[ Page 4559 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Breach of Constitution Act. Mr. Bawtree –– 4559

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Return of Minister of Education from Norway trip. Mr. Cocke –– 4560

income assurance for broiler growers. Mrs. Wallace –– 4560

Ogden Point fire. Mr. Wallace –– 4560

Energy-transportation task force. Mr. Gibson –– 4561

Pharmacare expenditure. Mr. Stupich –– 4562

Federal-provincial cost formula on marine runs. Mr. Lea –– 4562

Presenting reports

Consumer Services annual report, 1976. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4563

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 84) Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4563

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 31) Committee stage.

On section 18 as amended.

Mr. Stupich –– 4564

Mr. Gibson –– 4564

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4564

Mr. Wallace –– 4565

Mr. Stupich –– 4565

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4565

Mr. Nicolson –– 4566

Division on section 18 as amended –– 4566

On section 143.

Mr. Gibson –– 4567

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4567

On sections 165 and 166.

Mr. Barrett –– 4567

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4567

Report stage –– 4567

Systems Act (Bill 44) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich –– 4568

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4568

Mr. Nicolson –– 4568

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4568

On the amendment to section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 4569

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4569

Mr. Nicolson –– 4570

Division on the amendment –– 4570

On section 2 as amended.

Mr. Levi –– 4570

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4571

Mr. Wallace –– 4571

Mr. Gibson –– 4571

Mr. Nicolson –– 4571

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4572

Mr. Gibson –– 4573

Mr. Levi –– 4573

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4573

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Levi –– 4575

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4575

Mr. King –– 4576

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4576

Mr. Levi –– 4576

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4576

Mr. Wallace –– 4577

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4578

Mr. Levi 45~9

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4580

On'section 6 as amended.

Mr. Levi –– 4582

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4582

On section 12.

Mr. Levi –– 4584

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4584

On section 13 as amended.

Mr. Levi .. 4585

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4585

On section 19 as amended.

Mr. Levi –– 4585

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4586

Mr. Nicolson –– 4586

Mr. Levi –– 4587

On the title.

Mr. Nicolson –– 4587

Mr. Levi –– 4588

Report stage –– 4588

Statistics Act (Bill 32) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4588

Mr. Levi –– 4590

Appendix –– 4594

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today Mr. and Mrs. George Rigsby, from my home town of Quesnel in the great riding of Cariboo, and their family. They're here to observe us. I hope everybody behaves themselves while they are here.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is an old friend of mine of long standing, Mr. Robert Tamplin, from Duncan. I'd like this House to bid him welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): 'Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome first-time visitors to our House, Mr. and Mrs. George Currie, from Chilliwack. They are accompanied today by their daughter Maureen, who is the wife of our new Deputy Minister of Tourism in the province of British Columbia.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce some visitors from Gold River, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Kerpan, their daughters Kimberley and Linda, and their son Harold Dean. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Highways introduced guests from a northern riding, today from another northern riding, the riding of Prince Rupert, there are two visitors to the Legislature. I ask the Legislature to join with me in making welcome Dolores McIntosh and her daughter Kathy McIntosh.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, here from Vancouver South today are Mrs. Carol Ewing and a whole fleet of little children, who will keep her here only a little while and then she'll have to leave.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a matter of privilege respecting a matter which may affect myself as an MLA.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BAWTREE: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a matter of serious consequence to it and to me.

I was advised last Thursday afternoon that certain actions undertaken by me several years ago may have resulted in a contravention of the Constitution Act. I went home over the weekend in order to look into the records which I maintain at my farm and I find the circumstances to be as follows:

Soon after the last war I started to purchase land in my own name to build up a farming business. In 1964, my wife and I formed Ashton Creek Ranch Ltd. At that time some assets were in my name, including the licences and permits. I left them in my own name as there did not appear to be any reason to make any change.

One of the assets was an annual grazing permit issued by the Forest Service respecting range - the range number is K94 - which is used by me and six or seven other ranchers. Over the years the permitees on this range have carried out range improvement work under the authority of the Forest Service. Since the range is owned by the Crown no work can be done without Forest Service authority. Incidentally, all improvements to the range accrue to the benefit of the Crown range and do not become the private property of any permittee.

In November, 1974, 1 applied to the Forest Service for permission to carry out range improvement work, namely, the installation of two steel cattle guards and drift fencing. This work was necessary because there is a logging road which crosses this Crown range and it is not possible to control the cattle without guards or a gate. A gate would interfere with the use of the logging road and, therefore, the guards were the only way to handle the situation.

In December, 19 74, the Forest Service recommended that this work proceed. The work was evaluated and the Forest Service indicated to me that they would contribute up to $2,000. Any additional cost would be my own responsibility. The cost of this work is made up entirely of material, equipment, which I would be obliged to hire, and labour, which I also would be obliged to hire. Also in 1974 and 1975, I applied to carry out other range improvement work consisting of the clearing of approximately 100 acres, drift-fence construction, work constructing a corral, and range seeding. I received approval to proceed with these works at my own expense. No contribution was asked of or offered by the Forest Service except the supply of seed.

This work was undertaken by me, completed and approved at a cost of approximately $15,000. The formal approval for the installation of the two cattle guards and drift fencing which the Forest Service was to contribute was received in September, 1976. That work was finished to the satisfaction of the Forest Service by the end of October, 1976, at a total cost of $2,300. In accordance with the arrangements which I had made with the Forest Service in 1974, a check for $2,000 was issued in my name on November 17,1976, as the Crown's contribution to those Crown improvements.

[ Page 4560 ]

As a consequence of this procedure, I find myself in the position of having undertaken work on Crown land and receiving in my name the sum of $2,000, therefore possibly contravening the Constitution Act. For all I know, Mr. Speaker, the use of seeds supplied by the Forest Service in the course of range improvements may also involve me in similar contravention, because that seeding work is still continuing. In full recognition of the seriousness of this matter, I have consulted a lawyer for the purpose of determining what course of action I should take. In compliance with the advice that I have received, I have today sent a letter to the hon. Attorney-General with a copy of the statement which I have just given to the House, and I have requested that he consider forthwith the presentation of a motion for the purpose of having determined whether or not, in these circumstances, any question exists with respect to my qualifications to sit and vote as a member of this assembly.

Oral questions.

RETURN OF MINISTER OF EDUCATION

FROM NORWAY TRIP

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Attorney-General as House Leader. I'd like to ask the House Leader if he will tell us when the Minister of Education will return from his holiday to Norway so that we can proceed with some of the business that's before the House.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): It's somewhat of a facetious question, Mr. Speaker, but I'm delighted to respond to it. The hon. Minister of Education is not on a holiday. He is in Norway; he is delivering a scientific paper. I anticipate that his return will be next week.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Who's paying for it?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney-General if there's any tinge or colour of government business of any kind attached to this visit to Norway.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Member.

INCOME ASSURANCE

FOR BROILER GROWERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister indicated some little time ago that because of the impending federal broiler marketing plan, he would not move towards a provincial farm income assurance programme for broiler growers. Now that he has been overruled by his stronger cabinet colleagues, is he prepared to proceed with income assurance for broiler growers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you are well aware of the fact that in question period you ask questions. You do not make statements or assume conclusions. For that reason, I would ask that when you direct a question, you direct it on the basis of a question and not on inferences or on conclusions already contained in the question itself.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I am inferring that he has been overruled, perhaps I should ask him whether or not he has been overruled on his decision regarding the entry into the national scheme.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Is that the question?

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has admitted that. I'm asking him: now that he has been overruled, is he prepared to institute a scheme of income assurance for those broiler growers?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is aware, I think, that the application for the national chicken marketing scheme has been deferred. It has not been denied. It has been deferred until the submissions are made to the standing committee on agriculture.

MRS. WALLACE: If it is just a slight pause, I wonder how long this pause is going to be, and whether he is prepared to act during the pause to ensure that there is some price support for broiler growers in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, we will have to just wait and see what the outcome of those committee hearings is. I understand that the representation will be made at the food study hearings in Vancouver later on this week. That is the consideration we will be looking at in regard to farm income assurance. It is not under consideration at this time.

OGDEN POINT FIRE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. In view of the serious economic impact on the city of Victoria as a result of the $3 million fire at Ogden Point warehouse, and since the minister,

[ Page 4561 ]

as reported at an emergency meeting called by Mayor Young, has been unable to commit the provincial government to anything other than a general resolve to see that Victoria continues as an industrial port....

CN has said that no decision to rebuild the warehouse has been made because the costs involved might make the operation unprofitable. Since the minister has indicated that he doubts whether the federal government or CN will consider reconstruction, what contingency plans can the minister tell us of at the present time to ensure that the adverse economic consequences from the fire will be minimized in Victoria?

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Oak Bay for that question. As a consequence of that unfortunate event, I have had meetings with my colleagues the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The Minister of Transport has initiated discussions with the federal government to the extent that if the federal government is not prepared to proceed with a positive plan for the maximized utilization of that facility, it be turned over to the province for the province to do so. The Minister of Economic Development has indicated that the B.C. Development Corporation will be asked to look seriously at any situation where they can assist by way of financing.

Out of that, Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting this Thursday with all the parties concerned with that port facility to resolve a course of action which will bring about a speedy recovery of this facility.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I realize the involvement of several government levels and so on, but could the minister tell us if there is any approximately deadline by which some commitment must be made to ensure that we don't, in fact, lose permanently some of the trade and traffic, and the tourist ships and many of the other ships that would be compelled on an interim basis to use temporary facilities? How soon must we get the facilities back in action in order to preserve the ongoing trade at that site?

HON. MR. BAWLF: In answer to the supplementary, first of all, there are three basic items of business being done at that facility. The shipping of lumber, firstly, and the receiving of cruise ships, secondly, are both still progressing. There was no damage which prevents those activities from taking place.

The third activity, the storage of pulp and paper, requires a warehouse building, practically speaking. It will be some considerable number of months before that can be reconstructed. We will not know whether there is an urgent deadline until we've had our meeting on Thursday.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I then ask the minister, perhaps as much as an MLA for the city of Victoria as the minister: since the Victoria fire department as well as some of the assisting Oak Bay firefighters stated that low water pressure was a serious hindrance to successful fighting of the fire -in fact, had the wind been blowing in the opposite direction we might have had a very serious fire involving a large part of downtown Victoria - can the minister tell the House if he's taken any action to try and take preventative measures so that any future unfortunate fire will at least have the advantage of adequate water pressure to fight it?

MR. SPEAKER: May I just intervene to suggest to the hon. member for Oak Bay that the matter of supply of water would, I believe, be a matter under the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities within the city of Victoria and the municipalities surrounding it, and not one in for which the minister himself has any responsibility.

MR. WALLACE: Well, just let the city burn down, Sam, and blame it on the municipality!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. minister wishes to reply that's his prerogative.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, you're quite correct that it is a matter between the municipality and the federal government, who are owners of the site. On a number of occasions the municipality has requested that the federal government upgrade those water facilities, because that's where the lack of pressure exists. Certainly any plan for the reconstruction of warehouse space there should consider that as well. This point has already been brought forward.

ENERGY-TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Last Tuesday, the Premier said in debate that in late 1976 an energy-transportation task force had been set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Bob Green, I think, reporting to that minister. I quote the Premier: ". . . operating on behalf of the citizens of B.C. since last 1976, developing the data and the research so that British Columbia could be ahead of any proposal to agree to the Alcan project."

Logically, Mr. Speaker, this would suggest an

[ Page 4562 ]

attempt to contact those most affected. Therefore I would ask the minister if he would explain why there has been no contact made by this task force with the municipalities of either Fort Nelson or Fort St. John.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the task force that was set up in December of last year is an interim ministerial task force. It has prepared a number of reports, carried out studies and consulted with a number of corporations and other agencies concerned with pipeline development. I have had no particular reason to expect them to consult those municipalities mentioned; nor have I any knowledge that they have not consulted them.

MR. GIBSON: The minister might want to make some inquiries of the municipalities and he will find that they haven't been consulted. But a supplementary to this: has the task force as yet had a detailed meeting with the pipeline company concerned to learn of their precise proposals in terms of their impact on British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There have been reports received from the company and there have been contacts with individuals who have supplied expert information to the Foothills company. There has been no full-scale meeting with the chief promoters of the pipeline, if that's what the hon. member is asking.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary again, Mr. Speaker. The Premier said this task force was "developing the data and research so that British Columbia could be ahead of any proposal to agree to the Alcan project."

Is the minister now telling us that this so-called task force hasn't even yet had a detailed receipt of the proposals of this company? If that's the case, how can we say that we're ahead of the impact of this project?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member knows that Foothills Pipe Lines has presented details of its project in considerable volume to the National Energy Board. Of course this information is available to everyone, including the general public.

PHARMACARE EXPENDITURES

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance: with reference to the first quarterly report for 1977-78, can the minister tell us how the. budgeted expenditures for the Pharmacare programme compare with the actual expenditures, for the Pharmacare programme?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate receiving a notice of this question from the member, I'm not able to provide that kind of detailed information on the specific votes. By way of explanation, the quarterly report information takes each department on a global basis and estimates the total for the year. And it's only on a global basis in which you read the figures in the quarterly report.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would then like to redirect the question to the hon. Minister of Human Resources. Oh, I'm sorry; I'll try again. Is he on a holiday too?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister is not in the chamber at the moment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, on August 4 1 took as notice a question from the second member for Burrard having to do with the purchase of data-processing equipment. He's not in the House at the present time. The question required a very detailed answer and I would ask leave to table that reply.

MR. SPEAKER: The tabling would be following the completion of the question period, hon. minister.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COST

FORMULA ON MARINE RUNS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. There is a formula that has been worked out between the provincial and federal governments to work in an amount for specific marine runs, based on cost of roads. I wonder if the minister would table in the House that formula worked out between the governments.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to. The formula, however, wasn't worked out with the federal government. It's a formula which was developed by the province to establish its own subsidy. Its own subsidy relates to particular routes. The mileages of the routes are key, and it is the routes which the federal government agreed to support which established the amount of a federal subsidy.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table the reply to the question regarding data-processing equipment referred to earlier.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

[ Page 4563 ]

Hon. Mr. Mair presents the annual report of Consumer Services for the year 1976.

