[ Page 3895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill 15).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3895

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

Introduction and first reading — 3895

Oral Questions

Suggested plebiscite on right to strike of police and firemen.

Mr. Chabot — 3895

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

Delay in inspection of damaged vehicles by adjusters.

Mr. Fraser — 3896

Ramifications of court decision on Nishga Indians.

Mr. Gardom — 3896

Government purchase of firemen's hangar.

Mr. Morrison — 3897

Fuel oil subsidy for renters. Mr. Smith — 3897

Payment for housing consultant. Mr. Wallace — 3897

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

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3898

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 3898

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3898

Mr. Smith — 3899

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3899

Mr. Wallace — 3899

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3900

Mr. Smith — 3901

Report stage — 3901

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

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3901

Mr. Chabot — 3903

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3903

Mr. Smith — 3903

Mr. Gibson — 3903

Mr. Wallace — 3904

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3905

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3905

Interpretation Act (Bill 153). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3907

Mr. Smith — 3907

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3907

Mr. Gardom — 3908

Mr. Wallace — 3909

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3910

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3910

Mr. McClelland — 3911

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3912

Mr. Cummings — 3914

Mr. Curtis — 3915

Mr. Liden — 3916

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3917

Mr. Wallace — 3919

Mr. D'Arcy — 3922

Mr. Phillips — 3922

Hon. Mr. King — 3924

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'd like to file with the House the report from the technical subcommittee on televising, pursuant to the parliamentary practice and procedure Act, submitted to me yesterday.

Introduction of bills.

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT
ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA NOISE CONTROL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gabelmann, Bill 161, British Columbia Noise Control Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

SUGGESTED PLEBISCITE ON
POLICE AND FIREMEN RIGHT TO STRIKE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Labour: the mayor of Vancouver stated that the legislation allowing policemen and firemen the right to strike is stupid. Is the Minister prepared to change the Labour Code, consider the suggestions of the mayor and hold a plebiscite to decide this question?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hardly consider the opinion of the mayor of Vancouver justification for changing the legislation. That's one man's opinion and he's entitled to his own opinion.

With respect to conducting a plebiscite, his worship is also free to conduct plebiscites at any point in time — that's nothing to do with the jurisdiction of my office. If he chooses to resign on the basis of the plebiscite, that is also his right.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's rhetorical.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker — the Minister mentions that the mayor is entirely free to hold a plebiscite on the question of restricting the right to strike of police and fireman. Would the Minister follow the advice of such a plebiscite if it were held?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly not a plebiscite in the City of Vancouver. Legislation applies to the total province, not just the City of Vancouver.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplementary on that question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister attempted to ascertain whether there are any contingency plans for maintenance of fire and police protection in the event of a strike?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my department is not responsible for contingency plans. I would rather not deal on a hypothetical crisis that may occur. I would rather hope that those people in these crucial public interest areas would take cognizance of their responsibilities and act accordingly in a responsible fashion. Very few issues are settled through the public media; very few issues are settled through making public statements. I think that if the parties in the Vancouver police dispute give serious consideration to the third-party recommendations of the industrial inquiry commissioner, then I think they can find a basis for a solution without the public being confronted with some unpalatable crisis.

EMERGENCY PROGRAMME FOR
POSSIBLE FLOODING

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary, under his responsibility for the Provincial Emergency Programme.

Yesterday, June 10, was the first day in 1974 that temperatures at three southern Interior points — Castlegar, Penticton, and Princeton — exceeded 80 degrees, in fact they were up in the mid-80s. Temperatures again today are into the mid-80s in those areas. There's a tremendous amount of snow in the mountains, and I can expect that the water courses and the rivers all across the southern Interior, even the central Interior, will start to be running off. I would like to know the general state of preparedness of the emergency programme to deal with the situation should we get into a flooding problem.

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

[ Page 3896 ]

Speaker, the rather unusual fact that surrounded this situation we are in regarding flooding is that while the temperatures during the day have been just a little bit below seasonal, and now at the seasonal point, the temperatures during the nighttime have been very much below seasonal. From that we should be thankful because that, I think, has been the main reason why we're not standing knee deep in water in very many places throughout the province.

The latest information I have — I get it just about every day for question period — is that about 25 to 30 per cent of the run-off has already taken place. It's coming off at the rate of two-thirds of 1 per cent per day which is now being accelerated, Mr. Member, because of those temperatures you mentioned, to just over 1 per cent today. There is a lot of evaporation which is another helpful fact.

If we continue to get cold evenings and cold nights for another 10 days we may, and I think we're all hopeful, skid through a chink in the armour of the disaster, and escape the kind of levels that we were talking about a month ago.

The freezing level is at 6,700 feet in Prince George, 10,800 feet in Vernon and so on. We'll see us, perhaps, escape the disaster that we were honestly looking at three or four weeks ago. That's the position as far as the snow and the water and the runoff is concerned.

As far as the programme is concerned, everything that is possible is being done. The federal government have announced their assistance.

We have responded to that assistance with cooperation and a request to meet as many times as necessary to make sure that all the men, machinery and work can take place.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Hon. Provincial Secretary, a supplementary: where an area is not in itself declared a disaster area is the government prepared to look at individual cases that have suffered extreme stress above the average high-water line?

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is yes. We don't, nor have we ever, I think, Madam Member, gone the American route of declaring something a disaster area. I don't think we've taken up that particular language. So I don't really want to see us inadvertently get into that language. Rather we have dealt with the problems on their merits, which is what you are asking us to do. Therefore the answer is yes, we will continue to look upon them on their merits.

DELAY IN INSPECTION OF
DAMAGED VEHICLES BY ADJUSTERS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: is he aware that it takes a week to get an adjuster to even look at damaged vehicles in towns such as Mackenzie, McBride, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James? If he is aware of it, what is he doing about it?

Interjections.

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

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'm sorry. I just got handed this note that's topical and I was reading it. Sorry, what was the question?

MR. FRASER: I'll repeat it, Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister has awakened himself.

Does the Minister know that it takes at least a week to get an adjuster to look at a damaged vehicle in towns such as Mackenzie, McBride, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James? If he is aware of it, what is he doing about it to increase the service to these deserving citizens?

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

MR. FRASER: Vanderhoof and Fort St. James.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. No, I wasn't aware of it. I'll certainly check into it this afternoon.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

RAMIFICATIONS OF COURT
DECISION ON NISHGA INDIANS

MR. GARDOM: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: the government Indian advisory committee report states that the Supreme Court of Canada Nishga decision was "hailed by Indian leaders across

[ Page 3897 ]

the province as a victory because it was the first time the aboriginal titles had been given full legal recognition."

I'd ask the Hon. Attorney-General if the Indian people in B.C. will now be able to be assured that that victory will become a practical victory. And will your government, Mr. Attorney-General, be accepting the principle that B.C. native Indians have a valid aboriginal rights claim against the Province of British Columbia?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, it would be transgressing the rules of this House to announce future government policy at question period.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. GARDOM: Does that mean you're taking the question as notice, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is out of order. As you know, you are asking for future policy, I believe.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently not, from what the Minister says.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE
OF FIREMEN'S HANGAR

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government purchased the hangar at Victoria Airport which was formerly occupied by the flying fireman?

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

MR. MORRISON: Would you explain to the House, then, what the current situation is with hangars at the airport? How many do we now own, and what will their use be?

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

MR. MORRISON: Hangars, I want to know.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We feel that this is a very good opportunity, a very good buy, for some rental space that we have now. It's just too good an opportunity to pass up.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister then advise the House when the deal is completed — if they have in fact purchased it — without being asked?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'd be pleased to give you a full report as soon as the deal is consummated.

FUEL OIL SUBSIDY FOR RENTERS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. The Hon. Attorney-General announced yesterday a plan or a scheme to subsidize the home heating costs of fuel oil for homeowners. Will this include people who rent homes or apartments?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What we announced yesterday in the form of legislation were enabling powers to allow such a programme to be put in place. We did not announce the programme as such. But I would think that the legislation would be broad enough to encompass the bills of tenants as well as the bills of residential owners if we decide to take those steps.

PAYMENT FOR HOUSING CONSULTANT

Mr. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Housing, with regard to the Champlain Heights co-operative development in which Mr. Al Koehli acted as consultant, whether Mr. Koehli has received payment for that service and how much?

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

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary: since his consultation, Mr. Speaker, resulted in a reduction of 25 per cent in the projected costs, could the Minister tell us what basic changes Mr. Koehli proposed to bring about such a cost reduction?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think you'd have to ask that between the two parties. It's between Kanada Co-operative and the builders, and it's not really with the provincial government. In fact, any mortgage moneys will be provided by Central Mortgage and Housing there. It's on land which is owned by the provincial government and sold to the provincial government by the City of Vancouver on the condition and understanding that it be made available to the Champlain Heights Co-op, as it was then called — now called Kanada Co-op.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 3898 ]

Speaker: does the Minister know if other companies who were bidding on the contract were given the same opportunity as was given to Community Builders to reduce the cost?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I believe that there were two companies that bid on the reduced, revised project. I think that they contacted 24 companies in all asking for participation in this project.

MR. WALLACE: Given revised figures?

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

MR. GARDOM: You indicated, Mr. Minister, that Mr. Koehli did not receive any consulting fees for this project. Are any moneys owing to him or anyone in his behalf for consulting services to either Champlain Heights project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, no one in my employ has, and I understand that he hasn't received any from the Champlain Heights Co-op either.

MR. GARDOM: Did he perform consulting services for this project which eventually Community Builders bid on and received the contract for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe that he helped revise plans and gave advice. There was an architect doing the project; but he gave advice to the architect on ways and means by which it could be improved.

MR. GARDOM: Was that gratuitous advice?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he paid for it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, some people do do things out of good faith, you know.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 18.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

On section 1.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 1. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, could you tell me whether we're on the amendment or on the section as amended at the moment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Section 1 as amended. Well, it's the same question in either case. The word "seller" is used both in the main section and in the amendment. Could the Attorney-General make it clear whether "seller" includes retail gasoline outlets and retail fuel oil outlets?

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

MR. GIBSON: A further question under the amended section 1 and what is listed as section 75 in Part IV of the Act. Noting that the commission may require seller to furnish to the commission accurate detailed information relating to the cost of any of its operations and of the production, refining and so on of petroleum products I would ask the Attorney-General if the intent of this legislation is that such information could be required wherever those operations might be situated, or if it relates only to operations, cost and so on within the Province of British Columbia and, if it does have force only within the Province of British Columbia, how that might act to vitiate the effectiveness of the Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think that a company, let's say an oil company, refining and doing business in the Province of British Columbia but having its financial accounting procedure, say, in Toronto, would be required under the subpoena power of this section to produce that financial information.

MR. GIBSON: But, for example, if a portion of the crude that the company was using in its British Columbia refining operations was shipped in from Alberta, would the commission have the power to require cost data on those Alberta operations, or would it simply accept the border transfer price as prima facie valid?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, if it was one integrated operation where the same company which was refining and selling in B.C. was also producing the crude, I would think they'd have to furnish the crude audited information as well. But if it was not an

[ Page 3899 ]

integrated operation, there is no way in which we could look into the crude costs in Alberta.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder then if the Attorney-General would expect that companies might for example set up subsidiaries for the exact purpose of making this line of demarcation at the British Columbia border.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I certainly hope not. That would be a way of trying to hide financial costs of a product, and I would hope that wouldn't happen.

MR. GIBSON: One other question I have with respect to what would be section 78 under Part IV of the Act — it notes here at the end: "and if the accused person pleads or alleges that the petroleum products are not for use in the province the burden of proof shall be upon the accused person." I am not one learned in the law, but I thought that the burden of proof was generally on the person making the charge on the other side. I wonder if the Attorney-General could explain the necessity for this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in public utilities legislation, where all of the essential facts and data are in the hands of the company, it is a different situation from a charge; that company is then required to table or produce that factual information or data. In that sense, the burden is on them to come forward and explain the position.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In reading these amendments, I believe that almost all of the amendments on the order paper are included in section 1, so it would be in order to speak about any part of the amendments which we have included.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I really didn't want to speak on the title, thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

I would like the Attorney-General to define, if he would, what he means by the amendments that he introduced yesterday to the House under this particular Act.

I think it was certainly an abuse of the Members of this House to call a bill which had been on the order paper for weeks for second reading and introduce the amendments almost immediately before the bill was called so that no one had any opportunity or time to study them.

Since looking at them, I'd like to refer specifically to what are now sections 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84, and ask the Attorney-General, if he will, to explain what he means by consumer grants; who will qualify for a consumer grant; on what basis they will qualify for that grant; and why, when he is dealing with such an important matter, he did not specify in the amendments or in the bill itself what he actually intended or who would actually be the recipients of the relief for home heating costs that he outlined in this particular amendment.

What is his plan? No one seems to know in the industry who this will apply to. No one whom you speak to on the street knows what's going to happen, except that the Attorney-General, in very vague and general terms, had indicated that somebody, somewhere, somehow in the Province of British Columbia may at some time qualify for a consumer grant to help offset the purchases of certain heating fuels in the province.

