquire will be dealt with in an

acceptably fair manner and that the person will get a fair

price, and if there is any disturbance to the person then there

is some form of additional compensation.

It is very regrettable I think, Mr. Chairman, that we had

this expropriation study done, then the Law Reform Commission

brought in a report nearly three years ago — two-and-a-half

years ago — and here we are still in this kind of bill,

spending hours in the House discussing the exact

interpretation

section 6 when in point of fact — and I know we needn't

belabour it — if we had the expropriation Act which the Law

Reform Commission asked for, we wouldn't have to be deciding

whether or not

section 6 provides for expropriation.

To return to my basic point: I think that if the government

is so sure that they do not mean to give this Minister, through

a corporation, the power of expropriation then surely the

government could insert this simple amendment in clear language

saying that the power of expropriation is not deemed to exist

in relation to the powers of any corporation set up by the

Minister.

If the government, in good faith, means that this power does

not exist, I can't see any harm in putting in a few words,

another sentence, just confirming it. For that reason I have to

support the amendment, although I would have preferred a much

simpler, easily-understood amendment along the lines I

suggested. I certainly support this amendment.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): As the Member

for Oak Bay has spoken for the first time on this and perhaps

spoke in a more rational manner than any of the other

opposition Members on this point, I would explain to him that I

believe — and have not asked that the Chair rule on whether or

not this is an order because it seeks to alter a power which is

not contained in the bill, and should be ruled out of order on

that point, but….

MR. GARDOM: Who told you that last night?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a bit late now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On that point, I believe it is out of

order and I could not accept it for that reason. But were the

power contained, this would certainly not be a remedy. I point

out to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that this would hold the

municipality responsible for paying the compensation. This is

from the Municipal Act and I can only assume that it was not

the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) who

drafted this amendment because he would have known better than

the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

AN HON. MEMBER: He's looking at the press gallery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I do not intend to point out and do the

homework for the opposition side. It would be rather

unfair.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who is he looking

for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, sometimes it gets a little

difficult to look at this level. Would you like me to turn my

back?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I haven't used invective, but if the Hon.

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would like me to

respond in kind to what he had to say yesterday, I will admit

that he has learned one thing about expropriation since the

Bill 42 debate; now he knows how to pronounce it

-"exappropriate." I appreciate the humor that he puts in,

having also been a fan of Charlie Farquharson and his history

of Canada.

But this amendment would not remedy the power of

expropriation, even if it existed, or it would be a most unjust

way of doing so, I would assume, to leave the municipality….

If you people really…. I can't really understand. It gets

very difficult to listen and try to give credibility to remarks

which are made when clearly if this were a remedy for a power,

which does not exist, it would hold the municipalities

responsible for paying the compensation for

an act taken by the

Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can refund it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are better ways. It's in other

legislation. If a person had done any homework at all, they

could have proposed a much simpler remedy, had the power

existed.

I must say to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that,

really, if we were to vote in favour of this we would be voting

in favour of something which is really not in order. I haven't

asked that a ruling be made on this. The right of expropriation

I think is, or the power of expropriation, is something that

should be debated, but I think by this debate we have shown

it's not there. Pardon?

MR. GARDOM: Are you in favour of the power of

expropriation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, powers of expropriation and the

proper remedies, of course.

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

[ Page 1216 ]

Minister please address the Chair?

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just requesting that the Minister address the Chair.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that further

comments are superfluous.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, the performance

by that Minister can only be termed as remarkable and

incredible. Not only does he not understand his own Act but he

doesn't understand any of the Acts with which he will have to

work in order to maintain his department.

He doesn't understand the Municipal Act , he doesn't

understand the Housing Act , he doesn't understand the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act and he certainly doesn't

understand the Act that we are speaking of right now, the

Department of Housing Act . Neither does the Attorney General

understand, because for the Attorney General to stand here and

tell us that "acquire" means only to go out and purchase is

plain nonsense and renders his ability suspect as well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That does not include the power of

expropriation. That's so obvious. You people are just

filibustering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that this

Minister should be referring himself to the problems which we

have described in this bill rather than attempting to take over

your job. This amendment has already been ruled in order or we

wouldn't be standing here debating it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McCLELLAND: For you to stand up and say that the

amendment isn't in order just because you don't have any decent

arguments for not accepting it is also nonsense and

incredible.

You do not understand the Municipal Act . For you to stand here, through you,

Mr. Chairman, and tell us that the municipalities would be rendered responsible

for any bills which would evolve out of this kind of action is also stupid.

All this does is refer to a method, a method by which you can take some sort

of procedures when you get into difficulty. You're just referring to another

Act, which is standard legislative procedures when you get into difficulty.

You're just referring to another Act, which is standard legislative procedure;

it's done every day in this House. The municipalities would never be rendered

responsible for any action that your department takes, if it ever takes any

action.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. SMITH: I ask that the Chairman report the division taken

in committee to the Speaker at the conclusion of the sitting of

today and ask leave to have the division recorded.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria):

Section 7 deals with the

housing fund and it talks about the unexpended balance of the

money that was voted under the Housing Incentive Fund Act . We

don't know how much has been spent; we don't know how much is

still in the fund; we are dealing in the dark with that

particular amount of money — $10 million. We just don't know

how much has been used up and how much hasn't.

With that in mind, some weeks ago, very shortly after the

commencement of this session, I put a question on the order

paper dealing with this specific question: how much money is

being expended; how much is being made available; how much is

being received from the federal government to assist in the

provincial land-banking scheme; what were the properties

purchased; how many housing starts have begun as a result of

the $10 million that we voted last session?

That's some months ago, both the vote and also a couple of

months ago the question. As yet I've had no reply to it. I

should think at this time on

section 7 we should have an

accounting of where the fund is at

[ Page 1217 ]

the moment and what sort of start can be made with what is

left. Perhaps the Minister at this stage would like to comment

upon the fund?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the fund changes from day

to day and, of course, goes down. It's almost completely

expended. This would wrap this up and bring it into estimates

on an annual sort of basis and create a revolving fund.

We are collecting the data on this but property acquisitions

are in so many different stages of completion and negotiation

that it is difficult. I regret that there's some delay, but

there is a very limited department handling this and there is a

terrific demand on the personnel. An accounting is being kept

and I would venture to say about $9 million of the fund has

been expended. I'll get the answers to the Member's questions

shortly.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had a partial report

from the Minister that $9 million of a $10 million fund has

been expended. Although he claims that accounting records are

being kept, he doesn't have any information to give us on where

this $9 million has gone. It's obvious, of course, that

negotiations are taking place as he mentioned; but to blow $9

million in six months and not be able to account for it in this

chamber is an incredible thing. We voted this money in good

faith. We were quite willing….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think this has anything to do with

this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It certainly does! We're talking about

unexpended balance, if you'll look down in

section 7 (1), Mr.

Chairman. We are talking about the Housing Fund. It's in the

margin — "Housing Fund" —

section 7 (1).

We talk about unexpected balance. Now if that doesn't have

anything to do with the

section — the fact that $9 million has

been spent or disposed of in some way or another in six months,

and the Minister responsible cannot give any information to the

House on where it's gone — this Act should proceed no further.

There's no way we can increase the amount of money to be

handled in this way.

I appreciate the fact that he frankly said that it's been almost completely

expended. But surely, when we are dealing with this particular section, we should

be able to get some accounting of where the money's gone. It happens to be one

of our basic functions in the Legislature to examine expenditures of the government.

I cannot see how we can pass this section. I cannot see how we in the opposition

could be asked to even consider this

section unless we get some indication of

how the money is going out and where it's going. The specific question, for

example, of how many housing starts. How many housing starts have there been,

thanks to this $9 million?

Now the figure of 27 was given at one stage or another in

past discussion of housing, and $9 million for 27 housing

starts is a pretty well-financed figure. But for this housing

fund to be effective we have to know how the money is going

out, where it's going and what the results are. We've had six

months. We've had $9 million expended and we've had no

report.

So may I ask the Minister to perhaps hold over this

section

until his officials can come up with some information on this?

Because for $9 million to disappear seems, well, questionable

at the best. Would the Minister agree to stand down this

section so that we can carry on with other sections until we

get the information on where the $9 million has gone?

MR. McGEER: Perhaps the Minister could tell us, Mr.

Chairman, who the people are that are spending the money. I

sort of have the uneasy feeling that somebody's blowing a huge

sum of dollars here, as the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) says — $9 million for 27 housing starts. I

hadn't realized that there'd been that many. The fact remains

that a large amount of money has gone. The Minister doesn't

seem to know where. Somebody must know. And somebody must have

spent that money.

Isn't it reasonable, when we're debating giving the Minister

further powers, for us to hear from him exactly how he's using

these powers, or if he's passing that responsibility onto

someone else, as he apparently did in interpreting the

amendment of the Member for North Peace River? He told us he'd

consulted outside authority and had an opinion that made it

essential for him to ignore the learned counsel in the House,

and I speak not just of the members of the legal profession who

are here, quite capable of giving their advice to the Minister,

but others who are elected by the people to give lay advice.

But no, there was one man that he consulted from outside, and

on that basis felt it necessary to reject a very sound

principle.