MR. COCKE: On a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, during the question period a question was directed at the Minister of Recreation and Conservation which didn't seem to fit into his portfolio. The fact that he's the MLA for Victoria really has no great ~significance, I don't think. I would like to hear whether the Speaker is going to admit questions to MLAs in particular municipalities or cities with respect to their own area: Failing that, should not that question have been directed to the Minister of Economic Develop ment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ?

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the hon. member for New Westminster, who would appear to have risen on a point of order, it would seem to me that the first portion of the questions concerning the port facility, directed to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation, was in order. However, when the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) proceeded into the matter of the lack of enough water to fight the fire, that is clearly a matter which is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and I so observed. However, it doesn't prevent the minister from answering, as ministers have done in the past.

I might just say for the general benefit of all of the members that question period is that. It is a matter of oral questions by members and that does not exclude any hon. members of the House from asking questions. However, if they ask a question of another member, it must be something which that member has some responsibility for, and when it is not, I observe that, hon. member.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would just like to correct the statement made by the member for New Westminster.

When I was appointed Minister of Recreation and Conservation, among the duties which were assigned to me by order-in-council was that of planning for provincial land use in the capital city - those provincial lands, including a number of harbour lands. In pursuing that obligation, this has led me to discussions about the future of all port facilities in the capital city. Negotiations were commenced with Ottawa, June 17, on that point, specifically dealing with, among other properties, Ogden Point. It is a continuation of that responsibility which has led me to deal with this particular crisis. I may say that I am more than pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Introduction of bills.

MINERAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 84 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 31, Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) .

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 2) .

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 13 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section IS standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 4564 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 18 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 18 as amended.

MR. STUPICH: This is the section that allows the cabinet to set the percentages for the various classes of property, and to set them annually. Now I don't intend to speak long on this. I did speak at some length during second reading on this principle.

I'm violently opposed to the idea that the cabinet would have the authority, or indeed the obligation, once a year to set the percentages for each class of property and to vary those percentages from one year to the next. It certainly leaves the door open to all kinds of abuse and it certainly leaves questions in people's minds. It would be very difficult to plan what's happening from one year to the next with respect to property tax, which is very important for some individuals and for corporations indeed. To know that they are at the mercy of the whim, if you like, of the Minister of Finance from one year to the next; perhaps the political whim of the minister and the cabinet with respect to the amount of property tax that is going to be paid by individuals or by property owners generally....

I just want to register my opposition once again to this particular section. I don't believe that the principle of the bill hangs on this section at all. I would like to urge the members to vote against this particular section of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , I very strongly oppose this section again for reasons that I will not reiterate. I went into it enough in second reading. But I want to ask the minister a specific question of detail, in order that people in this province can understand right now the impact that this bill is going to have on their finances and their taxes next year: that is, I request the minister today and now stand up in this House and tell the people of British Columbia what classes there will be and what percentage of actual value will be set for each of those classes in the coming taxation year. That is a minimal request of the government. if it really understands the impact this bill is to have on this province. If they can't do that, Mr. Chairman, they've really not done the kind of planning that is incumbent on a government in bringing in this kind of far-reaching bill. So I ask the minister for those classes and those percentages now.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in response to the first question, concern has been indicated about the fact that it is required for the legislative counsel to determine these percentages of each class. I think I said in the earlier debate we had that this is a highly necessary feature to acquire the flexibility required in administering a fair law on property taxation.

We cannot determine what would equate to a proper percentage in any one classification until the very latest in rolls has been updated. For instance, we just recently, after series of updated computer printouts, received the very latest updated 1977 information on assessment rolls. Only at that point can a percentage be associated with the category which will equate to the total tax assessment currently being paid by that particular category.

Beyond that, it refers to the matter or concern indicated about the fact that cabinet will be left to determine these percentages. It is to provide the flexibility required under the administration of what is always a very complicated thing - that is, determining assessment for property taxes.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the percentages, I went into this in detail in the earlier debate. As soon as this bill does receive royal assent, the department is geared up to distribute to municipalities the complete details with all of the breakdown on each school district so that they can make a determination of the four options. Now that should be in the very near future if this bill does proceed. At that point, we'll be making available to any member of this House the detailed information on any area that he wants to inquire about, to try to study the impact of the changes that may take place in the assessments and so on. So it is at that point that the complete information on the breakdown of percentages, classifications and so on will be distributed.

MR. GIBSON: I'm astonished that the minister admits he has this information ready to distribute to the municipalities now and he hasn't given it to this Legislature for the debate.

The excuse he gave for not telling us the rough percentages is simply not good enough. Yes, new tax information comes in all the time; new assessment information comes in all the time, But the minister knows very well that the capital stock in this province in terms of the assessment roll doesn't change by more than 2 or 3 per cent per year. That change itself changes the overall percentages between the various classes very little.

In other words, the minister has a data base right

[ Page 4565 ]

now, which is not going to vary by more than a few percentage points across the province, on which to give this House a rough indication of the relationship between the various levels. Is he going to set residential at 40 per cent, commercial at 50 per cent and industrial at 30 per cent? Just give us some rough figures. Mr. Chairman, the minister has all the information he needs to do that. If he declines to do it it's simply that he declines in order to avoid the controversy he knows would ensue in this Legislature once he comes up with those numbers.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to reiterate my opposition to this section for the reasons I outlined in the debate on second reading, but I would like to pursue it as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has done in more specific terms. The minister uses the word "flexibility" frequently, and it's that very word that scares me because I feel that the minister has not decided what fraction of total property taxation revenue is to be derived from these different classes. In other words, I'm well aware of the point that whatever percentage you pick, as applied to the assessment value of the property, will determine the revenue that's derived from that particular category of property. That's what we on this side of the House are trying to find out and that's why we oppose this section, because the sky's the limit to the variation from year to year that the government may decide to extract in property taxation from different classes of property. I think that's immensely important to the fundamental concept of property taxation, period.

As the Liberal leader has pointed out, there cannot be such a great variation in the total capital value of industrial property, commercial property, residential or whatever. I think this is the main danger in this section, and this is why I so strongly oppose this section. It leaves the cabinet, as the minister says, with flexibility. Indeed it is flexibility. You could bend it any way you want once a year and you can quite suddenly and dramatically change the fraction of total taxation paid, let us say, by the homeowner and put it up very substantially on the industrial property, or vice versa. The fact is it's the very flexibility that the minister has given himself in this section which is causing me concern, and which particularly commercial and industrial property owners should be concerned about.

I wonder if the minister could give some approximate figures based on the data which he stated he already has as to whether commercial and industrial properties will be assessed at approximately the same percentage. Could he even give us an ascending or descending scale of percentages going through the various classifications? At least that would give us some indication as to the relative amounts of revenue to be provided by different categories of property.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree with the two members who have just spoken on this previously. I agree also that the government must have a pretty fair idea right now. The only reasons for still having some question as to what percentages are going to be levied against the various classes must be political ones. After all, the whole purpose of this exercise was to assess property at market value, and that property would be taxed according to its market value, not - according to the particular class of property that it was in. That was the principle when we first started this exercise.

I don't agree with the minister that the assessment rolls have to be absolutely up to date. For some two years now the Assessment Authority has been keeping records and has the assessment rolls based on the market value of all property in the province. Certainly there has been lots of opportunity for the minister and his staff to have arrived at the kind of totals they need and to tell us today what the percentages are. I don't agree with that concept at all. Even if I did agree that there had to be the flexibility - and I don't accept that - my next question would be: why not bring that report into the Legislature annually and give the members an opportunity to discuss the flexibility and to discuss the various rates that are going to be applied to the different classes of property?

To say that the cabinet has to have this flexibility is something akin to saying that the cabinet has to have the right to decide whether or not the sales tax is going to be set each year at a certain level, and income tax, and corporation tax, and corporation capital tax. In order to come to the right totals we have to look at the total economy and see what's happening so that we know what percentages to apply to each source of revenue and come up with the right answer - indeed that's what he's saying with respect to property tax. In order to arrive at the right total of property tax we have to have the flexibility to vary the tax, because indeed that's what we are talking about - varying the amount of tax that is being recovered from each class of property. So it would be just as much sense to say that the cabinet has to have the flexibility with respect to all sources of revenue.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the House wouldn't vote for that. I think it's just as ridiculous to ask the House to vote for this kind of flexibility that gives the cabinet the authority to annually change, not with respect to market value at all, for some purposes of their own, the amount of taxes that are going to be collected from different classes of property.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, on the points raised from the members in the last two or three

[ Page 4566 ]

remarks that were made, once again on the question of flexibility and the determination of this percentage, it's the very rigidity of lodging these figures in the Act which led to the present disproportion in the total assessment system. So what is desired here - the members are asking for percentages today; these will be distributed in the very near future - is the fact that in each particular category the percentage will be established to equate the total in that category approximately to what the total assessment is now.

This is why the control is necessary to establish that percentage at the very latest date. The member for Nanaimo indicates that two years ago they were preparing updated actual-value assessments. This is true. It's an ongoing process, but it changes almost every day - the total assessments - because the job goes on. So it is desirable to have this percentage established at the very latest point in time to arrive at the assessments for the following year. This is the reason why we say "flexibility, " and the reason why the rigidity of percentages lodged in the former Act was undesirable.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): The minister has used the word - and I wouldn't use it other than to repeat what he has said - "flexible." That is a profane word, Mr. Chairman, to members of an opposition. It's an act of profanity, and very offensive. I would seek not to repeat it more often than is absolutely necessary because it is an embarrassment to do so. I am not used to that kind of language now that I'm in the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister is telling us, and what I was wondering before he got up and gave his explanation, was.... I could see one or two choices: either he knew what they would do once they had the base data, yet would not spell that out in legislation, or didn't know what they were doing and was just seeking this.... I won't use that word again, but you know what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman.

But what he has told us, really, is that what he is lacking in a simple rate formula - amount equals rates times the base, really - is that base, and he is going to adjust the base somehow, based on the information that comes in. What we are going to be doing then, is a manipulation of what has normally just been a solid number. Now there's going to be manipulation of the base. There's going to be adjustment of the base. But why could it not be spelled out clearly in the legislation? I tell the minister that he can do this. Now that he's made it clear that all he wants is the information in the base, why could it not have been spelled out clearly in this section? Just what kind of numerical manipulation is going to be made on the base? If the minister is saying that he would take the residential component, the commercial component, the industrial component, agricultural, et cetera, and raise the same proportion of revenue based on that amount, then why could that not be spelled out very clearly? Then the other percentages could be spelled out with absolute clarity.

Section 18 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 20 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 2 1 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

Sections 32 to 53 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4567 ]

On section 54.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 54 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix-., )

Amendment approved.

Section 54 as amended approved,

'Sections 55 and 56 approved.

On section 57.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 57 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 57 as amended approved.

Sections 58 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman , I move the amendment to section 69 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

Sections 70 to 142 inclusive approved.

On section 143.

MR. GIBSON: Actually I'd just like the minister to explain the import of this section, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This section, Mr. Chairman, just deletes the reference to the assessor of the Act. I thought the member perhaps would have observed that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm perfectly capable of reading the section and I understand that it deletes the reference to the word "assessor." I'm asking the minister to explain the import of it - the implications that it has for the rest of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this is all part of the necessary consolidation of several Acts in the one Act - namely, the Assessment Act.

Sections 143 and 144 approved.

On section 145.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 145 as amended approved.

Sections 146 to 158 inclusive approved.

On section 159.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the introduction of section 159A standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 159 as amended approved.

Sections 160 to 164 inclusive approved.

On sections 165 and 166.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Since you've bunched them into one request, I have just one small question which applies to sections 165 and 166. That is, 165 (l): "Money required for the purpose of section 26 shall until March 31,1978, be paid out of the consollted revenue fund. . . ." Section 166 (l): "This Act comes into force . . . by proclamation." Do you anticipate 165 (l) being applicable beyond March 31,1978? -

HON. MR. WOLFE: If this Act were to be proclaimed after March 31 of this year, it would have no effect. There would be no money available for the payment of the courts of revision.

MR. BARRETT: Therefore you intend to implement that. Thank you.

Sections 165 and 166 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 4568 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

SYSTEMS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: On section 1, under definition of "government entities, " I just want some clarification. Subsection (2) of this reads to the effect that such boards, commissions, associations, colleges, hospitals, et cetera, "established by or under an Act, as may be designated by the board...." I'm wondering whether or not school boards, for example, might be designated as a group, or whether the board, under this particular Act, might say that one school board would be included under the B.C. Systems Corporation and another one would not.

I know some school boards have already made their own arrangements which they're entirely happy with. And I wonder whether they're all going to . . . I think the minister has the question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, no determination has been made regarding school boards, except that I've tried to assure those which have written me that the consequences are only to relate to their requirements in amending their computer services, et cetera, so that we'll be able to offer any improvements or recommendations that may be desirable. Insofar as the section referred to -that is, designation of outside boards and agencies -it's highly unlikely that individual boards would be so designated without having regard to all of them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear then. I think what the minister said is that if it's decided to include school boards under the B.C. Systems Corporation, then all boards would be in, rather than just some. That's what I wanted to know.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. In the definition of data processing services it includes manual as well as machine-assisted information systems. It would appear from this, then, that manual files, such as those that exist in the financial assistance division of the Ministry of Housing, where there are no computer services, would be under this. I'd like the minister to confirm whether or not that is the case.

But I'd also like to bring to the attention of the committee that this power - that the board may designate whatever boards, commissions, associations, colleges, hospitals and boards of school trustees, as will come under their decision - this authority to make this decision is actually being relegated to a board; which is the board of directors of this corporation. The board will be, in a later section, I believe, appointed by the minister, and we'll debate that when we get to it. I think that this is a ridiculous conferring of powers - which should be in the L e g i s I a t u r e o r a t I e a s t i n t h e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - in a board. I would have hoped that the minister would have had some amendment to call at this time on such a matter.