I think the Attorney-General should clearly tell this House what he has in mind and how it's going to operate, because it's obvious from reading this that once this House prorogues and this bill is passed, the decisions will be made from that point on by regulation and order-in-council, and the MLAs who are elected to represent people will have no say in how that particular scheme is set up or who will receive benefit by it or, in fact, how it will work at all.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Hon. Member, I say that the amendments did come in late, but we're dealing with a very rapidly changing picture in terms of the price fluctuations in industry, what happened on May 15 in terms of the rise in price of crude oil, what the situation will be, say next fall when home heating costs have become important. It's very difficult to predict at this time.

Maybe the companies will be totally reasonable in terms of the charges they make to the consumers of the province. But all I can tell the Hon. Member is that the bill spells out in considerable detail what can be done by the government, but it will be done after a canvassing of the situation by the Energy Commission and on their recommendations. I don't think they could say, for example, what the problems of propane users in the Province of B.C. will be next fall.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

My estimate of things is that they will have a very serious price impost on them and some relief should be considered. But that's something that will be for the Energy Commission to, as I say, continue to research, canvass, investigate and perhaps hold hearings and make recommendations to the government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would also just like to make a few comments and specific reference

[ Page 3900 ]

to some of these sections, while I talked in general terms on second reading.

There's no question that the Attorney-General is using euphemisms when he says that the amendments spell out what the government may do. I just want to make it plain that in this quarter of the House we have no doubt that this is what the government is going to do. It isn't a question of what it may do.

We would like to suggest that that kind of example set by previous decisions to utilize one source of government revenue to subsidize another government enterprise, namely Autoplan, certainly has the man-in-the-street wondering why there can't be a much simpler way of dealing with the effects of price increases, in particular the case of the gasoline situation. Other provinces have dealt with it very fairly and squarely by simply reducing the tax at the pump.

In this case I agree it isn't quite so simple when you are dealing with a variety of types of fuel including heating oil for homes. But certainly section 83, as the Minister has under the amendments on page 17 of orders of the day, starts to give a list of very specific regulations which the cabinet can write after this House has risen.

I think for the Minister to be in a position to write so many….seven separate general paragraphs describing what the regulations can do, suggests to me quite clearly that the Minister has a far more specific programme and plan in his mind than he implied in his answer to the Member for North Peace River.

Mr. Chairman, we've had examples in the past where government or members of the cabinet make statements in very general terms and say: "Well, of course the details are not available and they will be disclosed in due course." So often "due course" means when the MLAs have gone home and there isn't the opportunity to have a very realistic debate and where there is no opportunity for the opposition Members of this House to do the job for which they are elected — that is, to appraise legislation, to offer constructive proposals and, of course, to condemn where they consider the legislation is faulty.

Like the Member from Capilano (Mr. Gibson) I'm not learned in the law in any way but when I read section 83, regulations (a) to (g), that covers the whole ballpark as far as I can see in terms of the scope with which programmes of consumer grants or subsidies or whatever similar words you want to use could be introduced. While I agree in part with the Attorney-General that it is a fast changing scene in terms of energy resources and world prices and so on, I have to come to the conclusion that the Minister and cabinet have much more specific plans in mind than we are being allowed to debate under subsections (a) to (g) in section 83.

I would just ask again, as the Member from North Peace River (Mr. Smith) did a moment ago: could the Attorney-General give us some more specific outline of what he means by "consumer grants"? It's a delightful phrase. It's saying to the public of this province: "Don't worry, folks. We've got some kind of plan which will make it easier for the consumer to purchase home heating oil, but we're not sure exactly at this point in time what the plan is. It's just a good idea for general consumption by the public but don't press us for the details." On the other hand we're bringing in pretty wide-ranging amendments and power to the cabinet to write regulations which to any person who reads this with any degree of precision and interest can only imply there are some basic plans which the Attorney-General has which I think we on this side of the House at this point in time are entitled to know of and be given an opportunity to debate.

I would like the Attorney-General, if I'm wrong in my conclusion, to tell us very clearly that he has no specific plans and that this is just, as he says, enabling legislation and it won't be a matter of this House proroguing perhaps in two or three weeks and then we find the day after we all go home the plans are dumped by order-in-council into the public arena and we have no opportunity to debate what is obviously a very, very important public issue. There is no question that gasoline and fuel costs have to be a very vital component in the cost of living for many people. Where government is taking the very important step of subsidizing in some way or other the actual price to the consumer, I think this House and this opposition should be given every opportunity to debate the kind of plans which the Minister has in mind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to have the Hon. Member accusing us of having plans laid out well in advance. Some other Member got up once and said we flew by the seat of our pants. But now we are charged with planning and we appreciate that kind of a charge.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Specifically for this fall the answer is no, because we will have the recommendations of the Energy Commission. We will have to look at the price fixture next fall. We are doing something rather different because we are not only looking for price restraint on the part of the companies but perhaps for the first time in this and any other province we are also thinking in terms of whether it's price abuse and maybe unavoidable price abuse — for example in the field of propane, where half of it comes from Alberta and there is nothing we can do about the price — and of helping the homeowner or helping the tenant. But you ask specifically how much. Whether we will do it in

[ Page 3901 ]

September or October I tell you quite frankly, Mr. Member, that we can't answer that. I hope that the Energy Commission will continue to be a highly visible operation, as they have been. They don't do things behind closed doors; they do them in the open. They discuss the problems publicly and they make recommendations which are immediately made public, and I think that's the way it will go. But I can't be specific, except to say that the purpose of this is price restraint and home help for tenants and residential owners.

MR. SMITH: It absolutely amazes me, Mr. Chairman, to sit in this House and listen to an explanation of an amendment to a very important bill in the terms I have heard from the Attorney-General. He said absolutely nothing about what his real plans are.

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

MR. SMITH: Now what did you do — just pull this out of the air? Did you decide one day on the spur of the moment that you wanted to do something for the homeowners in B.C. so you told the attorneys and lawyers in your staff to draw up a bill? "Do something. We don't have to tell the people what we intend to do. We don't have to tell the producing companies what we intend to do. We don't have to tell those people who are in the business of marketing petroleum resources and fuel oils what we intend to do. But somewhere down the line some day we'll come up with a scheme that will fit into this plan. So make sure that you draft your amendment very loose and very wide — don't pin us down."

Do you think that industry in this province can live with those sort of halfway measures where they don't know whether they are coming or going? Do you think it's fair to the people who use fuel oils, who use propane, to hold out a carrot in front of them and say: "Somewhere along the line we are going to help you offset the cost of heating your home"?

This afternoon you suggested that you would perhaps do this for those people who rent accommodation as well, but you don't seem to have any indication about how you do it. Those of us in the official opposition don't disagree with the fact that you should perhaps help these people, but for goodness' sake spell it out so that the Members of the House have an opportunity to intelligently debate the policies of the government. Don't throw something like this at us one day and expect us to buy it the next like a pig-in-a-poke.

Once this goes through, what you are asking us to endorse is order-in-council government. There's been enough of that in this province right now, for the last two years. Too much of it. Too much altogether, Mr. Attorney-General.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Two less.

MR. SMITH: This type of legislation may cost the Treasury anywhere from a few million, I suppose, to $30 million or $40 million a year of tax revenue. Now you say this is going to be a resource dividend from the windfall profits, perhaps, from the sale of natural gas. We don't disagree with the fact that those profits should be brought back to the people, but at least give us the opportunity to debate in this House what your intentions and your plans are. Don't let the House prorogue, as you will do in a matter of a week or 10 days or whenever we see the end of the legislation, and then say: "Oh, we suddenly put it all together." A week after the House prorogues, we suddenly have the picture, we know what we want to do, and you pass an order-in-council. That's not good enough, Mr. Attorney-General.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Energy Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, this Act covers a range of matters, many of which might best be covered in committee, since they are matters of some detail. However, it also is enabling legislation in the sense that at a later date, by order-in-council, changes can be brought about with respect to the old royalty system, with respect to the so-called temporary tenures.

Now, as Members of the House will recall, Dr. Peter Pearse, along with the other members of the task force on Crown timber disposal, prepared a report which was given to the Legislature in February

[ Page 3902 ]

of this year entitled: "Crown Charges for Early Timber Rights." It was quite a thoughtful, well-researched and thorough document.

They point out for example that most of the temporary tenures, timber leases, pulp leases, timber licences, pulp licences, were established in the years 1865 to 1907 when these forms of tenures ended. At that time there was something over 11 million acres in these early tenure forms. Today that's been reduced to something like 1,778,177 acres. The important thing to remember, however, is that these are probably the finest, most productive forest lands in the province, and the bulk of them are in the southern coastal area of the province, with a scattering in the Interior.

The task force reviewed these tenures and reviewed methods of Crown charges with respect to these timberlands, and concluded, along with people like the early and first Chief Forester, H.R. MacMillan, in 1914 along these lines.

H.R. MacMillan said at that time, when he was investigating the question of the pricing of the timber resources held by the Crown:

"Hence the sliding scale had to be devised in order that the stumpage obtained by the government in time to come might reflect any change in timber value up or down. Since these values are the difference between selling price and cost of manufacture, an exact determination of royalty could only be made after complete audit of the books of every operating concern. As a practical matter, the sliding scale had to be based on some simpler methods than this, and accordingly the average selling price of lumber was taken as the barometer of stumpage value."

That was H.R. MacMillan back in 1914 who had this radical view of the Crown's assets.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some 60 years ago.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: His diamond jubilee.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: And it's now some 60 years later that Dr. Peter Pearse and members of the task force conclude somewhat along the same lines — that system is a reasonable system in terms of pricing the Crown timber resources.

Interjection.

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

One matter which has been raised by the companies is the question of payment they've made with respect to these old tenures. It's interesting again that the task force quotes an early royal commission headed up by Mr. Fulton, again an outstanding jurist and legislator of the day. Mr. Fulton said this with respect to the payments made over time for these old tenures:

"It seems particularly clear to your commissioners that the answer to this argument is that during each year of the lease the lessee has received full value for the rental paid by him, that this annual rental must be viewed in the same light of the annual fees paid by the special licensee, namely, as confirming a mere right or option to cut timber during that one year, and that the fact that the lessee may have paid rentals for 30 years does not put him in any better condition or confer on him any higher rights than those he had after payment of the first year's rental."

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

MR. WALLACE: Always around!

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

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Nevertheless, the industry has made representation both to the task force and to myself, and has explained some of their concerns. We understand the concerns, particularly for the major five companies, including MacMillan Bloedel, the company that virtually has half of its holdings in this type of tenure.

The question of timing: it was recommended by the task force that some new system be implemented, possibly in September, that reflects stumpage appraisal methods.

We've concluded, as a result of our work with the staff, that that kind of timing was too ambitious and it would not be feasible to embark on something related to a stumpage appraisal system until the new year at best.

We therefore regard this as enabling legislation, and the timing will be in the coming year. The degree of incidence in relation to stumpage appraisal is still to be determined as well. That is so that some phasing might be established by order in relation to these so-called temporary tenures.

There is companion legislation from the Minister of Finance's department with respect to the logging tax. That was covered in the Pearse report as well. I won't dwell on that other than to say that the companion legislation essentially reflects the Pearse report recommendation, and means that there would be a lower corporate tax level insofar as the provincial logging tax is concerned and that these benefits

[ Page 3903 ]

would reflect on all the forest industries of the province.

I think that covers the main elements in the statute, Mr. Speaker. I would now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended talking until you called me but now that you've called me, I'm going to speak. (Laughter.)

We are looking at the Forest Amendment Act, 1974, and it's a complex piece of legislation touching on various aspects of the forest industry in British Columbia. Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to study the entire 54 sections which change a great deal of things, but no doubt there is included within that legislation the provision for the Minister to file or table in this House the study of the Purcell Range by Professor Chambers.

I hope that when we look at these amendments they will bring forth that study by the Minister of this massive wilderness conservancy established in the southeastern part of the province, and that the Minister will fulfil his responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia, who paid for this report, and table it in the House so that the public of this province can see what they paid for in fact.

There are other sections here that are complex, they talk about legally establishing historical boundaries and changing boundaries within the Forest Amendment Act. As I stated before, not having thoroughly canvassed the various changes that are included in this legislation, I hope there are provisions in there for the restoration of the name of Kinbasket to a lake within my constituency. It was named in honour of old Chief Kinbasket, a noble old Indian in my area, and I hope that….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we're not interested in the beach or any tokenism on the part of the Minister; we're interested in that body of water being called Kinbasket Lake, and not McNaughton Lake.

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

MR. CHABOT: Yes, this is part of the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. But the bill is very difficult to debate in principle because every section involves the changing of the sections of the Forest Act. Consequently I think it can best be debated in committee and I'll refrain from further comment at this time and thoroughly canvass the points I have raised during the committee stage of this legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said very well, this deals with a large number of different subjects. On the first page we have branding, we have grazing; next page we have mining, all sorts of things which affect forestry and forest tenure directly or indirectly. There really is no way that this can be discussed in principle because there are far too many subjects which are put into this omnibus bill.

