[ Page 4285 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Contempt of the House by cabinet ministers. Mr. Gibson –– 4285

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Breaches of Constitution Act. Mr. Macdonald –– 4286

Corporate records of Church Realty. Mr. Levi –– 4287

Work offered to Railwest before plant closure. Mr. Gibson –– 4287

Receipt of Hudgins affidavit. Mr. Macdonald –– 4288

Distribution of grape juice to members. Mr. Wallace –– 4288

Reduction of rent controls. Mr. Barnes –– 4289

Tendering for computer equipment. Mr. Levi –– 4289

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act (Bill 81) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading –– 4289

Floating Homes Regulation Act (Bill M 2 0 1) Second reading.

Mr. Rogers –– 4289

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4290

Mr. Speaker rules out of order –– 4290

Freedom of Information Act (Bill M 202) Second reading.

Mr. Wallace –– 4290

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4292

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill M 203) .

Second reading.

Mr. Gibson –– 4293

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps Act (Bill M 204) . Second reading.

Mr. Gibson –– 4293

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4294

Telephone Directories Dual Listing Act (Bill M 205) Second reading.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4294

Division on motion to adjourn the debate –– 4295

An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act (Bill M 206) . Second reading.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4295

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4296

Mr. Speaker rules out of order –– 4296

British Columbia Petroleum Sales Act, 1977 (Bill M 207) . Second reading.

Mr. Shelford –– 4296

Mr. Lockstead –– 4297

Mr. Speaker rules out of order –– 4297

Division on a challenge of Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 4297

Systems Act (Bill 44) Second reading.

Mr. King –– 4298

Mrs. Wallace –– 4300

Mr. Mussallem –– 4302

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4303

Division on second reading –– 4306

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 31) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4306

Mr. Stupich –– 4309

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mrs. Joan Smith and her daughter, Katie, from the village of Poole in England, who are seated in the gallery today.

Seated with them, Mr. Speaker, is Rosemary Donald, wife of my executive assistant, Walter Donald, and their son, Chris. They've come all the way from Oak Bay. I would ask you to bid them welcome as well.

Also, for the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, 226 young athletes from British Columbia tonight will be leaving to participate in the 1977 Canada Games in St. John's, Newfoundland. These athletes are the defending summer games champions and, as such, will once again be at the centre of the competition. On behalf of all British Columbians, I've sent our best wishes to them today.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in welcoming my North Vancouver neighbours, Harry and Hennie Kerstens, their children Francis, Jacqueline and Brent, and my daughter, Melissa Gibson, as well.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have in the gallery a student of parliamentary law from southern California. I would ask the House to welcome Mrs. Pauline White from California state.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Reverend Harold Allan who led the House in prayers, which, unfortunately, I missed today. Reverend Allan has been a confidant of many politicians in British Columbia of all political parties and I would like to pay this recognition to his good work in the province.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have two groups from Kamloops today, Michelle Jason and Mrs. Irene DeRoscher, Suzanne, Joanne, Anita, Karen and Mrs. Josie VanElsander. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, a bit of nepotism, because sitting in the gallery today is my brother-in-law, Mr. Rudolph Brown, accompanied by his wife, Lonnie, and daughter, Kim, from the state of Georgia. He is also,

Mr. Speaker, the aide to Congressman Billie Lee Evans who, he tells me, represents the 8th congressional district, which is the largest congressional district in Georgia. He was born in a small town, the same one in which my husband was born, which is 47 miles away from Plains, Georgia. And he knows Jimmy. (Laughter.) He also informs me, Mr. Speaker, that Jimmy's son is married to a Hawkinsville girl, but she's no relative of ours. In any event would the House join me in bidding welcome to my Georgia in-laws who are accompanied by their own private chauffeur, my son, Gary Brown.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I would ask the members to welcome Peter Hollist from Terrace. It's not often we have someone down from up in the north country. He's also president of the Northwest Loggers Association.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Walter Konkin from Invermere.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the performance of duties by members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: State your question of privilege, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Specifically, the matter is one of contempt of the Legislature on the part of members of the executive council failing to file before the House documents or information within the prescribed time period. I will not take the time of the House to cite the general definition of contempt, although I have done so in a message sent to Your Honour. I'll just read that later on, at page 138, May notes:

"Disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application or require a particular individual to do or abstain from doing a particular act, or contravention of any rules of either House is a contempt of that House."

At page 39, as an example, May notes that other examples of this kind of contempt are, "neglecting to make a return, " and then a case is cited.

Continuing with the question of rights of the House, the traditional claim of the Speaker of the assembly to the Lieutenant-Governor states, among other things: "That the Legislature does humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have the freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Honour's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Honour the most favourable

[ Page 4286 ]

interpretation." On behalf of the Lieutenant -Governor, the Provincial Secretary responds that among other things, "He grants and, upon all occasions, will recognize and allow the constitutional privileges."

I would submit that access to His Honour's person in this context means access to information provided by law, and the recognition of the constitutional privileges of the Legislature buttresses this case. Section 3 of the Constitution Act makes it clear that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is a corporation sole. Further, section 3 of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act, makes it clear that:

"The Legislative Assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly, or before any committee thereof, of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the assembly or committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations. Statutory reports are reports that the assembly has not only deemed necessary on a continuing basis, but have been enshrined in statute law."

The contempt as revealed by my investigations is an extensive and continuing one. I attach particulars, which I will not read now, of failure to file reports in a timely manner according to the law of this Legislature by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , two cases; the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) ; the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) ; the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) ; the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) ; the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) ; and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

Unlike a question of privilege, which is ordinarily an individual case and must be taken up at the earliest opportunity, these contemps are continuing and may be raised' at any time. Now that this matter has been drawn to Your Honour's attention I would ask you to take the matter under advisement and report back to the Legislature as to whether in your view a prima facie case of contempt has been established.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for providing me with a copy of his matter of privilege prior to delivering it in the House. I have not had that opportunity yet to study the matter in detail. The only comment that I would like to make at this time is that ordinarily it's not sufficient just to raise a question of privilege; it should be accompanied at the same time with the intended motion, if in fact a prima facie case of privilege 1-s found. I don't think that prejudices the presentation of a motion provided it is done at the time the decision comes down, if it's found that a prima facie case does in fact exist. That's just my personal opinion. I wouldn't want to deny members the right to move a motion because of the fact that the motion did not accompany their original submission to the House.

The only other comment that I would like to make at this time is that you have referred to the fact that unlike a question of privilege, which must be raised on an individual basis at its earliest opportunity, these contempts are continuing. I think that's a matter of opinion expressed by yourself, and may or may not be a valid one. I'm not debating the matter, I'm just pointing that out. I will take the matter under consideration and report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to file the report on the commission of enquiry into the Grizzly Valley natural gas pipeline, established under order-in-council 130 dated January 11,1977.

Oral questions.

BREACHES OF CONSTITUTION ACT

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation. In view of the statement of the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday that he was referring to the court the question of whether or not he was disqualified and violated the Constitution Act by the receipt of expenses over and above those that are regularly allowed to members of the Legislature, will the hon. minister tell the House that he is going to refer that question of the court as to his own case?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, hon. member, as you probably well know, is out of order inasmuch as the House has already decided the question as to whether it shall be investigated by the courts or by a committee of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: They may reconsider, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the House has determined that a committee will be set up and that motion has been passed by the House and it is an order of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that doesn't preclude that hon. minister from doing what the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did yesterday....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR.MACDONALD: ... and he ought to do it.

[ Page 4287 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You are now.... The hon. member is out of order and he knows it well.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary then, to the Premier. In view of the action of the hon. member for Oak Bay on the matter which I referred to, will the Premier reconsider and see that this matter is referred to the courts of the land for a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is....

MR. MACDONALD: He is going to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is irregular and out of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: This is closure.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you ruled that the question is out of order because the House has already decided. Are you then so ruling that the member from Oak Bay was in contempt of the House yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: I am not ruling any way on anything that is not before the House. The House has decided how the matter will be handled with respect to the three members in question.

CORPORATE RECORDS OF

CHURCH REALTY

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. On July 25, the minister took as notice a question relating to the corporate records of Church Realty Ltd. Can the minister inform the House as to the present directors and owners of Church Realty?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will have that information available tomorrow for the member.

WORK OFFERED TO RAILWEST

BEFORE PLANT CLOSURE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Economic Development. Based on information received from the mayor of Squamish, I would ask the Minister if just before the decision was taken to close the Railwest Plant, Railwest was offered reconditioning work on approximately 46 chemical tank cars and an unspecified but large number of federal grain hopper cars with fractures which could have been economically done at Railwest while dropping off grain on the west coast?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, there were some short-term jobs offered but they were of a repair nature and involved a different union. The union presently in place could not do the work.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, that is not the story I hear with respect to the union, but I will ask the minister, with this....

MR. SPEAKER: Please, that is argumentative.

MR. GIBSON: Well, so is the minister's statement, in my view.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's different.

MR. GIBSON: With this repair work, plus the strong probability of at least 300 ballast cars giving work until next February, which could have given room to plan the future for the plant, I would ask the minister why all this work was turned down, and will he file with this House the cost studies that led the board of directors to make this recommendation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered the question previously.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister has been asked previously if he would file the cost studies that led to the making of that decision - the cost studies that led the board of directors to conclude that the economical thing to do was to reject this repair and potential ballast car work and close the plant down. Will he file those studies?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I've already informed the member that the reason the repair work could not be done was that it involved a different union. That is the reason the decision was made.

HON. MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in this event I would ask the minister if he would at least tell us this: if the community can arrange other tenants for that plant, is the BCR prepared to sell or lease that plant?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The matter of leasing the plant has been referred by the board of directors to the Development Corporation, who are looking for tenants at the present time.

[ Page 4288 ]

RECEIPT OF HUDGINS AFFIDAVIT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education. On July 20 the minister filed with the House the affidavit of one Ronald Richard Hudgins, sworn the same day. My question to the minister is: from whom did you receive the affidavit?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): From the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: My supplementary question to the minister is: has the conflict between that affidavit and the statements of Mr. Hudgins given to ICBC on March 25,1976, been referred by the minister to the Attorney-General for possible action?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the House, the Surrey Dodge file, including that affidavit, is in the hands of the RCMP. That was something, Mr. Speaker, that both the Attorney-General and I made clear to the House was initiated by the ICBC, as it properly should be.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. In view of the fact that the minister was the one who filed this affidavit with the House, has he taken no action to refer the matter to the Attorney-General in view of possible perjury?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think the first member for Vancouver East is being pompous and preposterous. As the Attorney-General and I have both explained to the House, the matter is before the RCMP. I don't know how many different ways the member wishes to have that referred, but it only takes one, Mr. Speaker. I might add that at the time this was taken to the RCMP by ICBC I explained that to the House. The members opposite were busy telephoning all over British Columbia trying to find RCMP officers who were taking on the case. Unable to do so, they reported it to the press. False stories appeared in the press, all emanating from the NDP.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister who sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks evil of the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please state your supplementary?

MR. MACDONALD: All right, erase that from the record.

In view of the fact that this affidavit wasn't tendered to ICBC but to this House by that minister, why doesn't he refer it to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for possible perjury?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East isn't deaf; he's just stupid. It is in the hands of the RCMP.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. Minister of Education withdraw the word "stupid" in reference to the member for Vancouver East?

AN HON. MEMBER: Erase it from the record.

MR. MACDONALD: Who's Mortimer Snerd, anyway?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's an improper term to use, hon. minister. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Logic drew me to that conclusion, Mr. Speaker, but I withdraw.

DISTRIBUTION OF

GRAPE JUICE TO MEMBERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister confirm that today one of his staff went around the precincts of the Legislature delivering cans of Grantham's crackling grape juice ...

HON. MR. MAIR: It's non-alcoholic.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Shall I say that again?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Say it again.

MR. WALLACE: I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker -Grantham's crackling grape juice.

... together with a promotional message under the letterhead of Grantham Foods Ltd. in which the statement is made' "We hope you will hope we'll work on fair legislation to revitalize our B.C. economy and help to promote B.C. products."

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the members knows that the "promotion" material, I guess he calls it, is to all members of the Legislative Assembly. That company is very proud of the fact they are using B.C. agricultural product in the grape drink. I think the record would show that the last time a product was distributed in this House was by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , which was a Swan Valley food pouch. I hope that isn't a bad omen for this new

[ Page 4289 ]

product, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I support the idea of "buy B.C. products, " but does the minister not consider that his use of staff to distribute these products today makes his ministry appear to be favouring one particular private company - namely, Grantham Foods - while there are many other private competitors in the same field?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, Grantham Foods, of course, has embarked on a new product. They are very excited about it and they wanted to show the members of this House what they are doing with B.C. agricultural products. I don't think it sets a precedent.

MR. WALLACE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's answer but I would just like to ask him if his ministry has any defined policy in its arrangements with private companies who may seek the assistance of the minister in promoting their products. Are there some guidelines and policy within the ministry?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, we have many programmes, of course, that are available to the various agricultural processing industries. We work with them to ensure that the B.C. products that are .grown, produced and processed here get recognition. I'm sure we're well protected.

REDUCTION OF RENT CONTROLS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last April the minister introduced an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act. As a result of the introduction he made an announcement that the rent controls would be reduced from 10.6 per cent to 7 per cent as of May 1. Could the minister now advise the House as to the status of that amendment?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is before this House and it is a question of priority. I think the member ought to direct the question to the House leader (Mr. Gardom) . It's not for me.