Perhaps the minister felt my second comment was too argumentative but I would like some information. It's incredible. Here we are, saying "here's a board which can now designate everything to do with information services, including files."

That means that in a school counsellor's office, Mr. Chairman, this board will be able to designate that the filing system will come under their jurisdiction. That's how sloppy, loose and open this Act is. If there had been some care and thought taken in this snooper's act, snooping into the private information of people.... Perhaps the minister finds that too argumentative; perhaps he finds it too contemptuous to even answer.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, what about the fact that the definition includes manual as well as machine-assisted information systems? It doesn't mean that this is simply going to be controlling computers or the proliferation of the use of computers. This will put every file and every document in every government-assisted agency of hospitals, school boards, commissions, associations and colleges under control of this system.

This is not a systems Act, this is an information Act. And it is an information Act in which this board which will be determined, I think, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - I have this section marked later on - will, have access and they can designate; they can decide. It's not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who is going to decide what comes under their jurisdiction; it's not this Legislature; it's them. I'm a little bit taken aback that the minister didn?t at least take a stab at answering my first question, which was a very simple, innocuous question. I wanted it made clear if by manual information systems he meant ordinary systems of files, things that don't get put onto punch tape, magnetic tape, punch cards or anything else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member just referred to the definition section of the Act, section 1, relating to the inference that there is not only the normal type of computer equipment but also manually operated equipment. He infers that this Systems Corporation will be taking control of school board files. This is simply not a fact and it's a ridiculous suggestion, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4569 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is only provided in the Act that manual equipment as well as computer equipment and other facilities have to be included because systems, by the very virtue of their implication, will require not only manual but other types of equipment. And insofar as school board files, et cetera, being scrutinized by the Systems Corporation, this is an absolutely fallacious inference.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read the definition o f ' ' d a t a processing services":" . . . includes all activities, procedures and methods relating to, or facilitating the development, implementation and operation of, both manual and machine-assisted information systems." If a filing system isn't a manual information system, which would include all activities, procedures and methods.... This is not a limited definition, this is an all-encompassing kitchen sink type of definition. And it certainly does take it into account and it's not my omission of effort; I'm just bringing this to the minister's attention, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: This includes the library.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, this includes the parliamentary library - everything. Once this board is appointed, they're free to run amuck. They don't make decisions; they don't make recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It doesn't say coming down here in terms of the decisions that they make....

Under "government entities" include boards, commissions, et cetera, designated by the board. And the board is the board of directors of the corporation. Once the board of directors of the corporation is appointed without any reference to this Legislature, they're free to make these decisions. They're out of control and it's too late then.

I submit to the minister that there is too much rush in preparing all of this legislation. This section is just another flagrant and glaring example of where they have included - wittingly or unwittingly, with or without design - awesome, sweeping powers as a substitute for careful, meticulous draftsmanship.

Mr. Chairman, this is really quite shocking. I would hope that there would be some amendment that such boards, commissions, associations, colleges, hospitals, et cetera, as may be designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the board. . . . At least there might have been some watchdog, but there is no watchdog.

This board could become so enthusiastic, so energetic and get so carried away with its duties and its zeal that it could really go way beyond anything. They're not accountable to electors; they don't have to worry about votes. They could fold, spindle and mutilate this province, Mr. Chairman. That's the power, and we've only got to section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two amendments. We'll take them in the order in which they appear on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: This amendment is so obviously just. It provides that if by any chance the government of the day, whatever the day might be, were ever tempted to use the board of this corporation as a "jobs for the boys" kind of thing and appoint a government backbencher to that board, at the same time, the government would have to appoint an MLA from a recognized political party other than the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Has the member a copy of the amendment signed?

MR. GIBSON: I put it on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then let me determine first of all whether the amendment is in order.

MR. GIBSON: It has been on all the other occasions I have moved it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

MR. GIBSON: As I say, it's such an obvious protection for the citizens of the province and for the democratic process in this Legislature that unless the minister indicates that for some reason he does not propose to support the amendment, I don't need to speak on it further. But I would like to hear from the minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the government would have to oppose this suggested amendment because it does alter the complete constitution of the board of directors of the Systems Corporation. The very virtue and nature of this corporation, which will be the jurisdiction to determine the very financial assistance of government, requires that it be very closely controlled by the executive council. Therefore, as the member is well aware, it will consist of the Treasury Board itself with other members of cabinet added. At the moment, it is proposed that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour be added to those

[ Page 4570 ]

names from Treasury Board. This will constitute the board of this corporation. Because of that, Mr. Member, it's not possible to constitute such a major change in the constitution of this board that you are recommending.

MR. WALLACE: Say that with a straight face, will you?

MR. GIBSON: I congratulate the minister for having said that with a straight face, but I don't think that he's really turned his mind to the content of the amendment. The amendment would not prevent him from having a board completely composed of the executive council, though personally I would deplore that. As I said in second reading, there should be outside experts on it.

All this amendment does is to say that if a Member of the Legislative Assembly who is not a member of the executive council is put on this board, say, from the government party, at that point you've gone beyond the executive council. If that is done, in order that any tincture or implication of partisanship might be avoided in the actions of a government, I am simply asking that the legislation should specify that if the government does seek to put one of their own backbenchers on such a board, it should at the same time, to maintain an even-handed balance in its treatment of the Legislature, put on an MLA not of the executive council and also not of the government party.

To me, this is simple, transparent democratic process. It is the way we ought to proceed in all of our boards that have any possibility of the appointment of an MLA. It's the way, of course, the government did not proceed in their housing committee, and look at the trouble they got into. I'm just trying to save them that kind of trouble in the future.

I'm suggesting to them that the public would be well served, and in the long run the government would be well served, if they would just accept this principle that if they put one of their own backbenchers on it, somebody from the opposition should be represented as well. It's simple justice, and failure to agree to that opens the inevitable suspicion that the section in due course will be used for jobs for the boys - for rewarding the government backbenchers who, for one reason or another, are restless because they haven't been able to get into the cabinet. That's what these kinds of section can be used for.

My goodness, Mr. Chairman, I'm not even suggesting that it be wholly closed off. I'm just saying that if the government chooses to proceed that way, then it should at least bring in the balance of an opposition point of view. That to me is an entirely reasonable amendment. I want the minister to reconsider.

MR. NICOLSON: I think that in light of some of the comments made by myself in section 1, this amendment is a splendid idea. Perhaps it should be more mandatory, because there's going to be no watchdog, as I said. Certainly I would support this amendment.

It is one that the minister could easily accept on the floor of the House. I know he has done this before on rare occasions. He's one of the few who might be expected to take a reasonable approach and accept a reasonable suggestion and it does at least open the door where it might be possible to show that the government intends to be fair-handed and doesn't intend to have a corporation that is going to run amok without any sort of accountability to this Legislature or to elected members.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 15

NAYS - 25

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, ' I move the amendment in section 2 (10) , standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Perhaps the minister would be good enough to explain to us what he's done here. In case you've got any doubts, Mr. Chairman, I am standing up. Would he mind telling us exactly what he's done here? He's become a professor of semantics.

[ Page 4571 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, in order that we can conduct orderly business, would the House please come to order? May I encourage the Attorney-General to come to order?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think it's very clear that this whole series of amendments, including the one to section 2 (10) , is strictly clarification recommended by legislative council; it's strictly a technical change.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I know it's a technical change, but what is it? It's not good enough to say it's a technical change. What is it? "By deleting 'its powers and duties' and substituting 'the powers and duties of the corporation'." Now what is the purpose of the amendment? I think you agree with me, Mr. Chairman; he hasn't the faintest idea what this is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The only way the minister can answer is if the member will yield the floor.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm prepared to do that.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister explain to us very simply, Mr. Chairman, what is the purpose of this amendment? It's not enough to say it's just technical. What is it?

MR. BARRETT: Would you like to try for a recess to figure it out?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I would. If the member opposite is serious in addressing his question on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it alters the reading of the section from "its powers and duties" to "the powers and duties of the corporation." Is that clear, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I don't enjoy the minister asking if I am serious. I spent over an hour and a half speaking on this thing. I spent a great deal of time researching it and trying to understand why it is in the first place that the government is getting into this. Now he comes in with what he calls a technical amendment and he can't even tell us what it is.

MR. BARRETT: C'mon, Evan.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want to put it back the way it was?

MR. LEVI: It wouldn't make any difference to you, would it, Mr. Chairman? It would make no difference at all if it went back to the way it is.

Well Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously doesn't know what it's all about. Does it, in terms of this amendment, really strengthen the control that the minister will have as the head of this board? Is this what we're getting into here?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Chairman, it isn't. It's strictly to clarify that the reference is to the powers and duties of the corporation, not just of the board.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think you gave us an opportunity to discuss this section as amended. I'll be very brief. I just wish to place on record in committee debate the same opposition I had in second reading to the concept of a centralized, powerful group of cabinet ministers who are given far too much authority to operate this Crown corporation. It is just an incredible contradiction of one of the fundamental planks of the platform under which this party was elected to power. I just feel, not only in this section, but in other sections which we will deal with later, that I must express my strongest opposition, since it is a betrayal of one of the fundamental principles this party espoused at the last election - that they were opposed to big government. This is one of the worst examples of increasing the power and scope of big government that has happened since this party came to power.

I just think that not only is it wrong in itself to set up a board of this nature and, indeed, a Crown corporation of this nature, but it's all the more pathetic that it's being done by this government which was not elected to do this kind of thing.

MR. GIBSON: Speaking on section 2 as amended, Mr. Chairman, now that the government has rejected my amendment, which I cannot comment on further, I want to ask the minister: will he give the House his assurance that back-bench Socred MLAs will not be appointed to this board?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I also have my curiosity raised about whether or not the minister intends to appoint back-bench members of the government party. We have seen this happen once before. We've seen three people appointed to another group that was sent around at great public expense.

Mr. Chairman, another thing which I find hard to accept is subsection (6) of this section which deals with remuneration. There is no limitation put on remuneration. This board shall give remuneration in whatever amounts they wish.

I note that it says: "A member of the board shall be reimbursed for reasonable traveling and

[ Page 4572 ]

out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by him in discharging his duties. . . ." In fact, I'm not sure that there is any prohibition in this section on ministers being paid remuneration. I would hope there is - that should be just a standard portion of it - but maybe there isn't.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Nunweiler's not around.

MR. LEA: No, but the rest of you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's no prohibition on that in any legislation dealing with the B.C. Railway.

Mr. Chairman, what I would like some answer on is why there is not some limitation. Surely the minister knows what the present level of reimbursement is in other corporations - people who serve on boards, commissions, et cetera. Is it going to be necessary to entice somebody to serve a Crown agency as a director by giving them unequal, inordinately high per diems for attending board meetings, or is there going to be a limitation set?

You know, Mr. Chairman, there really should be an overall policy on this and it should be in legislation. It could be amended every year. Is the per them going to be $1,000 per meeting, $200 per meeting, $50 per meeting, $2,000 per meeting? There is no limit here. It could be $50,000 per meeting. Perhaps if they got the idea that they wanted to get some real high calibre - .45 calibre -executive from the United States to come flying in here from New York to serve out this board, what we could be faced with would be very high and inordinate expenses. What's the limit? Is the sky the limit? Why is some limit not placed in here?

Such a limit does exist in some other statutes that were introduced. I think figures like $250 and $300 for attending board meetings, for instance, have been written into some legislation, and they should be written into this one.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, just to make it perfectly clear, no back-bench MLAs will be appointed to the board of the Systems Corporation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member from Prince Rupert is complaining. He wanted a job but, well, we'll think of something else. He's not eligible, therefore.

To clear up another matter, the member who just spoke referred to the per diems - the payment of expenses for members of the board. No cabinet minister who would serve on this board would be paid for so doing, any more than he would for serving on any other board. It is hoped that there might be other expertise who would be added to the board and this section would cover the payment for their expenses, if there were traveling. It would be completely impractical to lodge in the Act the amount of a per diem. Suffice it to say that this government has established a policy of categories for per diems for serving on boards. This is now clearly laid out.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that the cabinet has laid out a very clear policy. I'm sure the per them rate for attending a board meeting would uppermost in his mind. Could he give us the figure?

I saw the minister making a notation. I thought he was going to respond.

Mr. Chairman, maybe it's embarrassing to ask him ... maybe within the nearest $100 would be better. What is the policy? What is the per diem? I would expect that there would be traveling expenses to and from a meeting. If somebody who lives in Victoria or in Fort St. John is asked to come to a board meeting in Vancouver, there would be traveling expenses - airfare or maybe mileage by ground travel or something. If outside people serving this board come down, one would expect that. One would not expect it to exceed the type of traveling expense policy that generally governs ministers of the Crown and senior civil servants. But what would be the per them then for attending a meeting of the board which is a regular monthly meeting or an extraordinary meeting?

Normally there's a policy of a per them for each meeting that one attends. If they don't attend they don't get paid. They don't get paid by the year; they get paid by the board meetings that they normally attend, and usually committee meetings. They get nothing except expense money, because this is service, Mr. Chairman, to the province. That's the motivation, not the money, surely, for people that serve in these boards. But the minister said that there is a government policy, and it should really be written into the legislation. This legislation should have been written consistent with that policy.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You'd have to change it all the time.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, you change it all the time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You'd have to change it all the time.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, no, you don't. The minister doesn't have to change this all the time. He's fighting inflation. These things could be left for a couple of

[ Page 4573 ]

years. If a per them is set at $300 you could adjust that maybe in two or three years' time in a blanket sort of way to $400, if inflation means that $200 or $300 isn't enough.

MR. LEA: That's not a bad day's wages.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to know then, at least, what is the current policy about per them - or per dia....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Per dia?

MR. NICOLSON: Per deus.

MR. WALLACE: Never mind the Spanish - get on with it.

MR. LEA: As long as you're not up to your neck in crocodii....