We will be discussing this unprincipled bill in the committee stage and dealing with this section-by-section.

MR. SMITH: It is obvious when you look at the bill that there are many sections — 54 in total — some of them which I believe we will endorse, some of them which we don't. So I would suggest to the Hon. Minister that we would be prepared to debate more fully the principle of the bill, really, when we discuss it in committee, because each one of the different sections deals with some different facet of the forest industry. As I have said, some of the sections and the amendments proposed we will agree with, and some we will not, so we would be prepared to debate it in committee stage.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt that the Minister will answer this question, but I hope when he closes the debate on second reading he will tell the House how, after reading out those words, with apparent approval, from Mr. H.R. MacMillan, and citing with approval the Pearse commission report, all of which call for an appraisal royalty based on cost, he can possibly support the off-the-top royalty in Bill 31.

I'll just make that little comment right at the beginning, and I hope you might just take a paragraph to reply to it. I don't want to suggest we discuss different legislation than this right now. But it's a very important question because that's a Minister who contributes greatly to the formulation of resource philosophy in that government.

Now surely, most comments on this should be in committee, but I was disappointed in the Minister that he didn't give us a very good indication as to what would be happening with the royalties.

When he speaks of phasing, does he intend to simply apply the phasing to the time of introduction of the royalties, or does he also mean that the royalties will be brought up to something less than 100 per cent equivalence with the stumpage system on TFLs and other tenures throughout the province?

Perhaps he could comment on that when he closes debate on second reading, and comment as well on the arguments that have been made by some of the holders of these royalty-type tenures with respect to previous investment that in some cases they have had to make and which has been, in some instances, of a non-shareable character and therefore larger in some

[ Page 3904 ]

areas than in the TFL situations. I have heard this argument. I don't have the figures to know to what extent it should apply. I'd be grateful to hear if the Minister has any thoughts on that.

The argument of the holders of these royalty tenures that they have had over the years — whether through purchase of a highly capitalized right to cut or whether through investment in the improvement of roads and non-shareable fire control and silviculture and so on — is whether they have in fact got more investment in these types of royalty tenures which should entitle them to a lower than 100 per cent stumpage rate by comparison with other tenures.

Could the Minister also comment on the statement by Mr. Mahood of the truck loggers group that the upping of these royalties might work some hardship on the small contractor, particularly with respect to winter logging shows that have been traditionally carried on in these often more workable areas? This would not be a reason not to collect fair royalties on these properties. But does the Minister have any…?

First of all, is Mr. Mahood's observation correct, and has the Minister any plans in mind to meet it? I think it would be the furthest thing from his intent that this legislation should adversely affect the small operator.

I'd like to go further into this at committee stage. I notice that in section 9, which amends section 36(26), the Minister has the most extraordinary powers to arbitrarily and without any kind of notice cancel cutting licences. While it might not be his intent to enforce it in this way, in theory the smallest infraction by any holder of a tree farm licence giving employment to hundreds or thousands of persons could lead to the immediate cancellation of that licence without any notice, without any compliance order, without any time being given to the operator to make good whatever the deficiency might have been — which, indeed, the operator may never have known of.

So I would ask the Minister if he perhaps has plans later on to introduce amendments to control this apparently exceedingly broad authority. If he does, well and good. If he doesn't, then I think we must discuss this at considerable length at the committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be equally brief. But I think we should just ask one or two questions even in second reading, although, as other Members have said, section-by-section debate will be more important.

I think just to put something in context, the Minister quite correctly read from two of the people who have looked into the forest industry in great detail at different times in the past 60 years. I think we should perhaps put the whole issue in context by also quoting someone else whom the Minister didn't mention. That was Commissioner Sloan, who did what I believe was a very creditable investigation of the forest industry in 1945 and in 1956.

The only area I think where this party has any difference with the Pearse report and the legislation is this question of whether in fact the companies on the old tenures did have any kind of investment for which they should be given consideration at this point in time. I think that's really the only area, in reading the report, where I can, as a layman, wonder whether or not the companies should be given some consideration. As Sloan states: "…that royalties be related to stumpage charges for other current timber, but that past payments should be recognized by setting the fixed royalty rates below average stumpage prices." The Pearse commission, of course, gives its reasons why it disagrees with Commissioner Sloan.

The fact is that while certainly H.R. MacMillan in 1914 made the statement which the Minister quoted, and another statement by the Fulton report of 1910, they were stating, with respect, Mr. Minister, a point we're all agreed upon that a fair amount of the money derived from these resources should certainly be returned to the province and the people of British Columbia, based on the value of the timber.

But, on the other hand, one can't always just all completely on one day in life change all the ground-rules and ignore some of the history of the past. The fact is that these old tenures involve certain expenditures which could, I'm sure, in the minds of some people be construed as some kind of investment. I'm talking about the annual rent, the Forest Protection Act, the annual levy of 1 per cent of assessed value and, of course, the forestry costs in developing a second crop.

I think it's fair to consider the comments that have been made by certain people in the forestry industry. One quote I have here is from Mr. Timmis of MacMillan Bloedel. He said:

"It is not clear to what extent the government will make allowances to the companies for fire protection costs, land-rental charges, forest protection taxes, the 1 per cent property tax on lands still outside tree farm licences and other forestry costs for a second crop, all of which we have absorbed over the years. These would amount to millions of dollars in MacMillan Bloedel's case alone."

I realize that this is a matter of a differing philosophy. The Pearse commission has obviously decided that all these costs which were put into the old tenures by the forest companies were in fact equivalent to a rent for the use and the cutting rights of the timber, and that it in no way represented any element of capital investment giving them continuing rights of any other kind, or simply the right only to cut the timber as they chose.

[ Page 3905 ]

Of course, the point is raised in that regard that if this is the philosophy, then certainly the operators who cut and ran — I think that is the phrase that I've read somewhere; they cut the trees, they got them out, they got their money, and the cutting rights for any second crop reverted to the Crown….

It certainly seems to me that maybe we should take some look at these two aspects: the fact that these companies have put in a lot of money in the form of the payments I've mentioned and, secondly, that the companies — as another executive states:

"Companies who have managed and protected their tenures responsibly, harvesting and replanting on a sustained yield basis just as they do in management licences, are now being penalized. But those operators who strip the tenures of timber, took their profits and left have escaped the increased charges."

I think, in the total context, that we certainly can support the government action in attempting to obtain a fair return from the real value of the timber resources. But I wonder if the Minister would comment on these two points I have raised: one, the basic charges of one kind or another which these companies have paid to retain the old tenures and, two, the fact that since many of them have acted very responsibly and have not, in fact, cut down the best timber in the most easily accessible location and shipped it out and got their money and couldn't care less about what's left…. Because they have not done that, is there not room for some consideration and financial recognition perhaps in the way the Minister proposes now to decide the new stumpage formula when the old tenures are changed by this legislation?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I also am not that familiar with the bill that this one is amending. But after reading the Pearse report I certainly wanted to make clear that I appreciate the fact that the Minister has brought this bill in so soon after receiving the report.

I have spoken in this House before about an area in my riding on the North Thompson River — Blue River — that has suffered quite some in the past with a large company purchasing two small existing mills to get the timber and then shutting them down with a loss of employment in the area. They have had a bad time up there for a couple of years.

They have one of the largest of these old timber berths or claims that has been there since the turn of the century with absolutely nothing being done with it. As far as I've been able to find out, there was some timber cut perhaps in the '20s and I heard it rumoured there was a little high-grading done after World War II for peeler logs. The original owner died in the United States.

There are 21 timber berths in this one block. This timber is sitting there now and has sat there for all these years not being used in a community that must base its future on a wood product industry. There was all this wood in the area with absolutely no hope of breaking it loose from the owners. The original owner died in the United States and left it to his estate. His son sold it to the Rayonier Corporation and the controlling interest was bought in Rayonier, I understand, by IT&T.

The people of this community are hard-pressed for work and hard-pressed for timber because most of the timber in the area is already allocated on timber TFLs and quota to existing mills farther south. They were desperately looking for industry in the area based on wood and never could get any of this timber loose because it was contained in this old timber berth, and 21 berths in this one claim. While it may not be large compared to some owned by some of the companies on the coast, it is certainly an important part of that community as far as timber is concerned.

There is a mill in the area, for instance, that should benefit under this bill, if I understand it right — and I hope I understand it right. The timber in these berths will either have to be used or there will be a considerably higher tax paid on them so that it will be to the benefit of the owner to use it. There are people in the area who would develop this berth if they can get hold of it. But, being tied up in this old tenure, it was impossible to get any kind of a new industry in and the economy has remained stagnant.

One mill now has been bought and enlarged by a local man, but he only has a four-year timber supply unless he can buy or reserve or somehow get hold of some of this timber or someone else can so he can buy it off him and get some activity in there.

There are many people in that area who are the pioneer types. They would go up in these small communities and would start a small family-type operation for splitting shakes for which there happens to be a good market now. Apparently, the small family operation is about the only one that remains solvent in this kind of work. With all the overaged timber, the downed timber and the hollow-centre cedar they can use for shakes, it could all be used and certainly would all be used.

I didn't quite get clear, when the Minister introduced the bill, what the future of an area like this would be. Will they be able to keep it simply by paying a little more money and doing nothing with it or will they be able to pay a decent amount into the Crown for what they're holding away from someone else who could make good use of it?

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might just deal roughly with the matters as they were raised by Members. The

[ Page 3906 ]

question of Kinbasket which is outside this bill nevertheless might be partly dealt with by the naming of one of the major reaches of McNaughton Lake as Kinbasket Reach, which we are quite prepared to recommend.

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Because we happen to think General McNaughton one of the great Canadians and should be so honoured.

The question of the arguments raised by, I think, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), regarding the right to cut and various expenditures. I think as formulas are developed, certain expenditures will certainly be recognized so that the industry should expect some benefits there in terms of the formula that is developed. The principle, though, of this in effect as fee simple property, which I think in a broad sense is argued by the industry, is not accepted by the government and, of course, is totally thrown out by the task force.

The point with respect to the statements made by Ian Mahoud and the truck loggers. Unfortunately, Mr. Mahoud has made many absolutely outrightly wrong, false statements about so many aspects of the forest industry in the last few months that I find it very difficult to take any of his statements seriously at all.

He was one of the gloom-and-doom people with respect to the establishment of the new stumpage appraisal system in the Interior, saying it would destroy the industry. Now we're receiving letters from major companies and others indicating they're ready to eat crow over all the statements made about the Interior stumpage appraisal system. In fact, it's a fair and reasonable system and is far superior to the kind of patchwork system we had in the past. Mr. Mahoud's colleagues, at least, are eating their words with respect to previous actions we've taken in terms of improving the stumpage appraisal system in the Interior.

He has made outright false statements regarding Canadian Cellulose and other operations of the government in recent months. I simply am unable to take any of his statements seriously.

Of course there's no intent to make life difficult for the small contractor. We want to see them survive and flourish within the industry. The steps we're taking here should have no direct impact in a negative way on the small contractor.

The point made regarding section 36, again by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, is one we are reviewing with respect to notice and with respect to infractions on Tree Farm Licenses. We might well consider some amendments in that regard.

The main point to be made there is that we're concerned about possible major environmental damage in relation to fishery streams and the like. The way the statute presently is we don't really have the power to deal with the problem if we had an operator who was simply out to wreck the immediate area. While we've generally had cooperation with the industry in terms of getting closure reasonably quickly where there is an obvious problem, we don't have the power under the statute as it now stands. There's no intent to use it in a rigid and harsh manner. The intent is really to protect the environment where the environment is in danger.

The point made by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is a matter of consideration. The cut-and-get-out philosophy that did prevail on some of these tenures with some of the other companies and former owners is a real fact of life. That's part of the reason we're departing somewhat from the Pearse force recommendation. We think some modifications are possible. We're talking in terms of both timing and, to some extent, the increment of the tax or the stumpage.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I would not go so far as to say that, but you're talking in terms of very detailed formula, recognizing what they invested in the tenure, interest over a period of time and so on. I think I could say no; we're not thinking in those terms. We are thinking in terms of modification of the increment in relation to the Pearse recommendation.

The point made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is very well taken. The question of holding back resources that could well provide a base for a community is a matter of real concern. I'm afraid this legislation won't work quite the way he would want it to work. It's a matter that I'll keep under active consideration in terms of lessening this kind of wastage and holding back of resources. I'm willing this summer to spend some time in the Member's riding and in that particular area so I have a better understanding of the immediate problem. I'm most sympathetic to changes to see to it that there is not withholding for the sake of withholding, and withholding simply for the sake of capital gain. Rather, the resource base is to be used to benefit the local community.

Just a final point, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, what we're trying to move towards is a forest industry which is treated more equally throughout the province. The kinds of special benefits the major industries on the lower coast have had for decade after decade after decade should certainly be pulled back and modified considerably. Frequently the industry talks about the need for free and open competition, and we wouldn't argue that.