MR. BARNES: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the minister's arrogance, but he should realize that when he introduced the bill he caused great confusion among landlords and tenants. At the present time people are unaware of just what will be happening with respect to this legislation.

TENDERING FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

TENDERING FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LEVI: This is a question for the Minister of Finance regarding tendering for computer equipment.

On July 12, the minister, in reply to question 95 on the order paper, was asked under part 8 of the question: "Before the purchase of this equipment, were tenders invited from suppliers of computer equipment? If so, which firms submitted bids?;, -The minister's reply was that the equipment was data-entry cluster, and yes, there were tenders and four local suppliers who applied. In part 9 of the question he identified the company awarded the tender as Elan Datamakers, and they are being paid $2,870 per month. 11

My question is: were the specifications of the tender for this particular equipment described as data-entry cluster of eight keyboards and mini-Computers sent to all appropriate suppliers as listed in the ministry?

I understand, Mr. Speaker, the ministry keeps a list of suppliers. Could the minister tell the House who they were and what the names of the four suppliers who responded to the tender?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I suggest that question might be more appropriate on the order paper but I'll be happy to take the question as notice.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Mair presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 81 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.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): With leave, I ask to table an answer to a question from the member for Burnaby North.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Public bills in the hands of private members, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading of Bill M201, Mr. Speaker.

FLOATING HOMES REGULATION ACT

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I had to jar my memory back to January 26 when this bill was introduced for the first reading. Here we are in

[ Page 4290 ]

August for the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, before this bill is ruled out of order by someone, I would like to just review a little bit of the history of floating homes and floating residences in this province. I'm sure all members of this House have read Margaret Ormsby's book, British Columbia: A History. In that book, when it's discussing the development of New Westminster and Fort Langley and Fort Yale, there's reference to the large cedar trees which were chopped down and in many cases made into floating villages for inexpensive residences. Over the years since the 1830s and 1840s there have been people of various sorts in this province living one way or the other on the water. This is the first attempt by any one to ever bring recognition to that fact.

In Europe, as you may know, in Amsterdam, London and in many of the other cities as well, there are small communities of people that live on the water. In Amsterdam particularly they live in very colourful houseboats along the canals and have giant window boxes full of tulips and geraniums, among other things.

We experienced the same thing in British Columbia about 10 years ago with the start of construction of small villages of people living in floating homes, especially in Richmond. One of the original reasons they lived in mobile homes was to avoid paying taxes, because it was a very inexpensive method of construction. In fact, the construction techniques have been very original and have proved to be very worthwhile. Living in a floating home, as some friends of mine do, is a very pleasant type of environment. You get the marine traffic drifting by your door, and it's a very enjoyable lifestyle. Recently, of course, there have been developments in floating homes that have made them non-polluting, certainly very much energy-conserving. They are distinctly not ships, no more than a mobile home is mobile.

All this Act simply intends to do is give some credibility and recognition to the people who live in floating homes. It would give them the same privileges we now extend to people that live in mobile homes. I would suspect therefore that, of course, all members of this House will want to support it, especially the member for Richmond, the hon. Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , because so many of his constituents do live in floating homes.

I did take the time to circulate this bill to the various authorities, and I sent a copy of the bill to the Fraser River Harbours Commission, which is the federal government body responsible for the administration of Fraser harbours and the harbours along the Fraser River. They recognize this in this letter, which if asked to, I will table. It's an excellent step in the right direction.

Mr. Frank Ogden, who is the expert on construction of energy-conserving floating homes, has done extensive articles. They have set up a floating village at the foot of Pemberton Avenue, North Vancouver. They would like to pay taxes but they are prohibited from doing so, so by local arrangement they pay a grant in lieu of taxes to the municipality of North Vancouver. So for those people who choose to live in this lifestyle, and for their friends who like to visit them, I throw this bill out for consideration. I think it is very worthwhile.

I want to thank my staff, who of course have been excellent - and they're with me here today - for preparing this bill. In fact, if there's one thing I can say about the bill, it is extremely well drafted. I think that someone once said "be wise and plagiarize, " and I certainly did that. So with that, I move second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would draw to your attention that in section 7 of Bill M 201 an obligation is proposed to be imposed on the Crown. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that therefore the bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point just raised by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, regardless of what the hon. first member for Vancouver South may think in closing his remarks with respect to the drafting of the bill, I am afraid that section 7 does impose an impost on the Crown, which is out of order according to standing orders 66 and 67. With regret I must therefore rule the bill out of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 202, Mr. Speaker.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

MR. WALLACE: I would just like to start by saying that it is not by any accident that this Act is cited as the Macdonald-Gardom-Wallace Sunshine Act, 1977. 1 notice and appreciate the smile on the Attorney-General's face.

Mr. Speaker, we have governments interfering -not by purpose perhaps, but being involved more and more every week - in the affairs of the individual, very much as a result of the complicated society we are living in. Governments at all levels exercise a wider range of authority over individual affairs than ever before. On that basis, what the government chooses to tell the people, or tell individuals, or society as a whole, is entirely at the discretion of the government and this has been described as discretionary secrecy.

In the consumer field, citizens have become very

[ Page 4291 ]

much aware of their right to know with some accuracy about the product or service which they might consider purchasing in the marketplace. The right-to-know syndrome has really cut its teeth in the private sector on the subject of consumerism, and governments find themselves in the hotseat. It has been said more aptly by someone other than me that freedom of information is an issue whose time has clearly come.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The argument is all the more persuasive when we recognize that other modern democracies such as Sweden and the United States have legislation on their books. We talk a great deal, Mr. Speaker, about participatory democracy and indeed, I support that concept. But it's very difficult for the individual to participate if he cannot find out the facts and reasons on which government actions and policies are implemented at all levels.

Governments too readily complain that citizens do not understand what they are doing, and too often governments fail to provide the basic information which would allow the individual to evaluate the issues intelligently and to come to his own conclusion.

I would suggest that in the wake of one of the worst and most extreme examples, namely Watergate, there probably never has been a time in democratic societies where people collectively and individuals have had less confidence in the democratic system of governments. One measure above all others which would restore some confidence on the part of the public would be a much readier access to information, particularly at government levels.

I would like to mention one or two quick examples of the misuse of the word "confidential" in government activities. There was a case reported last September of a federal official who insisted that the amount of dog food consumed at northern air bases could not be divulged for national security reasons. Now that actually happened; I know that this was a federal official but I am trying to quickly pick examples.

Another outstanding example, Mr. Speaker, was the Conservative House leader in Ottawa, who received a document by unknown means which related to privy council business. I presume it was in the usual brown, unmarked envelope. It was a photo-copy of a story in The Globe and Mail written by the financial editor, Wayne Cheveldayoff, and on top of the photocopy was marked the word, "confidential." This document had appeared in The Globe and Mail several days previously.

On a much more serious note of course, is the example of Walter Rudnicki, an official of Central Mortgage and Housing who showed a government document to Indian and Metis spokesman, which was a rough draft for a native housing policy~-He was fulfilling promises by the Urban Affairs minister, Mr. Speaker, that the native leaders would be consulted. But he was fired for breach of secrecy and he had to sue the government for wrongful dismissal. In the course of suing the government, he pointed out that just about every document that crossed the desk of any of the officials was stamped "confidential." At the trial, Barney Danson, who was the Minister of Urban Affairs, invoked executive privilege to prevent the document being entered as evidence in the courts. Fortunately, the judge was not impressed and Mr. Rudnicki won his case.

What became even more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, was the discovery later on that Mr. Rudnicki was considered an EPO, meaning "extra-parliamentary opposition." It was obvious from that that Mr. Rudnicki was also on a blacklist. So it seems highly suspicious that the efforts to have him fired were not just based on the fact that he was alleged to have disclosed a secret government document, but in fact that he was on a blacklist and his disclosure of the government document was being used as a tool or a mechanism for the government to get rid of him.

Mr. Speaker, when society is subject to this degree of government secrecy - and I'm talking about governments at all levels, not just the provincial government - it means that the concept of participatory democracy or any kind of democracy really goes right out the windows. I feel that the Rudnicki case is a frightening example of the way in which an individual can be severely and unjustly penalized when legislation does not compel governments to disclose information which they hold on file about individuals.

In this particular province - and this is the reason for this bill - there is no freedom-of-information legislation of any kind. I was being facetious, I know, when I cited this bill as the Macdonald-GardomWallace Sunshine Act, because hon. members of this Legislature, each of whom in turn has served as Attorney-General, had previously introduced bills very similar to the one that I have introduced. I'm not suggesting that mine has any particularly novel approach or new ideas. The principle in the bill is very basic.

Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to try and outline what the bill is intended to accomplish. I agreed with comments from members of the House from the other side when a bill of this type was discussed before that there has to be some kind of government information which must remain confidential to the government. No one would dispute that. I'm considering such things as personal medical data, any clear information relating to national security and matters of this nature. I recognize that the precise criteria governing those

[ Page 4292 ]

areas would require careful definition. But at the time we have no criteria and we have no statutes.

I believe that legislation should embody four principles and I've tried to embody them in my bill. One is to remove from government the right to decide what information can be withheld.

The Canadian Bar Association passed what I thought was an excellent resolution, and I will try to read it very quickly:

"The Canadian Bar Association urges that access to information legislation be enacted by the Parliament of Canada and by all provincial legislatures in Canada, creating a statutory right of persons to obtain access to information held by all governments or their agencies subject only to a limited list of narrowly defined exceptions, with any refusal to provide such information and any unreasonable delay or cost subject to review and enforcement by the courts on the merits with the burden of proof on the government."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the basic principle is that instead of perhaps having government decide those matters which should be disclosed, it is a much wiser approach to suggest that all information be disclosed, with certain exceptions which have been defined in that motion by the Canadian Bar Association as being a limited list of narrowly defined exceptions.

I think the second principle in the bill is to establish that the government has an overriding obligation to guarantee freedom of information,

The third principle is the requirement of any bill to provide the kind of precise language and wording which would accomplish a limited list of narrowly defined exceptions.

Finally, the bill should include an appeal procedure independent of the government itself. Now in many of the efforts that have been made in encouraging this legislation, the appeal suggested has been to the courts. In this particular bill, Mr. Speaker - and for the benefit of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , Mr. Speaker, I am almost finished - I suggested in section 5 that since this government is committed to creating the role of ombudsman, it would be a very reasonable responsibility for the ombudsman to be responsible for hearing appeals by individuals who feel that they are entitled to have access to government information but have been denied it.

I would just end by saying, Mr. Speaker, that we live in a society where we see the ever-burgeoning growth of government at all levels, growth which not only gives governments more power over you and me as individuals, but also, at the same time, enlarges the existing gulf between the individual and big governments to the point where government becomes impersonal, distant, dictatorial and threatening. Such changes inevitably endanger many rights and freedoms which we all too readily take for granted. I just hope that this bill may lead, in some small way, to implementing one type of legislation which will diminish the threat which the individual constantly faces in the light of government power at all levels today,

I move second reading.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks and his research into the problem. It is not an undifficult one, as he well appreciates.

The suggestion concerns itself with an issue of public report and public accountability, and a good one at that - the principle of fiat lux. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that accountability has certainly been the order of the day of this administration. We now have quarterly reports.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I find it very peculiar to raise not the hackles but the mirth level of the official opposition on that point. I would draw to the attention of the official opposition, in an extremely kindly fashion, that during their administration they did not have quarterly reports; they did not have an auditor-general; they did not have an ombudsman, which we will have in place, God willing, very, very shortly; they did not have adequate processes to improve the accountability of Crown corporations, and that is already on the order paper itself. I think they are very great measures to keep people up to -date and abreast of government performance, and certainly to ensure public accountability and the fact that the general public will not be caught by surprise with inadequate government performance. This will no longer be able to happen in this province, as a result of the four measures I have referred to.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly reaffirm that accountability and the sharing of information is the obvious direction of this government. As I indicated in my opening remarks to the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , resolution of the problem itself is not undifficult. Those difficulties have been experienced both in the United States and in the federal government, but the fact that it is a difficult problem to overcome does not mean that we are avoiding it. I would like to inform the hon. member that the suggestion is under careful scrutiny and review here.

Before I move adjournment, though, Mr. Speaker, I would mention that the bill as it stands could well impose an obligation upon the Crown and perhaps, as such, it would not be possible for it to be introduced by a private member. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that may well be up to you to take steps in that regard at

[ Page 4293 ]

a later date. For now, I would move adjournment until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to advise you and members of the House that in the gallery this afternoon, we have visiting us Chief Justa Monk and representatives of the Stuart-Trembleur Band who have traveled here from Tachie village for a meeting which we both consider to be of great importance to the province and to the band. I'd like members to welcome the group.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 203, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

MR. GIBSON: This bill is one that does involve the attention of the Minister of Labour. In view of his requirement to be elsewhere on important government business at this time, I'm glad to move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M 204.

RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF

SPRING TRAPS ACT

MR. GIBSON: This bill, as you will realize, is something of a perennial item in this House. I was glad that it was called by the Attorney-General acting as House leader, because it has very distinguished parentage. The Attorney-General, of course, is the author of this bill and advocated it in the House for many years. I hope he will rise in this debate and advocate it again as he has so eloquently on past occasions. I remember so well the day that he brought into this House some spring traps, and indeed I helped him to cock some of these traps. During the debate there was a terrible smash as they closed and the members of the House could all very graphically appreciate what these devices would do to small fur-bearing animals.