MR. NICOLSON: At any rate, I'd like to know what the current rate would be. The minister has had time to confer with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I'm sure would be perfectly up to date on this, so perhaps he'll respond.

MR. GIBSON: The minister was mentioning some of his colleagues that might be on this board. I think he mentioned Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health. He didn't mention the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the minister if that's because of the letter he received from the Attorney-General saying that he didn't like the idea of the Systems Corporation and didn't want it to apply to his department.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no.

MR. GIBSON: The minister's very kind not to take umbrage at his colleague, but he did get such a letter - is that not correct? I'm asking the minister directly. Did he not receive a letter from the Attorney-General opposing the concept of a Systems Corporation as it would apply to his department? No answer?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, on the section as amended, during second reading the minister made the following statement: "The opposition has been saying that it flies in the face of 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." Then he goes on to say: "This corporation is an extension of the government because in fact it's going to have jurisdiction over the financial systems of the government itself."

He amended the bill in order to be more specific, presumably, about the role of the board. That's all very well except that the minister that provides the money is the Minister of Finance, and the minister that's responsible for the corporation is the Minister of Finance. We're going to have the Minister of Finance holding a discussion with the Minister of Finance, who is representing the Systems Corporation. Now just how much power does this board have if in fact the minister is really the person that has the real power?

Then the other question is: how far is this board going to go 'in its involvement with the financial systems of the rest of the government? It's outside of the government, it's at arm's length, it's not accountable in terms of this Legislature other than in the debate, presumably, under the minister's salary estimate. That's where we're going to have to get at this thing. I presume that later on we're going to be dealing with a bill and this corporation will come under that. That will be a question of having a committee.

But surely there's a conflict here, Mr. Chairman. The minister is not only the minister that provides for the funding; he also is the minister that does the reporting. Who is the minister reporting to? The corporation is reporting to the minister, and the minister is doing what? It seems to me that this corporation could very well be out of control of the minister, the way the minister put it in his remarks in second reading.

Again, as other speakers have said, the minister belongs to the government that said that they wanted to have the operation at arm's length, but that's not what the minister said in his comments in winding up second reading. He actually characterizes this board as an extension. The corporation is an extension of the government, because it in fact is going to have jurisdiction over the financial systems. Now what is it? Is it separate or an extension? How does it differ from other Crown corporations, say? Because, as I understand it, according to the bill it will be subject to the legislation on financial reporting as other corporations are. Presumably it will be subject to the committee that is being set up to deal with Crown corporations. But how can that be if it's just an extension of the government? Is it not separate and apart? I think that needs to be clarified, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The comments made by the second member for Burrard related to second reading debate in trying to explain the nature of the board of the corporation being as closely held as it is - also in being contradictory to the autonomous nature of other boards of Crown corporations. I think it's very clear to all members that insofar as this systems group will have control over the very determination of financial

[ Page 4574 ]

systems of departments, it's necessary that it be closely controlled by the Treasury Board itself, which is the function of Treasury Board now, and to be the final determination on whether a department in itself changes its system perhaps out of symmetry with the needs of financial reporting of the overall government. So I don't see where further explanation of the closely held nature of the board of this corporation is evident or is required.

MR. LEVI: The way the minister explained it in winding up second reading is that surely the corporation, to put it in the very simplest terms, has a mechanical function. It has to collect all of this information. It presumably is not a policy-making body in relation to financial policy. It's merely an implementer. That's all it's going to do; it's going to assemble all the information and make it available. But it has no policy-making function in relation to the financial system, surely. Because in the remarks that he made, he's going to have jurisdiction over the very financial systems of the government itself. Now what jurisdiction does that mean? Does that mean it's just going to have jurisdiction over the collecting of the information, or does it somehow have some policy role? Are those seven people who are going to be appointed to the board in some way to become involved in some financial policy-making? Is that what's going to happen? That's what was said in second reading. Now is this board simply looking after the hardware or the software and the mechanics of collecting data, or is this board going to have some policy-making authority in terms of finances of this government?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. I think the member described it properly when he defined it as having jurisdiction and control over the processes involved: the determination of the hardware, the software, the variety of processes used in producing the kind of financial systems which are desirable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might caution the hon. member that this type of debate would have better taken place in second reading.

MR. LEVI: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with an amendment which vested certain powers in the board. It's very difficult to deal with the points I raised when the minister hadn't said what I was quoting him as saying until the end of second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we on the section as amended?

MR. LEVI: On the section as amended, yes. Let me just point out to the minister that in his remarks then when he was closing he evidently was not specific enough in what he said, because I clearly got the message in the remarks he made that this corporation is an extension of the government because of the fact that it's going to have jurisdiction over financial systems of the government itself. Then we talked about the very specific powers of the board. The minister has now assured us that the board is not going to have any policy-making powers in respect to the financial policies of the government. That's fair enough. I accept that and we'll see what happens.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (2) (e) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (2) (f) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (2) (h) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (2) (j) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

MR. LEVI: There are so many amendments here it's kind of running everything together. I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment?

MR. LEVI: Well, maybe on the section as amended.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (3) (c) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to

[ Page 4575 ]

section 3 (3) (e) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 3 (5) standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. LEVI: This section, Mr. Chairman, is the section that really places the corporation in some kind of competition, a very specific competition with the private sector. This is the one that the private sector is very concerned about. Now just dealing with the question related to what happens under section 3 (6) - I think that's the one we just dealt with -we're talking now about the government going to be able to sell data processing to the private sector if an emergency exists. As I understand it, there was some example given by the minister that maybe if one of the federal government computers breaks down, this government is prepared to go in.

I would like the minister to be more specific about this. What does he mean? Does he only mean that they're prepared to fill in a gap for the government? In the rest of this section the government is getting into the private sector. Of course, one of the major guidelines, if you're going to get into the private sector, is: can you compete with them? The general feeling has been by the private sector, Mr. Chairman, that they don't think they can compete. Perhaps the minister might give us an example more specifically of what he means by an emergency existing in which the government would sell data processing services - if an emergency exists. What does he actually mean by that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this clause was injected to make it clear that the policy of the corporation will be very definitely opposed, contrary to their policy, to be selling these services to outside industry or commercial enterprises.

We have already taken steps, as a matter of fact, in recent months to head off the sale of computer time by a certain university which had made contracts with outside bodies. It's very clear, as we have indicated in the earlier debate, that we are opposed in principle to the sale of computer services to outside industry. We injected this clause to attempt to clarify the matter and just to safeguard against the extreme possibility of some tremendous public inconvenience where it was necessary to attach very temporarily to government computer services. It should have been so worded that this would have been in fact possible. I con't conceive of such an emergency, and serious consideration was given to not even provide for an emergency. I think it would behoove the government that they should be able to step in under certain circumstances where a genuine emergency did exist.

MR. LEVI: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the minister is telling us - and I gather that he is - that this section is the section that is to flag to the private industry that we do not intend to go into the private sector at all; and if we did get into the private sector we would do it on an emergency basis only.

I gave an example and I think the minister did in second reading that there's some possibility that maybe one of the federal government operations might break down and they might agree to provide some services. Okay, that's fair enough. I think that kind of co-operation.... It's entirely up to the federal government if it wants to do that, because the federal government was in the highly centralized computer system itself and got out of it because it couldn't compete. If we eliminate that one and the issue of emergency exists, as the phrase is, it would seem to me that there has to be something much more specific. In fact, it would probably be more valuable to take it out because it doesn't really say anything.

Really, Mr. Chairman, the industry needs a much better indication from the government that there's going to be a possibility for them to compete. This section really indicates that the government is going to compete, not that it's not going to compete.

The section is very badly written. To me it just doesn't indicate the objective that the minister has in mind. Maybe the minister while he is thinking about it - he wasn't too happy about it when he was speaking just before - might decide to pull this and put something else in, because it really doesn't say it. You've left the door just a little bit open. The other problem, of course, with the industry is that you haven't been all that up-front with them; you haven't had those kind of discussions; and they see quite an amount, about 30 per cent of their business, disappearing.

The issue is, Mr. Chairman, that if the corporation was based on your free enterprise principle of competition, that you have got to compete in the marketplace, what the heck is the government doing in it in the first place? What they're about to demonstrate to the private system is the "we're going to show you how to do it." If they do, they're going to be the first government in the history of this country that's ever been able to succeed in this area.

That section, Mr. Chairman, does not meet the objections or in any way clarify the position of the government vis a vis going into the private sector whether it's got an emergency or not.

[ Page 4576 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the government through the Systems Corporation will not be selling computer services to private industry or to commercial enterprises. That's point No. 1. Secondly, when you discuss the wording of the section which is section 3 (6) , 1 think it very clearly states that, and one has to ask the question: would you rather not have the section and the same doubt exist or have the section there so worded so that the government's intention is clearly laid out?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I just have one question for the minister, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the government did any market analysis of the computer and related services in B.C. to determine whether or not the total demand is adequate to support both a public and a private sector industry.

What I am suggesting here is that we've now removed from the available customers all of the public enterprises in the province - school boards, hospitals, and so on, I believe. Just government departments? In any event, the minister can explain that. In any event certainly a substantial amount of the public sector business has been removed now from the private sector.

Well, people are shaking their heads. I find it difficult to understand that we have a bill here for proposing to set up this Crown corporation, unless the proposal is that the Crown provide the IBM services for its own needs. By so doing, they are removing from the total demand for computer services in the province a substantial part, if not the total, of the public service.

My question is: has there been any market survey done to find out precisely whether the remaining private sector demand for computer services will support an industry in the province? I can see the universities and many of these agencies as the major users. To what extent there will be a market for what is left over for the private sector, I have great concern. I just wonder what the government has done to try and analyse this, and therefore gauge the impact of this bill upon the private sector industry.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we should make clear that earlier discussion from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) had to do with the government's policy, as described in section 3 (6) , of not selling computer services to outside industry. Now the member who just spoke, I think, is referring to the private sector of the data-processing industry and whether they are going to lose out in the process of consolidation and development. The answer is no. We've been saying repeatedly that the volume of business they do, which is substantial, in peripheral services with government departments and with outside agencies, will not decrease. But these private suppliers are going to have to be competitive, just as the taxpayer would expect them to be. The growth and the development of financial reporting and information should expand their ability to serve That need. I said in second reading that the outside contractors and vendors have been told that the volume of business which they would receive in total would substantially increase, provided they can meet competition with other vendors in an open tendering situation.

There is no desire to build every skill and facility within the Systems Corporation. The primary objective is the consolidation, through economies of scale, of large equipment. But there are a great many peripheral services for which we will still be looking to the outside sector of suppliers and private data-processing services.

MR. LEVI: There is a feeling in the industry that something has happened to the tendering process. As a matter of fact, I put a question to the minister in question period, which he took as notice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's on the table now.

MR. LEVI: Thank you.

The issue there, as I understand it, was that there's normally a list of appropriate companies that get the specifications on a particular piece of equipment. Now I haven't had a chance to look at the answer on this, but four companies actually made a bid. I'm informed by at least two companies that they didn't get an opportunity to make a bid because in the normal course of events they would have received the specifications. In this case they didn't, and they were somewhat put out. There is a general criticism, whether it's well founded or not - and perhaps the minister will talk to his consultant and find out - out there that there's something happening to the tendering process. It's not as open as it was, and as the general tendering process is.

I accept that the minister, in answering a previous question, indicated that there were some kinds of special equipment where there had to be an appropriate compatibility. Nevertheless, if there are lists of companies available to the minister that have expectations of getting specifications on tendering, then they should all get the opportunity.

Again, is it on the order paper or did you table it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member who just spoke raised a question to which I responded. It required a fair amount of detail. I believe in the answer there were four companies which were invited to bid. They're listed and the results of the request for proposals - this was a request for proposals which

[ Page 4577 ]

received a lot of determination - was placed on the table today.

I might say that I quite agree with the member that what needs to be developed is a complete list of those in the industry who should be invited to tender, either for proposals or for specific items of equipment. We will be advertising for anyone who wishes to be placed on such a list or who wishes to be eligible for such a list, and will be calling for anybody who wishes to be placed on the list of bidders for these proposals.

MR. LEVI: I might just ask the minister, now that we're on this particular point, the question I raised the other day, which is related to the tendering issue. How did it come about that only four companies were circularized? Certainly two of them who phoned me felt that they, in the normal course of events, should have been. circularized and weren't.

I think part of the question that I asked was: could the minister provide us with the names of the people that all of the specs went to? I know that four replied, but there was the question of who actually got the specs in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm having a hard time, hon. member, connecting that with this particular section.

MR. LEVI: Well, let me just connect it up for you, Mr. Chairman. The minister was talking about competition and the business of tendering equipment, and he has agreed that these lists need to be kept. I raised the question with the minister the other day and I would like to know....

Now this is not a new thing, Mr. Chairman, but it may be new for the Systems Corporation. Apparently there is a process in the industry where people who can appropriately supply equipment usually get the opportunity to bid by provision of the specs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I outlined in the reply that's already been given, the four firms that were invited to participate were Elan Datamakers Ltd.; Univac; TRW, commonly known as Data-Point; and IBM. I think the other information the member is interested in is all detailed in that reply.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a couple of questions on a different aspect of section 3, particularly 3 (d):

"To establish policies for the development by the corporation and government entities of systems and procedures

" (i) to safeguard the confidentiality of, security of and proprietary interest in information processed by the corporation, and (ii) to prevent misuse of personal information."

Now I sense from the debate on second reading that any question that I'm about to ask will be pooh-poohed by saying: "Oh, yes, we are going to protect confidentiality." I just want to quote from last Saturday's Globe and Mail.

A conference was addressed by Dr. Gabrieli, who cited and documented cases of suicide, psychiatric problems and calls to dying patients by car dealers...

MR. KING: Were they Socreds?

MR. WALLACE: ... all having resulted from the leakage of computerized medical records.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most serious matter and although I am quoting a Buffalo doctor and from an American experience....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): A buffalo doctor?

MR. WALLACE: There is a doctor who practises in Buffalo! There's always a smart-aleck in every corner of the House, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: At least you know I'm listening, Scott!