Now we come to another issue, which is where all this money

has gone for the 27 housing starts. We don't seem to know where

it's gone and we don't seem to know who's spending it. Perhaps

the Minister has an executive assistant that he might consult

who could tell him. But one way or another, I think, before

this

section passes we should hear from the Minister what the

structure of his department is, who's spending the money, how

they've spent the money in the past and how they intend to

spend it in the future.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr.

[ Page 1218 ]

Chairman, I certainly think the sum of $10 million is a lot

of money. Now I realize that the Minister intimated last night,

"What's a million dollars?" You know what happened to him, eh?

But even the interest on this $10 million is a lot of money

when you start looking at the taxes that an individual pays.

$300 or $400 a year. For some of them that's a great burden on

them, and we start throwing $10 million around the Legislature;

we spend money like it was going out of style. The Minister

should at least have the courtesy to tell us if this $9 million

has been expended on land, the acquisition of land. Has it been

spent on…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I draw to your attention — I

said it earlier — that this

section deals with the transfer of

the remaining money. The accounting of the money in the housing

incentive fund is not what's under debate now. If you want to

raise that question, I suggest you do it by a question on the

order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's where it should be answered, not

here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd ask the Member to speak to

section

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman,

section 7 as I read it

says that "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, from time to

time, authorize the Minister of Finance to pay from" …revenue funds

and the other funds… "in such proportions…" — money in such

proportions. It doesn't say how much, just

in such proportions as the Minister of Finance considers

requisite.

Now my point is, Mr. Chairman, that he's already had $10

million and he's spent $9 million of it. He can't tell us where

the $9 million has gone and yet, by this section, he wants us

to give him authority to spend whatever portions the Minister

of Finance wants to give him. That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I

think that the Minister should stand up and tell us: did he buy

land with this $9 million? Did he use it in supervising? — which he could very well do. You know, the Minister hasn't had

that much business experience; he could spend the whole $9

million just supervising the purchase and planning.

If he bought land, where did he buy it? On the island? Is it

in Victoria? Is it in Vancouver? Is it in Prince Rupert? Where

was this land acquired for housing? Where is the greatest need?

That's all we're asking. I think it's a perfectly legitimate

question. I think the Minister should stand up and answer

it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We are talking about the remaining money

in this thing. I can maybe satisfy both sides of the question

by saying that we'll spend the remaining amount in the fund in

the same way that the expended portions have been expended. On

the requests from municipalities and regional districts, and

from the United Housing Foundation in some instances, we have

also considered the suitability of certain pieces of land for

housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did it cost money to do this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have had independent appraisals taken

after the suitability has been decided upon. Then we've entered

negotiations to purchase certain portions of land, some of

which are in the Capital Regional District. In addition to that

there have been a few acquisitions in the Interior of the

province and up-Island and up the coast. But they all have been

subject to appraisals by certified appraisers.

The purpose, I think, was asked. The purpose was for

housing, not acquiring land for highway rights-of-way or other

things, as someone almost suggested. That's the manner in which

the remaining portion will be expended: land banking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 7 (2) talks about a fund, and it

says that the Minister of Finance can put virtually the money

he desires into the fund, "such amount as may be required for

the purposes of supervising, acquiring, developing,

maintaining, improving, and disposing of housing in the

province." Now we've had basically a repeat of the words of the

Act in the mouth of the Minister, talking about appraisals,

negotiations, purchases, consideration of suitability, and he

mentioned quite properly — and I thank him for this — that all

are subject to appraisal and that the purpose is housing.

We were struck that this was a curious thing, that we'd use

the Housing Incentive Fund Act for housing instead of for

highways, but apparently it was thought necessary to throw that

in. The fact is that we want to know where $9 million has gone.

We want to know where the $1 million remaining in the fund

under

section 7 (1) and such other moneys….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to draw to your attention that you're

not discussing the Housing Incentive Fund Act now. You're

discussing

section 7 of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And I'll draw to your attention, Mr.

Chairman, that in the second to bottom line of

section 7 (1)

the words Housing Incentive Fund Act occur, and in the whole of

section 7 (1) we are dealing with remaining moneys in the

Housing Incentive Fund Act .

[ Page 1219 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: But this

section instructs that that be turned

over to this fund and to this portfolio, and I don't think that

you're discussing that Act. You're discussing the instruction

of what's in this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we're discussing in this section, 7

( 1), the unexpended balance at that date of the sum of $10

million, authorized to be paid under the Housing Incentive Fund

Act , to be paid into a fund called the Housing Fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's going from one fund to another.

Apparently the original fund had the wrong name. But by

changing the name of a fund, I don't think you can exclude us

from discussing it in this bill.

section 7 (2) we go on that the Minister of Finance may

pay "such amount as may be required for the purposes of

supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving, and

disposing of housing." It appears that the record so far shows

that nothing has been spent on supervising because we don't

have the information available as to what has been spent. The

supervisory function apparently has been non-existent.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate what

steps he's going to take so that if we grant him under this Act

not only the extra $1 million but further sums of money, he

will as Minister have some idea of where the money is going.

Has it gone, the previous money that's been expended, to

purchase or to buy out the University of British Columbia's

interest in the endowment lands?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, has it? I don't know. I now see

that the real Minister of housing is having her say at things — the Minister of condominiums, water resources and other

things.

We want to know where money goes, and I think that before we

pass the

section we should be given some indication of how the

one originally in the Housing Incentive Fund Act has been

spent. How can we give the rest of it? How can we throw the

other $1 million if it's not been properly spent? Surely it

would be irresponsible for legislators to do that.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This is the section, Mr.

Chairman, which deals with the Minister submitting an annual

report to the Legislature, and I'm a little frightened, really, with what that report might

contain. I therefore move an amendment by adding subsection

(2) and renumbering accordingly: "The Public Bodies Financial

Information Act applies to the annual report to be submitted to

the Legislative Assembly," because I don't think it's

good enough for the Minister to submit a report in this

assembly that might contain glossy pictures of housing

projects, of land accumulated under the land bank Act or under

the land bank concept, or a glossy picture of a Minister in the

front of his report. That's not good enough. We want more than

that.

We don't want to know how many condominiums the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has

disposed of either, because I think the press is quite capable

of finding that out for themselves.

The Minister has convinced me more than ever before, by his

failure to explain expenditures of the $9 million expended

under this fund, of the necessity to incorporate in

section 8

an amendment that refers to the Public Bodies Financial

Information Act . God, if we were worried before, you'd better

believe we're worried now with the handling of the funds of

this corporation.

There is nothing wrong: this is enlightened legislation,

passed in 1961 by that enlightened government of 1961. It

deals with the question of submitting a financial report, and

it spells out just what should be contained in that report.

That's what this annual report should contain also: a statement

of the assets and liabilities; an operational statement; a

statement of debts; a statement showing all remuneration,

bonuses, and gratuities paid to each employee; a statement

showing all expenses paid on behalf of each employee; and a

statement showing each individual account, in the amount of

$500 or more, paid in the last financial year and showing all

other accounts paid as a consolidated total.

What's wrong with the incorporation of this Act in the

annual report which the Minister will be introducing? I think

we have a right to know where public funds are being expended.

We're here as watchdogs of the public purse. We're elected to

come down here to ensure that the tax dollars are wisely spent

and to scrutinize their expenditures. We don't want any hidden

figures. I think if you will accept this amendment which allows

the divulging of the expenditures of these funds, it will make

for more enlightened debate, it will make for more acceptable

cooperation, it will ensure that the Minister is not accused

of a sinister plot and of not giving a full accounting….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) gets something

[ Page 1220 ]

going with the press. He's almost as bad as the Minister of

housing. He's always checking the press gallery. He's in a

jovial mood this morning, and that's most unusual for him.

Really we are talking about a full accounting of the

expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, and I think, as the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says so well, "Let the sun shine

in."

Mr. Chairman, is the Minister going to sit on his fat

cushion and refuse to tell us that he's going to give a full

accounting of the expenditure of tax dollars? We're here to

make sure that the dollars the taxpayers pay into the public

treasury are wisely spent and accounted for as well.

It is not good enough for a new Minister being given the

power of expenditure of tax dollars to sit back and not be

prepared to vindicate himself or defend his position of failure

to give an accounting to the representatives of the people on

the floor of this assembly. That's not good enough, and if that

Minister doesn't stand up he's not worthy of being a Minister

of the Crown. He's not worthy of being a Minister of the Crown!

Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What hypocrisy!

MR. McCLELLAND: It isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman. That

Minister by his silence is only confirming that he will not

make full financial accounting to the people of British

Columbia. If he continues to sit silently, then we know and the

people of British Columbia know that this housing Ministry will

have something to hide and that it will not make full financial

accounting. If he does not want to accept this amendment which,

once again, only provides some procedures so that we can be

sure that we know what is going on with the expenditures of

this department, then we can only take that as

confirmation.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister wish to speak, Mr.

Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment, we've sat and listened to the

debate of the committee and the antics of the Ministers over the last few hours

of the legislative time. We've heard the Minister, who has been a Minister,

Mr. Chairman, for nearly six months now a Minister Without Portfolio, a Minister

who has had nothing else to do but tend to the affairs of his developing department.

He's been fully paid for his time and his expenses that are involved, I understand

that he's done a fair amount of travelling, and yet during the debate all he

can talk about when he's referring to the Municipal Act is "this thing." He

stopped on "this paper." He doesn't even seem to be well acquainted with the

terminology of the Municipal Act , or other Acts, or his own department.