If it was a matter of instant death, that would be one thing. But the leg-hold trap does not cause instant death; it causes suffering which can be measured in terms of hours and sometimes in terms of days. The group of very concerned people called the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals has been at some pains to describe to citizens of this province and members of this House some of the very inhumane results that arise from the operation of these particular cruel devices.

The issue, I think, is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker. It's not only an issue of cruelty; it's an issue of unnecessary cruelty. It's something that can be improved and avoided but the necessary incentive must be provided, and that's what this bill proposes to do.

I think every member of this House has had hundreds of letters, so we all know that the concern is there. We all appreciate that on the other side of the case, there are several hundred people in this province who make their living....

AN HON. MEMBER: Several thousand.

MR. GIBSON: Several hundred or several thousand related to these particular kinds of traps -that's a little bit of a matter of debate, Mr. Minister. But in any event, there's a substantial number of people in this province who make their living from trapping and to whom the use of devices of some kind to trap animals is important.

This bill does not prejudge that question. What this bill says in effect is that power will be put into the hands of the minister to say that certain kinds of traps and only certain kinds of traps are approved. It then becomes incumbent upon the minister to as rapidly as is possible phase out of use those kinds of traps which the overwhelming public in this province considers unacceptable, at the same time trying to preserve the necessary conditions of livelihood for many British Columbians, particularly in remote areas. What this bill does is put the responsibility where it should lie - namely, clearly on an identified member of the executive council, who will then have the incentive to push forward as rapidly as possible with the research that is required to develop the necessary kind of humane trap.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is insufficient work being done in this province and in this country in this direction. The latest newsletter of this group called the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping makes reference to a certain amount of expenditure or ongoing research. They mention perhaps over $80,000 by the time, the particular series of test they have in hand are completed. My god, Mr. Speaker! We live in a society that can put men on the moon and can devote hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to things which to many people in our society are a good deal less consequential than the unnecessary suffering of animals. Remember, that figure is for the whole of Canada.

In the province of British Columbia, there is a question at this time of some disagreement between the minister and Mr. Clements, who is the president of the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals. Mr. Clements' feeling is that in fact, only

[ Page 4294 ]

about $3,000 is being spent on this kind of research in British Columbia, while the, minister feels that in fact, $21,000 was spent during the last '76277 fiscal year. In fact, much of that money had to do with trapper-education programmes and the like, which is useful. I don't question that. But it's not directly related to the kind of research that is required to develop humane traps.

What this bill seeks to do, Mr. Speaker, is not to bring an overnight revolution. What it seeks to do is to overnight put the responsibility in an identifiable place so that the citizens of this province can now look to one individual, namely the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I assume he would be assigned the duty. They can look to one member of the executive council to deal with this particular question and to encourage the research to ensure that in the most expeditious way we will come to the time when this cruelty - and as I say, this unnecessary cruelty of which so many members of this House have been made so graphically aware - becomes a thing of the past. It cannot happen one day too soon. I know the minister is concerned.

The purpose of this bill is to buttress that concern with some distinct responsibility to make sure that things get moving more quickly than they have done in the years and years we've been talking about this.

I move second reading of Bill M 204.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the genuine concern that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano expresses in introducing this bill. I'm sure I can say it's a concern that's shared by all members on all sides of the House, and that is one of attaining humane trapping methods. The question of achieving this by merely outlawing a type of trap is somewhat an inadequate approach and I think that the member himself acknowledges that. The fact is, to a large extent the regulation of traps can be accomplished under the Wildlife Act by way of regulation now. The difficulty, of course, is to obtain greater knowledge as to devices and applications of trapping which are indeed humane. This is a subject which relates, of course, not simply to a particular device.

The problem is one in which the solution must vary with the animal's behaviour, its habitat, as well as the climatic conditions. This is certainly an area which requires a great deal of complex research. Questions have been raised in this session as to some of this research. For example, just what the nature of the suffering is in scientific terms has not been clearly identified for certain instances. That is a simple fact, and I quote to you from the federal-provincial humane trapping committee. With reference to the aquatic animals, for example: "No definitive work has ever been done on the question of the effects on aquatic animals of certain traps which have been used. It is not something which one can design a humane trap for until one knows the nature of the suffering and is able to, in fact, in an objective way, come about minimizing that suffering. But it must first be identified.

The intention of the bill, as I say, is very sincere and one which is shared on all sides of the House. I also appreciate the member's reference to the fact that we have some 5,000 trappers who are earning all or part of their living in this province from that occupation. Most of them are employees in remote areas where there are very few alternatives for income and most of them are native Indian people. However, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will be able to deal with this question by way of legislation at the next session of this Legislature.

MRS. WALLACE: Not the way you're going.

HON. MR. BAWLF: In the meantime, I regret to call your attention to the fact that this particular bill is apparently out of order.

MR. GIBSON: The Attorney-General drafted it!

MRS. WALLACE: He wasn't Attorney-General then, though.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I draw your attention to the Journals of the House, 1966, page 225, and 1967, page 232, wherein the Speaker of the day has ruled that a bill is out of order by way of suggesting the imposition of a penalty.

MR. GIBSON: Is the Attorney-General going to appeal the ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: I have before me the citation given by the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He is correct with respect to a similar matter taken up and ruled out of order on page 225 of the Journals of 1966. 1 must therefore advise the hon. member who sponsored the bill that it is out of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M 205, Mr. Speaker.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

DUAL LISTING ACT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this small bill represents a small step on the road to women's liberation. I don't pretend that it is significant in terms of the many other issues affecting women, but the fact remains that the telephone companies by their own fiat - not as ordered by the CTC in Ottawa but by their own ruling - have forbidden married

[ Page 4295 ]

couples to list Christian names of both husbands and wives in the telephone directory. They in their benevolence allow the listing at an extra 55 cents -and they have applied for an increase - on a separate line. So you could have in the phone book: John Smith at such-and-such an address with his phone number, and on the next line you could have Mary Smith. You might put two and two together and say.... But they won't allow it on the same line. They won't permit bundling of John Smith and Mary Smith on the same line in the directory.

The state of New York through its public utilities commission ordered that the telephone directories in that state should on the application of a subscriber permit them to list themselves on the same line in the telephone directory without an extra charge of an extra listing. It's usually the man whose Christian name is in the phone book. I know there are exceptions, and there may be exceptions in this House from some of the men who prefer to go incognito in their own communities as much as they can, whether it's for creditors or whatever.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vancouver East!

MR. MACDONALD: No, my name is in there -Alex B. Macdonald - but Dorothy Macdonald cannot get her name in there unless she applies for a separate listing. I say that that is unjust, Mr. Speaker. I say that this bill is in order and I say that it is time that we recognize that women too have Christian names and that their identity should not be obliterated by the telephone company. I move second reading.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M206, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VITAL STATISTICS ACT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that requires very simple implementation on the part of the provincial government. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has been cognizant of the problem for many months. In fact, it has been almost two years. The Minister of Health seems more anxious to establish a jail on the island of Dr. Moreau than he does in attending to the simple execution of what can be a very serious error if it is left unattended to in his own ministry.

What the bill explains, Mr. Speaker, is that somebody can apply - you use this form - to obtain a birth certificate. It's not all that difficult, if you seek to go underground, to apply for the birth certificate of a deceased person and become, as it were, the walking dead in the place of that person. It is done regularly.

The slayer of Martin Luther King - James Earl Ray is supposed to be that man - came to the city of Toronto and obtained two Canadian passports with which to make his flight and obliterate his identity. To do that he needed a birth certificate. Well, it was very easy in Canada because all he had to do was make inquiries as to somebody who has died, the time and place and the circumstance, and pretend that he knew the deceased, get those details and fill in the application for the birth certificate of the deceased person. The birth certificate comes back to him on payment of a very nominal fee.

People want those birth certificates of deceased persons for the purpose of a credit card sometimes, when their credit rating is shot; for purposes of passport; for purposes of concealing their identity when they have been engaged in crime; for immigration purposes. We have a large underground of people who are not proceeding under their own identities in Canada.

Now all this simple amendment requires, Mr. Speaker, is that on the registration of a live birth, when the notice of death comes in there should be a simple notation saying at the bottom "deceased, " with the date and the place. It's all within the same division of vital statistics. There shouldn't be any administrative problem and no reason whatsoever for delay in implementing this simple matter. I move

[ Page 4296 ]

second reading of this bill.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the member for the attention he's given to this bill. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) talked about the good draftsmanship and I'd just like to comment on the draftsmanship of this bill and the explanatory note, particularly where it says that ~Modern societies contain numerous citizens who go underground and rise again." It sounds like he's plagiarized one of the most famous books in history.

Nevertheless we talked about this in the estimates of the Health ministry in 1975-76, 1 believe, and I explained at that time that many of the problems that the member was concerned about have been eliminated within the division itself, and that we were continuing to have consultation with the RCMP. Much of those discussions are of a classified nature for obvious reasons, but there are steps being taken. Regardless of all of that, it is indeed, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart that I must say that this bill appears, at least, to be out of order because of standing order 66 and many other standing orders as well, because it does impose a condition for the Crown to expend money.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I decide on the point raised by the hon. Minister of Health, would the hon. minister indicate to the House the manner in which the expenditure would be involved, in his opinion, through his department?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there would be some additional expenditure required, not only in terms of providing the additional requirement upon the registration and the birth certificate, but also because it's a fairly significant undertaking that we'd be doing here. It would require much extra staff within the department of vital statistics, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: May I speak on the point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, hon. member. I wished a point of clarification by the hon. minister who had indicated an impost on the Crown. In that case it would disqualify the bill under standing orders 66 and 67.

MR. MACDONALD: My point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: the civil servant who is taking a registration of death simply goes to the files and checks against the birth certificate of that individual and makes a notation. Now that's the same person doing the same job. There's not much involved in that with modern record-keeping.

MR. SPEAKER: I must take the advice of the hon. minister who indicated an expenditure and an impost on the Crown, and therefore I must rule that Bill M 206 is out of order under our standing orders.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M207, Mr. Speaker,

BRITISH COLUMBIA PETROLEUM

SALES ACT, 1977

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): This bill is such a good bill I'm quite sure I don't need to speak too long on it. In moving second reading of Bill M 207, 1 must say that it is just exactly 19 years too late, because 19 years ago was when I started on a campaign of equalization of gas prices across this province. I was right in those days, and I must say I'm still right today. I don't think anyone in this chamber would want to make a tour of the interior of this province and try to deny that this is true. I'm quite sure he wouldn't get a very friendly crowd.

The bill is very clear; however, I must point out to ail members - which they no doubt already realize -that it is a big step, but I would say nothing less will do the job. I hope the members will consider that it is a good move. I would point out, first of all, that this is not just my idea. This bill is based on the reports back as far as 1938, and I'm not just too sure who the MacDonald was who carried out this report. In his recommendation No. 17, in 1938, he said: "The retailing of gasoline should be conducted independently of oil companies. At present this branch is a medium of advertising and part of a costly price structure." You can go through the Morrow report, which I sat on for at least two years. This was followed by the MacKenzie report in Alberta, which recommended basically the same thing. The Nova Scotia report, a little later, also recommended this action. Recently a report was done in Australia which again upheld what I have been saying for a long time - that there should be if not complete divorce, then the functional divorce of the companies from the service stations.

I would say one of the strongest reports of all was a report done on the west coast oil industry in California back in the early '50s. They went a little further than this. They recommended not only that the oil companies be moved away from the service stations, but also that there should be an independent refinery to make sure they could get petroleum at all times. I think this has been taken care of by some federal legislation whereby they pretty well have to sell to the independent.

The idea of this bill is to try to protect the

[ Page 4297 ]

independent businessman of this province. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that the person who built this province was the independent. I think if we lose the independent, then we might just as well make a complete flip-flop and end up in the arms of the socialists on the other side of the House, which would be a terrible thing to happen.

As long as we have the independents, as pointed out in these various studies, then we have real, true competition, but without the independent, competition completely fails. We all know very well that in every study that substantiates this we have an oligopoly industry with few sellers and many buyers where the price leader leads the way and the rest follow behind like little puppy dogs. As Senator Kefauver in his study of monopolies and giant corporations reported, once it gets to this stage, then it is only a form of private socialism, which he didn't condone either.

By this measure of one price at the wholesale level, it ensures a fair start to all retailers with the same price to all so that a hotshot operator can get out and make a fortune and someone who doesn't give a good big smile will go broke, which is the way it should be. I think the only way to preserve independence is to give those in the retail end a fair start. By this method, real competition will come about and the consumer will be the one that wins. I would point out that this step has been taken in Maryland, it's been recommended in Australia and it's been law in New Zealand since the mid-Thirties.

This bill, as I said before, provides one wholesale price throughout the province. This measure alone will help develop the outside areas of this province, rather than just the metropolitan areas around the city of Vancouver. The principle of this bill is not altogether new. We have an equalization system in liquor, tobacco, chocolates and B.C. Hydro. This was brought about when the government took over B.C. Electric in 1961. We've had an equalization on natural gas rates since that time. I would point out to those people in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria that the natural gas comes from the north country and they get it 700 miles away for exactly the same price.