MR. WALLACE: It's nice to know that some of the members are not only in the chamber but they are awake and listening.

Mr. Chairman, without going into all the details, these specific instances have happened and they relate to this most serious matter of confidential medical information. The doctor quoted one example where a computerized report was sent to the parents of a girl who had had some hormonal tests that the parents interpreted as being a pregnancy test on their daughter. They put her out of the home and she committed suicide. Now this is a documented case that Dr. Gabrieli reports.

He also explained how confidential information about cancer patients was leaked from computerized information. That resulted in a car salesmen phoning the patients to see if they wanted to sell their cars, on the assumption that because they had cancer their lifespan was limited.

This same doctor points out that computerized information can be used for good or evil purposes. He says:

" Unless privacy problems in handling computerized medical records are solved at once, 1984 is here already. We believe computers represent a tremendous threat to the basic human right to keep medical information private. People must be able to trust their

[ Page 4578 ]

doctor, otherwise medicine will sink to a technical vocation rather than a humanitarian profession."

Now if that is already happening in the United States, I would like to ask the minister one or two very specific questions in regard to B.C. hospital records.

There must be a very substantial volume of computerized data processed on behalf of the hospitals of British Columbia, and I want to know if diagnoses and confidential information are recorded on these printouts - or whatever the technical jargon is for the bits of paper that finally can be read. If so, to what degree, if any, will the current system be altered by the setting up of this corporation? I would assume that the whole computerization of payments to hospitals, for example.... I presume they are based not only on the number of days the patient is in hospital but probably also the diagnosis.

So I would like to know under section 3 (d) what these policies are that the minister is trying to reassure the House about - namely, that they'll safeguard the confidentiality and prevent the misuse of personal information. What are these policies and where did the minister get the background information to implement these policies? Did he learn from some similar large system of computerized medical information in Toronto? I know that Mr. McMinn, the adviser, was from a Toronto firm.

I'm wondering how confident the House can b6 that the kind of language written into section 3 (d) is the most up-to-date and the most reliable. I'd like to ask the same kind of question in regard to medicare, which involves the payment of fees to practitioners -perhaps 4,000 of them around British Columbia. To what degree will these policies outlined in section 3 (d) be upgraded, altered, or in whatever way necessary made effective, to preserve confidentiality?

When I read this kind of information in The Globe and Mail, which is a responsible newspaper - and that was a front-page story just two days ago - I have to wonder to what degree this bill and the corporation which is to be created under the bill will really make individual patients throughout this province confident that somehow or other all this information within a vast impersonal amount of equipment and machinery will in fact remain confidential. When you read about the leaking of information to relatives or neighbours - and there are all kinds of sickening examples cited at this conference - it will, I think, undoubtedly have many people worried and asking their own questions about the extent of which section 3 (d) is going to be effective.

Now that's my one big area. The other area of questioning that I would like to ask relates to section 3, primarily subsections (2) (i) and 0) , where it enables agreements to be made in or out of the province and with universities, municipalities or regional districts. My question is whether this precludes those outside institutions from making their own arrangements with computer services in the private sector. If it does not preclude that, would the minister care to comment on the fact that many of these so-called outside institutions - let us say, regional districts and school boards - depend a great deal for much of their functioning on harmonious relationships with appropriate departments of the government? If the government has a large computer system which is being inefficiently utilized, does the minister not agree that in various subtle ways, if not directly, the government might well influence regional districts and school boards to enhance their relationship with the government, let us say, by making sure that they use the government computer system.

So I've really got two questions. First of all, do these two subsections preclude the use of the private sector by outside institutions? If they do not preclude it, does the minister see any danger in the fact that because these outside institutions depend very much on various government departments for funding and other functions that they have to carry out, this is a very subtle form of government coercion to ensure that those outside institutions use the government computer service?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member quite properly identifies confidentiality as one of the growing concerns in the whole data processing field. There's a lot being written about it. Suffice to say that it's a dangerous situation as it stands now, not just in British Columbia but anywhere you want to examine computer services. I say very sincerely that it's a matter of high priority, as far as the Systems Corporation and its ongoing activities are concerned, to try to deal with this problem.

Now we've introduced two sections in the Act. You've referred to one; the other one is in section 19. 1 think you'll find that this is the first time that legislation anywhere in Canada has incorporated this type of clause merely to highlight the fact that in section 3 we instruct the corporation to establish these procedures. There are a variety of technical suggestions about how ongoing confidentiality could be protected - for instance, so-called barriers between installations of one ministry and another, so that the data base in one ministry would not be accessible to another without some senior authority from the minister himself.

Secondly, you have password systems, under which no access could be determined except with someone who has access to these passwords. Thirdly, there are certain rules established in regard to the hookup of a terminal to the computer which can't identify the requirement of confidentiality. So that's just a broad, very uninformed answer insofar as the technical ways in which procedures can be developed.

[ Page 4579 ]

Suffice to say that we do want to establish the maximum protection and-, secondly, we want to make it very clear to the employees of the Systems Corporation that infractions of providing information, either for their own personal benefit by the sale of computer services or privately for any wish that they may have, are going to be policy directions that we will be establishing very strongly.

So I want to emphasize that this is a new thing, introducing this in legislation to indicate our concern for this. How to deal with the problem is not something which has been developed anywhere in North America that I know of, to any great degree.

You asked specifically about health records and the need for the confidentiality there. I couldn't agree more. These are, of course, going to be incorporated in a separate unit which should work in favour of that kind of protection. They're in a separate building and in a separate installation. Hospitals and hospital records - they operate on a mini-computer in any one instance, I'm advised. So it's only by access to that individual hospital computer that there could be an infraction of hospital records themselves.

Medicare payments - we should emphasize that the medicare system will be incorporated on the Honeywell as a separate computer programme. This should allow for greater protection of the confidentiality of the medicare payments which you're referring to, because they'll be on a separate computer installation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You did refer though to the medical payments under medicare, didn't you?

MR. WALLACE: Is there a diagnosis stated on the card?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the last point - before I forget - is section 3. Does it preclude us from doing business with the private sector and offering the same protections there? The answer is, no, insofar as section 3 is concerned.

MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to be rude and shout across the floor of the House, but I want some clear understanding by the minister of my question. I mentioned payments in the sense that in the course of paying doctors, what amount of recording on printout material would also include diagnosis? Again, to get back to the American example, here's a young girl who's being treated for schizophrenia, which her parents knew nothing about. She was above legal age. When this information was wrongly circulated to the parents, there was a tremendous upheaval in the family and a lot of suffering involved.

1 wasn't meaning to leave the impression that it's important that the matter of payments not be publicized. I don't think that matters a great deal. But in the course of paying physicians, how much material or associated material contains the diagnosis of patients for whom the doctor is paid, having rendered services to these patients? That's the point which I hope the minister will comment upon, because that's just as crucial as the whole business of hospital records.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with the member in the desire that this not be distributed with medicare slips or whatever goes out in terms of payment information. The point is well taken and it certainly will be given close attention.

MR. LEVI: I'm glad the minister, Mr. Chairman, thinks the point is well taken because he should talk to his colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . He wasn't too disturbed about the files they've got out at Riverview from the Hollywood Sanatorium. He didn't seem to be too upset about that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: They went to the CIA.

MR. LEVI: They did?

Now I just want to take this, Mr. Chairman, back to the issue of tendering. Presumably, during the startup phase of this programme, because we don't have the corporation as yet ... what format has the startup procedure followed in respect to tendering?

I would presume that if it was operating - the minister keeps insisting that all the money's coming out of his department - to some extent under the Purchasing Commission standards. There are very specific processes that one has to go through in order to tender.

Now going back to the question that the minister was good enough to answer in respect to a piece of equipment that was bought, I wonder what happened to the tendering process which they were operating under. I must presume that they were operating under the Purchasing Commission standards, because there is no corporations as yet.

There, they lay out very specifically what they require in terms of tendering, and who they have to notify. But in the answer I got back, Mr. Chairman, the minister, in respect to the piece of equipment which I asked about, said: "Quotations were invited from the following four firms, with local offices and good reputations in this field." Then they name four companies. Then he goes on to say that "the quotations were solicited by telephone, visit and a demonstration of equipment."

Now surely the government has been involved in

[ Page 4580 ]

purchasing this kind of equipment before. They've been using some kind of process. Hopefully, or legally, the process is laid out under the Purchasing Commission Act. Now I can't for the life of me see why it is that only four companies were notified in respect to this piece of equipment. Surely you haven't abandoned completely the process that's been laid down in government.

I realize you're in a great hurry to do this thing. That's the problem. That was the great criticism of ICBC - let's slow down and do it properly. And we keep saying to you: "In this respect, what's the great hurry?" Then, in answering the member for Oak Bay, in respect of the issue of security, the minister very well admits that it's a tough situation and it's dangerous. But the machine is going on relentlessly and regardless of the dangers in respect to security, you're going to have your corporation and we'll worry about security afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to tell me: why isn't there in the bill - because there is in the B.C. Hydro bill, for instance, if they have to tender - a requirement that tendering be part of the operation; that there be a requirement to tender? Why not?

The other thing is that the minister talked about security under section 3 (d) , I think it was. The member for Oak Bay raised it. Now the minister, I think, is assuring us - and I just want to be sure on this - that no information from a particular department, whether it's in the data bank or not, can be released to another department without the permission of the minister. I think that's what the minister said, but I'd like this to be very clear because people are becoming very anxious about the possibility that the people who are operating the machinery will get a request from a particular source within the government which will lead to the running, possibly, of a matching tape system between one ministry and another. As an ex ample, we might take the Attorney-General's ministry, or the Police Commission, and Human Resources. All of a sudden, we find they're making comparisons to see who's on the Human Resources tape and what relevance they have to the Attorney-General. That's the kind of danger we get into. That's the kind of thing that can happen in this kind of business.

Now the minister did say, as I understand him to say, that no data will be released from one ministry to another without the permission of the minister of the particular ministry. Am I to understand that that is the process? Does this Systems Corporation have complete control over where this information goes -that is, if they want to match tapes between Human Resources and the Attorney-General can they go right ahead - or do we have the guarantee from the minister that the minister of a particular ministry must authorize that and there must be some specific reason why it's going to be done? Otherwise, we're going to wind up with some incredible profiles being made up on individuals in terms of this data bank.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This section regarding confidentiality, section 3 (2) (d) , merely indicates that we are: "to establish policies for the development by the corporation and government entities of systems and procedures to safeguard the confidentiality. . . ." et cetera. All I indicated earlier was that one of the policies or procedures which may be adopted by the board - and I don't want to pre-empt what their decisions will be in this connection - would be a barrier between ministries where only on the decision of a minister would certain information be available to any other department. I just expressed this as a possibility.

MR. LEVI: En francais ou en "Germanie"? Do you want it in German or in English, because do you know what he said? They don't have any policy. They don't have any policy at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LEVI: Who said that? I hope that Hansard has noted that somebody from the other side beside the minister has said something. Mr. Chairman, the minister has really given us no guarantees. The government, at the moment, has no policy in respect to confidentiality - no policy whatsoever. He is not prepared to have come into this House with a bill that would have been considered....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Read section 19.

MR. LEVI: I've read section 19. All that does is charge you $5,000 if you give out information. That's going to be a lot of help, that is. After the horse has gone out of the barn door you're going to fine somebody for opening the door.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Would you like to take that out then?

MR. LEVI: Well, I wouldn't like to take it out. I would like to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to have thought very seriously about the issue of confidentiality and security. All he's told us is that he doesn't want to tie the board down to anything. Well, the government has an obligation. After all, they are the keepers of the information. This computer system will have a record on every

[ Page 4581 ]

individual in this province. Every individual will have a record, either from Vital Statistics, or the B.C. Medical Plan, or you name it - there's a record on everybody. Now the point is that the government must have a general policy principle on this, but obviously they haven't given any thought to it - no thought at all. They're going to turn it over to a board and then the board is going to tell them what the policy is. Well, that's not a very satisfactory arrangement at all.

Now on the other issue, the tendering....

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a big bogeyman and you know it.

MR. LEVI: It's a big bogeyman? Do you mean the minister is not upset by the fact that people who were formerly patients in the Hollywood sanitarium had their files given to somebody? That's a big bogeyman? That's how these things start. We raised an issue earlier in the session with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) over lists of names of people being given from motor-vehicle licences, and that sort of thing. A bogeyman? Of course it's a bogeyman. That's the end of the wedge. You obviously haven't given very much thought to this particular issue. We had enough opportunity during the second reading debate to point it out to you. It's not good enough for the minister to tell us that it's serious.

MR. KING: A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.

MR. LEVI: We're not going to get much further with that one, Mr. Chairman, so I just want to go back to the issue of tendering. How is the government at the moment purchasing any kind of equipment for this Systems Corporation? Is it operating within the purview of the Purchasing Commission Act, or is it going off on its own and doing its own thing? Is that what's happening? Is it operating under the Purchasing Commission standards?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MR. LEVI: How can it be "yes" when there is a requirement to circularize? In the particular question that the minister answered, all you did was contact four firms - that's all you did - and you did it over the phone.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to a request for proposals which went forward and which I have given detailed answers on. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as a list of suppliers. This is what the corporation is being instructed to do - to develop a list of suppliers.

Before, only those were invited to make proposals on this particular item who were known to the systems team to have local maintenance facilities and local expertise. There is no such thing as the list you describe.

MR. LEVI: May I ask the minister a question? Did the minister or any of his staff involved in the Systems Corporation setting-up say to them: "Do you have a list of firms that you usually contact when you are buying equipment?" This government bought equipment long before the Systems Corporation came up. Now are you telling me that there's no such list? Did they go to the Purchasing Commission to find out? I am informed that there are such lists, that specifications do go out to the appropriate firms that can provide this equipment.