[ Page 3907 ]

The point is that the coastal industry for a great length of time has had access to Crown resources at a bargain-basement price compared to the Interior. We brought in stumpage changes in the Interior and again made the differences between the industry in the Interior and the coast considerably different. I'm sure all free-enterprisers in the province would applaud the idea that there should be an equal starting point for those in industry so that the most efficient might well receive the most benefits within the industry.

With that right-wing speech, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the….

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

Motion approved.

Bill 117, Forest Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill 153, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPRETATION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced last night, but it is the modification in minor particulars of the bill that was before the House and has been before the House for some months — certainly days.

It is an enactment of great importance in terms of the revision of our statutes, which is going ahead under one of my Deputies, Mr. Gilbert Kennedy, and important in terms of that revision work. That is why we would like it considered at this session.

I think that if there are questions, they are properly questions for committee, because the sections deal with different things. I might say two things, though. We do have that interesting little section that says that the Crown is bound by an Act unless it is otherwise provided for. That's reversing that age-old exemption of the Crown, which again is something of this little government towards the little people of the province — a little more of that openness. It's an undictatorial practice, which is so much appreciated by people on the outside, coming from this government.

The other thing is that there is a difference between this bill as filed last night and the previous one in that I've eliminated from the new bill the right of a public official to sign a delegation of his authority so that if he's required to sign something somebody else can do it. You know, John Mitchell got into a lot of trouble on that in the United States because he had the power to approve bugging under United States legislation. He delegated that power so loosely that clerks everywhere around his department were approving the things. Finally, the Court struck it down in the United States, and a lot of valuable police investigation work went down the drain.

Now I think that where an Act of the Legislature says that a Minister shall approve something, that should be the Minister or his Deputy. You can't just delegate it anywhere. So we've restricted that power.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: It's amazing, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker. You feel that this delegation of authority should only be done in certain matters, and very closely controlled by either yourself, if you're the responsible Minister, or no further than the Deputy. Then you turn right around and seem to have ignored Bill 18, which we just debated in committee this afternoon. It takes the whole authority of the Legislature and puts it into the hands of an appointed committee, Mr. Attorney-General. Which side are you on? Or are you on both sides of the question at once?

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

MR. SMITH: Oh, now that we have a different bill, there's a different principle involved. It seems that you change your principles every 30 minutes, Mr. Attorney-General, depending upon which bill is before the House. I think it's amazing. I agree with the Attorney-General that the bill could best be debated in committee stage. The debate would probably be more relevant in committee stage, so I'll reserve any further comments until that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): There are a few comments to make on the principle of this legislation. Certainly the Interpretation Act has needed some revision. But for the Attorney-General to suggest that he's now taken a major step forward by making the Crown subject to the laws of the province…. It is important that you interpret the words "unless otherwise provided."

I think we can have an Interpretation Act with some clear definition of what "unless otherwise provided" means. Really, what it means is that the government, if it sees fit, can exclude itself from the laws of this province, or any one of its Crown corporations, or all or part of the laws of this province as they may apply to any Crown corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Companies Act.

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

Everyone should recognize that the government has established these corporations for many and

[ Page 3908 ]

various purposes and that the government sees fit to exclude from the responsibility of those Crown corporations compliance with significant sections of the Companies Act.

The Attorney-General also mentioned this question of the Minister having the right to delegate authority. I applaud what the Minister has said; but I ask the Attorney-General, if it is the intention of the government that responsibility for approval given to the Minister should be exercised by the Minister or his or her Deputy, if that's where you are going to draw the line, then….

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, so now we have another interpretation. The Attorney-General says: "Oh, not necessarily." We have legislation on the books of this province which gives the Minister the right to designate any person to exercise the authority the Minister has been given. We've complained about this year after year after year — indeed, even in the years when the Hon. Attorney-General sat in opposition, when he was a far-seeing legislator. His vision has become a little blurred since he's got over on the government side.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In those days he used the sunshine to see with; now he's blinded by it. That's the distinction. I would like the Attorney-General to be perfectly serious about this.

Are you going to say that authority of a Minister is to be exercised by the Minister or his or her Deputy — period? Or is that Minister going to be able to delegate, as is the case now, where anybody else can do it? As the law presently stands the argument of the Attorney-General, the example that he gave of what occurred in the United States with regard to the delegation of authority, applies right here in the Province of British Columbia and will continue to apply, because the Minister can pass to the Deputy, other senior officials of government and on and on and on the authority to give approval and assent and sign documents in and for the name of the Minister.

Some people will read the Interpretation Act, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we should have an interpretation Act to interpret the Interpretation Act. Now I must admit that in the few moments that have been available since this bill was introduced last night I see some significant improvements. But I really must say I am surprised that the Attorney-General would have brought this bill in for debate at this stage, only having introduced it last night. There are people out in the community who this morning in the paper would have learned for the first time of the bill, and they won't know the changes that have been made from the former one.

I have got a bill here that has been worked over by two or three experienced lawyers, many comments, and they've had no opportunity to see this bill. I just happen to think it is shocking that the government moves in these particular ways.

Hopefully, we will have some time to give close examination both here in the House and by people outside to this legislation before we go into the committee. But I am a little surprised that we debated Bill 18 second reading yesterday and committee today with amendments. I'd like the Attorney-General to indicate the extent to which there will be time afforded to give careful examination to this legislation before we get into the committee stage. If we don't, then the whole process breaks down.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It is interesting to note in the explanatory note that the drafter of the bill relied upon the uniformity of the legislation in Canada. Yet we do find an interesting section under 10 that such statements, of course, form no part of the enactment.

I thoroughly concur and agree with the comments of my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) concerning the presentation of the bill. On the whole, this is not a contentious piece of legislation. But it is a piece of legislation that requires the closest scrutiny, and it is a piece of legislation that, if the government knew what it was doing and was functioning in an efficient manner, could well have come in at the inception of this session.

To bring a bill such as this in at the end of the session is just an example of ineptness on someone's part, Mr. Attorney-General. If it's not your ineptness, it's the ineptness of whoever is responsible for producing this. From the viewpoint of you having the conduct and control of your department, I have to question your priorities as to bringing a statute such as this in at the termination of the session.

Dealing with that and also with this bill itself, to me, the method of presentation of legislation in this House has been deplorable and continues to be deplorable. There is absolutely no reason that I know of, Mr. Attorney General — and I have relayed these remarks to others in the House before — why, when you introduce amendments or when you introduce a statute such as this which is an amendment of a companion statute, there isn't on the other side of the page the companion former statute so that it is possible for everyone within this House to make an intelligent and, though it will be in the time you are giving us, a cursory examination of it. But they have to go from this Act back to the ones over there.

Even these revised statutes are not up to date, which is a matter I've mentioned to the Hon. Premier

[ Page 3909 ]

before. It's just preposterous here, when we're trying to do the business for all the people in this province, to not even have a set of revised statutes that are current and up-to-date. It's an absolutely slipshod method of doing business. The whole of the government should be criticized for this and, with every respect, Mr. Attorney-General, particularly you. You are the chief law-enforcement officer of the Province of British Columbia, and you are the Attorney-General.

I would hope that all of the legislation that does come to this House will continue to be screened through the Department of the Attorney-General. There is some suggestion and thought scurrying around the halls today that even now that's not the case. If that is not the case, I certainly hope you could indicate to the House whether or not I am incorrect in my assumption.

One cheery thing; one small, little ray of sunshine which must have snuck in there, Mr. Attorney-General, without you seeing it. In section 8:

"Every enactment shall be construed as being remedial, and shall be given such fair, large, and lliberal construction…"

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM:

"… liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its object."

I'd like to say that this was new but I'm afraid this is from the former bill itself. But I'm happy to see that you didn't throw that out with the bathwater, Mr. Attorney-General.

I have been serious in these remarks. I must request and commend the government to present its legislation in an intelligent manner, in a rational manner and in a manner whereby the Members of the House, in those specific interest groups will have an opportunity to consider. You are not presenting us with this kind of bill at all.

Secondly, in future and certainly in the next session, when amendments to statutes are introduced in this House, have the statute to be amended on another side of the paper. The only person who has so far seen fit to effectively present material in this fashion, Mr. Speaker, is the council for the City of Vancouver. Mr. Fleming has done an excellent job in presenting amendments to the private bills committee. One knows what the statute is, one knows what amendment is sought and the reason for it. You should be doing that kind of a job for the whole province.

MR. WALLACE: I'd very much like to support the comments made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). In no way can I suggest that I appreciate the legal ramifications of this bill in the way these professional lawyers do. Reading through it, it's quite obvious to me as a layman that we're back on one of the subjects that concerns me greatly: the use of power.

Paragraph after paragraph of this bill spells out the definition or the interpretation of various powers in the hands of various people: corporate rights and powers, the power to judges and court officers included powers to act for Ministers and public officers. I guess that's what the Minister was referring to when he talked about delegation of power.

We are living in a society, Mr. Speaker, where time after time it becomes rather frightening to discover how individual citizens can suffer at the hands of power which is either incorrectly defined, incorrectly interpreted or incorrectly applied.

I think of the example that was publicized the other day of a man who served a jail sentence because somebody had stolen his credit card. He couldn't possibly prove before the law that he wasn't the man who committed the offence. I believe this was in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, as I recall. This man went through a terrible time because someone was impersonating him with the use of his credit cards, social security number and various other numbers. Before the law, this man was found guilty and put in jail.

I don't mean by that that in that particular instance the judge exceeded his authority or otherwise. I just think that in a modern society the individual has to have the greatest possible protection in the face of ever-increasing numbers of people, commissions, boards and levels of authority who have power of one kind or another over the behaviour and actions of the individual in society.

That being the case, surely the accuracy and suitability with which power is accorded to these people in our society to judges, public officers, sheriffs, you name it should be subjected to the closest scrutiny in this House.

I have listened very carefully to the comments of the two Members who have just spoken. I feel a sense of apprehension that this kind of bill, which does in fact interpret what the powers of these people really are, has been brought before the House in a way which has not afforded the legal profession and the civil liberties association and many other bodies to….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that may be, the Minister has since changed the original bill and brought in another bill. I do believe the Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey had a point when he said the bill as such is not contentious: the goodwill of the

[ Page 3910 ]

Attorney-General in improving the Interpretation Act is to be commended. The fact that we are now into June — and presumably we will be meeting in the fall — to my mind suggests that this bill could be held over or not proceeded with so that the various citizens in society, who are knowledgeable and very concerned about how valid and suitable and well-thought-out this bill is can react and perhaps submit briefs to the Minister or at least have private discussions with the Minister or with his staff.

When we are interpreting and defining power in the hands of law officers and public officers, and when you look at the very long section 25 which is a definition of all the various Ministers and what we understand by definition of executive council and so on, it just seems to me that this is such a far-reaching bill which is not contentious and which could well be debated in the fall in a much more intelligent way than we are able to do at the present time.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister give serious reconsideration to whether this bill perhaps could be held over and reintroduced in the fall.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party made some very valid points today but they were wrong in applying them to what is happening with this bill. They said bills like this of a technical nature should have a time given to them to be explored in the community by the Canadian Bar Association and bodies of that kind. Well, this one has. It was introduced in practically the same form on April 23.

There are some modifications throughout this bill that are minor; I referred to the major ones in my opening remarks. I'll be glad to make this copy that I have marked showing the minor modifications between the first Bill 110, I think, and Bill 153. If it's convenient for the House, depending on the schedule, the committee stage could be put off a day or so. Fine.

It has been out there; we have received the representations. Here's the new bill. We had the time in this case to put it all together again and get a message from His Honour and bring it all in in one piece. I think that was requested in the case of another bill, but I think that was to make a political point. I was a little leery of that suggestion in that case.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 153, Interpretation Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today but one.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 85.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
DISCLOSURE ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought the Speaker would announce in ringing terms the title of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I left that for you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So I will. It is called the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has been considerably debated — a little bill to clean things up for future generations. That's right. Just a little one that way.

The use of public office for private gain, of course, is corruption. It is, and I think we should call it by that name. The question that is really before us in this age of Watergate, and it is a fair question today — it is a fair question to anybody who reads the newspapers — is whether this use of public office for private enrichment should become the norm of public life or not. I say that is a fair question to ask today.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I suppose I am looking at the seamy side. I'm looking at the kind of Watergate thing. I'm looking at the kind of thing that goes on in municipalities in terms of people owning land and then, say, sitting on the zoning committee of the municipal council.

Apart from the Conservative Party, which I understand supports the principle of sunshine — of disclosure — the thing that divides this government and that opposition and this counter-opposition is the principle that the voter should be entitled to know these things. We say that is the only salutary check, over the long term, to the abuse of public office.

We have, of course, our corruption laws. Maybe they should be strengthened. There is the Criminal Code, the standing orders of this House, the Municipal Act and the Constitution Act. But unless people know, there is no use having great criminal sanctions about things that are never brought to the light of day.