The breweries were taken out of the hotels over 30 years ago by the coalition government. I would say this was certainly a very forward step on their part.

Without saying anything further, because I know the members will support such a fine piece of legislation, I would move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Just a few words on this bill....

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was first on my feet.

MR. SPEAKER: It was the observation of the chair, hon. minister, that the hon. member for Mackenzie was first on his feet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which way were you looking?

MR. SPEAKER: Straight ahead, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just a few brief words on this bill. First of all I think I can safely say that the opposition are generally in agreement with this bill and....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought you would have ruled: "While I sympathize and agree with many of the points made by the member for Skeena, I find that the bill is out of order because it imposes a charge on the Crown, namely in a role imposed on the British Columbia Energy Commission - that is, a role of inspection and analysis of the product."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister, on a point of order, has brought to the attention of the Speaker a matter which I must deal with. I believe the hon. member understands that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm surprised. We were going to support your own member, Jimmy.

MR. SPEAKER: Replying to the hon. minister's point of order, there would appear to be an impost on the Crown, which is, of course, out of order under standing orders 66 and 67. 1 therefore must respectfully rule the bill out of order.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS - 25

[ Page 4298 ]

NAYS - 20

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move we- proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 44.

SYSTEMS ACT

(continued)

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to spend too much time on this particular bill. I found the debate last night very interesting. I think the remarks made by many of my colleagues last evening were particularly valid. There are some inherent conflicts in this particular bill with the position which the now government took when they were campaigning.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I might recap just briefly and point out that the current government, when campaigning in the last election, portrayed themselves as the very epitome of free enterprise and the defenders of private initiative and incentive. They promised through their election campaign material to encourage free enterprise throughout this province. During their period in opposition they attacked many legislative statutes brought before the House by the NDP government as being detrimental to private initiative in this province. They dwelt heavily on that, regardless of the real content of the bills that were before the House.

The symbols used by the government in their media campaigning and certainly in a lot of the documents they put out, you will recall, showed Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the bird, flying freely through the British Columbia air off the coast of greater Vancouver. Hand in glove with that went the advertising of the real estate and insurance industries with the pigeon flying out of the cage into freedom. The headline with it was: "Let Freedom Prevail in British Columbia." The opposition, Mr. Speaker, finds all of those directives and promises completely betrayed in the bill that is now before the House. Bill 44 creates a new government Crown corporation and virtually eliminates the private sector in terms of computer systems and data processing in the province. The removal of the total government market to the private sector means that many of the small companies involved in data processing and so on are just going to be out of business for the loss of market.

I find it incredible that the government is imposing obligations through this statute on all school boards in the province or that any agency that receives funding from the government is obligated to follow the direction of this government in terms of purchasing those data processing services from the government agency, once this bill is passed.

I think we should hearken back to some of the statements made by members of this government with reference to bills introduced and initiatives taken by the previous NDP government in the province. I have here a copy of Hansard from 1973, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to refer to it very briefly and remind some of the members of the position they took at that time when, as an example, the Land Commission Act was introduced.

It was a bill designed to protect farmland for farm production purposes for all time in British Columbia, to stop the erosion of valuable agricultural land to purposes other than the growing of food, mainly for commercial and industrial development. But despite the stated objective of that bill, the opposition of that day, including the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Economic Development, weren't satisfied. They were concerned with the implications of the bill in terms of the powers that it might grant to the government. They had many interesting things to say. I want to quote the Minister of Industrial Development, who spoke for 12 hours in this House, opposing the agricultural land freeze of that time. Just let me quote one of his comments. It appears on page 1454 of Hansard dated March 20,1973.

Well, maybe we don't have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to the weekend farmers as far as making their farming an economically viable unit. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that we have a great obligation to the weekend farmers when it comes to protecting their assets. I think it should be the right of an individual, if he so desires, to go out in the country and buy a few acres and raise a few horses or ponies for his children, or maybe a cow or some chickens. I think that he should have that right. Bill 42 in essence is going to take that right away from him. Well, that was absolute nonsense. The bill did not have for its purpose the interference with farming enterprise. It had for its purpose the preservation of land precisely for the purpose of farming.

But there was distortion by the opposition of that day in terms of what the intentions of legislation were. There were attacks on the basis that the

[ Page 4299 ]

government was taking unto themselves too much power and that a five-man or a seven-man Land Commission at arm's length from the government would intrude into the private rights of citizens in this province to hold and to enjoy the full use of land in whatever manner that they chose.

There were allegations made in this chamber. They're all recorded here in Hansard for anyone to refer to. The Minister of Health had some interesting things to say. He talked about the intrusion of the Land Commission Act into the rights of the municipal councils to control the right of land. And he stated . ... I'm not going to quote him and read from Hansard, but I refer anyone who is interested to page 1551 of Hansard, dated March 21,1973, where the Minister of Health predicted the loss of individual rights and freedoms if the Land Commission Act was passed. He talked about the loss of personal property - not only land, but wristwatches and gold teeth. That was the kind of distortion we had, Mr. Speaker.

What do we find in Bill 44 that this group, which portrayed themselves as defenders of individual liberty and private enterprise in this province, has now placed before this Legislature? We find the development of the new ominous government enterprise, not at arm's length from the cabinet and executive council as the Land Commission was. Here is a new Crown corporation, with a board appointed by the minister, to set policy. I just want to read some of the words that are used in this statute. One of the functions is:

" To safeguard the confidentiality of, security of, and proprietary interests in, information processed by the corporation, and to prevent use of personal information. The , purpose of the corporation is to establish and implement such policies as is considered appropriate."

A government-appointed board by the minister in control of total information gathering in this province relating to any government enterprise, school boards and many other agencies funded by government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you that this completely flies in the face of the current trend of public administration. The current trend, not only in British Columbia and Canada but also throughout North America, is for the release of more public information surrounding government administration. The whole trend and thrust of public opinion is that there should be fewer secrets in government administration, that the public should have access to the information on which government is basing its decision. Yet here we have a statute with the stated purpose of keeping secrets, defending the proprietary use of information.

What we have is a double-barrel thrust. We have a monopoly being created by the government - control by the government in a political way - which is going to have a devastating effect on private enterprise in that particular industry. Undoubtedly it's going to bring into bankruptcy many of the small competitive firms that now operate in that area. But what is more dangerous, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is that here is the centralization of all information gathering, not only in terms of the departments and branches of the provincial government itself, but in those agencies out in the communities such as school districts which are obliged to comply with the monolithic dictates of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, it becomes a sham and a mockery to have locally elected public boards administering our hospitals and schools when a centralist government in Victoria is demanding that all data processing and information gathering be directed through this new monolithic Crown agency in Victoria. It cats at the very root of the theory and practice of developing local autonomy, local decision making, local participation through public boards.

I don't know what the purpose of the bill is; I don't know what the government might have in mind in terms of suppressing information that could prove embarrassing to them. I know that they have the authority through this bill to set up a board of administration, hand chosen by the minister, who is not immune from political considerations, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know who is going to be on that board. I've heard of individuals sitting on more than one board of directors. I wonder if Mr. Bonner will be on this board. I wonder if Ray Williston will be sitting on this board as well as that of Can-Cel. Maybe they're going to resurrect P.A. Gaglardi and "Killer" Skillings. I don't know who is going to be on this board. It could be a whole mess of former Social Credit ministers who are interested in and know how to protect their government's interest when it comes to the suppression of what should be public information.

These are valid concerns because it states in the bill that the objective is to make secret certain information that comes through this Crown corporation. That's pretty bare-faced, Mr. Speaker. As I say, the current Attorney-General used to introduce a private member's bill when he sat as a Liberal in the opposition. Each and every session the Attorney-General would introduce a bill called the "Sunshine Bill." Remember? Let the sun shine in, open up government departments, give the public free access to government information on which political decisions are made. What's wrong with that? He advocated it then, but he had a change of heart prior to the last provincial election. Some would say that he had a change of principle as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are the concerns the opposition has. I just find it absolutely appalling and I find it hypocritical from this government that they would espouse and advocate the freeing up of information

[ Page 4300 ]

to not only members of this House and the opposition, but members of the public too, so that there would be less suspicion of government.

We have heard in the last few days the Provincial Secretary, the leader of the Conservative Party and other members of this House decry the fact that the institution of parliament in British Columbia is not held in very high esteem any more by the people of this province. They have talked of the kind of games that go on in this House and some of the charges that are made across the floor.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to improve the image of parliament in this province, and if we want to improve the institution of government, then every member of the public should feel that he has greater access to government information. It's very hard for a citizen of the province to comply with all the policy dicta of government when he has no information or understanding of the evidence and the principles upon which policy is founded. He runs afoul of policy decisions, and then in terms of coming to any intelligent discourse as to whether the policy is correct he's shut out completely from the basis upon which that policy was discussed and set by grey and rather secretive departments and branches of government. He's confronted with a faceless bureaucracy in terms of ensuring that he has proper access to his rights and proper redress when he runs afoul of government policy.

Rather than freeing up information, rather than making the public aware of the policy considerations upon which government sets out policy, we find that we are moving in the other direction with this bill. We are moving to a greater centralization of information gathering in Victoria. We are moving to a greater bureaucracy, which is intimidating and frightening and debilitating to most citizens in terms of their dealings with their government. And this from a government, this from a party, Mr. Speaker, who went around this province buying expensive advertising saying: "We believe in free enterprise. We believe in greater access to government information." What a charade. This is a complete betrayal of the principles that the coalition over there said that they stood for. I certainly find it ironic and I find it very hypocritical that we have before us a bill of this nature today.

I would have thought that the government would have let a bill like this be discussed in public and would have conducted some hearings around the province. All members of this House received petitions from industries in the data processing and computer industry expressing their fear that they will no longer have access to the market of local schools and hospital administrations. No longer will they have access to a market for government services directly to departments. Yet despite that profound effect on their opportunity to make a livelihood in the province, we find the government members standing up and saying: "Well, all of the industry didn't subscribe to these petitions so we should not take it too seriously." I think that is absolutely appalling.

These were supposed to be a bunch of businessmen, Mr. Speaker, and one of the principles of investment in this province is some confidence in the direction and philosophy of the government. We have heard some very sanctimonious speeches from the other side of the House about investor confidence. What is the business community saying out there today? Here is an industry which has had the rug pulled out from under them - the computer industry.

They are not as big as the forest giants, they are not as large as some of the mining companies and the real estate boys, but they are an important segment of our business community. I do not know how many employees are involved. Has the government made any surveys to see what the impact of the job loss will be on unemployment in this province? I would imagine that the business community is asking now who shall be next. Who shall be next in terms of this government's apparent mania for centralizing control of all things in the city of Victoria?

There was not adequate discussion with the businesses involved. I do not think there was a survey done to determine what the impact would be on employment opportunity in the province. These are the things that are very vexatious about this bill, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I have no alternative but to oppose the bill in the strongest possible terms.

The Minister of Finance, when he rose to introduce the bill, had very little to say that was of any meaningful nature to members of this House. He gave a dissertation that I presume was provided by Mr. McMinn, the architect of the bill, but it wasn't very meaningful in terms of coming to grips with some of the questions that need to be answered.

What is going to happen to those small businesses that no longer have access to the market that was available before this bill was introduced? What is the impact on employment? What is the government doing about providing relocation assistance and retraining to the employees that will be disrupted and dislocated? What is the government doing about assuring the business community of this province that this is not just another step in their apparent direction of bringing about greater centralization of all things in Victoria to the detriment of small businesses in this province?

I am sure there are shock waves of anxiety out there among the business community. The Minister of Finance, I think, Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this bill has an obligation to talk about some of the real human impacts of the bill, not some theoretical justification of what he hopes to attain by the bill. We know what it is going to create: it is going to

[ Page 4301 ]

create greater centralization. Maybe it will create some efficiency. That may well be the case, but I have argued on many occasions with this government, Mr. Speaker, that efficiency is not always the sole criterion that should be used in determining government policy. It is one of the measurements, one of the yardsticks, but the government has an obligation to demonstrate some social conscience.

They demand it of the private sector; they demand it of private employers. The government should be a leader in terms of setting an example in the province of British Columbia. So efficiency alone is not an adequate excuse and argument to justify this bill.

I hope that the minister, in closing the debate, will get to the heart of some of the real expressions of concern that have been voiced from this side of the House. I hope he will do something to assure what was a fairly healthy and growing computer industry in this province that there is a continuing role for them; that perhaps he has considered assistance in developing alternate markets now that the rug has been pulled out from under them in terms of any access to the public market.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly agree with my companions on this side of the House that this is a bad bill. I agree that it is having a very unfortunate impact on the small, individual computer operators in not only other parts of B.C., but also right here in Victoria, where a great deal of government business has been their mainstay. This is now to be removed and it is leaving them in a most unenviable position.

I agree with what the member who has just taken his seat has to say about the suppression of information - public information, government information. But I think my gravest concern with this particular piece of legislation has to do with its relation to the individual and its infringement on the freedoms of that individual. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is a very real potential in this bill.