The minister shakes his head and says no. You're saying that there's no such lists and that's not the process. Well, I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that you're wrong. You're quite wrong, What happened here is that four firms were sorted out and the list should have been much longer than that. It is known to a body in government, probably the Purchasing Commission.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, despite the member's effort to twist around the circumstances, this was not a normal tendering procedure but a request for proposals on an installation on which a lot of determination had to be made, a lot of change had to be made and the firm which was to develop the best proposal would likely be the one which would receive the business.

I want to indicate also that we have made it very clear - there was never any doubt - that we're going to have a very strong tendering policy. But in terms of inviting prices or proposals for major computer equipment, one has to consider both the cost of the equipment and the cost of converting programmes and systems in arriving at an end cost of such a tendering.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'm not disagreeing with the minister on that. Surely you send out specifications to an appropriate group of people and if they come back and they're too high, you reject them. That's fair enough. But what some of the people in the industry are saying is: "Just let us have a look at the specifications." Now in this particular piece of equipment, their claim is that certain appropriate companies were not contacted. That's all we're asking. You're not required to pick up, just because you circularized. That's supposed to be good practice in the private enterprise system. You give everybody a crack at it, then you make a decision based on cost.

[ Page 4582 ]

This was not followed in this process. If this is any indication of what is going to happen, it's going to be very serious. The tendering issue, if you are prepared to protect, as you say you are, the private enterprise system, should have been in this bill. It should have been part of this bill. Then they would have known out there that they were going to get at least a 50-50 chance of competing. Now some of those companies have doubts whether they will ever get approached. Presumably the minister is going to say to the board: "Come up with a tendering policy." Well, I hope they do, because that's the kind of reassurance that the industry wants, and they certainly don't have it now as a result of this particular practice that we've just outlined in this question.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6 (3) (b) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6 (3) (c) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 6 as amended.

MR. LEVI: We've had some changes as a result of the amendment. There is serious concern out there in the community on the issue of the definition of "public entities." Can the minister tell me if he has had any representations from any of the school boards or from the B.C. School Trustees Association in respect, to participating in this programme? As I understand it, what we've dealt with is changing what was previously written in the bill - "government entities and other users" - and substituting "users of the data-processing services of the corporation." Am I to understand from this amendment that we've dealt with that there is no obligation on government entities to participate in this? There seems to be a shift in where the emphasis was.

I don't want the minister to get up and tell me it's a technical amendment, because it's a little bit more specific than being technical. Why have they removed the definition of "government entities and other users"? Will those entities that were previously there - hospitals and school boards - be required to participate in the data processing? As I understand it,

Nanaimo is not happy with having to use the Systems Corporation, and they have made that known. Coquitlam School Board has made it known that they are not happy to use this, and as I understand it, the School Trustees Association, while they are going to go along with it, are very concerned about the whole issue of the user committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment the member is referring to merely deals with the fact that the previous wording described "government entities" and it was a little obscure as to what might be included in "government entities." So the amendment will then read, "as applied to users of the data-processing services, " which would incorporate anybody who would be a user of the data-processing services.

MR. LEVI: So what we have then is that all of these previously described groups, all those people that get money from the government that have previously used computer services in other areas, will be required to use computer services of the , government as the first option. I've already pointed out that the Coquitlam School Board passed a resolution that they were not happy with having to do this.

Now do they have to use these services? That's the important thing that we have to find out first. Then I want to get into the issue of the committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll read section 6, it merely says that the user review committee shall act as an advisory committee. So in the reference made by the member to school boards and services, they're there to serve those bodies if their information can be helpful.

MR. LEVI: We're not on the same wave length, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just read the minister a quotation from School District 43 ... this is a press release issued April 29. Part of the press release reads as follows: "The board decided to ask for exclusion of school boards from proposed legislation Bill 44, Systems Act, which would create a B.C. Systems Corporation that would administer data-processing facilities for several areas of government as experience has shown that greater economies can be realized when there is a choice of service."

Their concern was that the Systems Corporation and the bill as they read it would require them to have their data services through the Systems Corporation. Now are they correct? Because the same concern has been felt by one or two of the hospitals. Certainly the Nanaimo School Board has indicated, as I understand it, that they would prefer to stay with the credit union computer; they don't want to come

[ Page 4583 ]

into this system. What we get into then, if that's the case - and this is the way that I understand the bill to read - then we are going to get into one tremendous issue of how you allocate time. What kind of lineups are you going to have? What kind of inefficiencies are going to be built into~ the fact that people are not going to be able to go to their previous local-based services to get served. Now this is a very important issue, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that the minister would let us know what exactly is going to happen to school boards, hospitals and other people that get government money that are using at the moment other data services.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, they are still going to be able to use the current services that they employ. We merely want to be able to vet their plans from time to time. You're referring to governments, or we are referring here to government agencies, which receive major funding from the province of British Columbia, and therefore we feel that the corporation should be in a position to consult and vet the plans which they may have or major changes or concerns. We're not attempting to interfere with this process, but they're certainly going to continue to be able to use any outside services that they now employ.

MR. LEVI: Let me ask you another question, because this is one that perhaps we have not dealt with in respect to the corporation at the moment; I think it's appropriate to deal with it here. If you put together large amounts of hardware and software in this business, it could very well be that if you don't have sufficient input from various sources you may find yourself with a tremendous surplus of time on these computers.

The first interpretation given by some of the outside "government entities" was that they wanted them into this operation because they would have to take up some of the time that the computer might have available. The minister has said that all they want to do at the moment is to vet their programmes to see if the programme's okay and it's operating financially, that it's not more costly.... You see, that's a big issue - the question whether the programme is going to be more costly as operated on the local level or 'whether the one that the government has is going to be more costly. We're not going to be able to find that out for a year or two.

Now I'm not clear on this, Mr. Chairman. After all, the schoolboard trustees did write to the minister, I understand, and they went as far as saying: "We'll go along with the operation" - and they are receivers of incredible amounts of government money -"if we can have somebody on the user committee." That was one of the things that they wanted to be able to do.

Can the minister recall whether he received such a request from the schoolboard trustees to have a member on the user committee? I've been informed by them that this is what they did; they made this kind of representation. The point is that they made this representation, as I understood from talking to their people, and they felt that they were going to become part of the Systems Corporation. They would have to go through the Systems Corporation. Now what the minister is telling us is something entirely different, Mr. Chairman. If that's so, well, that's liable to make a few people a lot happier than they were. But we're still not very clear on the idea of vetting.

What we're getting is that the minister's using the argument that the government provides the money for these government entities, school boards, hospitals. Therefore they should have some say on how they spend their money on the whole business of data processing.

That's going a long way towards a highly centralized situation. However, if the minister is able to demonstrate that this is truly a cost-saving proposal, then he obviously is going to wind the day.

I find it very difficult to understand how this is going to be possible. You have a system that's got to absorb the existing government needs. Then you're going to have a system, according to the people out there - the school boards - that's going to have to absorb their needs, and all sorts of other operations that are getting government funding.

I'm not clear from what the minister has said as to whether in fact school boards are going to be required to use this system. Is he saying that they do not have to use it? This needs to be made very clear, because after all, the school board trustees have gone to the trouble of writing to you asking you to go along with it. They want to be sure that they have some representation on the user committee.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You haven't got a letter from them. Well, you had better check with your secretary because I understand they've written to you and they've made this formal request. Even if they haven't written to you, let's deal with the principle of the request. They're a large group; they receive a lot of money. They want to have some guarantee in terms of their input into the system that they're actually going to be looking after, that there will be some priority given to their needs. They went as far as suggesting that in order to guarantee this, they should have somebody on the user committee.

Now what's going to happen? I presume that outside of the hospitals, they are the largest single entity that would use this kind of thing.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to be clear. The member referred to a letter from school

[ Page 4584 ]

trustees asking that they have representation on the user review committee. I don't recall such a letter with that invitation, although there may be a letter of which I'm not aware.

As I tried to indicate earlier, perhaps not too clearly, this is just their part of what might be described as the designated group, being a very large user of computer services throughout the province. We want an opportunity to vet their plans when changes are made and to examine that they are making the proper competitive choices and so on, and that is all. If we can offer advice, et cetera, to make sure that money is properly being spent in terms of their use of data-processing services, so much the better.

MR. LEVI: Just on the issue of the proper expenditure of money, could I ask the Minister of Finance... ? We're not dealing with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . Surely there are monitoring systems that give full explanations on some school boards about how they're spending the money. Is this something that's just come up? Do you have some indication that there are large sums of money being spent on data processing where you fell there should not be, or is this something you just want to look at? Because what you're doing is getting very much into an area which has been sacrosanct in this province for some years, and that's the autonomy of school boards.

That's always been a very serious issue with governments - how much autonomy school boards have. Now we have the Minister of Finance coming in and saying: "We're not only going to give you the money, but as the government we're going to tell you where to buy your computer services. Maybe we'll even say you're going to get your computer services from us." That's the understanding they have out there right now; they feel that they have to get their computer services from you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, they will not have to get their computer services from the Systems Corporation. But I want to emphasize that there are several boards already who have current requests before the systems group to use their terminals or to use some of the services which are available.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to subsection (4) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to subsection (6) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

HON., MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to subsection (1) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to subsection (6) (a) standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. LEVI: Specifically under subsection (b) it says that the corporation can take over existing data processing equipment which it finds to be an uneconomic long-term lease commitment. What is actually going to take place there? Don't they have to pay for them, or what are they actually doing there? What's an example, Mr. Minister, of this kind of an occurrence? "The corporation assuming from the Crown uneconomic long-term commitments relating to data processing equipment" - what are we dealing with there?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, that would simply apply to the unexpired portion of a lease currently entered into between the government and the supplier. The corporation assumes the latter part of such a lease undertaking.

[ Page 4585 ]

MR. LEVI: Would that get you out of the Honeywell contract?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MR. LEVI: You know what? I think he's a good guy. All afternoon it's been tough to get an answer out of him, but by god, he came up with one now!

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 13 (3) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 13 as amended.

MR. LEVI: The general manager here reports to the chairman of the board, but what is the relationship to the board itself? The board doesn't elect a chairman. What actually happens here with the general manager? Does he actually report directly to the board? Is he part of the board's function, or is he really dealing only with the chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the question can't be answered....

MR. LEVI: Yes, I appreciate that. Could the minister just be a little more specific about the role of the general manager? As I read it, he reports to the chairman of the board. Now does the board have access to him? Are they going to be able to get at him and ask him questions?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, very definitely they will have access to the general manager. I feel sure he will participate in board meetings and be providing the basic information necessary for them.

MR. LEVI: The board doesn't elect the chairman, does it? One begins to wonder whether the board isn't just a bit of a pro forma. That's quite true, isn't it? If you have a chairman that's appointed by the government and the general manager reporting to the chairman, what do you need the board for? So I hope that there is a participation there with the general manager.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 17 (1) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 17 (2) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I also move the amendment to section 17 (2) , line 1, standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 19 (1) standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

On section 19 as amended.

MR. LEVI: I thought he was going to do something about confidentiality and he gets himself involved in a semantic little brouhaha here. Let me see if we can get some understanding about this section, even with the amendment, with which you delete "and employee" and you substitute "employee and agent." Now what is proposed in respect to an agent? Public servants are required to take an oath. I presume an agent is somebody that is not necessarily.... These people, of course, aren't public servants. They are a Crown corporation. What kind of provisions are going to be made, in the first instance,

[ Page 4586 ]

in respect to some oath? I guess that's the way we're going to be able to get at them. What provision is going to be there? Why do you want "agent" in there?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, one possibility here would be the inclusion of contract staff.

MR. LEVI: These people are in a Crown corporation, so they won't be public servants. In what way are they going to be subject to some kind of confidentiality oath or commitment? I'm not aware that that's in the bill. I know it's in the Public Service Act, but what happens if you're in a Crown corporation: Are you required to keep secrets? I can appreciate this section 19 being operable if it's in the public service, but what happens in a Crown corporation? What kind of commitment do you have to make?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, regarding the exact form of this commitment, I don't think I could answer that question today, but the requirement for it is described very clearly in the first subsection that you just referred to. I think you are trying to suggest that there needs to be a parallel requirement for the oath of secrecy required by a public servant and you can be sure that there will be such a requirement.

MR. LEVI: Well, I appreciate that, because I've got a funny feeling that if I hadn't raised it, nobody would have noticed it and there wouldn't have been such a requirement. Now what kind of requirement? What, for instance.... I've just passed it to my colleague, the former Attorney-General. What kind of commitment can you get out of a non-public servant in terms of confidentiality that would make him subject to this kind of an Act? I realize that it's an Act of the government and there is a penalty for giving out confidential information. But specifically, how does that work? What do you do? Do you go before the chairman of the board and say "Okay"? Or do you sign something? I'm not familiar with what happens, for instance, in B.C. Hydro. It's a Crown corporation. Do they take a secrecy oath?

So really, Mr. Minister - I realize that you want to get on, but there's a very serious problem here - I think that this section is not workable as it is. There needs to be - and I don't know how you're going to do it - some kind of commitment by employees that can result in some kind of sanction being put on, but I don't think that this is the way it's done.

That's a serious weakness, because you've maintained through most of the debate on this bill that section 3 and section 19 - the companion sections - to some extent guarantee confidentiality and security. Now as I see it, we're going to legislate in a bill - we're dealing with an amendment now -

"Every officer and employee of the corporation shall keep secret and in strict confidence all information coming to his knowledge during the course of or by rea son of his employment by the corporation except insofar as he may be authorized by the board to disclose it."

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: My colleague suggests that ... well, the Summary Convictions Act, but the fine is $5,000. You can't have that kind of fine from the Summary Convictions Act, can you?

Well, it's a very weak section, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the member ' but the mere fact that we have here in an Act of the Legislature laying out the circumstances, I think, clearly makes the clause enforceable.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, you know this section....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Be flexible now.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister can be responsible for those comments that he's made, and if he can say them without blushing, it's up to him.

But this section brings to my mind.... On the one hand I see the necessity of this section, and yet on. the other hand, I could see an occasion where an officer, an agent or an employee of the Systems Corporation could find it his duty, and in conscience be duty-bound, to bring to the attention of the public something which he sees as improper in the transactions of the corporation.