In this bill we say that we should drive a wedge between public interest and private action. In doing this we are doing two things. On the one hand we are lifting clouds of suspicion from politicians, statesmen or elected people that unjustly cling to those people and to the profession of which we are all a part in this chamber. There are all kinds of gossips and rumour-mongers throughout the province who are ready to say when the deal comes up, "I'll bet

[ Page 3911 ]

you that fellow had a finger in the pie," when he didn't. It's fair to politicians that the disclosure should be made public and that they should not be unfairly accused of using their office for private enrichment.

On the other hand, just to finish off that point, the calling of elected politicians should be held in esteem in the community. How best to do that than to say that the voters should know things that might affect that person's judgment when he comes to cast a vote in the Legislature or on the municipal council?

We say that we should not, as politicians, judge ourselves and make a disclosure to the Provincial Secretary or to the Attorney-General and have it clubby and closeted. We say that the people should be in a position to judge the politicians — not the politicians judging themselves.

There is only one way to accomplish that. That is the principle of sunshine, disclosure or call it what you will. We say that we should let the searching eye of Heaven dart its light into every guilty hole. (Laughter.) I'm not going to name the author of that but I will just remind you that Richard II lost his life shortly after that line was spoken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor Dick.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think I need further describe the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known to the Members of this House. We are extending it out into the field of candidates to make it fair to all concerned. We are extending it down to the municipal level. We say that our important public servants who have decision-making power should be designated so that they too will disclose and we can eliminate those conflicts of interest and those suspicions — sometimes justified — of government that are always there. I move second reading.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, certainly no one in the opposition disagrees with the concept of public disclosure although it is regrettable that we have to move into that area. It is because of attitudes that have developed in our community.

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

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Did I say "Gestapo tactics," Mr. Speaker? That has never been attributed to me.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm saying to you that this bill has been an example of the kind of legislation that this government has brought in without thinking, without checking, without researching. We get pages and pages of a bill which is thoroughly bad. Then we find, once the government realizes the mistakes it has made, that it brings in pages and pages of amendments. What we have left now is the title of a bill which is called the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act. How can we do anything else but vote in favour of the principle of that title? That is all that is left of the original bill.

It would have been far better, Mr. Speaker, if the government had seen fit to establish some kind of a public trustee who would have been able to accept the disclosures of public officials and candidates and disclose them to other interested people for just cause, not on any frivolous basis to which anyone might wish to have a look at the disclosures that are made.

We still feel that the trustee route would have been far better. We intend to make those amendments so that we can establish the need for a public trustee. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition supports the concept of disclosure. We hope that the Minister will live up to the agreement he made the other day that we will see the amendments printed in a new bill for committee stage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For third reading. Yes, it's all put together.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. That will help the opposition considerably, Mr. Speaker. With those few comments, we'll wait….

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: For committee?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, for third reading we put it all together.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about for committee state? Will we have this?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. We are discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm sorry. It's disappointing to us, though, Mr. Speaker. We had the assurance of the Attorney-General on the floor of this House that we would have that bill in committee stage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll give you an unofficial copy of it. Okay?

[ Page 3912 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. That's fine. With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, we will wait for the committee stage before speaking further to the bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the government has brought this legislation in for consideration. I think it is unfortunate because it seems predicated on an assumption, which I find completely distasteful, that elected people and people appointed to positions of public trust and responsibility will use those positions for personal gain.

The Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) suggested that because of Watergate — and all that involved — this kind of legislation was necessary. Watergate wasn't a matter of personal gain, Mr. Speaker. Watergate was a matter of political gain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suspect that this particular legislation that we have here is being introduced for exactly the same reason — political gain on the part of the government.

What it really is is "snoop" legislation. It is encouraging people with nothing better to do to concern themselves with the private affairs not only of Members of this assembly and members of local government but senior public servants and all those responsible people who are taking positions with Crown corporations and commissions established by this government who will have very great powers which could be used for their own personal gain and which, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this legislation, could still be used for personal gain.

The Attorney-General said in his remarks that in respect to public officials this legislation would eliminate conflicts of interest. Mr. Speaker, it won't eliminate conflicts of interest at all. If any person who is elected or appointed to positions of public responsibility or trust would be so corrupt as to use that position for their own personal gain, then that individual will have no difficulty in circumventing the special requirements of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a person who would take a position of public responsibility and trust and use it for personal gain obviously has a philosophy which would be no barrier to circumventing this legislation. It's not conflict-of-interest legislation at all; and I'm glad that the government was at least responsible enough not to call it that in the title. It only calls for certain limited disclosures, very limited disclosures.

I recall something else that the Attorney-General said in his remarks. He says that the voters — if I've written it down correctly — "The voters should know things which affect the elected person's judgment." That would lead one to suggest that the Attorney-General believes that merely what you own and under this Act are obliged to disclose — and that's a very limited amount — is somehow or other definitive of what affects a person's judgment when they are called upon to make a decision which their office or position places before them.

The next thing we'll be having…. If we are to look into the minds and hearts of Members of this assembly, and of local governments, to determine what affects them in their judgment, then are we going to start asking what their religion is? Does that affect their judgment on any particular subject?

Are we going to ask them whether they belong to the Kiwanis Club or Rotary? Does that affect their judgment? Are we going to ask them whether they belong to a union organization or a management group? Does that affect the judgment they may bring to bear in a matter which comes before them in their public responsibilities?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just their property interests. So you will be able to make a value decision on a person's judgmental ability merely upon the very limited property qualification disclosures contained in this legislation. Some disclosures! Some sunshine!

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but when you look at…. The Attorney-General used the word. He said: "You know, if you use a position of public trust for private gain, it is corrupt." Of course it is. But when you look at the punitive provisions in this legislation, there is nothing in this statute which prevents a person in a position of public trust and responsibility from making and keeping private gains as a consequence of his decision, of his vote, or whatever the case may be. If he's made the disclosure, he is not prevented from applying his judgment to the problem and of making any private gain.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He'll sure think twice first.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe he will. But, you see, what the Attorney-General has said to me across the floor, Mr. Speaker, is that he'll think twice about it. Mr. Speaker, the responsible public official, elected or otherwise, in my view, knowing that personal gain from his actions is corrupt, will already think twice about it. The fact of disclosure doesn't change that situation one bit.

Now I heard the Hon. Premier say a minute ago: "What's the harm of it?" Mr. Speaker, I didn't say there was any harm in it. I'm not going to vote against this bill in second reading. I'm just saying that it's pointless to bring it in. It doesn't improve the situation that exists today. It prevents nothing; it advances nothing.

[ Page 3913 ]

It does one thing, however, Mr. Speaker: it gives the stamp of approval of this Legislature and of this government to the suspicion which, in my view, improperly rests in the minds of many of our citizens — the suspicion that somehow or other politicians and public officials do use their positions of public trust and confidence for their own personal gain.

By bringing in this legislation and by passing it we are, in effect, saying: "Yes, it's true. All those things you suspected are true. Therefore, we of the government are moving in this way, this limited, pointless way, to oblige individuals in our community who are prepared to accept responsibilities to make very limited disclosures."

That's what this legislation does. It will satisfy the idle curiosity of some. It will, startlingly enough, also provide an opportunity for some not so idle to use the information which is disclosed for their personal advancement. At election time they will be able to use it to the detriment of individuals in our communities who are prepared to stand for public office.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not saying that it hurt Art Phillips. I said it is creating the opportunity for those who are not so idle to use this for their own personal political gain.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Obviously the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) doesn't recognize what would happen under this legislation.

You know, late in a campaign, having made a disclosure, some not so idle but mischievous person in the community can under this legislation institute proceedings in the courts of this province which will have the most detrimental effect upon the candidate by claiming in those proceedings that the candidate had failed to disclose and had made a personal gain as a consequence of that failure. That would become front page news the very next day.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for the person who instituted those proceedings to take one further step. The proceedings will be allowed to lapse.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. Who was it that sued the former Premier of the province? I'm sure that wasn't done for any political purpose.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, such a mischievous person, having instituted these proceedings, having done the damage that would result from the publicity given those proceedings, escapes without penalty. There is nothing in the legislation which could in any way redress the harm that such an action may cause.

Mr. Speaker, if the government wants disclosure, by all means let them have it. But let the people of British Columbia understand exactly what this legislation does. It does not advance one step the standards of morality of politicians and public servants over what exists today.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have stood the critical comments of the Second Member for Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) on the floor of this House week after week concerning the profession of which I am a Member. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that that Member withdraw the remark he has just made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought you were rising on a point of order.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): No, I'm not. I'm on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think the Member for West Vancouver is finished. He has asked you to withdraw a statement.

MR. CUMMINGS: What — that morality and lawyers are incompatible?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think it's a matter for debate.

MR. CUMMINGS: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member has withdrawn. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound may continue.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for withdrawing.

The legislation is not going to advance the morality of people in public office. It is not going to provide penalties for cases of conflict of interests. What it may provide, to the detriment of the public service and in the broad context, to the Province of British Columbia, is that responsible people will withhold their candidacies for elective office and

[ Page 3914 ]

may be encouraged to decline the opportunity that the government would extend to them to serve in appointed positions. I trust that won't happen. But the nature of the disclosures that must be made under this legislation are such that other people become involved. By the very fact of disclosure the interests of others, peripherally, also become disclosed. And it is this aspect that troubles me more.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate. I wish to congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing in one of the finest Acts…. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am very rarely very nice to lawyers because they have a problem — if they are any good, they have no conscience.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You're the one with the problem.

MR. CUMMINGS: How's the United Party coming, brother?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: A small number of civic officials oppose this bill on the grounds that you can't legislate honesty. Actually, this is rather a weird statement. In fact, it was almost as bad as the argument advanced by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound because nobody has ever tried to legislate honesty.

The Ten Commandments…even our Lord didn't try to legislate honesty, he said what you're not supposed to do. There has been no government ever try to legislate honesty, because they tell you what happens to you if you do something wrong. To have people make broad statements that you can't legislate honesty and get away with it, and especially legal people using this argument, is ridiculous.

Now, the public demands an exposure of corrupt practices. They want to stop the influence on the back stairs; they want to stop the graft, the pork barrel, the rezoning, the spoils of office at the civic level and at all levels.

This bill is going to really play hell with the land speculators, the rezoning artists because it's going to just stand out and they're going to be exposed. They'll either be revealed to have a conflict of interests, or they will have to evade the laws by hiding it, and become a thief. Honest politicians are going to welcome this bill; the pork-barrel politicians are going to either have to resign or find another place.

All public officials should agree that it's time to put all their cards on the table. A citizen should welcome the chance to see that there are many, many honest politicians. In fact, I'd say 99.9 per cent of the politicians are completely honest and above board.

We have seen examples of what happens when people get into high offices in the past, and the public has to have all this visible.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 85 is a pledge to the citizens that all politicians will tell the truth or will be branded a willful, perjured individual, totally unfit to hold public office in British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) publicly took a stand against this bill, but I see he has waffled. Mayor Vander Zalm of Surrey publicly took a stand against this, but, you know, political loyalty is not one of his virtues. Actually, I admired Mayor Goode of Delta's stand the best. He wants to wait until after July 7, after the federal election, before he decides which side his bread is buttered on.

MR. CURTIS: What's that got to do with this bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: A lot, a lot.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: He used to be a Liberal. This is loyalty. What colour coat?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CUMMINGS: Critics of this bill will say that the curious will look and probe. Curiosity will stop the public official from betraying his electorate.

MR. CHABOT: Name names.

MR. CUMMINGS: Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other professions that need a little sunshine.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: That's true. Car dealers, they are branded as a pretty rough racket.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: But the professions I'm thinking of are the self-policing professions like the lawyers and doctors. The public….

MR. CHABOT: What have you got against lawyers?

MR. WALLACE: What have you got against doctors?

MR. CUMMINGS: They're just pillars of the community; they'll do anything, anything you want as long as it's 50-50.

[ Page 3915 ]

Actually, I'd like to point out that sunshine is important because there should not be any type of self-policing, and I support this bill completely.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate, I suppose, that I believe firmly in the principle of this bill because I think the extreme and thoughtless remarks of the previous speaker might well, if I did not believe very firmly in it, shake me from my conviction that it belongs in the statute books. This is the Member, you know, who wants to cross the floor but no one will have him in, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

I feel that we….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Nobody will move the rock. (Laughter.)

MR. CUMMINGS: On a point of order, I'd like the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark because he's a s.o.b. liar!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe both Members should be withdrawing the remarks they made — the first remark that was earlier said, and the last remark that was made by the Member who just sat down. Would the Second Member for Vancouver- Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) withdraw the last remark he made?

AN HON. MEMBER: What, the s.o.b. or all of it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He withdraws.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I withdraw.

MR. CURTIS: I feel that we've also, perhaps, had second reading of this in two consecutive CBC radio panels where representatives of the four parties in the House discussed it at length.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The principle of public disclosure is commendable, and probably it will be found that this bill, with polishing in the months and years to come, will prove to be a very effective piece of legislation. I think it will need some polishing, it will need some improvement from time to time.