MR. CHABOT: He knows where the press gallery is, though.

MRS. JORDAN: He has shown a consistent need and dependency

upon other people's advice as to whether he should answer

questions and what he should say. This has led to conflict in

his own statements. In another part of the debate on the bill

which we are intending to amend and in which we want some

accountability, he was asked about funds and he said, "Well, we

sort of spent some money." Then under constant questioning it

was finally revealed, Mr. Chairman, that he has spent $9

million out of the $10 million — $9 million. And this Minister

calls this "sort of spending."

The people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, call this a

great deal of spending — $9 million or hard-earned, taxpayers'

money. We want to be sure in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that

the Minister isn't going to come into the House and talk about

"sort of spending" $9 million, or $20 million or $30 million,

that he isn't going to talk about the things that he's

acquired, which we presume are going to be properties and

homes.

Nine million dollars has been spent, and all we know is that

some of it was in the capital region, some of it was here, some

of it was there. Mr. Chairman, that just isn't good enough. The

people of British Columbia want to know, and we want to ensure

through this amendment that they will know and that we will

know, exactly where this money is being spent, what the names

of the places are that he's spending dollars on, what is being

done with these places and what compensation is being paid out

of the fund for the places that he acquires.

That is the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I would

hope that the amendment is considered reasonable and that the

Minister would get up and show us that he is indeed capable of

being a Minister of the Crown, that he has learned in these

short six months that you must also have business ability when

you are a Minister of the Crown. Above all you must have

accountability and credibility, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister evidently is not going to accept

this amendment. That concerns me a great deal, Mr. Chairman,

because when we can't have full accounting of the money spent

by a department, particularly by a new Minister who has shown

his indecisiveness already, I'm afraid when he does make a

decision he might make some wrong ones. I think it is in the

general interest of the public of British Columbia to know

where the money is going to be spent. Don't you, Mr. Chairman?

Sure!

You know, Mr. Chairman, the thing that bothers

[ Page 1221 ]

me is that we are not talking about $10 million. This

department of housing, if it functions the way that I think the

government wants it to function, could involve not $10 million,

but hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a big department,

it's an important department, and it's one that we support in

principle. We voted for it.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the reaction from the

government during third reading in committee stage when we were

trying to get some decent amendments worked into this so it'll

be a functional bill — little guidelines to save the Minister

embarrassment later on…. I think if he's not going to accept

this amendment, he should at least stand on the floor of this

Legislature and tell us why he's not going to accept it.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about a small

amount of money here; we're talking about possibly hundreds of

millions of dollars in the hands of a cabinet Minister without

any previous business experience, in the hands of a cabinet

Minister who has already shown his indecisiveness. Mr.

Chairman, we're talking about taxpayers' dollars; we're talking

about the very dollars from the taxpayers and the homeowners of

this province who he is going to build the houses for.

Mr. Chairman, I think you should, if possible, exercise your

prerogative. Give the Minister an opportunity to stand on the

floor of this Legislature and tell us why he won't accept this

amendment. As I say, we in the opposition party voted for the

principle of this bill; we think it's a good idea. But I think

if we don't get more cooperation from that indecisive

Minister, we're going to have to vote against it in third

reading because the bill needs some changes.

We brought forward some good changes, but the Minister just

sits there and blankly looks into space. When he does stand,

he's got something up there — I don't know what he's looking at

but he says he can't stand to look at the opposition. Well, I

don't know what he thinks we're down here for. Maybe we're

getting to the meat of the problem and that's why he doesn't

want to look at us. But I'd like to know why the Minister won't

accept this amendment.

Interjections.

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

Well, the old claptrap brigade is at it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the wrong Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's another defence Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You voted for the funds. You know this Legislature

has control over analyzing the expenditure of the funds. You know the kinds

of annual reports that you required, that have been consistently required, in

this Legislature. You know we have the authority, all of us in this chamber,

to review those funds. It's just too much, too much to listen to the continual

garbage from that loyal opposition over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Saving taxpayers' money isn't garbage.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the few months that we've been in

office, this government changed the public accounts committee.

Who's the chairman of the public accounts committee in British

Columbia? The chairman is right over there, the Hon. Member for

the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). The chairman of the public accounts

committee has full authority to review all of the expenditures

of every department, and all of you know that. Continuing to

peddle this kind of garbage is going to decimate the ranks of

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to the point where you will

equal the Union Nationale in Quebec. That's the future that you

look to.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we finally heard from the Minister of

defence. He stood up and gave his usual political snow job,

never talking about the amendment, talking about the public

accounts committee which has not even been restructured this

session. Goes to show you how much he knows what's going on. He

doesn't even know what's going on in his own department; he's

admitted that on numerous occasions in the past.

Talk about a weak argument. You've got your Member as the

chairman of the public accounts committee and the government

hasn't even reconstituted that committee. What are you talking

about? What kind of double-talk rubbish do we get from that

Minister of condominiums over there? What a weak argument! Mr.

Minister, if you've got nothing better to add to the debate

than that, you might as well keep sitting down and smiling away

over there.

But I think I asked a question on day 1 of this parliament,

almost two months ago, on the question of the expenditure of

money for acquisition of the land bank. And I'm waiting to this

very day for an accounting, for an explanation of where the

money has been spent. The Minister says you can get it through

the public accounts committee. The Minister is unwilling to

answer after two months; he's unwilling to tell the

representatives of the people before this assembly as to where

this money has been spent. He's unwilling or unable, I don't

know which. I think you have a responsibility to speak up and

tell the people where their tax dollars are being spent and

whether they're being spent wisely or foolishly. Only

[ Page 1222 ]

until we get those answers and whether they're being spent

wisely or foolishly.

I think we have the responsibility to ensure that there's a

full disclosure, that this government does not hide behind

glossy reports with pictures of the Minister in housing

projects, and probably the Minister of Forestry cutting the

ribbon. I don't think that's good enough for the facts of the

expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

We have a responsibility to scrutinize those expenditures

here. That's one of the prime reasons we are elected to this

House: to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars were being wisely

spent, to ensure that we scrutinize those expenditures as well.

I think there should be full disclosure, and that's what this

amendment's all about. If you don't accept this amendment, Mr.

Minister, you have something to hide.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I can't let this

opportunity pass without commenting on that public accounts

committee, because the public accounts committee which has a

chairman from our party is studying accounts that are two years

old — accounts that were held by the former government, not by

the present government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

this is a very important matter that the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has

raised. It's quite obvious that if he ever sat as a member of

the public accounts committee, he doesn't know how limited its

authority is. He doesn't recognize that the only kind of

inquiry that can be made is into the vouchers for expenditures

for the preceding fiscal period. That would mean that at this

particular time if this committee were sitting and carrying on

its activities, it could deal with expenditures which continued

up until March 31 of this year only. Nothing of a current

nature whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's very important that the Members of the House,

if they haven't taken time, do take the time to read the kind

of information that would be given to this House and to the

public generally if indeed, the Public Bodies Financial

Information Act were made applicable to this Ministry and in

particular to the corporations that may be established — what,

in fact, is the kind of information that must be disclosed.

I don't see why, speaking about disclosures, a government

which has spoken so strongly about open government — the Attorney

General and his sunshine legislation — would ever consider

refusing this amendment because, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon.

Members, this is the kind of information that will be available

to you without request, without demand, or without inquiry by

the public accounts committee.

Why should you not be entitled to know, for your own benefit

and for that of your constituents specifically, a statement of

the assets and liabilities of this fund or of the housing

corporation? What's wrong with that?

An operational statement, a statement of its debt, is this

asking anything which should be withheld from Members of this

House or from the public? A statement showing all remuneration,

bonuses and gratuities paid to each employee, is that something

which should be hidden? Is that not something you are entitled

to have as a matter of right without having to go to the public

accounts committee and a searching inquiry? A statement showing

all expenses paid on behalf of each employee, is there any

reason why you shouldn't have that information as a matter of

right without having to ask for it?

A statement showing each individual account in an amount of

$500 or more, paid during the last financial year, and showing

all other accounts paid as a consolidated debt, is there any

reason that you should not know what each individual expense in

excess of $500 in fact was, with all the details?

Is there any reason that this Minister, his department, and

any corporation that he may deem necessary to establish should

not provide us with this information annually so that we can

review the performance of this Minister and of these

corporations? Are we asking so much? What are you trying to

hide?

The Minister, yesterday, in response to a question posed to

him by the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), gave a

commitment to this House that there would be financial

disclosure. But where is it? Mr. Chairman, we've had a number

of funds established by the previous administration. They are

almost, well, not limitless — Green Belt Protection Fund, all

kinds of funds. And how did we ever get any information as to

the assets held in those funds? Only because that Member put

questions on the order paper, and finally got answers. There

was no disclosure of what those funds held. No automatic

statement delivered to this House annually as to what its

assets and its liabilities were, what the debts were, how much

moneys were paid to employees. But if the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act had applied, then that information

would be available.

Why, Mr. Chairman, under this new administration with this

new start, are we spending $9 million in less than six months

on the matter of land acquisition and housing which the

Minister doesn't know about and going on to spend limitless

millions of dollars? Are we not entitled to have this

information delivered into this House every year as a matter of

public record?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The amendment, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1223 ]

is not one which in any way hampers this government or this

Minister from carrying out the responsibilities that this

legislation gives to the department of housing. It only

ensures, when he carries out those responsibilities, that he

will be conscious at all times that every Member of this House

and every member of the public of British Columbia will be in a

position to scrutinize the kind of expenditures he makes. They

will be able to judge for themselves the performance of this

Minister and of this department.