So we have on the one hand the duty, which, I would hope, is implied in this section - to protect the public from having confidential information made available. On the other hand, I think that this also makes it a contravention and subject to fines of up to $5,000, perhaps, to give out information that might relate to something which is going on within that corporation or to giving information to members of the Legislature. Once again, it points up the need for access-to-information legislation, which we generally don't have in Canada. We find this very strange situation where we have to sometimes go to the United States in order to find out information about bodies in Canada, because they have legislation there which requires it.

So on the one hand, I see the provisions of this ~being necessary, but I think it should have been spelled out. For instance, it says: "Shall keep secret and in strict confidence all information coming to his knowledge during the course of or by reason of his employment by the corporation except insofar as he

[ Page 4587 ]

may be authorized by the board to disclose it."

What if there are expenditures made? We've seen cases in the past where expenditures have sometimes been made; improvements are made to personal property, things are authorized; improper expenditures take place. This isn't a matter of an employee divulging confidential information such as would be contained in someone's personal file. This person could be bringing something which is unethical within the norm of business practice, and particularly within a Crown corporation to someone's attention.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

If this section were to be in this form, I think that in terms of some of the experiences we've had with ICBC, it is really an intimidation also of employees bringing matters to the attention of public officials and perhaps to the attention of opposition MLAs, and it really should be their duty to put these matters into light.

So while I am in sympathy with the aspect of this section which will protect the confidentiality of private information, I see this once again as too strongly worded, too wide and too all-encompassing. What it also does is threaten any public servant not only with immediate dismissal, but over and above that.... There might be someone who's willing to put their job on the line for what they consider a matter of integrity and just being able to live with themselves, but over and above that, they face a possible fine of $5,000. 1 can't say that I'm happy with that aspect of this section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI: Just before we come to an end, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to raise one other thing with the minister. Perhaps he would like to just take it for information and think about it.

There is in Germany in the state of Hesse what they call a data ombudsman. The minister might think very seriously about this. You meed to have, aside from the board and aside from the bureaucrats, some individual that should be in the service of the government and in the service of the people, and who could make some judgments related to the kind of information that we talked about before. Just how much information are we going to allow to be crossed and matched? In the state of Hesse in Germany they have an individual who is given this kind of power. Presumably later on we will be debating the ombudsman bill.

But in respect to this, they have looked at it and found to some extent that this works. They get someone who has the ability to look at it, and you have to be an unusual individual. But it would be var better to have somebody that you can refer these matters to, particularly in the area of security and confidentiality, as opposed to having a board which is basically made up of political appointments. Bear in mind that at least two board members plus the chairman will be cabinet ministers. No, two board members will be cabinet ministers. You need somebody apart from that operation who is prepared to make some judgments as to what data should be made available to which people, having evaluated a purpose, and that kind of thing. I don't think it is sufficient to turn it over to a board, because this tends to become an ongoing kind of process, a demand process.

One can imagine incredible demands being made on the system for information. In order to have this kind of security and this kind of confidentiality, the government should seriously think of looking into the proposal of the operations that exist in Germany - at least in Hesse - of a data ombudsman. That could obviate a lot of problems for a politically appointed board.

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 26 inclusive approved,

On the title.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to delete the title "Systems Act" and substitute "Big Brother Act (1984) ."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the proposed amendment is not acceptable to the Chair on a couple of issues: (1) it has in brackets (1984) , which is not this year; (2) the "Big Brother Act" appears to be a trifling amendment. We will find the citation and give it to the hon. member. Is that acceptable?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is not in order.

MR. NICOLSON: I won't challenge the ruling.

On the title.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the title is inappropriate and it's misleading. People were led to believe that this was just to stop proliferation of computers and such. It in fact includes, as we say, files and any sort of manually recorded information.

I feel that "Systems Act" actually is an inappropriate title. It should strike a person right

[ Page 4588 ]

away when they read this title, Systems Act. It should tell them more than this. I think it's needlessly brief, it is not informative, and it really doesn't tell the people the extent to which the government is prying into personal affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That citation is the 16th edition of May, page 5 5 6, subsection 8.

MR. LEVI: I don't want to get into a disputation with Sir Erskine May, but I would like to point out one thing. In a recent study done by the federal Department of Communications and the Department of Justice....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You haven't understood a thing that's been going on all afternoon; now admit it. That's the problem.

With all due respect to Sir Erskine May, Mr. Chairman, we have something a little more recent in terms of a study that was done by the federal government, a report by the Department of Communications and Department of Justice. Now I'm not in some way trying to argue your ruling, but I would like to point this out. In second reading I did quote from the report and I would just like to quote again, because the concern that we have generally about the Systems Corporation relates to privacy and confidentiality. I would just like to quote this; it's from the report and it says as follows:

"What is essential is that these zones or realms of privacy are important if not essential for the well-being of the individual and ultimately for the good order of society, irrespective of what he may do within them. The very essence of totalitarian society is that it penetrates and intrudes into these realms with nearly perfect totality in Orwell's 1984.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Systems Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Second reading of Bill 32, Statistics Act.

STATISTICS ACT

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development) ; Certainly it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to this bill, Bill-32, the Stat Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this bill will certainly receive strong support in this House, because I know that the members, whatever their political affiliation or philosophy, are certainly strong supporters of British Columbia and desirous only of the well-being of its citizens.

On the surface the Statistics Act may appear well removed from direct benefits to the people, Mr. Speaker, but believe me, until we have it in place we are, as Canada's western most province, almost daily hamstrung between the other provinces in Canada when we deal with Ottawa and the other provinces, particularly on economic matters. The majority of provinces in Canada already have a Statistics Act which gives them, as this Act will give British Columbia, a free and open exchange of vital information not now available to us.

Mr. Speaker, this Act has several objectives, but the main objective will allow British Columbia to exchange data with Statistics Canada - information, as I have said, which is vital to our needs. In order to meet the requirements of the federal legislation, the province must have the same powers to collect data and - please hear me very carefully on this, Mr. Speaker - the same requirements to protect confidentiality as exist federally. The province must also have the same kinds of penalties for offences against these regulations and it must have a statistical agency with a responsible director.

These requirements have dictated 90 per cent of the wording of British Columbia's Statistics Act, just as they have dictated the wording of the majority of other provincial Statistics Acts in this country.

I would like to take just a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to tell the members of this House why we need the Statistics Act and why we want more access to statistics collected b y Statistics Canada. First of all, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have an effective government and a healthy and prosperous economy, we need to have the facts and figures to assist us in making correct decisions. In serving this House as a member of this government, in the years when I was in opposition a member of the back bench some years ago and in my own business, I have seen this fact proved time and time again. In decision making, the answer you get out is only as good as the information that has gone into that process. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if you don't have the right facts and figures to put into the decision-making process, you won't get the right decisions. It's as simple as that.

Right now, I think I can say that any decently run business of moderate size has more accurate statistical information than this government has. I want to tell

[ Page 4589 ]

you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Japanese have better statistical information than we have, and I think that's one of the reasons that their economy has been so prosperous. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Japanese probably know more about us than we know about ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we can't have it, too. That's why this bill is before the Houe. That, Mr. Speaker, is the main reason for it.

Statistics Canada primarily serves federal government purposes. Its data is used by the various federal government agencies on a national level. Statistics Canada publishes a great deal relating to this and other provinces as a whole, although in British Columbia's case most of our statistical information is grouped with that of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, here's the rub: for data on the regions of our province - for instance, on the Kootenays, on Vancouver Island, on the Okanagan, or indeed, for statistics on that great northeastern part of our province - for this sort of data which is vital to the management of our province, we are pretty well on our own. Statistics Canada does not break down their data to accommodate us, so we have one choice: either we collect the data through surveys of our own, or we tap the data that Statistics Canada, and other agencies, are already collecting.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't need to tell you which is the more logical course. It's the only choice we have. If we were go begin collecting our own statistical information it would require a whole new superstructure, staff and support personnel. In short, it would require another bureaucracy, and none of us wants another bureaucracy. I think every member of this House would agree with that. We're opting, Mr. Speaker, for the proper choice. We're opting for the alternative, through this bill, of bringing this province into line with Stat Canada's Act and the federal legislation so we can avail ourselves of their expertise and their data.

In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we are mindful of the burden on the businessman who is already filling out a barrage of forms. Should we give him more forms to fill out, more time-consuming paperwork, or should we make better use of the information that is presently being collected? Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we want to use the present information and save the businessman time and energy - and not only the businessman, but also other groups in our society that want access to statistical information.

Mr. Speaker, that is the object of this bill. By avoiding unnecessary duplication and collecting data, it will also cut out waste of the taxpayers' money. It will mean better co-ordination of our government's dealings both with Statistics Canada and with the statistical agencies of other provinces. And it will mean more and better statistical information available to researchers, planners and special interest groups such as trade unions and employers groups which, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is just as important as providing accurate statistical information for the government as these groups also play a very vital role in British Columbia's economy.

It will also mean, Mr. Speaker, that more and better information will be available to potential investors in this province. Let me say right here, Mr. Speaker, and let me make myself very, very clear on this point, that information provided by individual respondents will be treated with absolute confidence. There are safeguards in the provision of this Act to ensure that the only persons permitted to see individual returns will be the director of the statistics division and his staff - only those, Mr. Speaker, who have been sworn to secrecy under this Act. These are the people who will have access to individual returns under the Act.

MR. WALLACE: How many would that be?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not even 1, Mr. Speaker; not even the minister can go and look at individual returns for any purpose.

MR..WALLACE: How many?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's how much the privacy of the individual is protected in this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: How many staff?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm getting to that.

While I'm talking about the director and the staff of the division of my ministry, who will be the people directly concerned with the administration of this Act, let me lay to rest any fears that this Act will create a new bureaucracy. Plans by my ministry for the effective administration of this Act will call for 10 persons to be hired. Nine of them will be in a professional category and one will be a clerk-typist. Now, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , that's hardly an empire.

MR. WALLACE: It's a start!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the opposition must agree on this point. In addition, all of these positions have been provided for in my ministry's estimates for the current fiscal year, which passed this House, Mr. Speaker, after very careful and lengthy scrutiny by all the members of this House.

MR. WALLACE: Not a dime without debate, Donald.

[ Page 4590 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just to make the picture absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker, let me tell this House that while Statistics Canada has some 6,500 employees, the statistics division of my ministry, which will administer this Act, will have 2 1, and that is after the hiring of 10 extra people has been completed. Hardly an empire.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very good piece of legislation. It has been carefully prepared, as have the plans for putting it into effect. It has been especially carefully prepared with regard to protecting the rights of the individuals, to seeing that every step to maintain the confidentiality of the individual return is observed.

I Mr. Speaker, the Statistics Act is a good piece of legislation, and I recommend it for the approval of every single member of this House. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this is really a companion bill to the Systems Corporation. The minister tells us that he needs the bill, and presumably he does, to get the kind of information out of Ottawa. But when you really look at Stats Canada, their main role is not really the collection of information for the kind of data that the minister wants. Their main role is really to be concerned mainly with the census. All the other things that they do appear to be spinoffs, and not particularly good spinoffs. We've had, as the minister may know, in the last couple of years some very serious questions about the accuracy of information coming out of Stats Canada. We've even had very serious accusations in the House of Commons about the fact that some of the facts are doctored.

One of the things that the minister said, Mr. Speaker, was that we need this kind of information because it's a component part of Economic Development. I don't disagree with him on that - it's a very small part. He said that if we had this information we could better deal with the people who come to British Columbia to see that they want to invest here. But we have another serious problem, and somewhere down the line, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we might get another bill that would be a companion bill not only to the Systems Corporation and to the Statistics Act, but also to the Freedom of Information Act, which we haven't got. It would be a disclosure Act in relation to companies, because they are the people who have to provide the kind of information that the minister needs in order to be discussing the whole question of economic development.

We don't have a very free giving of information by companies. There's really nothing in this Act that will enable you to get very much information. They are able certainly under the Companies Act to get exclusions. It may very well be, because they, can't get exclusions even under the federal legislation for making information available. And that's a serious problem; it's a generally serious problem. We know already of the kinds of discussions that have taken place in the public accounts committee of the federal parliament, particularly in respect to the whole issue of the CANDU and the Atomic Energy Corporation, where information is very hard to come by. Certainly the basis of data that you need has got to come from information. If you don't have access to it, it becomes very difficult to make the kind of accurate projections that you want in order to be able to present a fairly good picture.

The other question is the question of give and take in terms of information. If we are on the one hand looking at the provision of accurate information in order to assist the government in economic development, we have to have a give and take of information in respect to the private citizen. I don't want to get into a debate on the question of freedom of information, but it is important because most of the information that we exact really deals with individuals, or collections of individuals - their lifestyles, their habits, their expenditures. He doesn't have an appropriate kind of quid pro quo that he can get that kind of information - only that they constantly collect information from him and when he seeks information, it becomes very, very difficult.

Now there's also the question that there are issues of security here and confidentiality. Presumably, I suppose that the average citizen would want to be able to know what information is collected on him. Okay, we do have some information. We have in this province a Privacy Act which gives us certain guarantees. But what we're getting into is the business of assembling information. He's going to assemble more information than presently exists - that is, extra information than what already exists in the government in terms of their Systems Corporation. They already have the information. It's on tapes; they're just centralizing. But the minister seeks to go out and get more information, because he's got to help it.

Okay, that's fair enough. If he needs that kind of information, then he should have it. But then the issues of confidentiality in the use of this information become very serious, because what happens is that a lot of information is given out to different groups of people. In terms of the minister's department, it's going to be given out to people who don't even live here. He's liable to make more information available to people who come from overseas than we're able to get ourselves right here in the province.

I don't know how you strike that kind of a balance, but it's a serious problem. We know"from the discussions that go on in the federal government that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about the accumulation of information and what information is made available. In the United States they've taken

[ Page 4591 ]

what is not really a giant step because there are a number of exclusions under their Freedom of Information Act. Nevertheless, they're pointing in the right direction, and I think we have a private member's bill before the House in respect to freedom of information.