This is the Attorney-General's third try at the bill in effect. It was introduced last year and withdrawn, and now, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) indicated a few minutes ago, we have virtually a new bill with amendments which appear on the order paper of today's date covering in fine print pages 20 to 24 inclusive. Those are not minor changes. That is in some respects a rewriting of many of the principles of this particular bill in many of the sections.

I criticized the Attorney-General publicly on a previous occasion and I do so again this afternoon for his department's apparent inability or unwillingness, or his inability or unwillingness, to communicate with two organizations which surely would be recognized as having a positive contribution to make towards this kind of bill, this type of legislation. I refer to the British Columbia School Trustees Association and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were both in my office, so you are wrong on two counts.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm not through, Mr. Speaker.

After the bill was introduced in the House, the meeting took place. Now, is that correct or is that not correct? The bill was on the order paper and then the meeting took place. I ask the Attorney-General: is that correct or incorrect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is correct.

MR. CURTIS: The Attorney-General says that is correct. So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was introduced and then the process of communication and consultation took place. And we have to ask: what else is new? Is that not the pattern for so much of the legislation which is introduced by this present government and which requires extensive amendment after it has been sitting on the order paper for some time?

The Attorney-General, I am sure, knows full well that he could have on an earlier occasion called the Union of B.C. Municipalities, representatives of the B.C. bar society, the British Columbia School Trustees Association, other organizations, and said, without revealing line by line and point by point precisely what he had in mind in terms of legislation, "This is the kind of thing we want to do."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But we did. We filed the bill last year.

MR. CURTIS: Well, you filed the bill last year but still we have extensive amendments required today.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Hon. Member, this is more in the nature of housekeeping complaints. We should really be dealing with the principle of the bill. How it got here is not really the question before the House. What it is about in terms of its principle is the discussion.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I think I must disagree with you to this point, Mr. Speaker: we have such

[ Page 3916 ]

extensive amendments that one is forced to question what principle was first advanced by the Attorney-General and what principles are now before us for committee or third reading stage.

But I won't pursue that particular line of argument any further. I feel I've made the point. We have literally four pages of orders of the day dealing with amendments on this bill.

I think I indicated to the Attorney-General that one of the advantages of this legislation is not what it will disclose but the rumours which I hope and believe it will put to rest — rumours which are certain to spring up from time to time. When at the local level, a piece of property is undergoing rezoning, when a development is planned, when a subdivision is being created, when some activity at the city or municipal level is underway, inevitably there are those in the community who suspect that an elected representative serving on that particular council has more than legislative interest in the application or proposal. I know this has been a source of concern to a number of mayors and aldermen and school trustees as well in the past as they have moved in connection with a development in their community or within their area of jurisdiction in the case of a school trustee.

The Attorney-General in earlier discussion indicated that yes, indeed, this was another advantage of this particular bill.

This party supports Bill 85. It regrets….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: It has supported it from the outset, the cynicism of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) notwithstanding. We support what is being attempted here. We recognize that it is going to require further work, and, indeed, there are two amendments on the order paper which will come up at the appropriate time where we feel further improvements can take place.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): I support the second reading in the principle of this bill, but there is some confusion here. I'm wondering if we should not hold the bill until the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) returns.

I participated in a panel here a couple of weeks ago and the message I got from the four parties who participated in the panel…. I was defending the bill; the Social Credit leader was opposing it; the Liberal spokesman was opposing it; and the Conservative was walking on the fence. He had his tippy-toe shoes on and was trying to do a very delicate job. Today there is a somewhat different story being told.

But we had all these headlines: "Gestapo Tactics." It seems to me there have been a lot of things said against this bill and now these people are going to vote for these Gestapo tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, they changed the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the opposition, every one of them is going to be in trouble. The Leader of the Opposition, the one who had claimed to be the leader of the Majority Movement…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LIDEN: …has been making statements against this bill and he isn't here to defend his position. Now his troops are deserting the ship. That's a very dangerous situation.

We've had so much said about this bill in the last month or so that it really scares me.

The Mayor of Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm, said this would mean that garbage collectors are going to have to disclose their holdings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a Liberal?

MR. LIDEN: I don't know what he is. But Bill Vander Zalm recently made what some people have termed to be an opportunistic move. He has been skirting around the various political parties. I've heard of people deserting a sinking ship but I've heard of very few people who try and find their way to a sinking ship. But there he is, swimming away, trying to get there while they're all mixed up and confused.

I noticed in the Sun on May 3 that the Leader of the Opposition said it's the single most dangerous bill presented by the socialist-controlled government since they took office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: I'm really surprised at the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) for his statements today, saying that he's not so concerned and that he might even vote for the principle of the bill.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that in all fairness there is some real confusion. These people don't know where they are going.

[ Page 3917 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). Listen to what he said: "Just more Gestapo tactics."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: He said, "Why should I tell these socialists what I don't tell my children about my business." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LIDEN: There's some real danger to letting the sunshine in, letting some light shine on what's going on in people's businesses and so on. If people want to be in public affairs, they're going to live in glass houses; they're going to have to let the people know where they stand and what their influences are. To me, that's what this bill has said from the beginning and that's the kind of argument that has been made by our side. The opposition to it has been made by so many people in so many different ways.

The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said he would like to see it in a sealed envelope — a sealed envelope that would only be opened, I suppose, after some great court battle to decide whether or not there was a conflict of interest or what kind of conflict there might be.

There was a letter from a legal firm in Kamloops, I think it was, in which the member says here that he has placed a letter with the mayor. He says that when the bill becomes law he would want to resign from the city council in that he's going to be away at the time that this is likely to happen, and that there is just no question about it. He says, "I have every respect for the right of the civil servant, school teacher and non-businessman to participate in running in the community." But, he says, at the same time he must be able to hide these transactions that people might have. He even said in one case where he was involved in a transaction only he and his client knew about it. No one else would have known. He could have sat in council and cast his ballot, voted the way he might have wanted to vote because of the interest he had in the particular instance.

Then he said at the same time that this sort of thing should never be disclosed; it should only be between him and his clients and his interest should always be hidden.

I think that there are so many things being said that it is obvious to everyone in this province that this is the kind of legislation we need. That's why I see some of these people changing their minds and all of a sudden refuting the statements of their leader. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General, that we might very well wait until the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) returns so that he can put his people in line so that they know what they're doing and what they're saying and how they're voting.

MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), in discussing the position taken by the respective opposition parties referred to a CBC radio panel and the fact that the Progressive Conservative representative on that panel was straddling the fence, or words to that effect. I reject that absolutely. The record of the programme would in fact show that that was not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was the man referred to yourself?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the objection is in order.

MR. CURTIS: I further present to you, Mr. Speaker, an article from the Prince George Citizen of May 3 of this year which refers to my statement: "Public officials have a duty to divulge their interests, but the public has a right to know where a conflict of interest might exist, and the public officials become public property when they're elected." I would ask the Member to note the fact that at no time have I straddled the fence on this position and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no requirement to withdraw. If a Member has misstated your position, or you state that he has misstated your position, you're entitled to stand up and correct that impression, and that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, bills such as this which stir up the government back bench don't seem to get much of a fair hearing. The fact is that much of what has been said does not deal at all with disclosure but deals with conflicts of interest.

The point should be made in this particular piece of legislation at the present time that it does not rule out potential conflicts of interest. It is a disclosure bill. With this particular piece of legislation it might be that a person will buy one share in innumerable British Columbia companies to make sure that he at least has the appearance of substantial assets. It may be on the other hand that he concentrates all his assets in one particular company. Totally misleading information would be made available to the public under one or other of the two cases. In the one case, he may be a man of relatively modest means and in the other he may be a man of substantial means. So I think that much of what has been said is erroneous

[ Page 3918 ]

and we should get down to what the bill actually does.

For example, disclosure does not mean that we're going to settle conflict-of-interest cases. The bill, and I think of the definition section, talks of the number of people who might be involved — people employed by the provincial government, employed or appointed by a board agency, a member of a board or agency, et cetera. But how about the case of consultants — consultants perhaps who have not been paid by the provincial government? Without in any way suggesting there have been conflicts of interest in the community builders case, I give that as an example where the vice-president of that company worked for or at least advised the provincial government. As far as I can see from the Act, there would not be any requirement for that person to divulge interests under this particular piece of legislation. Similarly, the most celebrated case we have in the province, Mr. Speaker, of which you are fully aware — the Sommers case — in no way would have been prevented, averted or foreseen by legislation of this nature. Not in the slightest. This point again should be borne in mind.

The public should be aware that this legislation is extremely limited in many respects. It will not prevent conflicts of interest. It does not let the sun shine in, as has been indicated. It may lead to totally misleading situations in terms of disclosure. Indeed, if a person wishes to be dishonest and wishes to make use of a position, be it an elected position or an appointed position in the civil service, they can proceed to do so, of course, by transferring their assets into the name of their wife, child or someone else. If a person wishes to be dishonest, in other words, they'll find way around this Act just as fast as can be. It will not prevent the type of conflict of interest which so many speakers in this debate have been arguing about. I think that it's important that the legislation should be analyzed more accurately than has been done.

The Member for Delta spoke about the sealed envelope reference I made. This is a fairly standard procedure to deal not only with disclosure but also with potential conflicts of interest, the second aspect of the problem and by far the most important aspect of the problem. That is, the assets of any public official are placed in a sealed envelope. In the case of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, it would be either in your hands, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Clerk of the House. Were there any suspicion of dealings which were untoward, the envelope would be opened by that particular official, such as yourself, the Clerk of the House or someone else in a responsible position above politics, and it would be a case of that person determining on the evidence whether there was such a conflict of interest and whether there was enough evidence to justify making the contents of the envelope public. It's a perfectly standard procedure used in many jurisdictions, used indeed by the city council here in Victoria with great success to on the one hand get around the difficulties that have already been described in terms of this type of legislation and on the other not only have disclosure but also have protection against potential conflicts of interest.

I cannot see that the Member who made the remarks that he did really understood what he was talking about. There are many ways of dealing with disclosure and many ways of dealing with conflict of interest, and certainly we as elected public officials should be doing our best to make sure that the public has confidence in their officials, elected or otherwise, and that there are not cases of unjust enrichment or cases where advice is proffered to the government and decisions are made on the basis of personal interest of individuals, as opposed to what is most effective from the public's point of view.

We have others, Mr. Speaker, in this situation who are just as important in terms of their influence upon public opinion. I fail to see, for example, having accepted some of the arguments of the Attorney-General, why he has not extended this to Members of the Fourth Estate — the press, radio and television people. Sure, they're not necessarily elected, but the argument is put forward that they have an influence in the community which is substantial. Dealing with just about every matter affecting citizens, they can, by colouring the news unconsciously or subconsciously as well as deliberately, create a situation where they are using their positions to influence events. For example, I would be interested in knowing whether the publishers of the two major newspapers in Vancouver and the two major newspapers in Victoria had any interest in mining stock — and the editors as well and perhaps even these reporters. Does this affect their attitude?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're not in public life.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but then nor are your civil servants, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. He's in the position to influence public opinion and political attitudes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll try and proceed, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General two weeks ago talked

[ Page 3919 ]

about this bill being to uncover anything that might lead to wheeling and dealing. It wouldn't necessarily do that at all. He said it is to remove suspicion from those people in local and provincial government where rumours go around that he's dealing in this matter and the rumours aren't true. I don't know whether that, again, is a valid comment or not. I doubt it under the legislation that we're dealing with at the present time.

He talks about disclosure and says that there is no point in having disclosure if an elected representative can hide his or her assets in a holding company behind the corporate name, but they can also do that by putting assets in the name of members of their own family or, indeed, close friends. If they wish to be dishonest they can do that, surely. You were assuming that people were trying to benefit from their position, Mr. Attorney-General. These are not accidental cases. We're trying to prevent unjust enrichment or bad advice being proffered to the government. I think that your statement there simply doesn't make sense in view of the limitations on the bill.

There is the problem dealing with some people reporting to you as Attorney-General, as opposed to making their assets and their holdings public. I will discuss that during the committee stage.

I would like to say that to date the situation that I have found myself in and the policy that I have adopted is simply that I own no real property or anything of that nature. The only thing I might own are shares. I have no knowledge of when they are traded and what the sale or purchase might be. It's left entirely in a blind trust.

Under your legislation I will now have to become aware of the financial position of my share account. In actual fact I don't think that this is as desirable as the other way, where the elected public official carried on without knowledge, in my particular instance, of what his holdings are and how he could possibly influence what holdings he has.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may save you some money.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON It may indeed save me some money — and I appreciate it. If that's the object of the bill, I appreciate the Attorney-General's concern and thoughtfulness in going into all this political trouble and comment and fuss and bother — simply to save the Second Member for Victoria some money.