Why doesn't he accept the amendment? Is he afraid to accept

the amendment? Is he afraid of this responsibility? Is he

afraid to disclose? What does he hope to gain by hiding?

Mr. Chairman, if we don't have this information disclosed to

us fairly and freely each year, then I'll tell you, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Minister, that the public accounts

committee and the Members of the opposition will search out

every expenditure, difficult as the task may be, lay it on the

floor of this House and make it public. If there are

difficulties in obtaining the information, and if assumptions

need to be made as to the appropriateness of any expenditure

which might indicate some criticism of the Minister, then he

has only himself to blame, because he's been given the

opportunity with this amendment to ensure that the information

from his department through the Department of Finance comes in

the form in which he wishes to present it. All this talk about

public accounts and the accountability of the Crown is

something which, after all these years and all the difficulties

we had under the previous administration, should no longer need

to be debated in this House. Be honest with us and with the

people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's an emerging

pattern from the opposition that they bring in amendments which

are absolutely unworkable. If the Members would take the

trouble to read the Act respecting public bodies financial

information, there is no definition section, for one thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It cites that "every corporation,

association, board, commission or society to which a grant or

advance may be made, or the borrowings of which may be

guaranteed under the authority of various Acts, shall give a

statement of assets, liabilities, operational statements…" and so

on.

It would be, of course, the intention under

section 4 of

this Act, in the case of a non-profit society such as, for

example, the United Housing Foundation where an advance is made…

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure. "They should disclose…."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: "They should disclose," yes, and

so on and so forth. And by order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council we can direct that this shall

apply to such a grant under

section 4. The actions of the

department are accountable and there will be no need to hide

things.

I must point out that the area of land acquisition is a

sensitive area. People point out things about business practice

and such. Until a particular acquisition has been completed,

it's most unwise to disclose selling prices or the fact that

any activity is even taking place in a certain area.

MR. McCLELLAND: You don't do it until the sale is

completed.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It might involve five or six sales to

complete one transaction. But certainly, until these things are

complete, it would not be doing the people of the province a

service to disclose that the activity is taking place. It would

increase costs; it would be a burden to the people of the

province.

This Act is really not the proper instrument to require

financial statements for a governmental department. I've read

it. I feel that disclosures will be made in this department as

they are in any other that…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we're afraid of.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …has a great deal of financial

expenditure. There will be estimates and such.

MR. GARDOM: The last remark of the Minister was the most

interesting one of all. He said that he supposed disclosures

would be made in this department as they are made in other

departments. I would presuppose that the Minister would say — if I asked him what are the amounts of capital cost expenditure

expended to date and for what purposes, by or for the

department of housing, furnishing full particulars, and what

are its capital cost expenditures so far estimated or projected

for the future, furnishing full particulars — that those

answers would come in readily. That's just a bunch of

hogwash!

We've asked the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) that very question about the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia six weeks ago and there hasn't

been one

[ Page 1224 ]

word of answer from him yet. What we're requiring here with

this amendment is not accountability via inquisition, not by

virtue of dragging the Ministers of the Crown kicking and

screaming into giving information. We're asking under this

amendment for accountability as of right — and it should be as

of right; it's public money.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know whether we should ask this

Minister to get up and answer questions any more, because each

time he does he betrays himself more. Now we know that he

doesn't understand the Public Bodies Financial Information Act

either. I believe before this debate is over we'll find that he

doesn't understand any of the Acts in government …

AN HON. MEMBER: Or anything else.

MR. McCLELLAND: …or anything else. It's incredible that

the Minister would stand up and say that this kind of Act

applies only to a society where the government gives it a

grant. All you have to do is read the kinds of bodies that it

already applies to and you'll see that's utter nonsense — the

Municipalities Assistance Act , the Hospital Insurance Act, the

Government Liquor Act , the Power Act , the Public Schools Act

and on and on and on. It's

an Act which is only for the

protection of the people of British Columbia so that they may

have full disclosure. I say once again, if you reject this

amendment out of hand, as you've done, then you confirm that

you're not in favour of full disclosure for your department.

And that's criminal.

One of the other arguments that the Minister Without

Portfolio made was that "we can't disclose because we can't

interfere with the area of negotiation for land acquisition."

Nobody expects you to interfere with that right of privilege

and that right of confidentiality. All we want you to do is

tell us after you've made a purchase. We don't want to know

before what kind of negotiations you're making, but once you've

made a purchase we expect you to tell the people of British

Columbia how much you paid for whatever it was you bought — and

in every other area of concern as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. McCLELLAND: It might be a good idea to rise and report

progress on this bill so that the Minister could go out and

study some of the related bills which will relate to his

department and bills with which he'll have to work in order to

make his department work, because he obviously…

AN HON. MEMBER: He should go and consult that man.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, he should go out and consult that

friend of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), the

man in the corner, the man from outside this Legislature…

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's up in the gallery.

MR. McCLELLAND: …up in the gallery or wherever he is, the

man who's giving the Minister all this bad advice. Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to move that we rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got no Members in the House over there. How

come?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand the Minister's

reluctance. It's difficult to understand why the Minister

doesn't want to provide for a full disclosure in his

department.

This is a good Act. It's

an Act that adds to the other

protections in this Legislature, so that we know that the

bodies which are set up by action of a particular Ministry will

be responsible to the people of British Columbia and to this

Legislature.

We have a bill before the House which will ask for all of

the corporations which this department will be setting up to

fall under the jurisdiction of this Act. There's no other

jurisdiction in Canada or in North America or anywhere else

that I can think of, Mr. Chairman, which has given itself the

power to pick the pockets of the people of British Columbia

with almost unlimited abandon.

The reason we need to ask that this kind of Act be

applicable to this kind of legislation is that the government

cannot be trusted. It has shown that it can't be trusted with

an open key to the Treasury door with no accountability. All we

are asking for is accountability. This government, in its few

months of operation, has thrown the concept of fiscal

responsibility right out the window. That's what concerns

us.

Every time the Minister gets up and talks about what

an Act

means and what

an Act doesn't mean and betrays his ignorance

about the workings of government and the workings of his own

young department, then our fears grow worse. That is why we are

so insistent for that measure of accountability which we're not

getting from this government. It's not good enough for that

Minister to say, "I suppose we'll report to the Legislature in

the same manner that other departments are required to report."

That's what scares us, Mr. Chairman. That's the kind of thing

we want to protect in this government.

[ Page 1225 ]

MR. McGEER: The Minister of housing on the one hand has

given us false reassurances and on the other has given us

terrifying insights.

On the one hand he tells us that, of course, there will be

full disclosure, he even reads sections of the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act . He neglects to tell us that nowhere

in that Public Bodies Financial Information Act is there any

reference to his particular bill. So it requires either an

amendment to this bill or an amendment to the other before

there is any obligation at all to disclose. That amounts to a

false reassurance.

The terrifying disclosure comes when he tells us that it

would be against the public interest to disclose what the

government was doing. Suddenly I had that deja vu experience of

all the years of debate we had in this House about land deals

of the former government and their friends where the lack of

disclosure was the base of the complaint. In this case, it will

be the government which will be glumming individuals out of the

full value of their land; in the other case, it was friends of

the government.

The principle is the same. If you are failing to disclose,

you are being sneaky and evasive. What you are doing is denying

the person who is selling the opportunity to get full and fair

value for his land. That's why government, more than anyone

else, must lay their cards face up on the table.

Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing is a whole pattern. The

Minister of housing is the one we are questioning today, but we

have seen it appear in legislation in any number of Acts

undertaken by the Ministers. Quite frankly, the one I just

couldn't quite stomach was from the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) trying to tell the

Members of the Legislative Assembly how it was in the public

accounts committee. Believe me, he's not above land

speculation. I never heard anybody criticize others more

strongly while he was doing it himself; I never heard any

Minister stand in this House and castigate a government more

thoroughly for secretiveness and evasiveness, and then find the

Minister doing precisely the same thing in a much more skilful

way.

Mr. Chairman, he was the Minister who appeared before the

public accounts committee, rounding up the NDP majority in that

committee to try and sidetrack the efforts of the committee

just to have the executives of the B.C. Hydro appear and

describe the general policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks….

MR. McGEER: I know the Premier doesn't like this sort of

thing to come out and I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. We

discovered, not more than five months later, the real reasons

for that Minister's actions. Why don't you stay in here for the debates and you

would understand what we are discussing. It would pay you to

spend a little more time listening to what is said in the House

and less giving interviews out in the corridor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: What we're discussing here is the financial

accountability of that Minister's department and the fact that

he is trying to avoid the issue of placing the details of his

department's expenditures under the Public Bodies Financial

Information Act .

HON. MR. BARRET: Absolute nonsense.

MR. McGEER: "Absolute nonsense," says the Premier.

This is what happens when you are not present for debate. Had

he been present, he would have heard what we said earlier:

namely that there is no requirement in the Minister's bill that

it come under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act . All

the Acts listed under the Public Bodies Financial Information

Act naturally don't include this one because it hasn't yet been

passed. You either bring in a simultaneous amendment to that

other Act or you include the necessary amendment to this

Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's debate the amendment.