Computers, Mr. Speaker, are only as accurate as the people who operate them and any of the members of this House who have had anything to do with computer runs I'm sure will agree with that statement. Some of the most ridiculous things can come out as a result of this complete reliance on a machine or on a system. I think back to my Hydro days and I recall that the computer runs were one of our biggest problems. They caused a great many problems out in the field because of a centralized office where things were laid on from the top and there was no realization or recognition of what the needs were out in the field. I can remember in one particular instance where I had to assign a clerk to hours of work calculating the number of acres of right-of-way treated for brush control because the computer would not give us that kind of information. The computer language could not accept it. It told us all kinds of things that we didn't want to know -whether the labour time was straight time or overtime; how much was materials; how much was outside services - all those kinds of things that were not that relevant, but it wouldn't tell us the thing that we really needed to know.

Those are the kinds of things that are going to be happening to the average citizen out in British Columbia as a result of this kind of centralization and control of information. It's going to be programmed to suit the top level without concern for what is happening out in the field with the school boards, with the municipal councils. There's going to be too much variety of need out there for any computer, no matter how large, to accommodate. Those are the kinds of problems this minister is going to have, and those are the kinds of problems that are going to work a hardship on the average citizen, the municipal councillor, the school board, the trustee. Those people are not going to be able to control their own destiny, as it were, because of these items having to be computerized and then fed back to them. There's the time delay involved, There are the types of programmes that can be included.

Another instance that I recall that certainly points up one of the problems in programming took place in those days I'm speaking about. There was a safeguard written into the payroll programming that no two-week payroll cheque would be in excess of $999.99. And that worked, except one time, Mr. Speaker, there was a very serious blackout in Vancouver and one of our Vancouver Island foremen linemen was rushed off to Vancouver and worked there a great many hours of overtime - straight time, double time, triple time - in order to get the lights back on in Vancouver. When his cheque arrived, Mr. Speaker, his cheque had exceeded the $999.99. So his cheque for all those hours of overtime and long hard work, instead of being for $1,009 and some cents, was for $9 and some cents.

Those are the kinds of things that happen with computers, and when you've got a monolithic system that involves many, many steps of getting back to the root of the problem, those are the kinds of difficulties that occur out among the citizens of British Columbia. They occurred with an employee of Hydro at that particular time, but I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that those kinds of difficulties are going to result from this centralization in the Systems Corporation here in British Columbia.

I've had my headaches with computer runs, I can tell you, in some of my administrative activities. But I had a dream - or rather it was something like a nightmare - last night. I dreamt I got a letter from the Minister of Finance, and the letter went something like this:

From: MIN OFF FIN PRL BLD VIC, 00OV8VIX4, 007004077.

[ Page 4302 ]

" To: 701508394 RR1 LDY OBC, 000VOR2EO.

"Dear 701508394:

"Your application 000210303 for a 00 0101002 (driver's licence) has been referred to me by MOT VEH DIV. According to MIN OFF HLT, you underwent a 407409311D (therapeutic abortion) on 007004067. As you are no doubt aware "D" indicated deceased. VIT STT DPT confirms this. (Reference 713008010.) Incidentally, MIN HUM RES indicates you have continued to receive income assistance subsequent to 007004067 in the amount of 000000165 each month."

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the fact that "004" is clearly on the prohibited list of words.

MR. SPEAKER: Not having a definition of what "004" represents, I'll have to take the hon. minister's word for it. But I would draw to the member's attention that we are debating Bill 44, and I would hope that you'd relate your remarks to it.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, Mr. Speaker. We're debating Bill 44.

Is this improbable? Probably it's improbable; ridiculous, yes; but impossible, no. It is not impossible. I have had examples brought to me by constituents of the kinds of things they have received from government under the present computerized system which have not been much more far-fetched than this particular pseudo-letter. Those are the things that are occurring now. When we centralize this in one major gigantic corporation centre here in a bureaucratic atmosphere, I shudder to think of the kinds of things that are going to happen. It's going to be regimentation at the best and it's an infringement on personal liberty at the worst.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about personal freedom. What is personal freedom? I have a definition, and it's a definition that came to me through the diary of a young French airman who flew missions during WWII over Germany and over the totalitarian countries dropping bombs on women and children civilians. He did a lot of soul-searching as to what this freedom he was fighting for constituted. What made it up? That young man was shot down in action but he left behind him his diary and that diary was published. It is a book called Flight to Arace.

His definition of freedom, Mr. Speaker, was this: "Every individual is entitled to absolute and complete freedom as long as it does not interfere with the absolute and complete freedom of any other individual." I think that is a very thoughtful definition of freedom. It's one that would be well worth the members of this Legislature to consider. It would be well worth that Minister of Finance considering the definition of freedom. Because in this piece of legislation, in my opinion, he is infringing very seriously on the personal freedom of the individual citizen of British Columbia.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): The member for Dewdney just feels that it is impossible to let this debate pass without saying a short little word to support the bill. Let us look and see why we are in this position today. We are in this position today because the most immediate previous government ordered a machine called the Honeywell computer that costs us at present $80,000 a month to rent with nothing for it to do. Without judgment, without consideration and in direct opposition to their own committee of that day.... When it suddenly came to a point where money was running out faster than it was coming in, they formed a committee that said: "No more expenditure, especially computers, until we've had time to look at what happened."

Three weeks after the decision to form a committee, of which the hon. member for New Westminster was a member, they ordered the Honeywell computer. It's a well-known fact in this business that when you order this hardware, whatever the hardware costs, you order staff at the same time because the staff costs twice as much as the computer.

Now they ordered the computer for $80,000 a month, but no staff. The computer arrived in this government's possession after they are government no more. What are we going to do with the machine? We don't need it. It has no use at all, but the government is committed for years - I think it's five years at $80,000 a month rental. We hear and see these crocodile tears being spilled. All this bill is doing is attempting to consolidate a plethora of computers that we have no use for.

MR. BARBER: Take away freedom.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It has nothing to do at all with freedom.

Let me go back to the inception of the NDP government. Let me tell you what happened. The government of that day - the Social Credit government - foresaw the time when the government would have to get into the insurance business, and we were making plans for it. ICBC was subsequently engineered - a great debacle - by the present former government.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Pay no attention to those snide remarks. The fact is that we had foreseen the possibility of being in the insurance business, and the

[ Page 4303 ]

motor-vehicle department had set up a computer which was in operation and was geared to take the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia when and whenever it was to be formed, if it was to be formed. But the system was there and the computer was ready. But if Mr. Strachan, when the new NDP government came into office, was made aware of this - in no way was that going to have anything to do with anything the former government had - and ordered a new computer for a million and a half dollars without going to any bid, and you know about that.... So what happened? Another computer. That computer was bought and we had one here till finally before this government left this office we either had, or had coming, 12 computers. Today all this bill is asking for is that we have some organization and some system whereby we can make maximum use of this hardware that we have.

It is a total debacle the way it stands today. Would we have crocodile tears about doing away with private enterprise? I've never heard such nonsense on the floor of this House. No one has taken away private enterprise. No one is interfering with these jobs or the contracts or the companies. They'll still have whatever they had before - the same thing.

The government's trying to systemize the systems we have - that is all - and co-ordinate a loose, total debacle that we inherited. That's aft we're doing. That's simple. It's not a question of setting up a new organization, not a new bureaucracy. We're trying to make some sense out of a total mess and that's what the Systems Act represents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the last member for his remarks, which I feel were right on to the point of the bill. We've been skirting around it quite a lot.

I want to also compliment the member for Cowichan-Malahat on one of her better speeches of this session. It was clearly understandable by all the members here. I notice she had rapt attention, Mr. Speaker.

I would take it that the opposition has had great difficulty in finding a way to criticize this motive of this venture, because we've subjected to some high drama, Mr. Speaker. A great many tears were shed in the last evening sitting, and most of the time and debate was spent on concerns over the private sector in the computer industry, the data-processing service industry. It was exaggerated to the extent that there was going to be bankruptcy; they were going out of business; pulling the rug out from under their feet. I'd like to touch on that aspect of this bill at the outset.

. First of all, let me say that as we have said many times before, the object of the legislation is to provide better information for management of government at a reasonable cost, and to do this by employing a method of chargeback to departments for the use of computer services. I might emphasize as the previous member mentioned that the key to the success of trying to improve our information services is not so much equipment and hardware, but it is involved in people.

Let's deal first with the area of the effect of this on the private sector. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that they were not consulted in any respect previous to the writing of this bill or the submission of the bill to the House. This is incorrect. There were as many as three major representations to groups of consulting services, both here and in Victoria, to audiences of some 150 to 200 on each occasion.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that one of the groups that complained by brief and wanted to have an opportunity to speak to the Premier.... An arrangement was made for them to visit the Premier to explain their problem. A decision was later made to withdraw their intention to visit and they didn't take advantage of this opportunity. I merely point that out to illustrate that there has been a great attempt actually to communicate with whoever was interested.

Prior to the preparation of the bill, a great many meetings were held by the chief consultant in this area. Any invitation to appear on radio or to speak to the news media was accepted and full explanations were given in detail. I believe it is true to say that every attempt has been made to explain this concept and to try to indicate that it is really not representing a threat to private industry. In fact, in opening debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker I've stated that the outside contractors and vendors have been told that the volume of business that they would receive would substantially increase over a period. They are not going to be suffering in the process. They will, just like anybody else, have to be subject to being competitive and up-to-date on the provision of these services. They are not going to have to be concerned in the process of providing these services.

I might say that within the B.C. government and its affiliation with private data-processing services in this field, compared with other provinces, there is little enough done now by the private sector. They appear to be doing more on the private industry side than they do with the government. If you compare the percentage of business done by the government in the federal case and, again, against the case in the province of British Columbia, it is certainly a lesser factor within the province.

Mr. Speaker, I say that I have made it very clear, and it has been made clear in all of the presentations explaining this bill, there is no attempt to do away with the private industry. They have an opportunity to grow with the provision of increased services which

[ Page 4304 ]

the government is going to require.

I might say that there is no desire to build every skill and facility within the confines of the Systems Corporation. There is an attempt to consolidate, through economies of scale and through the ability to gather expert opinion and staff and personnel as applied to this very complicated problem.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has since been said on the subject of the board of this corporation. The opposition has been saying that it flies in the face of the fact that we wish to move in the direction of autonomous boards of Crown corporations. The board of directors of this corporation must, of necessity, consist of Treasury Board. This corporation is an extension of the government because, in fact, it is going to have jurisdiction over the very financial systems of the government itself. There is no other way to conceive of this being embodied in an outside corporation without having very close control by the executive council, through the Treasury Board, of its responsibility to provide control over the financial-information systems of government.

The present constitution of this board, as I say, has been planned to be the Treasury Board plus any other cabinet ministers who may be added to that. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) suggested in his remarks that it would be appropriate to have outside expertise added to this board. I think we can certainly agree with that, Mr. Speaker. But the point I'm trying to make is that we cannot conceive of such a board, which has ultimate control over systems involved directly in government departments, as being anything else but operating in full control of the executive council through the Treasury Board. At present, the constitution, although not explicitly laid out in the bill, as I say, would be constituted of the Treasury Board plus two other ministers, namely the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , constituting appropriate departments who would add their particular requirements to the constitution of this board.

There has been a lot of comment about privacy of information, confidentiality and the supposed lack of explicit reference to this in this bill. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned with this problem of confidentiality in the technology of computerism itself. The concept involved in the Systems Corporation, however, provides an opportunity to come to grips with this kind of a problem, because the exposure to lack of confidentiality of information is a problem now, notwithstanding whether such a corporation were formed and notwithstanding some attempt to consolidate the computer services. So we treat this matter as a top priority. The bill has a reference in clause 3 (2) , which requires the board to establish procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of security and proprietary interest in information. Later on, in section 19, it refers to the exposure that a person in the staff would have to being in conflict with these requirements, all the way from dismissal to a fine of $5,000. Beyond that, there is a long way to go in establishing what might be termed possible safeguards.

Although the member f o r North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) referred to a federal document or a White Paper regarding this subject, I think you'll find no legislation in Canada that has aggressively dealt with this subject. It's a thing that has a great deal of attention needed to be given to it in the future and you can be assured that it is going to receive top-priority attention by the board of this corporation. I just want to say that in terms of what is interpreted in the bill, it is the most advanced type of legislation to set forward the notion that we have to deal with confidentiality in these kinds of equipment.

Mr. Speaker, some of the types of safeguards which might be contemplated in the interests of preserving privacy are as follows. For instance, it could be contemplated that we may have what you could call barriers between ministry data bases. That is, the data base of any one ministry would have a barrier of access from any other ministry preventing another source from obtaining information without the express clearance or approval of the minister responsible. This can be laid down in rules to be adopted by the corporation for what I would call barriers between ministries covering data bases.

Secondly, we could have a selective access system. You might have a terminal in one department with access to a data base. If proper rules were established in the hookup of this terminal to the data base, it could be conceived that you might control access to any given data base by the rules of hookup of the terminal at the data base.

Thirdly, there has been a considerable amount written in technical terms about password systems affecting the access of personnel records to one record or another, whereby a person would have to have access and be in a certain position to have available to him the password of access to those files. Those are just a few of what you might call technical explanations, Mr. Speaker, of the type of safeguards that can receive some attention by the board in establishing rules for the protection of privacy.

I would like to deal with the subject of cost. Various allegations were raised about the cost for consultants in the preparation of the study and the preparation of the setting up of the computer corporation, the ongoing costs of some $22 million suggested in the current year's budget. I think what you first must do is, of course, relate this to the importance of improved information systems and relate it to a total budget of the province of $3.8

[ Page 4305 ]

billion, so that a budget for this operation of $22 million is something over one-half of 1 per cent of that budget. I think you could look at any related commercial concern and be looking at a substantially greater share of cost related to their total budget operation.