But the fact is that it was a system which worked effectively. I can no longer carry on in this way, and I am disappointed. It was a way where I found I had no problems in dealing with any matter that has yet come before this House, or indeed, any matter which has come before me in other political areas. It was a way of avoiding any potential conflict of interest without any disclosure whatsoever. In fact, the disclosure was not even to myself, the principal involved. That gets wiped out under this legislation, and I think it's a pity.

I repeat the statement made by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). We appreciate the government's desire to have more public confidence in elected and appointed officials. In this regard we will support the bill in principle.

But to suggest that the bill goes as far as government speakers have indicated, or to suggest that the bill cannot be circumvented with enormous ease by just about anyone who might be affected, is quite wrong.

It is not a particularly good bill in terms of disclosure, and it's a perfectly useless bill in terms of settling conflicts of interest. Perhaps you can say it's a minor step in the direction of disclosure, and that it's a minor step in the direction of trying to deal with conflicts of interest. But I really wonder whether the bill itself justifies some of the side effects which are going to result — in particular the discouragement of a large number of people from running from the relatively ill-paid, if paid at all, boards, commissions, library boards, hospital boards, school boards, civic councils and things of that nature.

It's going to have side effects, no question about it. I seriously question whether or not the minor benefits, very minor ones, merit the loss on the other side.

MR. WALLACE: In speaking to the principle of this bill, I have listened and considered not only the arguments presented in the House but some very interesting correspondence. I personally have no doubt that the concept and principle of the bill are sound. I have some reservations in some of the details of the bill, which we will certainly discuss in committee.

I have one feeling that's quite strong. It is that when you enter public life, you are then certainly a public person. Whether or not you like or don't like some of the consequences of being in public life, that's the choice you should make before you seek election for office.

I don't particularly like it, but I happen to feel that if you are so interested in serving in public office, then you have to recognize that you are not any longer just another citizen. You have privileges and you have power. I happen to feel that because you have these privileges and that power — whether it be small power or large power — it evidently involves some sacrifice of privacy.

This is where I was most impressed by one particular letter I received from a school trustee who quoted the Canadian Bill of' Rights. She quotes

[ Page 3920 ]

paragraph B of part 1 and says:

"There shall be equality of all persons before the law. Thus to demand that persons in public office must forfeit a right to personal privacy which is legally protected for other persons is to violate this right. For anyone to be confined in his rights in a way that offends against the above, sound and defensible reasons must be given to justify this invasion of his privileges.

"It is a dangerous principle to adopt, since as some men may have fewer rights, others can have more, thus leading to the concept of executive privilege which is our modern manifestation of the divine right of kings; and we have seen its results in the present Watergate situation."

I was quite impressed by that point of view, Mr. Speaker, when I was trying to determine exactly what is involved in the principle of this bill. But I came to the conclusion that, for all the best motives of the Canadian Bill of Rights, when you become a politician I think you have to be looked upon differently from other citizens.

You have the privileges and the power to not only affect other people's lives in a dramatic way, but you certainly are put in a position where you can benefit personally by privileged knowledge, information and advice from the government or level of government that you serve.

While I am somewhat uneasy that the Canadian Bill of Rights doesn't seem to apply to everybody — and its basic thrust is outlining and defining fundamental rights which apply to every citizen — I recognize that this particular bill in principle is setting a precedent which does conflict with the Canadian Bill of Rights. Without seeming to contest the motivations behind the Canadian Bill of Rights, I wonder whether or not paragraph 9(b) of part 1 is literally true — that the person in political life should have all of the complete privacy which every other citizen has.

One of the other points which has been raised in correspondence is that for a bill of this nature to be brought before the House there should be a demonstrable reason why it is necessary. Secondly, if there is to be a bill of this nature, it should be shown to be effective to correct the supposed or alleged offences or alleged lack of morality where conflicts of interest arise. I certainly again have to admit that in reading this bill I have some reservations as to the effectiveness of the bill.

I have two main reservations, Mr. Speaker. One is that it does not really prevent abuse of privileged information. It has been said in the debate many times today that you cannot legislate honesty. I suppose that the point made by the Liberal leader — or maybe it was by one of the other Members, I'm not quite sure…. But one of the speakers this afternoon said that no matter how we draw the bill, someone who wishes or intends to be dishonest will get around the provisions of the bill.

I think that's rather a negative approach because there's bound to be a lot of legislation in this House which, unfortunately, is imperfect or is not wide enough in scope or which has basic deficiencies which will allow the essentially dishonest person to get around the bill. But surely that should not be presented as a sound and valid reason not to attempt to bring some measure of disclosure into public life.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. WALLACE: Now the second point and the main reason that I have reservations about this bill is the fact that there really is no balance to the bill, Mr. Speaker. It's all very well for the public of British Columbia to be entitled to have some access to this kind of information. But I strongly oppose — strongly oppose — the apparent concept that there should be no responsibility whatever on the shoulders of the person who seeks to pry into my private affairs.

It seems to me that in this bill its biggest shortcoming is the fact that it makes no attempt whatever to place any kind of responsibility on the shoulders of any citizen who, with reason or without reason, at his whim or fancy, for mischievous, frivolous or other reasons, or for reasons of his own personal gain…. It places no responsibility on that person.

That person can seek to look at the disclosure document during office hours, and the phrase "during office hours" is the only government restrictive factor on the shoulders of the individual in society who wants to seek out the assets with which a Member or a public official has ownership. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) brought up a very valid point in terms of an election campaign whereby any person, for his own political gain in a campaign or otherwise, could certainly make statements suggesting wrongdoing and the possibility of future legal actions which that Member has no intention of following up once the election day is over. Certainly there is no lack of examples in this kind of situation in past jurisdictions, not only in British Columbia.

Certainly while I support the principle of the bill and will certainly be voting for the bill on second reading, there are these two areas — particularly the second area — where I do feel that there has to be some balance. While I, as a public elected official, am willing to disclose all of my personal assets — I'm not concerned about that and I think it is reasonable that I should — I do not think that I should be subjected to any nosey parker who has nothing more to do on a Monday morning than to walk down to this parliament building and go through the disclosure

[ Page 3921 ]

document of G. Scott Wallace. I just don't think that that is fair, right or necessary.

I just happen to believe that there is a sense of balance required in this situation. While there is a responsibility on the part of elected officials to disclose and a responsibility to accept a certain loss of privacy I just happen to believe that there is a certain responsibility on the part of every individual citizen to have some reason or procedure to go through other than to simply ask to see the disclosure document.

In committee we will go into debate on the amendment, which the Conservative Party feels is eminently fair and reasonable and puts this whole issue of disclosure into context.

The point has been referred to by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) that during an election campaign a person can make unfair or frivolous accusations. Even more so, the person may want to find out the information on the disclosure document for his or her own personal gain. If this is what is to happen again I think there has to be some balance. Certainly the person making the inquiry who wants to see the disclosure document should himself or herself be in some way responsible. If it can be shown that the inquiry was made for simply curious or frivolous reasons or, as I say, for personal gain of the inquiring party….

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I approve and support this bill in principle. That's what second reading is all about. But that doesn't mean that the bill is, by any means, likely to achieve the two main purposes of disclosure and at the same time preserve as much of the privacy of the individual official as is reasonably possible.

When I say that an elected official in public life loses some of his privacy I just mean some of his privacy. I don't think he should be subjected to the off-the-cuff whim of any individual in society who, for no particular reason, seeks to inspect the document. I'm not suggesting that there should be great difficulties put in the way of the inquiring citizen in society. Just sign your name and give a reason — that's all. But, to put the thing in balance, by so doing as an individual citizen there should be some measure of responsibility whereby that citizen can be held accountable for the action he takes in seeking to see the disclosure document.

The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) made a point which I think is not the least bit important that the bill isn't good because you might have one share in 100 companies and 100,000 shares in one company. I personally don't see that that has anything to do with it. If somebody wants to buy one share in 100 companies to give the outward show of wealth, so be it. I don't think that that is of any importance. The Member did point out that he thought this was one of the disadvantages of the bill and that it was really not effective in that respect. I suppose in a sense it isn't respective, but who worries whether somebody is trying to prove that he is a pauper or a millionaire? The fact is that the public will have access to knowing whether or not a conflict of interest arises. I agree, on the other hand, that it does not in any way guarantee any greater degree of honesty on the part of elected officials or public officials.

There are definite disadvantages to the bill. Much has been talked about the fact that it would dissuade certain people from seeking public office. Again, after a great deal of thought, I have come to the conclusion that if you want to be in public life the tenor of our times is such that the politician is not held in high regard. I'm always rather amused when I hear the phrase "professional politician." In the first place, many of us like myself may be full-time, but I think there is a difference between being full-time on a job and being professional about what you are doing. The general mood of our country and the mood of North America is that politicians, in very many cases, are a shady breed. I think any of us in this room knows very well the number of times you go to social functions or cocktail parties or public meetings and the phrase is often said: "Well, of course, you can't trust a politician." That, unhappily, is a very widely held concept that people have as to the kind of individuals that you and I are, Mr. Speaker, in public life.

In that regard, while this bill entails some loss of privacy, which I regret, and while it may dissuade certain people from seeking to hold office — probably people who are very skilled and experienced and would indeed contribute greatly to the government of this province or in other levels of government, I feel that in balance it is a step in the right direction. I have to back up the comments of the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) in stating that the Minister has really had to bring in a tremendous rewrite of the bill which could have been more adequately done if certain consultations had taken place ahead of time.

Generally speaking, this party does support the principle of this bill. In so doing, and I hope the Attorney-General is listening, the main reservation we have about this bill, and I can't say it too often…. I give the Minister warning right now that I don't want accusations of change of mind when we get into committee reading or third reading; we support this bill in principle but we want some comment from the Minister and hopefully acceptance of our amendment in part or in whole to correct the fact that in this bill there is absolutely no sense of responsibility at all — not on anything other than inspection during office hours. There is no sense of responsibility placed on the shoulders of the citizen in seeking to inspect the document. We feel quite strongly in this party that that is not an unreasonable request. While we support this bill in principle in second reading we will want

[ Page 3922 ]

some fairly detailed discussion of that particular aspect of the bill in committee stage.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bill in principle. This decision came after some trepidation when the bill was originally tabled, because I heard some of these criticisms that the disclosed information would be available for frivolous and casual examination and perusal by idle people who have nothing else to do. This disturbed me rather greatly because I'm one who has always believed very strongly in private rights and in civil liberties.

So I did something that evidently some Members, particularly of the official opposition and obviously the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), failed to do. That is, I read the bill. It's four or five pages long. It's in the green book. It's between 84 and 86. You can find it rather easily. I had to reread the bill several times, Mr. Speaker, because I couldn't find any reference in the bill to frivolous or casual examination of private affairs of individuals. I was very satisfied. I even talked to legislative counsel about this. There is no reference to this sort of thing in it at all. I would like to assure those members in the public and in the various municipal councils who have expressed concern about this that absolutely no one will have the opportunity for frivolous examination of private affairs except the voter. That's the reason for the bill. If you guys had read it you would know that.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just want to add a few comments of my own in passing this bill because the bill in its original form in my estimation….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I said it was Gestapo tactics and I'll stand by that — in its original form. I'm certainly glad, Mr. Speaker, to see the government realized the error of its ways and that there were Gestapo tactics in bringing in this bill. That's why they've amended the bill.

But I want to tell you that I am definitely in favour of disclosing any business interests I have. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I go to my reward I will have to disclose all of my business dealings with my Maker. That is really the person who I am concerned about; I'm not concerned about disclosing it to Mr. Premier or anybody else.

I am concerned about disclosing my business dealings to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to run in and pick up my disclosure and read it. In my business I have partners, and I don't think their business should become the public's business. They didn't run for politics; I did.

The very fact that a five-page bill came out, and then there were over four pages of amendments to a five-page bill, shows the government clearly how wrong the original bill was. I feel very strongly in this day and age that the public are certainly entitled to know more about the people they elect to office than they did a few years ago. That is because of the complex society we live in.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that any man in business or, as a matter of fact, anybody who makes a taxable income certainly makes a disclosure when he fills out his income tax form. Those figures on that income tax form are available to the provincial government and the federal government. In the Province of British Columbia, every businessman who employs over $25,000 worth of capital in his business makes another public disclosure. When he submits his cheque and his form with the capital tax employment Act, which he must do once a year, he certainly reveals a great deal about his business to the Finance department of the provincial government.

What really concerns me about public disclosure is the fact that people unknowingly — and some of them knowingly — can take the facts off your public disclosure and twist them around to give the wrong impression of your business to the general public. I want to say that we have had in the past year many cases of this in politics in Canada and, indeed, in British Columbia. The Premier of this province can look at a financial statement of a particular oil company and, without telling all of the facts…

MR. SMITH: Or hardly any.

MR. PHILLIPS: …picking one particular item, mislead and misrepresent that financial statement to the people of this province. We have had also the leader of a very well-known political party in Canada running around, taking financial statements from decent businesses in Canada who have made their profits obeying the laws of this land — laws which were created by these politicians and maybe unknowingly — but I doubt it — using statements from these financial statements to create false impressions in the minds of the electorate of this Canada of ours for his own political gain.