MR. McGEER: That's why, Mr. Premier, had you been present

for the debate, you would be aware of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please

address the chair?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, all I am doing is reviewing

some of the arguments presented by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) in his typical

bombastic fashion.

He tried to tell us that all of the information we were

asking for would be available in public accounts. Bunkum! Who

appears before public accounts trying to prevent even the

simplest information from surfacing? That very Minister. He

didn't want us asking the executives of B.C. Hydro the kinds of

questions about the overall financial operations of that

corporation. Only the information he would like to present on

the floor of the House is the information elected Members

should get.

He isn't a director of the B.C. Railway, but when they

appeared who was running defence for them? The Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Then we soon

learned why it was he was running defence: the questions we

were asking were a little too sensitive. We were prevented

[ Page 1226 ]

from making investigations at that time. When the

Comptroller-General went in — we have no Auditor-General in

B.C. — what we suspected as being true was true. The one Member

of the government who knew that, was the Minister of Transport

and Communications who was trying to sidetrack that

committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. McGEER: He is strangely silent. So you see, Mr.

Chairman, the Ministers of the Crown whose interests are

vitally affected are the ones who come to the public accounts

committee to try and prevent the elected Members from getting

the information and revealing it to the public. That's a

principle which is well established by this government.

I want to commend the Premier, Mr. Chairman, because he

hasn't come to public accounts to do that sort of thing.

Indeed, he's been helpful. He sent the Comptroller-General in

to look the situation over and he's made the reports of those

civil servants available. That's certainly a step forward

because it not only gives information to the public through the

elected Members but it shows the rot that sets in with the kind

of system that denies public accountability.

B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail were required to report under the

Public Bodies Financial Information Act , but we can't get

detailed vouchers. I have been asking for those vouchers for

years. Both the civil service and the government Members always

run around and defend against that kind of scrutiny.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No. I'm not attacking the civil service. I'm

saying that they try and defend what they are doing and you

defend them too. You defend what you are doing. It's mutually

advantageous to do that, very advantageous: not to have public

scrutiny of your financial actions. It makes it much easier to

operate, much easier. But that isn't in the public interest, as

we've found out so often in the past.

Now we've got one more Act, one more Minister in the Act…

$10 million, $9 million of it gone on 27 housing starts — and

he's not even sure where that went.

So you can see the necessity for reforming the whole system.

The public accounts committee isn't even sitting during this

session of the Legislature because it hasn't been constituted.

We're not allowed to look into any of the spending accounts of

any government department or Crown corporation. That's how

interested the government is in this kind of scrutiny.

When the Minister is already telling us how dangerous it is to disclose the

actions of his Ministry, giving us false reassurances about what he intends

to provide for us — not in any way required to do so by statute — taking advice

from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams)

right on the floor of the House, who has run interference for the Crown corporation

he serves just as the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has done the

same for the Crown corporation he serves, we're supposed to stand up here and

accept those kind of explanations.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that isn't good enough. It wouldn't be

good enough even if this amendment were passed. It would

certainly constitute a start. It wouldn't allow us to probe

into the propriety of any expenditures or advances that were

made because we wouldn't be able to get our hands on any

vouchers. We would only get the overall statement that appears

in that public body — which is an advance; the former

government should be commended for having introduced it.

Even that requires a system for greater exploration. We have

no auditor general; that's a handicap. Of course, Mr.

Chairman, now we're playing the market: telephone company,

mining companies, mutual funds. What is he going to invest in,

Mr. Chairman — Block Bros.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: Buy up the "108"; Wall & Redekop, certainly.

There are all kinds of opportunities because he can form a

corporation to do these things.

But nowhere do I see anything in this Act that would require

him to reveal whether he were investing in Block Bros. or a

service station along the Cassiar-Stewart highway. All of these

things are quite possible.

All that we want is to see the government voluntarily

provide a few restraints on their own powers and begin, through

their legislation, to live up to all those promises they made

in speech after speech after speech, when they were in

opposition, that they would be an open government.

I can remember the session we had last fall. They tried to

kid us along about how open the government was going to be.

They put a little report out here and a little report out

there. Then the iron door came down. Act after Act after Act — purchase, lease, acquire, and then the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could pass such regulations

which were not inconsistent with all those broad powers — for

Transport, for Mines, for virtually every department.

Buy stock in any corporation — no controls built in even if they were telling

what they were doing, no guarantees of any kind. They could go ahead and spend

the people's money in any way they saw fit. And if they make mistakes with it,

well, they'll bury those. They'll put them down one of those abandoned mine

shafts we're going to have in British Columbia.

[ Page

1227 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Lots more where that came from.

MR. McGEER: The Minister's explanations aren't good enough.

There are important matters of principle here and we don't like

the double-talk from the government. They said one thing when

they were in opposition and they're doing a very different

thing when they're in government.

I'd like to hear from the Minister just exactly how he

rationalizes all of this. I would like the Premier to join the

debate and tell us about his open government — perhaps also the

Attorney General. Let's have some indication of just how open

this open government intends to be.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief. I have listened to the

debate and I can certainly recall sitting in this House

listening to the NDP Members, who were then the opposition,

making just about every single one of the points made by the

opposition today. It is in sad contradiction to that stance

which they took that we see their performance today.

We have all heard in this debate how we have a crisis in

housing and, as one of the former Members mentioned, very large

sums of money will inevitably be involved. And here we're

dealing with further corporations to be set up.

I can remember the Premier, when he was official Leader of

the Opposition, making some very penetrating, valid, angry

speeches in this House, waving and gesticulating at the former

Premier from South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett), demanding that

the government of that day pay heed to the fact that it was

taxpayers' money that was being spent by these Crown

corporations and that there had to be accountability.

I agree that the Premier has, in some measure, widened the

effectiveness of the public accounts committee. But I get the

impression in debating this amendment that the attitude of the

government seems to be that if each Member of the opposition

wishes to be a Sherlock Holmes and go to a great degree of

detective work, by dint of much effort, much time and

conscientious research he could probably find out all the

financial information which we, as Members of the opposition,

are entitled to.

The opinion of this party is much simpler than that. It

should not be necessary for the opposition to be a bunch of

detectives. If the government believes in open exposure of its

financial affairs, they should be taking the initiative of

including in the legislation a clear responsibility to come

forward and provide all the financial information without the

scrutiny and detective work which seems to be necessary to get

to the root of what is going on in this kind of department.

Former speakers have mentioned that this bill apparently does not come under

the Public Bodies Financial Information Act . It may well be that the Premier

can tell us that he intends to do this. Perhaps we should have an amendment

brought in right now by the government to clarify that point.

It is really distressing for me to try to accept that the

opposition has to spend hours of debate hammering away at a

vital principle which this government itself was so keen to

support when it was in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WALLACE: That is the toughest part for me to take today.

The same comes up on the subject of expropriation, and I've got

an amendment coming up on that in just a minute. The toughest

thing for me to take today and on previous days is on matters

of principle: the rights of the individual, avenues of appeal,

the protection of his property, defence against government

powers. These were all things that that very government used to

preach from this side of the House. That, surely, is very hard

for the Premier to refute.

I can remember the number of times I have looked down and

admired the Premier at that time for fighting for these kinds

of ideas that I'm in this House to fight for. Here we come

today and get nothing but namby-pamby answers from the Minister

of housing when all we're asking is that this bill should make

it very clear that with the vast sums of money that that

department is going to spend, it should not require a bunch of

legislative detectives to find out who's paying for what and

when.

That is why I feel that the Premier right now can set the

record straight and introduce whatever amendment he considers

necessary to satisfy a very valid demand on a point of

principle: the accountability of government to the

taxpayer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I prefer responding, quite frankly, to the

valid questions raised by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace),

made without hysteria, and without the clichés that are

involved.

In terms of the public scrutiny, I have not forgotten my

role when I was Leader of the Opposition. I think, if you'll

permit me, because you have asked these questions under this

section, I should remind you of some of the things that we've

already done.

We have made a Member of the opposition chairman of the

public accounts committee; we have doubled the research staff

to the official opposition; we have assured that each

opposition party has a research officer. None of these moves

was ever present in the House before, Mr. Member.

I don't want necessarily to apply these remarks to the

official opposition, and go through the old

[ Page 1228 ]

hypocrisy arguments all over again. It was a commitment we

made. It was never available under the former government. But

it should be restated, because those who wish only to be

involved politically in the thing should be reminded of their

own political past.

Two research officers for the official opposition, one

research officer for each opposition party, instituted by the

New Democratic Party government. Never done before in the

history of this province. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, a Member

of the opposition is the head of public accounts.

Mr. Chairman, along with this, the opportunity of

questioning a Minister through estimates is there. Mr. Member,

along with bringing in the auditor-general's reports on BCR and

B.C. Hydro and making those available to the House — which I've

already done — I tell you right now that this Crown corporation

will be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information

Act .

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There will be no way, Mr. Member…. This

argument of including it in every single bill I find not valid

at all. I'm telling you right now that this Crown corporation

will be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information

Act .

I have not, as Minister of Finance, played any of the games

of the former administration. I have not been involved in

recanting on any of the commitments I have made. I lived

through that kind of fiscal nonsense for 12 years and I don't

intend it to go on in British Columbia, whether we're in power

or someone else is in power. We've had enough of that.