I might say that a lot of questions were asked previous to today on the per diems paid to consultants - the total cost which was paid to consultants over a period in the preparation of this concept. I think we should relate back to the similar preparation which went into the formation of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, for I have only to illustrate that in that case there was an IBM consulting team comprised of some 37, and up to 56, professionals for the most of the project year. Some were full-time for the whole period at $43 per hour - that's at least three and a half years ago - or $80,000 per year each for all positions from manager to programmer.

The cost of this programme in terms of relocation of the IBM team that was involved was $320,000. In fact, IBM at the time contracted without tender what was known as Phase I of this project. The total one-year cost of the IBM development was estimated at $2.15 million for consulting and development fees. So I don't think it can be said that the amount of money which has been expended in the preparation of this important project we now have before us can be viewed as being out of place in terms of comparisons of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, we must emphasize that in terms of the total cost, from a budget point of view, of the systems corporation or the consolidation of computers in one department is represented two-thirds in people and one-third in hardware. So the emphasis here of course is on the importance of the expertise and the personnel involved.

We would anticipate an answer to a question raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that this would escalate marginally in a reasonable way from year to year. I think figures were mentioned in the media of a budget of some $40 million in future years, but I am not advised that this would escalate at any more than normal percentage rates from year to year on a marginal basis.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Something like 5 per cent or 10 per cent; something of that order. Once again, we have to relate this to our total budget for the province of some $3.8 billion. Fundamentally, it is to provide much-needed information for the job that needs to be done.

Now a lot has been said, Mr. Speaker, about tendering. In this respect, let there be no doubt that the intention of the systems development is to provide very clearcut tendering procedures on the development or purchase of any new equipment, major or small in size. What we must consider in considering a policy of tendering or asking for quotations is the cost of conversion of equipment which is not symmetrical to present systems. This is a very real problem in this industry, because in the case of any one piece of equipment, if it doesn't operate on the same language currently employed in the department, you can be looking at a conversion cost of $1 million, $2 million or $3 million in one year simply to change the system.

I would illustrate here the example of IBM, which as everyone knows, presently constitutes a major part of equipment in most governments in Canada and most major installations, and the experience in the province of Ontario, who wanted to proceed on a course of open tendering of all purchases of computer equipment. So they called for tenders from all suppliers and undertook to underwrite the cost of any conversion. They then had some five or six major computer installations. After going through an expensive procedure of a year or year and a half, when they accumulated all the information and the prices were in, they wound up ordering IBM computers. After they added up the score it turned out that the prices quoted by the supplier were the best, notwithstanding the writing off of the potential conversion cost. I just illustrate that as an example as something which happened in another major installation.

I think we can look forward to a greater degree of competition where this is concerned because we now have two other suppliers aside from IBM who will be functioning with equipment that operates on the same language. One of them is the Amdol Corporation, and they are now turning out equipment which will fit identically into the same programme experience that IBM does, so we are in a position in the future to obtain more competitive quotations without the potentiality of conversion costs.

I have just a brief comment on the clause in the Act referring to computer service being offered to private industry or to industry in general. There are certainly references made in the clause which we could debate in committee, but I only want to say that we wanted to be explicit by placing the clause in the Act to give clearly the indication that in no way are we intending to supply data-processing services to industry or to the commercial field. We are determined to be opposing this principle. It will be contrary to policy. That is covered in clause (3) , subsection (6) , and we can discuss the matter further in committee.

In relation to the word "emergency, " it is difficult to conceive of what might be classified as an indication or an instance of an emergency. But it was

[ Page 4306 ]

felt that the clause should be placed in this fashion in the event that an unforeseen circumstance could arise involving the public interest.

MR. WALLACE: Like what?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, I can only think of one off the top, Mr. Speaker. Let's say, for example, the Air Canada installation in this province were to breakdown due to equipment failure. Would it be a consideration - I just ask the question - where they could pipe into our installation on a temporary basis or not on the basis that it was not available in any other case?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, I am just posing this as a question. I don't think that the Systems Corporation, notwithstanding its desire to not interfere with supplying services to private industry, should be prevented on some extreme occasion from acting in the public interest. So the point is that we have here a Crown corporation and it is merely a vehicle with which we hope to attract experienced personnel.

It has been indicated very clearly as the way to go based on the experience elsewhere, both by the federal government and the province of Ontario, and it stresses the importance in the success of this operation of people. The objective, as I have said, is to provide better information at reasonable costs and this is the key. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 44 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House,

Bill 44, Systems Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 31.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (No. 2)

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this is just a little bill. Earlier I informed the House that it was my intention to introduce additional amendments to the Assessment Act, designed to improve the quality of assessments throughout the province. The changes proposed are now before all members for their careful study and consideration.

I'm sure that all hon. members who have examined the McMath report will agree that the subject of property assessment and taxation has a seemingly unlimited dimension and is riddled with complexities of unusual proportions. It is usually evident to those familiar with the province's property tax system that a need exists to replace the inequalities in the frozen assessment role with a property tax system based on equitable and realistic value relationships.

The importance of assessments in financing local government in the province should not be underrated. Assessed values are used by all levels of local government to levy tax rates and to provide a basis upon which to share costs and distribute grants. Assessments are also used in deciding whether additional services can be realistically afforded by property owners, and in measuring the limits of fiscal responsibility.

Homeowners - indeed, most property owners -realize assessed values play an important role in determining the amount of property taxes they are asked to pay each year to support local government services.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia assessed values provide the cornerstone of the province's educational and municipal government fiscal systems. It is clear that the efficient operation of a viable and responsible local government cost-sharing and revenue-gathering system can only be achieved if a high quality assessment base is available. For the foregoing reasons it is essential that assessments be based on a clearly defined and objective value standard.

Property owners are entitled to know that their assessments are fair and equitable compared to those of their neighbours. To achieve this objective a clear-cut standard, understood by all, must be

[ Page 4307 ]

available to ensure that distortions caused by imperfect value relationships do not interfere with the rights of the taxpayers to be fairly and equitably treated under the province's property tax system.

I believe that most hon. members are aware that for the most part there has been no change in assessed values since 1974. Many may not know that the 1974 assessment roll was based on market value and cost price relationships which existed in 1972. What this means to property owners is simply that many value relationships have developed distortions which have resulted in assessments being related in no way to the assessed value which should be placed on properties today.

The statistics reveal that many property owners are overassessed in relationship to their neighbours. Almost an equal number are underassessed. In many instances the disparities in assessment relationships between classes of property are more pronounced than those within the individual classes. The classes affected are residential, multi-family, commercial, industrial, farm, forestry, recreational, utility, and fixed-machinery and equipment.

While correction of all of the disparities cannot realistically be achieved overnight, the additional amendments to the Assessment Act are intended to bring about an improvement in the present situation, commencing in 1978, and to introduce an assessment system which will be responsive to the needs of the province in assisting in the financing of the public school system and the general operating requirements of the municipalities. The application of the principles set out in the amendments will quickly restore equity in the property tax system and will provide a sound basis upon which to determine local government levies and cost sharing as early as 1978. Hon. members will note that the amendments contain provisions designed to ensure that adjustments necessary to restore equalization can be made with a minimum of dislocation for homeowners and taxing authorities alike.

This House will recall that in the spring of 1974 an all-party legislative committee unanimously recommended adoption of the 100 per cent actual values as the basis of assessment for all purposes throughout the province. This recommendation was implemented on enactment of the Assessment Act in 1974. The legislation provided that land and improvements shall be assessed at their actual values.

Mr. Speaker, the preparation of assessments at actual value quickly indicated that massive shifts in tax incidence would occur between classes of property when the proposed assessed values were placed on the assessment rolls. The magnitude of the increases and the anticipated adverse effect on residential and farm properties prompted the former administration to introduce further legislation late in 1974 freezing the assessment rolls at their 1974 values. The freeze on assessments was intended to permit additional time in which to examine the property tax issues and to allow assessors to perfect their actual value rolls.

The issues have now been clarified and the basic problems defined. What is abundantly clear now is the need to select an objective assessment standard to be used by assessors in the valuation of real property which can be implemented without serious shifts in tax incidence occurring. The amendments now before the House deal with both of these issues and provide a solution which meets the requirements of each, without destroying the use of actual values as a basis for determining real property assessments. Major shifts in tax incidence between classes of property will be prevented from occurring. The transition between frozen assessments and those based on actual value relationships will be orderly. Homeowners and farmers will be protected from excessive assessment increases as equalized assessments are being adopted, and municipalities will be provided with greater flexibility in selecting the standard which best meets their requirements in dealing with local property taxation matters.

This government believes that it is possible to achieve a high degree of assessment equalization without increasing every property owner's assessment to 100 per cent of current value market values. By the same token, it accepts that actual value relationships provide the fairest means by which each class of property owner's share of the costs of providing essential local services is determined. It also recognizes that no matter how improvement in the basis upon which property owners are taxed is achieved, some property owners who are presently underassessed will be called upon to pay an increased share of the property tax levy.

Specifically, the amendments which I have introduced will permit:

1) The adoption of actual value relationships as the basis of assessment commencing in 1978.

2) It provides for municipal tax purposes each municipality to select from among four options the standard of assessment which best meets its requirements.

3) For school taxation purposes, assessments are to be based on different percentages of actual value for different classes of property.

4 ) T h c e s t a b I i s h m e n t b y t h e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of percentages of actual value to be used for assessment purposes for each class of property for school taxation purposes.

5) The taxation of land and improvements on the same basis.

6) The phasing in of equalized assessments for certain classes of property where increases exceed prescribed limits.

7) It provides for the consolidation of all matters

[ Page 4308 ]

on, and related to, assessments under one Act. Because of the change in assessment standard and the elimination of the practice of taxing improvements at 75 per cent of their assessed value, controls on the amount of increases in net taxable values are to be an integral part of the transition between the frozen and equalized assessment rolls.

MR. WALLACE: Say that again.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Because of the change in assessment standard and the elimination of the practice of taxing improvements at 75 per cent of their assessed value, controls on the amount of increases in net taxable values are to be an integral part of the transition between the frozen and equalized assessment rolls.

MR. WALLACE: Would you like to go over the formula?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll come to that. In the case of those classes of property designated to have assessment increases phased in, increases in taxable assessed values in 1978 will be limited to 10 per cent over the 1977 net taxable value plus 25 per cent of the difference between that amount and the equalized 1978 assessed value determined by applying t h e p e r c e n t a g e f i x e d b y t h e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to the actual value determined by the assessor. Phasing in of assessment increases will continue until 1981.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to be patient. We'll come to these matters in due process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in the second year of the phasing-in process, assessment increases in terms of the net taxable values will be limited to an amount equivalent to the preceding year's net taxable value plus 5 per cent together with 50 per cent of the difference between that amount and the succeeding year's proposed net taxable value. Similarly, in the third year, a 5 per cent increase will be permitted together with 75 per cent of the difference in net taxable value between that amount and the succeeding year's proposed net taxable value. So there is the explanation in very clear terms of the phase-in process. It is anticipated that the majority of residential property owners will have fully equalized assessed values in 1978 by having their 1977 assessments reduced or by having an increase in. their net taxable value over 19 7 7 of less than 10 per cent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think we should have a greater degree of attention, Mr. Speaker. We may ask questions after. Earlier, I drew to the attention of all hon. members that the provisions of the taxation statutes formerly in effect provided for taxation of improvements on the basis of 75 per cent of their assessed value. This concept has led to distortions in setting net taxable values of properties having the same market values because of differing relationships in the amounts of assessed values assigned separately to land and improvements. To a large extent, the changes in net taxable value resulting from abandoning the concept of taxing improvements on 75 per cent of their assessed value will be offset by using lower percentages of actual values in determining net taxable values in 1978 and succeeding years. The flexibility to achieve this objective has been provided by granting authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to fis annually the percentages of actual value to be used as the basis of assessment from year to year.

Municipal representatives and organizations have repeatedly stated their wish to use actual-value relationships as the basis of their assessment rolls. I am pleased to draw to the attention of all hon. members that for general municipal taxation purposes, this option will be available to them. The standard of assessment used in municipalities will, in the future, be selected by the municipal council for general municipal taxation purposes. If actual-value relationships are not desired, there are other options, including the assessments used by the province for school tax purposes, available for municipal taxation purposes.

There is one important aspect of these amendments to the Assessment Act to which I would draw the attention of all members. The amendments provide for implementation of the changes by proclamation of the Act bringing it into force in effect. This approach has been adopted because of the need to be certain of the new legislation prior to the changes being reflected in the assessment rolls.