The reason I bring this up, Mr. Speaker — and you know well who I refer to: I refer to the leader of the socialist party of Canada who has coined the term "rip-off artists," referring to business, using segments of their financial statement.

The thing that concerns me about this disclosure Act is this. If leaders of respectable political parties in Canada will take the disclosure through income tax or through annual statements issued by good, honest companies and twist these facts around to create a false impression in the minds of the electorate of Canada, what would happen to me or to many other

[ Page 3923 ]

honest businessmen in this province if somebody in my riding who wanted to run against me or to support somebody who was running against me, took in my disclosure and twisted the facts around to create other than the proper impressions in my riding?

I would certainly not want to see businessmen in this province precluded from allowing their name to stand to run for politics. I think independent businessmen — and I'm not talking about the managers and the presidents of corporate giants; I am talking about small, independent businessmen who have made their dollars honestly in their community — I have a great deal to contribute to the political and economic life and to the business of running our government.

I am certainly, as I have said before, in favour of disclosure. But I think disclosure should be kept private. (Laughter.)

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I like that. It has a nice ring to it.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's perfectly all right, Mr. Speaker, for the Members opposite to laugh. You could establish a public trustee who would serve for life and who would be the overseer of all of the public disclosures. Certainly, that man would know what business you're in and what your assets were and how they improve.

But let's look at the other side and the good benefit of this disclosure Act. Today, when politicians are receiving very high wages, you will find people who have never been in the business world and who have maybe not established their integrity within that community by entering into the marketplace. When you enter the marketplace, particularly if you are in the selling game, you establish your integrity and you establish it very suddenly or you are not in business. I want to tell you that.

But there are people who maybe would be politicians, who have not established their integrity in the marketplace or in the business world, who today, because of the high wages paid politicians, would like to get into the market. We have had cases more recently in the United States of America where professional politicians who never made it on their own in the business world or in any of the professions, through a series of political campaigns, established themselves in very, very high places in politics. If you have been listening to the United States political situation, you will know to whom I am referring.

I feel this political disclosure will have some dampening effect on these type of people who would work and wheedle their way into politics, work and wheedle their way into a position of power so they could benefit from those very decisions. That's why I am in favour of disclosure.

I want just to mention the Kennedy reign in the United States — the Kennedy family. President Kennedy was above reproach and in no way did he enter into politics to use his position to improve his own financial being. I feel that when you have people in politics or running for politics who are financially independent, you're not going to get those people trying to use their position to acquire capital gain for themselves.

We have had instances just more recently in Canada of the very same situation.

Just one other point, Mr. Speaker, that I want to bring out. I do not feel that this public disclosures Act should stop people in business or be a deterrent to people in business from running for politics. As I said before, I personally am not against revealing my assets, but I am against revealing them to every socialist snooper who would want to go and take a look at them.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Are you going to vote for the bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to vote for the bill in principle, (Laughter.) Oh, absolutely, I'm going to vote for the bill in principle. The Premier can sit over there and laugh until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned. But he knows full well that these four or five pages of amendments that he brought in were brought in for a reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Everyone can still read it publicly. Are you going to vote for the bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but you're not asking us any longer to publish financial statements. There's big difference there, Mr. Premier and you know it.

Don't be frivolous. Haven't you got a serious bone in your body? Can't you take this government, this responsibility you have, a little more seriously than you do?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, while we are talking about public disclosure I just wonder if the principle of public disclosure shouldn't go just a little further than it does. I would like to read into the record a letter that I recently received. It has a point and maybe, Mr. Speaker, this point should be considered. The letter says:

"Dear Don:

"I'm concerned about this disclosure Act crap, but there is one facet to it that everyone seems to overlook.

"Listen: darn it, you will recall that I was a

[ Page 3924 ]

real redneck when it came to welfare during those good old days in Fort St. John. Your leader at that time said you couldn't make a man work for his welfare as it would" — get this — "rob him of his dignity.

"If all elected people are a bunch of crooks, and that is just what the Act implies, I do not see why all B.C. government welfare leeches could not be included in this Act. After all, they are sucking the government which is supported by you and everyone else who makes a buck. Putting the welfare types under the gaze and control of the Act would make a lot more people honest."

HON. MR. BARRETT: They disclose when they go in to see a social worker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Can I go look at it, Mr. Speaker? Can I go look at it? You don't have to have a valid complaint to look at any disclosure when it's done. However, that's not the point. The Premier…. You know, I can hardly wait to sit down and see the act because I know the paper will be waved around and…. I can just hear it now: "Gestapo tactics." Mr. Speaker, we're going to call it the 5:30 show. (Laughter.) I know it's coming; I know it's coming. I'll continue the letter:

"As a publisher for many years, let me say that people hate bad publicity.

" I suggest therefore that the B.C. government, under this Act, cause to be published annually the names, addresses and amounts of welfare received during each calendar year.

"Surely if nasty dollar-earners like yourself now bow to Big Brother, surely these welfare…shouldn't be beyond the law."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to tell him you are voting for it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to tell him I am voting for it.

That's signed "a newspaper editor."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PHILLIPS: From the son of a great newspaper editor in British Columbia, the son of Ma Murray who was always very outspoken and always a defender of the rights of everybody in British Columbia — it didn't matter what side of the House they were on.

While we are on public disclosures, I wonder if the labour union leaders shouldn't be….

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the letter.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not tabling the letter at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why not?

MR. PHILLIPS: I've read the letter. It's from Dan Murray. It says, "Kindest regards." It says: "Hannibal is at the gates. 1984 will be here before you know it." It says: "If you like it, you can quote me."

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish my final point. Among the labour union leaders of this province we have many who are very wealthy and some who are not so wealthy. They are elected to a position of trust. Should they not reveal to the rank and file in their unions their finances, their assets and their liabilities? If we are going on a route of disclosing, I think everybody should disclose.

AN HON. MEMBER: The press too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it has been brought up by another Member that the press should disclose, but I don't think the press should disclose because they disclose a lot when they write an article.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that I am not against the principle of disclosure, but I am certainly against the principle of having that disclosure available to anyone who might wish to use it for various means — particularly political means.

I feel very strongly that this disclosure Act will preclude many able and willing businessmen, who would have a great deal to contribute to the business life of this community, from running for politics, the business life of the province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, our whole government is business. The whole government is business, even though the types we have on the benches opposite sometimes don't seem to realize it. They run on a theory; they don't try to run it like a business.

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly pleased that the Attorney-General saw the error of his ways when he brought in these five pages of amendments, because in its original form it was Gestapo tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, nonsense!

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as the Members of the opposition discussed the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act today. I paid particular attention to the comments of the Social Credit Members and I want to agree with the last speaker that anyone running for public office should have to disclose their interests, be he a trade union leader, be he a businessman, or be he any individual seeking public office. That is the principle of the bill. It's not the intent to extend this disclosure into their private life but simply into the picture when they aspire to

[ Page 3925 ]

and seek public office.

I think it is interesting to read what one of the former Social Credit Members had to say about this bill, a man who I have a greatest respect for, a man who served in the public life of the City of Revelstoke for many, many years as mayor and as an alderman, a man who served in this Legislature as an MLA for that once-great Social Credit party — the editor and publisher of the Revelstoke Review, Mr. Argood Lundell. He wrote in his editorial page on May 6, before any amendments were introduced to the bill, and had this to say:

"There is considerable opposition being engendered against the provincial government bill to make public officials divulge their participation in matters which could clash with their public responsibilities.

"Some regional districts in the Cariboo have threatened to quit if the legislation becomes effective. So what? There are plenty of capable citizens in every community available for public service.

"If there is any question about a candidate's outside interests or axe-grinding activities, he should be eliminated from consideration."

He concludes by saying:

"We think the government should be commended for initiating this legislation."

There is a Social Credit Member who sat in this House for quite a number of years, a man who served his local community with distinction and with great honour, I might add, over a lengthy period of time. He is not a bit hesitant, as a local businessman, about revealing his assets, his interests and anything that could conflict with the public good in that community.

I suggest that it is quite shocking to see comments by certain individuals accusing the government of 'introducing Gestapo tactics. It's not even consistent with people who have some knowledge and experience in the Social Credit Party. They take a more mature point of view.

I note that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has now left the House. Perhaps he didn't like being reminded of the comments of one who sat in this House some time ago, someone who had a more mature outlook and a good deal more experience, and someone who welcomes this legislation, as I do.

I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this evening all the Members will again have an opportunity of meeting for the last time our guests from the Province of Quebec.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Only some of them will be meeting with them tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some of them will be meeting, okay. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: We had to split it up three ways unfortunately.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:26 p.m.

[ Page 3925A ]

APPENDIX

18 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 18) intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1974, to amend as follows:

Section 1, referring to section 64, line 2: By deleting the words ", including coal".

Section 1, referring to section 66 (2) (c), line 1: By inserting, after the word "person", the words "or class of persons"; and by inserting, after the words "operation of", the words "this Part or".

Section 1, referring to section 68, line 4: By inserting, after the words "section and", the words "may order a suspension of the increase in whole or in part pending the conclusion of the hearing and thereupon".

Section 1, referring to section 68, line 6: By deleting all the words after the word "price" and substituting the words "or direct the payment of a refund, and for this purpose may prescribe to whom and by what manner refunds shall be made, and, if persons entitled to refunds are not easily identifiable or comprise so numerous a class that refunds cannot be conveniently made, may prescribe such other methods for attaining the same object as it may consider appropriate, including price reductions to offset the amount of the refunds."

Section 1, referring to section 69: By adding, after subsection (3), the following as subsection (4):

"(4) Where the commission has not commenced a hearing under subsection (3) within fifteen days after it receives a written application for approval of a price increase, the commission shall be deemed to have approved of the increase in the terms of the application on the day next following the expiration of the fifteen days."

Section 1, referring to section 70, lines 7 and 9:

(a) By deleting the word "and" at the end of clause (b).

(b) By adding the word "; and" at the end of clause(c) and the following as clause (d):

"(d) different prices in respect of different users or classes of users."

Section 1, referring to section 72 (j), line 2: By inserting, after the word "product", the words "and defining the word 'discount' for the purpose".

Section 1, referring to section 80: By deleting section 80 and substituting the following:

"Refusal or failure to supply

"80. Where a seller at any time refuses or fails to supply an adequate quantity of a petroleum product to a person at the price approved by the commission for that product, or, if no price has been approved, at a price for that product that does not exceed any applicable maximum price specified in a price guideline issued by the commission pursuant to this Part, and, as often as that refusal or failure occurs, the commission may order the seller to supply that petroleum product to that buyer at the approved price, or at a price not exceeding the maximum price specified in the price guideline, as the case may be, and in such quantities and on such terms and conditions in all other respects as the commission may specify in the order."

Section 1: By inserting, after section 80, the following as sections 81 to 85:

"Classification of energy services and petroleum products

"81. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by order,

"(a) classify energy services and petroleum products according to types of energy service or petroleum product and to classes of consumers or users of those energy services or petroleum products;

[ Page 3925B ]

APPENDIX

"(b) designate those classes of energy services or petroleum products with respect to which consumer grants shall be paid;

"(c) specify the amounts of consumer grants; and

"(d) designate in what manner and by whom consumer grants are to be paid."

"Consumer grants

"82. A person who sells a class of energy service or petroleum product designated by order made pursuant to section 81 shall be eligible to receive consumer grants in the amounts specified by the order if,

"(a) in the period from the coming into force of this section to the date of payment, he has maintained for all classes of petroleum products sold by him prices not exceeding the maximum prices set out in the price guidelines issued from time to time by the commission under section 84; and

"(b) he has given assurances in a form satisfactory to the commission that he will continue to maintain prices not exceeding the maximum prices set out in the price guidelines while those price guidelines are in force."

"Regulations

"83. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations

"(a) specifying the manner in which a person who is eligible to receive consumer grants pursuant to section 82 shall invoice his customers and credit the amount of the applicable consumer grants received by him;

"(b) specifying the manner in which a person who is eligible to receive consumer grants pursuant to section 82 shall calculate and verify the total amount of consumer grants to which he is entitled;

"(c) specifying the dates from which consumer grants shall be made, and different dates may be specified with respect to different classes of energy services or petroleum products;

"(d) specifying the method and frequency of payment of consumer grants;

"(e) specifying any special arrangement or special deductions or credits that may be permitted in particular cases;

"(f) authorizing adjustments of overpayment or underpayment of consumer grants; and

"(g) generally, respecting any matter or thing necessary to carry out the purpose of this Part."

"Price guidelines

"84. The commission may, by order, issue price guidelines respecting maximum prices that may be charged by sellers of petroleum products according to types of petroleum products and classes of consumers or users, and may vary those price guidelines."

"Regulations

"85. The commission may make regulations

"(a) prescribing any matter respecting compliance with maximum price guidelines issued pursuant to section 84; and

"(b) prescribing the form in which an assurance of maintenance of prices not exceeding the maximum prices set out in the price guidelines is to be made for the purposes of section 82."