If you'll examine another bill introduced today, it's to

eliminate the sham in terms of grants to the B.C. Railway

instead of expanding shares like they played games with before.

It's an outright grant. We're being honest about the handling

of funds in British Columbia.

Mr. Member, in the opposition on this issue I challenge you — not so much that claptrap group over there because of their

incredibly horrible record in this matter. I'm speaking

directly to you, Mr. Member, and to the Liberal group, who have

been consistent in this regard and who have the only valid

claim on a basis of argument in this debate. Certainly not the

official opposition, based on their history.

I assure you that this will come under the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act . It will be supervised as is every

Crown corporation. The actions of every single Crown

corporation, every single penny that's spent by this government

will be available for the Members of this House.

If you don't have enough research staff — which we've doubled for the official

opposition, made available for the first time to the Liberals and to the Conservatives

— then make an appeal to me for more research staff. If you can validate your

appeal we'll give you more research staff. We want the opposition to work and

to work efficiently.

We'll make everything available including secretarial help,

as we've done and which they never did, and research staff for

minor opposition groups, which they never did. We will assist

even further with secretarial help. If you don't have enough

time in public accounts under that chairman, we'll make more

time. We want everything possible to be out on the table.

There it is, Mr. Member, there it is. To go through this

whole nonsense on every single

section — not from you or from

the Liberals but from that group — is sheer hypocrisy in my

opinion, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MRS. JORDAN: $52,000 a year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, did you send your money back? You sent

your money back?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the words of the Premier.

We certainly appreciate the fact that he has made available research staff to

Members of the opposition. We recognize the fact that the public accounts committee

is now under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). We

applaud him for that. We thank him for bringing forward the B.C. Rail reports

as he's doing and promised to do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want thanks. It's just good

government. It's the way it should be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's good government and we thank you for

providing, Mr. Premier, good government in this respect.

We also thank you for the sentiments which you've expressed.

But perhaps this morning when you were out of the chamber, you

overlooked the fact that we came across a situation where $9

million of public money has apparently been spent and no

information….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that question's on the order

paper. It will be answered.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be answered!

MR. GARDOM: When?

[ Page 1229 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem is, Mr. Premier, you're

perfectly correct; a series of questions is on the order paper.

The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), is perfectly

correct; they've been there since the beginning of the

session.

MR. GARDOM: We haven't heard anything about the Insurance

Corporation of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because the information is not

available.

MR. GARDOM: Why didn't he say that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want that as the answer? Okay,

that's the answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We asked for information on ferry

contracts, simple things like what were the specifications

given to two separate companies, one in Canada and one in

United States? We don't get replies.

It's a perfectly simple thing to compare yourself to the

previous administration. I would agree that your government is

performing better than the previous administration in regards

to reporting, but it's a simple thing to compare yourself with

something that is bad and say you are better.

We're asking you to go out and realize that many of our

questions are motivated by a genuine desire to check on public

accounts, a genuine desire to make sure the people's money is

properly spent and also a desire to make sure both opposition

and government in this province have the confidence of the

people. They're not motivated, as you seem to think, entirely

because of Machiavellian….

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not suggesting that of you or of them;

but I can't take it from that group over there. I'll tell you

that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Premier, you correctly point out a

certain problem that we all face when we hear the official

opposition who were responsible for a number of practices which

you have correctly pointed out were very bad. There's no

problem for us in the Liberal Party — I don't know about the

Conservative Party — to accept your point there. But what we

are saying is: Forget about the past; forget about how bad it

was; try to compare yourself with something that is a great

deal better.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will come under the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act. All Crown corporations will. Now if

you're not prepared to accept that, let's have the vote and get

it over with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are consistently getting assurances

from Ministers which are not written into legislation. The

point that we would like to put across to you once again — and

we've been attempting to do it on bill after bill: If it's not

in legislation we are at the whim of a cabinet; if it's in

legislation we are not and we have some constitutional

legislative validity for our questioning.

When we don't get questions answered by Ministers in a

forthright manner, when we don't get them answered within a

reasonable time frame, we feel, regardless of what you're doing

in terms of improving on past records, there is plenty to be

done now. This constant burying your head in the sand, constant

reference to what happened more than a year ago, is well and

good; but it does nothing to help us at the present time and

nothing to help the people of British Columbia.

In situations such as this, where Ministers cannot explain

$9 million worth of expenditure, we have every reason to be

concerned. We will continue to be concerned; we will continue

to raise these points until such time as we get the legislative

requirements that we think we need and until such time as

Ministers start answering questions in a forthright and open

manner instead of by way of concealment or ignoring questions,

as they are doing with question 30 on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's reference to his

research officers really has nothing whatsoever to do with what

we're asking for in this amendment. We appreciate that we have

those research officers and the help that we're getting. It's a

great help. It began as a programme of the official opposition

and it was expanded on by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: We asked for years.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's all. As a new Member I appreciate the

help very much and I thank you for it. But research officers

are generally used as investigative officers, to a large degree

and to give the Members of the Legislature help in preparing

legislation that they might want to bring before this House. As

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out, we don't

want it to be one of our responsibilities to have to dig for

every piece of truth in financial responsibility from this

Government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your job as the opposition.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's your job as the government, Mr. Premier

to make that information

[ Page 1230 ]

available.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're incredible!

MR. McCLELLAND: It's your job, Mr. Premier to make that

information available. You've just confirmed, as has your

Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), that you don't

intend to have public accountability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not true! That's not true!

MR. McCLELLAND: You expect, Mr. Premier….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign if that's not true? Will

you resign if that's not true?

MR. McCLELLAND: You expect…. Sit down!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Stake your seat on it! Stake

your seat on it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member speak to the amendment?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stake your seat on it. Do you mean it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Bulldozer tactics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stake your seat on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Langley please continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to

continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Stick to the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier, in his comments to the amendment, has

indicated that he agrees with his Minister of housing that we won't have full

public accountability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not true.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister's assurances are no good

because he's shown us in the past that we can't accept those

assurances, and all we ask is that he put his money where his

mouth is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not that. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: If he's going to, as he says, make sure that the corporations

set up under the auspices of this department will come under the direction of

the Public Bodies Financial Information Act , then do it. That's all we're asking

for, first of all, in this amendment; we're asking you to accept the amendment

so that we know that those assurances will be kept.

Both the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) have said we

either have to do one or the other; we have to accept this

amendment, or we have to make amendments to the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act .

AN HON. MEMBER: No you don't.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that if you're not prepared,

as you don't seem to be prepared, to accept this amendment,

then why don't you stand up and give us a public assurance

right now, both of you, that you will accept the bill standing

in this House on the order paper in my name which calls for

amendments to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act ,

including the Department of Housing Act ? It's a bill that's in

order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't need amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course it needs an amendment, because it

won't be done without an amendment. The Attorney General is

once again displaying his ignorance about legislation before

this House.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's consistent at least, that's right.

The bill must be amended or you must accept the other bill.

And if this government will stand up and assure us, not with

some kind of vague assurance, but that you will accept the

amendment to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act that

we put forward and include the Department of Housing Act in it,

then we'd be happy to accept that public promise from the

Minister and from the Premier. But no other way can we accept

it, except under those conditions. We won't stand here and

allow the Premier, to baffle and boondoggle the people of

British Columbia in the manner he's so accustomed to, because

we cannot accept his assurances. He's shown us in the past that

his assurances cannot be accepted.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier for

his statements which we asked for. They're reassuring.

At the same time, I think that there's still a vital

[ Page 1231 ]

point at stake because neither the Premier nor the Minister

nor the Attorney General have given us any indication of what

would be harmful to this objective by accepting the opposition

amendment. What we seem to be running into is the same kind of

stubborn obstinacy that has so plagued this Legislature in the

past. Some legislative draftsman writes a bill which is

presented by a Minister who's unsure of its implications. This

lack of confidence and knowledge, and it often extends to other

Ministers like the Attorney General, is exposed when they're

unable to cope with something even fairly simply which is

presented by the opposition. So they give reassurances that at a vague future time….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vague?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we said specifically that when

there's a grant, it will be under this Act. Read

section 4.

Don't lecture this House about that.

MR. McGEER: I'm not lecturing the House. You see, Mr.

Chairman, how irritable this Attorney General is.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He brought in a sunshine bill every year; he was

the acknowledged wit of the Legislative Assembly, always

cheerful and good natured. Now he's in government defending the

indefensible — irritable, short-tempered. Next his squash game

will start falling off, Mr. Chairman.

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

say that happened many years ago. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, expressions of goodwill and good

intent, no matter how honest, sometimes aren't followed

through. I'd have been much happier had I heard the Premier's

statement coming from the Minister of housing or the statement

coming from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

or the Minister of Transport and Communications. But what has

happened — and we've had experience now with each of these

Ministers — is they don't say the kinds of things the Premier

says; they don't act in such a way as to carry out the intent

he expresses. No, Mr. Chairman, given an opportunity out of

sight of the Premier, they do exactly the opposite.

I quite agree that progress has been made. I want to thank the Premier too

for giving executive assistance to the opposition parties for probing a little

bit into the Crown corporations — something we weren't able to do in public

accounts, and giving us information which confirmed the suspicions that we had.