MR. WALLACE: How are you going to do that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It can be referred to as a turnkey operation which will be put into action only after the results of the new-value standard have been carefully considered. Amendments to several other Acts have been combined in the amendments to the Assessment Act. These amendments, for the most part, consolidate all assessment matters in the Assessment Act principally through transfer from the Municipal Act, the Taxation Act and the Vancouver

[ Page 4309 ]

Charter. Minor amendments in several other Acts are necessary in order to reflect the changes in the property tax-rate base being occasioned by taxing both land and improvements on the same basis.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to sum up by saying that the enactment of this legislation, in effect, means an end to the assessment freeze, effective December 31,1977, with the use of an actual-value roll as the basis of assessment commencing in 1978. Municipalities will be free to select from a number of options the standard of assessment which best meets their requirements for general municipal taxation purposes: assessments for school purposes will be based on different percentages of actual value for different classes of property, commencing in 1978; uniform assessment levels for each class of property throughout all school districts in the province; taxation of both land and improvements on the same basis; equalization of the majority of residential properties for school purposes, through decreases or with increases of less than 10 per cent of the existing assessment; increases in assessment in excess of predefined limits will be phased in over a three-year period for certain classes of property; and implementation of new assessments will not be made until the impact of the changes has been evaluated and approved. Once everything is satisfactorily in place, the legislation will be brought into force and effect by proclamation, thus providing a turnkey operation.

Mr. Speaker, some hon. members may ask the question as to why the actual-value standard should be adopted as the basis of assessment both for municipal- and school-taxation purposes. Basically, the reasons are: the use of an objective standard will rid the property tax system of assessment inequalities, thereby ensuring that all taxpayers are treated fairly; the application of uniform percentages of actual value for each class of property will ensure that all school districts, regardless of location within the province, will share equitably in provincial grants towards education. The use of equalized assessed values will eliminate disparities in cost-sharing of local governments based on assessments and will free the local government finance formulas to function according to design. Actual values provide the basis required in maintaining an assessment system which can be regulated to minimize the annual rate of growth in assessed values or to offset the effects of shifting value relationships between classes. The use of a net-taxable-value system, based on various percentages of actual value, provides a flexible basis for introduction of future tax reforms. The use of high-quality actual values as the basis of assessment is helpful to local governments in raising funds where property-evaluation disclosures are required. Lending institutions use property evaluations as an important measure of security for the loan.

Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the points in the reasoning behind the move towards an actual-value standard in this new assessment system. I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 31.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out near the end of his remarks, the bill is much more than an amendment to the Assessment Act itself. As a matter of fact, I think he glossed over it rather lightly when he said "minor amendments to some other legislation, " because the bill itself totals 36 pages and the first 15 deal with amendments to the Assessment Act. The remaining pages all deal with amendments to other Acts.

Now I know they all tie in: amendments to the Assessment Act, 1977, No. 1; the Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act amendment; the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act (1964) amendment; Municipal Act amendment; Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act amendment; Municipalities Aid Act amendment; Public Schools Act amendment; Regional Hospital Districts Act amendment; Regional Parks Act amendment; Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act amendment; Taxation Act amendments and the Vancouver Charter amendment. There are 13 in total, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps there is some significance to that number; perhaps bad luck.

For some people who might, when listening to the minister, feel that there is some reassurance that there will be fair treatment and general understanding of the legislation before us and that it will eliminate inequalities, all we really have, Mr. Speaker, are assurances from the minister that it will work that way. Whether or not it will, in fact, work that way will be up to the cabinet when it deliberates once a year as to exactly what rates are going to apply to the different classes into which all property in the province will be divided. That decision will be made annually by the government. We can only hope and trust that the government of today and the government of tomorrow and the government as long as this legislation is in effect will be bound by those high ideals of trying to be fair or trying to eliminate inequality, not within the classes but between and among the classes. That is my concern.

It is very difficult to talk about assessments alone without talking about taxation and revenue raising. Indeed, the minister did talk about revenue raising, and of course this bill before us does deal with changes in the Taxation Act. They are changes as they affect the assessments, but nevertheless, changes in the Taxation Act. Certainly this question of raising revenue from property is one that has attracted a lot of attention. Everybody is interested in it. Almost everybody is paying taxes, either directly or indirectly. People are concerned about the amount of tax that they are paying, tax that is levied against

[ Page 4310 ]

property for many purposes other than services to property.

The Financial Post has run a couple of articles that I have looked at recently and maybe many more that I haven't seen. One dated March 1,1975, looked at the various Canadian provinces. In the case of every province there was this general theme running throughout. It was a concern that property is paying too much of the cost of servicing people needs other than the protection of property. A common theme running throughout is that the senior levels of government through other sources of revenue should be providing more help to education or financing more of the cost of education and financing more of the social costs.

The common theme throughout every province, it did say with respect to the one feature of this bill -that is, appraising it on the market value - is that the only province that had really made any progress at that time in that field was the province of Prince Edward Island. Of course, B.C. was one of the ones looking at it at that time. Others were looking at it before we were, and others have since, but little progress has been made, other than in the province of Prince Edward Island, with respect to full market value.

The Minister did detail the concerns in British Columbia, the experience, the history of what has happened in B.C. with respect to property assessment and property taxation. He talked about the moves made by the previous NDP administration. He talked about the royal commission report. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that earlier this afternoon the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was talking about the open attitude of this government and their desire - and these were the words he used, Mr. Speaker - for public accountability. He said that this was the obvious direction of this government. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help chuckling at the time, and I chuckled noticeably loudly enough that the Attorney-General did notice it and remarked that he could not understand why I was amused that he was describing this particular government as being an open government. He mentioned the quarterly reports. I won't get into the dates of the quarterly reports but it leads me to consider other reports, including the McMath commission report.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we did appoint the McMath commission. I think everyone agreed that it was a good idea to have a royal commission appointed to look into this question. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the commission did report to the provincial cabinet on August 3,1976. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this report went the way most reports received by this present Socred coalition government, as well as the previous Socred government - it was hidden without coming to light through some means other than the government tabling that report in the Legislature, as should have been done, or made public in some way. The McMath report was buried. Mr. Speaker, it was buried even from the Social Credit caucus itself. Perhaps that is no great loss but, nevertheless, one wonders about a report that the government felt was so important -too important to discuss with the public, and also too important to discuss with the government caucus.

I want to quote now from a story in the Colonist, October 27,1976: "A secret provincial government report. . . " Mr. Speaker, it should not have been a secret report. It was a report commissioned by the NDP government. It was not intended at any time that it would be a secret report. It was intended, as was the case with all reports commissioned by the NDP government, that the report would be made available to the public just as soon as possible after it was received. Those words in themselves condemn the writer of this story rather than the writer of the report. It was not a secret report. This writer describes it as "secret, " and it was kept secret by this government. It says:

"A secret provincial government report containing proposals which could generate millions of dollars in revenue for municipalities remained under wraps Tuesday with even the Social Credit caucus in the dark."

This story was written almost three months after the report was handed to the government.

"The caucus met all day Monday and Tuesday and is scheduled to meet again throughout today. As of late Tuesday afternoon, it had still not been told the contents of a report received by cabinet from the McMath commission on property taxes and assessment in August."

The Premier, in answering questions from a reporter, said the contents were far too important to release to the general public. Mr. Speaker, what information is so important that it cannot be shared with the public who are going to be so directly concerned, so directly involved and so directly affected by recommendations coming from that report. One would think that the longer the public has an opportunity - not everybody in the public, but the public who are interested in this particular aspect and has some knowledge of it - to look at that report before legislation was introduced, the better that legislation would be. But this government, which, in the words of the Attorney-General, talks about being open, felt that it had to be kept secret until they were ready to make their move.

One of the recommendations, significantly enough, Mr. Speaker, as reported in this article.... How they got their report, I don't know; I don't recall the government asking for an inquiry into that. Almost every other report that has come to light since this government has been appointed has been

[ Page 4311 ]

released one way or the other, and the attitude of the government has been', "We must have an investigation to find out how the report got out." I don't recall one in this case.

"One of the recommendations of the commission, when forwarding its report to Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy, was that the details be made public."

Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is the first recommendation that the government was anxious not to follow. The story goes on to say:

"So far the cabinet has chosen to ignore that advice and has not only kept its own party members out of the picture, but has also declined to disclose details of its contents with the UBCM and the B.C. Assessment Authority, of all people."

Mr. Speaker, it was too important to discuss, even with the B.C. Assessment Authority. The Colonist learned last week that the cabinet is divided, not only on the advisability of making the report public. So it would seem, Mr. Speaker, that there were a few people over there who did believe in open government. It would seem as though a minority of them did want at least parts of the report made public, but also on which of the recommendations it should implement as law.

On Tuesday, the Colonist learned why. The reason why? It had to be secret. It was much too important to share with the public because among other things it recommended grants in lieu equal to normal tax rates. That's a terrible thing to recommend, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it's taken right out of the Social Credit party platform in the election campaign, but nevertheless, it's something that this government wouldn't want to be associated with under any circumstances. That had to be kept secret. They couldn't afford to share that kind of important recommendation with the public or with the UBCM or with the B.C. Assessment Authority.

Another one, Mr. Speaker, that B.C. pays 75 per cent of the school costs within five years - from something like 48 per cent up to 75 per cent within five years. Now of course, that's directly contrary to this government's policy, which has been to load an ever-increasing share of the cost of education on local taxpayers. So they couldn't possibly make public that very important recommendation.

The third one is that the tax is based on 100 per cent value across B.C. For years governments have been saying that's what we should have been doing in British Columbia. Spokesmen have been saying that's what we should be doing in British Columbia. It's been the talk all across Canada. Surely that can't be offered as a reason for not making the report public. It must be the other two: the one that is taken straight out of the Social Credit campaign policy and the one that suggests that the senior levels of government should pay a higher proportion of the cost of financing schools.

This one about major amendments that is, grants in lieu equal to normal tax rates of course one can see why it was a very important plank, particularly here in Victoria, where the figures in this article would indicate that currently the grants are based on a 15-mill formula, which this year will generate $630,504 for Victoria. Under the formula recommended by the McMath Commission the city would pick up in excess of $4 million in extra revenue. I can see why that very important recommendation, in line with Social Credit Party policy, is much too important to share with the general public after the election is over, Mr. Speaker.

Schools. This year local greater Victoria taxpayers will pay $28.9 million towards education costs and the government $21.6 million. Under the 75 per cent formula the province would pay $37.9 million and local cost would drop to $12.6 million - much too important a recommendation to share with the general public.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would draw your attention to the fact that the bill before the House at this time relates to assessments ' notwithstanding the comments which were made at the time of introduction and the earlier comments by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I think the hon. member would know that assessment is one side of an equation and taxation is the other. I'm sure there would be other opportunities for us to debate taxation as such - this is assessment only.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You point is well taken.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance pointed out in his opening remarks and as I have pointed out in mine - and you've gone along with the point of order that was raised - it's impossible to talk about assessments without considering the effect of these assessments on the taxpayer. They don't pay assessments - they pay taxes. Certainly the way in which assessments are calculated - or rigged, or whatever word we want to use - has a very direct effect on the taxes that are being collected or the taxes that are being levied. One can't divorce the two completely.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you would relate your remarks to that, hon. member, if you would.

MR. STUPICH: I'll certainly do my best, Mr. Speaker, but as I say, I think you'll find that everyone speaking on this legislation is going to have to talk about the effect on the taxpayer. Surely that's what we're all concerned about right now. How is the taxpayer going to read this legislation, for example?

[ Page 4312 ]

One of the points that the Minister of Finance made in introducing it was that we had to have something that was understandable. Well, I'm not sure just how the average taxpayer is supposed to understand the 36 pages of legislation before us right now. From the explanation that he gave today I think it will not be any easier to understand and to glean what is going to be the effect on me as a taxpayer of introducing this legislation and of passing this legislation within the next few days. What is going to be the effect on me next year, in '79, '80 or whenever? To say that we can talk only about assessments and whether or not assessments should be changed from the present.... I hesitate to use the word "system" because there isn't one. But to change to a system without considering what the effect will be on the taxpayer and to ask that question without considering what he's going to be paying is almost impossible to ask. However, I'll carry on and hope that I can keep my remarks in line with the legislation before us.

Certainly one of my own constituents was very excited when he first heard from the reading of the opening speech on January 13,1977, the promise in there that we would be dealing with this question of assessments in the 1977 session. He was on holidays at the time. He's not a politician so it's all right for him to go on a holiday, Mr. Speaker. He was in Hawaii, but he wrote a letter to myself enclosing a copy of a column that he was sending to a local paper in Nanaimo. He's one of my constituents. He's well known to taxation authorities. There I go using that word "taxation" again; he's well known to assessment authorities.

I think I'd like to read something from his letter, Mr. Speaker. It's headed:

"A Red-Letter Day.

"Hello there, taxpayers! Tuesday, January 25,1977, was definitely a red-letter day in my life. On that day Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy tabled in the Legislature a report of the commission of inquiry on property assessment and taxation. I can hardly believe that after approximately 20 years of appealing, inquiry, pleading, coaxing, explaining - yes, even praying - I have lived to see some of my thoughts re property taxation at last being considered."

Doc Nichol is the man who has been fighting the taxation authorities for many years and he was pleased that there was going to be legislation. He was pleased that we started working on it; he was pleased that the McMath commission was set up to inquire into it; he was pleased that the McMath commission finally brought in its report.

Mr. Speaker, I've already mentioned my concern that the report apparently was intended to be kept a secret until the last possible moment. The report finally, as I've just pointed out from that letter, was tabled on January 25, almost six months after it was delivered to the provincial cabinet, almost six months before they felt that they could dare to share the recommendations in the McMath report with the general public. Even though many of those recommendations had somehow or other found their way to public attention almost three months previously, the government was still determined that this report would not be made public. Of course, there were 75 recommendations in total. I suppose they felt it was important that the public not know what was going to hit them when the government started working with this legislation.