If we seem to be aggressive and insistent, it's because we

know we were right in the things we were wanting to do all

along and that partial steps are not enough. We've got to set

up thorough, foolproof systems of accountability. And however

much the Premier may wish us to have this information, the fact

remains that that wish does not penetrate down even through his

cabinet Ministers, much less the officers of the Crown

corporations and the people who work for them who might have

every reason to want to prevent financial information seeing

the light of day in public.

We don't have an auditor general in British Columbia,

something which is pretty standard. We can't say that we really

hold the light to anybody else until that comes along. I

presume that the government will sooner or later get around to

correcting many of the worst abuses that existed before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turned the bill down this year again.

MR. McGEER: Yes, they've turned it down three times now.

Three times it's been turned down by the Attorney General. He

turned down the bill.

But, Mr. Chairman, we're embarking on a much broader course

of action, in a financial way, under this government than under

the previous administration. There's now open speculation on

the stock market. There is the movement of the government into

the private enterprise field — coal, sawmills, pulp mills,

newsprint mills, car insurance, general insurance, and that's

just the beginning. All of these moves require accountability

of a kind never necessary until the moment the New Democratic

Party took over as government.

Something, Mr. Chairman, that is more important in British

Columbia than in any other jurisdiction in Canada, because

while we have socialist governments in other provinces, nowhere

do we have those socialist governments entering into the

private sphere as they are in British Columbia, and speculating

with the public's money in the fashion that this government is

doing. Because this new dimension has been opened up, we on the

opposition, acting on behalf of the public — and remember 62

per cent of the public is against the New Democratic Party

government, the majority of the people are against what you

stand for; they're against these moves; they're against the

expenditure of tax funds in these ways, and they said so at the

polls….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you try to stick to the amendment?

[ Page 1232 ]

MR. McGEER: Yes, you have an enormous, overwhelming majority

in this House, but not for the economic system that you're

introducing. And this particular amendment bears directly on

that economic system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're being repetitive….

MR. McGEER: We've got to ask for and receive ironclad

systems of accountability to protect the majority of the

citizens of British Columbia who disagree with what you're

doing in order that their taxation funds can be protected,

because they're being exposed, exposed in a way they've never

been exposed before — where not just a few thousand dollars

here and there might be involved, but millions and

millions.

While we welcome the statements of the Premier and

congratulate him for the progress he has made in correcting

past abuses, we warn him that good intentions are not enough

because it's very evident to us that these intentions are not

being carried through even by his cabinet Ministers.

But more than that, he himself is taking his government,

with the taxpayers' money, into a completely new land of

government endeavour, and that new land requires itself new

systems of accountability which have to be introduced in this

province. No one on the government side has explained what harm

it would do to accept this simple amendment. And unless and

until you can explain to us….

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't explained what good it will

do.

MR. McGEER: Certainly. It carries out the Premier's

intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't repeat the whole thing.

MR. McGEER: It carries out your intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question. Question.

MR. McGEER: You ask the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, don't repeat the whole…

MR. MCGEER: I gave the short answer, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why aren't you leader any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: The leader's outside on the radio.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh.

MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's nice that the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) listens to the radio but

he doesn't listen to the debates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's better music on the radio now.

MR. McGEER: I'm sure it's more soothing to your ears, Mr.

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're incredible.

MR. McGEER: But here the Premier has an opportunity to

follow through on the intent of the speech he made, to prove it

was sincere and not hollow simply by accepting it. What more

dramatic proof could there be of the Premier's intent to follow

through than to accept this opposition amendment which carries

out the very intent that they expressed to us — dramatic proof

of the government accepting the good sense of the opposition

instead of stubbornly following the method of handling

legislation that that old government followed.

You've got exactly the same legislative counsel writing

the bills. But you ought to have a better way of your Ministers

handling them on the floor of the House, Mr. Premier. One of

these better ways is to accept sensible amendments when they

are presented to you.

MR. CHABOT: A few brief words. We've been debating this

amendment for almost 90 minutes now. The Minister has risen in

his place on a couple of occasions and at no time has he ever

given us a suggestion that this Act will be subject to the

Public Bodies Financial Information Act . He attempted to

deviate from the implications of this particular Act applying

to the housing Act — completely. He never gave any indication

to this House that there was a possibility that there might be

some move made on the part of the government to subject this

housing Act to a close financial scrutiny.

Then we see the Premier come in after 90 minutes of debate

and suggesting that, "Oh, yes, we will, you know, we'll make

sure that it is subject to the Public Bodies Financial

Information Act ." What is he trying to do? Is he trying to

bail his Minister out of his dilemma; trying to help out a weak

Minister who doesn't understand his Act, who isn't willing to

reveal to the public the expenditures which he has made from

the allocation made by this legislature?

The Premier says, "We will make it subject to the Public

Bodies Financial Information Act ." Oh, yes, he says, "Trust us — we will." Well, it wasn't too many days ago he told Members

of the official opposition, "Oh, yes, when are we going to

prorogue?

[ Page 1233 ]

There's only one more bill to come." Would you believe that

since he's said that there have been 12 bills introduced in the

House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very good bills.

MR. CHABOT: We've come to realize that we can't trust him.

We can't trust him and we can't trust his government. And we're

not going to trust a Minister who has been so inept in the

handling of his particular piece of legislation which sets up

his department.

All we're asking at this time is that if you really believe

in the philosophy which you've attempted to expound over the

years that if you ever became government you would accept good

opposition amendments, and if the Premier himself had admitted

that this Act is going to be subject to the Public Bodies

Financial Information Act , then why not show your faith, show

your sincerity, by accepting this amendment? Because you know

full well that we can't take your word. We can't trust you.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House, would you please

advise the Speaker that a division took place in committee and

ask for leave for a recording in the Journals of the House?

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. WALLACE: I'll try not to unduly repeat some of the material that

was debated under

section 6, but

section 9 states that "the Lieutenant-Governor

in council may make such orders" as he considers are necessary. In subsection

(

b) he has the power of "defining words used in this Act and not herein defined."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have a real difference of opinion in

this House between the two sides of the House as to whether or

not the power of expropriation exists in this bill.

After the Attorney General's comments about his

interpretation of the word "acquire," I took the trouble

to go back to the report on expropriation of the Law Reform

Commission. It is very interesting that the Law Reform

Commission, Mr. Chairman, defines expropriation as the "lawful

acquisition by one person of another person's property without

the latter's consent."

Now, what the government doesn't seem to have understood in

the debate so far is that we on this side of the House are

extremely anxious about much of the human suffering that

follows from the very procedure of expropriation itself.

I notice the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) was paying very close attention. He was a man in

this House who, in the years I've been here, stood up in the

seat now occupied by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I

think it was, and fought for the rights of individuals who

might even have their homes burned down against their wishes in

the process of expropriation.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who has just left the

chamber also made the point heatedly yesterday. I think it is

quite plain, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the cabinet who

previously sat on this side of the House are well aware of the

dangers inherent in expropriation. Pat Codyre could tell the

House a great deal about what it is like to have bulldozers

from B.C. Hydro on your land.

Here again, there is really no point in being bitterly

partisan; I am just trying to present the point of view,

certainly of the Conservative Party. The right of the

individual to preserve ownership of land or property that he

has bought is a deeply cherished right held by many, many

citizens, certainly many citizens who have supported the NDP

politically.

Expropriation means the compulsory transfer of property

rights against the wishes of the person who happens to be

minding his own business and owning his own land or property.

It is a very serious issue and no bill should come before this

House where there is any doubt as to whether the powers of

expropriation….

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): No doubt.

[ Page 1234 ]

MR. WALLACE: The Provincial Secretary chirps up, "No doubt."

Well, I am just quoting to you, Mr. Minister,

section 9 (

b) which gives the cabinet the powers to define words used or not

cabinet the power in its own wisdom to decide whether or not

expropriation is in there, I don't know.

HON. MR. HALL: None so deaf as those who won't hear.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, and there are none so stupid as those who

won't listen to another point of view either.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I will, I will. I think the other point

that was made in this report on expropriation was that, on an

urgent basis, there should be one statute of expropriation

introduced which would save individuals, legislators and this

House a great deal of time. Every bill which obviously does

involve expropriation causes this kind of prolonged debate. The

two sides of the House never seems to be able to come to any

kind of understanding as to whether or not expropriation is, in

fact, included in the bill.

According to the report on expropriation, we have 60

different statutes which in different ways give different

corporations and different Ministers varying degrees of power

to expropriate property.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Sixty. No, it says 60 in the 1971 report. If

one can just go back a moment to that report, the committee of

this House which met was rather short lasting. I can remember

the outstanding, shattering comment of one Social Credit

Minister at that time: the report was going, to give too much

power to the individual to protect what he owned. Well, I don't

know. We've quoted the Magna Carta already in this House

earlier in this session. I think if anybody is in any doubt

about the importance that society and civilization over the

centuries attaches to the rights of an individual, they can't

be reading or listening very well.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we've covered many of these points in

debate on

section 6. With that thought in mind, I would like to

move that

section 9 be renumbered 9 (1) and the following

subsection be added as

section 9, subsection (2):

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall not endow the corporations with

powers of expropriation".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member has made valid points about the

need for one comprehensive statute on expropriations in accordance with the

thinking in that report. The work on that project should be expedited. I sympathize

with that.

When you say there is a power of expropriation in this bill,

it seems to me we went around that bush pretty hard at the time

of Bill 42, where it said "or otherwise acquire." There was

some argument — even one or two lawyers piped in there for

awhile — that that implied the power to expropriate. Well, it

doesn't. This report the Hon. Member (Mr. Wallace) refers to

make it clear that those words do not confer the power of

expropriation.

In Maxwell on

Interpretation of Statutes , the 11th edition — that's the good edition — states here: "It is presumed where

the objects of the Act do not obviously imply such an

intention, that the Legislature does not desire to confiscate

the property or to encroach upon the rights of persons; and it

is therefore expected that if such be its intention, it will

manifest it plainly, if not in expressed words, at least by

clear implication and beyond reasonable doubt."

Nobody would go to court; no lawyer would really think that

there was a power of expropriation in this bill. Wherever those

powers are spelled out in any Act, they are spelled out very

clearly, there is a separate

section on it, a procedure, a

code.

Really, I think we have had an interesting morning and a

late afternoon yesterday on the business that this Act contains

powers of expropriation. It simply doesn't.

MR. WALLACE: What's wrong with putting it in there?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no need for it.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it doesn't….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's nothing; there's no need to.

When the power isn't there, we don't add superfluous words to

the statutes of this province. With respect, I think we must

reject the amendment, clearly stating as a government that this

bill does not have powers of expropriation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you risk your seat on it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I've risked it on another matter and

I might get all mixed up. (Laughter.) Everything I say now is

antediluvian, so I don't want to have a whole pack of things

and forget which ones I have risked my seat on.

It doesn't contain powers of expropriation, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore the amendment, while the

[ Page

1235 ]

intention is fine, is unnecessary. It would be just adding

unnecessary words to the statute which are really not called

for.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just follow up quickly. I would just like

the Attorney General to tell me, then, since

section 9 (b),

which gives the cabinet the power to define words used in the

Act and words not used in the Act, is it not possible for the

cabinet to use that power in interpreting the phraseology in

section 6 providing the corporation to exercise such powers?

Could these such powers not be defined by the cabinet in its

wisdom, regardless of the previous example of law down through

the centuries?

Section 9 (

b) makes it very clear to me, if I

were reading it, that the cabinet, in fact, has the power to

make its own definition as to what the different words

mean.

If it did that, I don't see how examples of the past would

make any difference. We are taking new directions in

legislation every day and every month. I just, with regret,

can't accept the Attorney General's explanation that there is

no power to expropriate. The word is neither used nor omitted,

but under 9 (

b) it is quite easy for the cabinet to take the

power to make its own definition of words in the Act.

Section 9

(

b) says: "defining words used in this Act and not herein

defined;".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If regulations — that's what we are

talking about here — are drafted under the Act, then as the

statute does, some of the basic words may be defined.

"Corporation" refers to the corporation in

section 7; the

"fund" is such. You could not change the meanings of the words

in the Act, you could not confer through that — it would be

laughable in any court — a power of expropriation that wasn't

actually spelled out in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney General confounds me. He refers

to the report of expropriation of the Law Reform Commission and

so far as he goes, he's right. But in this particular matter

let me refer the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to

what is said in the report on page 42: "There are a number of

situations in which the procedure for expropriation and even a

formula for compensation are not set out by statute, but may be

determined by regulation."

MR. WALLACE: Repeat it. He didn't hear you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the Hon. Attorney General hear what I

said? I'll repeat it: "There are a number of situations in

which the procedure for expropriation and even a formula for

compensation are not set out by statute, but may be determined

by regulation."

The report goes on to say: "This, the commission feels, is most undesirable.

The rights of a citizen on expropriation should be cast in unequivocal language

in legislation which has been considered by the Legislative Assembly."

Then he goes on and says; "The statutory basis for making

these regulations are…" — and goes through Act after Act

after Act. You know, the Black Ball Ferries Ltd. expropriation

was done just this way, under a regulatory power.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under what Act?

MR. WILLIAMS: Under the Civil Defence Act .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay; that's where the power was,

not here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the expropriating authority was one

given by regulation. And that's what we're talking about

here.

Is the Hon. Attorney General listening or is he getting

instruction from his counsel?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. Would you read page 29 of that

report?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've read page 29. I've read the whole

report. The Attorney General says it can't be done, and yet the

commission in its report indicates that it has been done in the

past. We don't want to see it happen again.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This isn't similar to the Civil Defence

Act .

MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Attorney General consistently ignores

the clear, unmistakable words in

section 6 as to the extent of

the powers that may be given to a corporation under this

legislation. It's not restricted at all — "such powers as the

Minister deems necessary." Now, Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney

General going to stand in his place — maybe he will — and say

that if the Minister, under this legislation, deems it

necessary that his corporation have the powers of

expropriation, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is not going

to give them? Is that what the Hon. Attorney General is

saying?

This is what the amendment is saying: that we in this

Legislature wish to limit the regulatory power of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by specifically saying that

whatever powers you give to a corporation shall not include the

powers of expropriation. What can be clearer?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, why doesn't the Hon.

Member come right out and say,

"This statute contains powers of expropriation and I

[ Page 1236 ]

stake my seat on it."? You haven't even said the first; you

haven't even said it does. We've been going here, you know, for

about 10 or 12 hours and people say somebody might look at it

this way or some way else, or somebody might have to get into a

court case, but you never come right out and say, "There is the

power of expropriation there." No lawyer could say that.

MR. WILLIAMS: No one has said that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now let me read page 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one has said the reverse either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. You say the reverse

and all that, but you just keep dodging that main point. None

of you have the fortitude to say that. Here's from the Law

Reform Commission on expropriation, page 29: "The mere granting

of a power to purchase or otherwise acquire land cannot be

regarded as conferring a power to expropriate."

MR. SMITH: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman: in this

amendment, as in the two prior amendments, I think it is

important to say to the Minister that the opposition have

continuously hammered one thing, and that is that the

government should prove by word and deed their accountability

when it comes to dealing with public and private funds and

private land. That accountability is not something that the

Ministers can lightly cast aside or suggest on the floor of the

House that they interpret

an Act this way or that way. It's an

accountability that we want included in the statute for

everyone to see.

When you use vague language, as has been used in this Act,

which grants at the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council extreme powers in the hands of a

Minister, that is not an accountable position for any

government or any Minister of the government to take. This

amendment is proposed in the same manner as the two prior

amendments, and that is to say in specific terms that there

will be no expropriation procedure used in taking private lands

when you desire to enact a particular development in a

particular area.

You know, we've listened to the Minister, and we've listened

to other Ministers come to his defence in this debate, and none

of them have said anything that would change the situation or

in any way alleviate the fears of people who may at some time

be forced into a position of having this Act used against their

own interests. Because that may be part and parcel of a

land-assimilation scheme, if it hasn't already happened.

Mr. Premier added nothing to the debate with the statements

that he made just a little while ago. I suggest that any one of

the amendments proposed, including this one, would have done

nothing to interfere or take away from the objectives that the

Minister had in mind — not a thing. As a matter of fact, it

would have enhanced his position and certainly given the public

the feeling that the government was accountable, that they

would protect the public interest. It would seem to me that any

one of the amendments — and, as a matter of fact, all three of

them — should have been accepted by the government if they want

to play fair with the people in this province.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one final comment. The

Attorney General has made the point that nobody on this side of

the House has admitted that the word expropriation is not used

in the bill. We admit that it isn't there. We are saying that

there's an honest difference of opinion as to whether the power

does or does not exist in the bill. Because of this

uncertainty, the amendment is simply asking the government to

remove that uncertainty by putting in a statement to the effect

that powers to expropriate shall not be conferred by the

cabinet.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker

would you tell him that a division took place on

section 9 and

ask that it be recorded in the Journals ?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, quite apart

[ Page 1237 ]

from the problem dealing with the lack of expropriation

powers in this bill, we have here another principle which is

the fact that the executive is going to take over

responsibility that theoretically should be in the hands of the

judiciary, namely,

interpretation of words. The standard

practice is for legislatures to decide what they want, the

judges to interpret it and thereafter the executive to follow

suit. That's the way it should be, except when there are

special reasons for granting to the executive the power to

interpret the words of the Act.

The standard procedure used by judges is of course the fair

meaning or the fair

interpretation of words — not some

construction which may suit a political purpose, not some

construction which may suit a certain objective of the

executive but the fair and ordinary meaning of the words in

question. In this

section we're handing over the power, which

should be in the hands of a dispassionate judiciary, to a

highly politicized cabinet and a Minister who quite rightly, in

his mind, has certain objectives which may not be that of the

clear meaning of the words of the Act.

Under the circumstances, unless we can put some good

justification for taking these powers out of the hands of the

court and giving them to the Minister, I would suggest as an

amendment, that we delete

section 9(

b) and renumber

accordingly. I so move.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. McGEER:

Section 16, Mr. Chairman, says "unless the

context otherwise requires, 'minister' means that member of the

Executive Council charged by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

with the administration of this Act, and includes any person

designated in writing by this minister;" et cetera. In other

words what it does, Mr. Chairman, is it places the University

Endowment Lands under the charge of the Minister of

housing.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What's the matter?

MR. McGEER: Well, what's the matter, Mr. Member, is that the

intent of the Act establishing the University Endowment Lands

is not to convert it into a housing pro