One of the people named to that commission was certainly not known as an NDP member or supporter. I recall, though, attending at UBC one day when the UBC CCF club, of which I was a member at that time, felt that we would have someone other than one of our own speak to us. We invited Dr. Robert Clark of the department of economics to speak to our noon-hour session of the weekly meeting, when we usually attracted some 200 to 300, who were mostly vets at the university at that time. I can recall we invited him to tell us what he thought of the CCF Party. After spending his allotted 40 minutes telling us what he thought about the CCF - criticizing it, telling us everything that was wrong with it - he ended up by saying that the only thing good he could say about the CCF was that we were better than any other party. At least we had some philosophy and policy of our own. He did write a letter to the leaders of all the parties, including the Premier and the Hon. Hugh Curtis, but apparently he didn't write to the Minister of Finance. I think the concluding paragraph of his letter is interesting.

"I was and continue to be grateful that when the members of this committee were being chosen, " -that's the McMath commission - "that you and your colleagues were willing to go outside the ranks of your party supporters to include me."

Mr. Speaker, the NDP was looking for the best possible commission it could get. It did go much beyond party supporters in looking for the kind of people who, it felt, could travel around the province, people who knew the province and people who would come in with a good report and good recommendations that would lead to the drafting of good legislation. It is to the shame of this government now in office that it held that report secret for six months. It is to the shame of that government, Mr. Speaker, that it chose to ignore so many important sections of the report and so many important recommendations in drafting the legislation before us now.

It is to the shame of that government, Mr. Speaker, that they insisted on the McMath commission completing its work sooner than it

[ Page 4313 ]

intended to and sooner than it could do a good job. In the opening paragraph of a press release the McMath commission put out in the fall, they state:

"Our report is a preliminary report in the sense that the provincial government required us to submit this report before any of our research studies could be completed. As a consequence, the commission was unable to study many important topics."

Mr. Speaker, having set up a good commission to do this work and having chosen a commission that demonstrated its knowledge of the subject and its willingness to do the kind of work that had to be done to come up with a good commission, to have cut that commission off before it was able to complete its work was a disservice to the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear an Interjection from across the hall. How long did it run? Mr. Speaker, I hope that member is not suggesting that the members of this commission, including Dr. Robert Clark, were trying to make the work expand to fit the available time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these people were doing a good job. The question keeps coming up about how long it ran. I think the question, Mr. Speaker, is: what kind of a report did they deliver? Were they working hard to produce the kind of report that they did deliver and, having done that much work on it, should this government not have been decent enough to have allowed them to finish it, rather than asking them to cut their work short in midstream and turning the inconclusive report over to a cabinet who were determined to hold it secret for six months before they were prepared to release any of the information to the public? Why did the work have to be cut short if all they were going to do was to sit on it and keep it secret for six months, Mr. Speaker? I think the question is not how long did it run. The question is: did they do their job well, was it a good report, and could it not have been abetter report had they been allowed the time to complete it in the way they wanted to complete it?

These are questions we can't answer without asking the McMath commission. They're not here. Perhaps the public accounts committee might like to call representatives of the McMath commission and discuss with them the work that they did....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're dealing with the bill at the present time, not public accounts.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, and at the moment, Mr. Speaker, I'm dealing with the interjections from the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . My speech would be shorter if these people didn't interject. Mr. Speaker, that's your problem.

Next I'd like to mention just a couple of newsletters. One is from the UBCM, dated February 20, and one is from the BCSTA dated March 25. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the report was delivered to cabinet in August. Now I said February and I said March - some seven and eight months after the report was delivered. Both of these newsletters - in one case the UBCM and the other case the BCSTA -are saying to the government: "Please let us discuss with you what you're doing before you proceed to draft legislation." Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I would like to ask is: were either of these requests for meetings granted? Did the Minister of Finance or did anyone sit down with representatives from the UBCM as we did, in our Revenue Sharing Act, for example? Did they sit down with representatives of the BCSTA in response to their request for that kind of a meeting and discuss with them the legislation, or was it simply done within the confines of a cabinet committee? Perhaps the minister would care to answer that. If not, we'll have another opportunity to ask him later on.

Mr. Speaker, I'm rather distressed with what I feel is perhaps the arrogance of the Minister of Finance in suggesting that most people are not going to be hurt by the changes in taxation that are bound to result from the changes in assessment before us now, but that the only ones who may be hurt are those people who have been getting a free ride.

Mr. Speaker, the connotation of that is that people have been deliberately working some kind of system to get a free ride. It's possible that some people were not paying as much tax as they should have been compared to others; that is entirely possible. But if they were, it was not their doing. It was the doing of the government of the day and the governments previous. This suggests that these people themselves were doing something wrong and it's suggesting that somebody's going to get even with them when this legislation is put into effect. Because the people who have been getting what the minister calls "a free ride" - as I say, I don't like the connotation of those words; it suggests they have been, doing something deliberately wrong - are going to be caught up with very quickly when this legislation is introduced. There is protection in the legislation for certain circumstances, but from this report of the minister's speech, I take it that he intends that there shall be no protection for all people in effecting this legislation, because nobody has been getting a free ride because of what he or she has been doing. They simply have been living within the taxation legislation. You just can't beat tax laws. They have been living within the legislation as it is in effect at the time. They haven't been doing their own assessing; they haven't been setting their own mill rates; they have not been

[ Page 4314 ]

getting a "free ride." They might not be paying a fair share compared to their neighbours, but not because they have been deliberately working the system so that they don't pay a fair share of their taxes.

There is another report here. The minister said again today in his explanatory statement outlining the new procedures: "It is essential that assessment be based on a clearly defined and objective value standard. A clearcut standard understood by all must be available."

Mr. Speaker, had they followed the McMath commission then there would have been an opportunity to have something that would have been clearly understood by all. But because they did it secretly six months before it was released publicly, because they did it apparently without any consultation with anyone, they have produced a system which was not clearly understood. They have produced a system that hopefully the cabinet will understand, because they are the ones that are going to have to review the system annually and come to some kind of conclusions.

Under the system the cabinet will set each year the percentage of actual value, but under this system, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet can also change those percentages for any class of property. It's conceivable, although I'm sure the Minister of Finance wouldn't admit for one moment that he's thinking of this, that one year - and that might just happen to be election year - the percentage for residential property might be very low. It -night drop down that year. The following year after the election is over the percentage for residential property might go very high. It's quite conceivable that the percentage for industrial property might change markedly from one year to another in line with government policy.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is helping me lengthen my speech now by suggesting that I talk about $25 car insurance. I think that's really not in line with this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be out of order.

MR. STUPICH: I would think so, too.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I wish he had been here earlier, Mr. Speaker, when I was reminding him about what he said on public accountability and all the government reports that have been delivered since this government came into office. Every one of them has been hidden until they were revealed by somebody else first, and then they were grudgingly dribbled out, one way or another. Mr. Speaker, you'll recall me saying that this one was made public some six months after it was put in the hands of the government. For some six months it was held as a secret report. As the Premier said, it was too important to share with the public, too important to share with the caucus. Now that is the kind of public accountability that the hon. Attorney-General was talking about earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I did ask the Minister of Finance to tell us, when he speaks on this bill, whether or not he responded to the request from the BCSTA and the UBCM for a meeting to discuss this legislation before it was put into effect. I cannot help but think that the answer, if it comes at all, Mr. Speaker, will be in the negative. I do have a copy of a letter - it probably went to everybody - from the president of the BCSTA, Clifford R. Adkins. He concludes the letter by saying, in the last sentence of the letter: "To this effect, I would welcome an exploratory meeting of the BCSTA officers with you at the earliest opportunity." They're still asking for some opportunity to talk to the government before the legislation is written.

Talking about what they have seen of the bill, they're concerned that while it is wiping out one set of iniquities, it is perhaps setting up another set. To quote from the letter again:

"Consequently, while the government is preparing to reduce the inequities between the assessed values of properties in the same classification, it appears to be introducing a new variable which could substantially affect the taxpaying relationship of one category of properties to another." That's the point I made earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned that the government will indeed do that, and I am concerned that the government will change its groundrules from one year to the next.

Another quotation:

"We welcome your personal statement concerning Bill 31 that the government does not plan to make major changes in the proportion of taxes paid by the various classes of property, but rather to ensure that undesirable shifts in the tax burden do not occur between classes of property."

Mr. Speaker, as they used to say to us, and now I say to them: "Trust them." We have to trust them to make sure that this will not happen. We have to trust them to interpret undesirable shifts in the same way that we would interpret them; in the same way that the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia would interpret them. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, on the record of this government since it was elected in December of 1975, I'm not prepared to put my trust in them. I think they're quite capable of changing

[ Page 4315 ]

those percentages from one year to the next for their own devious policies - to ensure that they're going to be re-elected. They're quite capable of changing those percentages from one year to the next, for whatever purpose they have in mind, and it's up to them, and them alone - the few members in that cabinet room - to determine whether this is going to be fair and whether it is in the interest of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to put my trust in them. I don't intend to vote in favour of giving that small group of people the right to determine what will happen with respect to assessments. I can say taxation now, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is out of his seat.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You, of all people, Dave, should be supporting this.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this. I would like to support 100 per cent assessments; this isn't 100 per cent assessments. You changed the report too much, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is suggesting that 1, of all people, should be supporting it. As I said, Mr. Speaker, they should have allowed the McMath commission to complete its report. They should have made the report public when it was first available. They should have followed the report in the legislation before us and they haven't done that.

The minister said it is essential that assessments be based on a clearly defined and objective value standard. Mr. Speaker, I suggest, after listening to the Minister of Finance reading it, that he doesn't understand what he was reading. Certainly the way in which he coupled his words together as he was reading his remarks did not give me any indication that he had any idea at all what he was talking about. It may be clearly understood by a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who will not understand it and one of them, unfortunately, is the minister responsible for bringing this legislation in. In his remarks he said - these are his own words: "Control will be established by cabinet." Control is completely in the hands of the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. That is my concern. That was not in the McMath commission report.

For the minister to say across to me: "You, of all people, to be opposing this legislation, " I have to say to him, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in favour now -and I was not in favour when the NDP was in power - of complete and absolute authority being in the hands of the cabinet. At least under the old system, as poor as it was, there was some kind of a formula for assessments. They were supposed to be based on market value. They weren't, but they were supposed to be. There was a Taxation Act that said there would be amill rate applied to the assessed values. That mill rate could be changed by the Legislature at any time the government wanted to change that mill rate. But now, the changes will be made only and completely within a cabinet room. For the minister to say: "You, of all people, to be opposing this. . . ." Of course, Mr. Speaker, I don't see how anyone can support the concept that cabinet is going to have complete control to do as it will with the levels of taxation in the province of British Columbia and whenever it will.

In his remarks he mentioned several classes of property that will be affected: residential, multi-family, commercial, industrial, farm, forestry, utility, fixed machinery and equipment. There is a possibility of creating more classes. That cabinet will have the right to determine annually what percentage will apply to each one of those classes of property and possibly other classes as well. The Minister of Finance, of all people, is introducing legislation that says that he, as the Minister of Finance, will be bringing into cabinet a recommendation that cabinet, because they really can't be that informed on it as much as the Minister of Finance should be, will on the basis of the recommendation from one person set, in effect, the rates of tax on all of these classes of property, and change it from one year to the next depending upon the purposes of the recommendation made by that minister.

The government will test the system before it is actually put into operation. Mr. Speaker, he's told us it's going to be in operation in 1978. There were interjections and it was certainly a question in my mind. I'd like the minister, in his remarks when he closes second reading, to tell us how he intends to test this - in other words, to put it into effect, I assume, in some limited way between now and the time required to put it completely in effect, if it's going to be in operation next year. I think that's another question, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance could explain. I'm not sure that he could, but I would certainly like to have some answers as to how he intends to test it before these changes are put into effect in the province as a whole.

There is something in a background statement that the minister put out earlier. I just don't know whether I can't read it right, or whether I'm not understanding it, or whether it's not the way he intended it. I'll just read this sentence to you, Mr. Speaker, and I leave it to you to understand what you can understand out of it. I just don't understand it. "By way of background you should know that actual values have always been used as the basis of assessments in British Columbia, but this has not always been followed." That's gobbledegook. We read that, we read the bill and we hear the minister tell us that what we had to have was something that's easily understood.

Mr. Speaker, 1, of all people, cannot support

[ Page 4316 ]

something where it would seem to me that the purpose of the legislation is to say to the various levels of local government in the province of British Columbia: "There's going to be a lot of flack when people get their tax notices in 1978,1979 and 1980. There's going to be a lot of flack and the provincial government doesn't want to be in the front line. We want the local levels of government 'to be the shock troops, therefore we're giving you some options. When we start getting criticisms about tax notices, it's not the provincial government that did it. It's local levels of government that decided how they were going to implement this legislation." The fault is all theirs if there are any complaints with levels of taxation that are being levied or with the assessments.

Local levels of government are going to be the cannon fodder in this war between local taxpayers, who are not going to be protected by a cabinet meeting once a year to make these decisions.... Local levels of government are supposed to be the shock troops that are fighting off the local taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, 1, of all people, cannot vote in favour of legislation that puts this absolute power and control in the hands of some 18 people meeting secretly once a year in a cabinet room.

Mr. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.