So it's just not sufficient for the minister to go down a very narrow track in terms of what he wants in respect to his department and to collection of information. But it is also how it affects people. I'm not sure that Canada, when we examine the kind of information systems that we have, is so far away from being into sophisticated information-gathering systems. They have them in the United States. Unfortunately, the basis of their information gathering system was for an entirely different purpose.

They weren't looking, in the first instance, in terms of economic development; they were looking at something they call national security and apprehended problems in terms of.... So they collected an enormous amount of information. They set up enormous systems, developed thousands and hundreds of thousands of files on people, some of it on the basis that they were just collecting information.

Now, I'm a little hard put to understand, because the minister didn't say it in his opening remarks, exactly what he would do with all the information that he has. He's going to have 21 people, and presumably they're going to do some analysis of the kinds of things that take place vis-à-vis the economy.

At the moment, we have his department putting out, on a monthly basis - it slows down a bit in the summer - something in terms of what the economic situation is. Then we have the Labour ministry that does work in respect to this. They tend to overlap because we're looking at work force and we're looking at jobs and we're looking at economic development.

Is he planning in terms of this operation that he's doing to take unto himself some of the other data-gathering systems in the government and putting them all into one operation? This is data-gathering as differentiated from the business of the hardware and software of the Systems Corporation. When he gets all this information, I suppose it can be translated into some effective strategies for developing economic development; at least that's what we hope because that's what he's there for. We haven't had an opportunity yet to see what he can do. He hasn't been minister very long. In about four months he will have been the minister for two years, and all he's presided over is the shutting down of a number of operations. We presume that after he gets all this statistical information, we will see some economic development. We haven't seen any yet.

The minister really will have to be more specific with us about how he expects to use this information to the advantage of the people of the province in terms of economic development. What is he going to do for it? How much better off is he going to be with all of this information than he was before? He says that the Japanese are very good at this. They are. When they come here, they know more about this province than a lot of us because that's the way they have approached it. But you can remember because, Mr. Speaker, you were a member of the previous government when he was. You know, we operated in a very parochial fashion for 20-odd years here. For 20 years nobody believed in collecting any information. All of the economic data was in the former Premier's head. When the NDP government came to power, we couldn't find any information either.

We're a long way behind in terms of that kind of thing. Certainly we are dealing with people who are much more sophisticated than we are in terms of understanding our own economy. After all, they look at it in terms of investment. It's a make-or-break situation with them and they can make decisions.

When the minister sums up perhaps he will tell us how he is going to make use of this information. How is it going to help him? I'm not myself enamoured of the federal government's statistical publications. They come out with great regularity; there's nothing terribly interesting ... as an average citizen. I'm not talking now of somebody that will be working in the minister's department who can do this kind of indepth correlation and analysis. The point is that he should tell us a little bit more about this. At the same time, if it's going to assist the economy, then we can say that's a good thing. But I just want to deal briefly with the issues of privacy and the concerns that you can have with the gathering of information.

In British Columbia we do have a number of data-collection systems which we require people to participate in. We're going a little further now because most of the stuff will wind up being stored in computers. If not all of it is now, certainly it will be.

One of the things that's likely to happen - I understand recently it may have happened in the government - is the seeking of information from data banks in respect to making long-range projections, for instance, in terms of energy needs. You want to look at what's going to be the need for home heating oil in the next three or four years in this province. Who do you go to to get that kind of information?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sukunka coal would be a better example.

MR. LEVI: Well, let's use the home heating oil, and you can use the Sukunka coal one. You want to know what it is, all right? You've got to find out how many homes there are, who uses oil, and what kind of projections there are. Then we start saying that the

[ Page 4592 ]

best place to get the information in respect to how many households we've got is maybe the B.C. Medical Plan. They seem to have all that kind of information by families. The minister shakes his head. Well, maybe he'll tell us when he's closing debate where the information comes from. We can use the 1971 census data and then we can do the projections to 1976, but that's not terribly accurate. We don't know how many conversions have taken place - people going from gas to oil and this type of thing.

But the point I'm trying to make is that you go to a tape that's available in the government, presumably - let's say it's the B.C. Medical Plan - and say: "We'll use that." We'll get hold of that and we'll take a look at it and we'll find out where are all these users of home oil are. So there you have a tape that's being made available to the department which is really a profile of all the families in the province. Then the minister says that maybe what they really should do is take a look at what's going on in North and South Peace, and presumably the tape will break down that way too. Finally we get into the situation where it's possible, because of the accumulation of this data and the kind of skills that people have now, that you can really start looking at individuals, and that's what we begin to wonder about.

I can recall about five years ago, just about the time when we came to government, that a group of people came over from Vancouver and did an analysis of the juvenile delinquency problem in Vancouver. They had broken it down first on the basis of statistical analysis and to regional analysis in the city, and they actually identified four families that they said were responsible for a number of delinquents in a particular area. The names were bandied around all over the place - children's names, family names, who they were, that kind of thing. That's the kind of thing you can get into with this. You know, technicians and bureaucrats like to play these kinds of games.

On the basis of all the statistics that you could collect, you have to weigh it against what you have available now, what kind of analysis you do with the existing material and what more material you could come up with.

I think it was the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) who pointed out that in Canada, if we want to find out more information about most of the companies that operate in Canada, we usually have to go to the United States because disclosure is required more down there than it is up here. You haven't said yet what kind of information you're going to get. All you've said is that you need the Act first to plug you into Statistics Canada, and then you'll get information.

Almost every day we all see Statistics Canada reports coming into the offices on any number of subjects. Is the minister indicating that also available to him is access to data banks that generally are not made available to the public? If that's the case, there are large amounts of information that he has not made available to the public in terms of economic matters, which will assist him in doing the kind of work he needs to do. One wonders, with all of this information that's being stored in Ottawa - or wherever they store it - why it's not made available.

I understand certainly that principles....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I understand that. Principles of free enterprise are such that the market system has to work. You have to have an open-ended, competitive society. But in order to handicap that, you say: "There is only certain information we can release because that would aid our competitors." That's the first handicap on the competitive system. We're the ones who have to have the advantage, not the other guy. So there is certain information that is not made available. For instance, I understand that there is information made available to the federal government on large corporations that have earnings of more than $5 million which is not made available to the public. They are not reporting companies, but they do have to report to that office. It's kept in a kind of confidential list that nobody knows about.

About two months ago, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made some reference to the list and named some companies on it. They talked about how much money they had and what kind of sales they had. He simply said that they came under that provision of the Act - that their sales were more than $5 million. That's the problem. Certainly for people who are interested in economic development. . . . We're interested in getting more information about the power and influences of very large corporations in this country and multinational corporations that have tremendous impact on our economic . growth. That information is not easily available.

Again, if we want information on multinationals in Canada, we usually have to go and look at what they're saying in the U.S. Senate subcommittees and get the information out of their kind of inquiries. In Canada we weren't even able to get the information out on CANDU or the Atomic Energy Corporation, because there was certain information they weren't prepared to make available.

If the minister's going to get all this information -he said it's going to help him in his economic strategies - how much of this information is he going to make available to the public in general? Or is he locked in once he goes to the federal government and says:' "We now have an Act. We have built in the safeguards that you require."? Is he going to be required by, the federal Act to maintain confidentiality on the information that he gets?

[ Page 4593 ]

Well, he's going to have a big system there. He's going to have 21 or 22 people. It is not too big; it'll probably grow as it goes along. Where's the advantage to the average citizen on that?

He talked about regional information. That's what he's basically interested in. Well, that's the kind of information that makes people secure in the region they live in if they know what the facts are, particularly if the information is positive information. We have in this province right now some very serious problems in respect to regional economic growth. We have some real serious setbacks. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) has had some very serious problems in his riding because of economic setbacks.

There are certain obligations by governments to make information available not at the time when crisis is upon us, but rather to make it available to people so that they can have some control over their own lives and not at the very last minute be told, probably on a Friday morning, that this plant will be closed as of next Monday and thank you very much but we don't need you any more. I have in mind what happened with the Queen Charlotte fisheries. You know, that's the kind of problem that affects people. It makes a dramatic impact on people's lives when they don't know what's going on. This is incredible that they don't know what's going on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up I hope he will tell us more specifically about what he needs this information for and what kinds of information he is looking for. Now he's indicated that it's the question of the regional economic structure. Okay, that's fair enough. He wants to look at that. He'll look at the whole question of what's going on on a provincial level. He'll probably want to look at the interprovincial situation, and maybe what goes on over the border. Who knows? We don't know what kind of information.

Perhaps the minister would tell us whether his department has any relationships with any of the United States' jurisdictions. Is he able to get information from them? The minister nods his head. Well, it's been my experience, when we were in government, that you can. That's one of the things you have to do if you want information. You can reach out and you can usually get it. I remember, when we met with the Washington government about three or four years ago, discussion about exchanging information. We would send them down the kind of things we were doing and they would send stuff up. Some of it began to trickle both ways.

The minister might be interested to know that one of the shortcomings of a lack of exchange of information with the government in Washington state, for instance, was that I remember Governor Dan Evans telling us how happy he was that some of his staff had just come back from Harrison Hot Springs, where they had gone for four or five days to complete a study of their crime victims indemnity legislation. While they were up here - this was in 1973 - after working on this thing for six months, they discovered that we'd had legislation in the province for about four years and they didn't know about it. They'd done all . of this incredible independent research and they weren't aware of what we had done up here.

Well, the observation was made that they didn't know what we were doing and we don't know what they were doing, so an exchange of information was suggested. It may very well be that it would be worthwhile for the minister to open up these kinds of discussions with the people in Washington.

I know that during the throne speech I quoted some figures in terms of housing costs in Seattle and housing costs in British Columbia. That information came from the state government offices. We phoned them up and they were very obliging. They sent us information, they gave us the sources, and they gave information to the U.S. government agency. The information is forthcoming. The point is that one has to reach out and get it; otherwise we could be duplicating something that is going on already. They are looking at us as a potential market; Alberta is looking at us as a potential market. It may very well be that because we haven't developed this kind of facility we perhaps think that other people don't have it as well. There is an enormous amount of information. After all, we're a very large tourist area. People are constantly looking at us.

For instance, there was the recent debate in the U.S. Senate about the amount of money that they would allow under their income tax situation for conventions. That wasn't done off the top of their heads; that was done on the basis of a study. It would be interesting to get access to that study. They are always prepared to spend a great deal of money on this.

The important thing is the whole question of getting information. While I appreciate that what the minister wants to do is to get information on British Columbia, we should initiate some of this ourselves here. Let's not forget that other people are watching us as well and doing these kinds of studies and I'm sure that information is available.

Mr. Levi moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 4594 ]

APPENDIX

31 The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 31) intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , to amend as follows:

Section 1, in the fifth line of subparagraph (i) of the first definition of "improvements" in paragraph (b): Delete "dams reservoirs" and substitute "dams, reservoirs".

By deleting the definition of "timber land" and substituting the following: "'timber land' means

(i) with respect to land west of the Cascade Mountains, land containing merchantable timber averaging over the whole parcel at least 1350 cubic feet/acre, and

(ii) with respect of land east of the Cascade Mountains, land containing merchantable timber averaging over the whole parcel at least 850 cubic feet/acre and that is classified as timber land for taxation purposes under the Taxation Act and is

(iii) held by an owner in areas sufficient for the purposes of forestry, and held for the specific purpose of cutting and removing timber, or

(iv) held as an investment for the accruing value of the timber;".

Section 13, line 3: Delete "October 1" and substitute "August 1".

Section 14, in the last line of the proposed section 23 (8): Delete "reported".

Section 15, in the third line of the proposed section 23A (7): Delete "reported".

Section 18: Delete the proposed section 24 (9) and (14) and substitute the following:

"(9) The actual values of land and improvements determined under subsection (1) shall be set down separately on the assessment notice and in the assessment roll together with such information as is specified pursuant to section 3 (2) .

"(9a) Where it is necessary to determine separate assessed values of land and improvements, the assessed values shall be determined so that they are in the same proportion to the total assessed value as the actual values of the land and improvements bear to the total actual value.

"(14) Where there has been a change in the actual value of land and improvements from the preceding calendar year resulting from

(a) a change in the physical characteristics, or

(b) new construction or new development to, on, or in the land or improvements, or both, or

(c) a change in the zoning or classification, or

(d) an obvious error or omission, or

(e) new found inventory, for the purposes of comparing the value of land and improvements from one year to another under subsections (11) to (13) the assessed value of land or improvements, or both, shall be calculated as if the change in the value of land or improvements, or both, resulting from any of the enumerated reasons had been included on the assessment roll for the previous year."

Section 20: By adding the following after the proposed section 26 (4):

"(5) For the purposes of assessing a farm under subsection (3) , the commissioner shall prescribe land value schedules for use by assessors in determining the assessed value of the land as a farm without regard to its value for other purposes."

Section 31: Delete section 31 and substitute the following:

"31. Section 62 (1) is repealed and the following is substituted:

"(1) In an appeal under this Act the board has and may exercise with reference to the subject matter of the appeal, all the powers of the Court of

[ Page 4595 ]

Revisions, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the board may determine, and make an order accordingly,

(a) whether or not the land or improvements or both have been valued at too high or too low an amount,

(b) whether or not land or improvements or both have been properly classified,

(c) whether or not an exemption has been properly allowed or disallowed,

(d) whether or not land or improvements or both have been wrongfully entered on or omitted from the Assessment Roll, and

(e) whether or not the value at which an individual parcel under consideration is assessed bears a fair and just relation to the value at which similar land and improvements are assessed in the municipality or rural area in which it is situated."

Section 54: By deleting the proposed section 355 (1) and substituting the following:

"(1) Sections 33 (1) and (2) , 34 to 36, 37 (1) to (9) , (11) and (12) , and 38 to 40 of the Assessment Act apply to a Local Court of Revision, and a reference in those sections to an assessor shall be deemed to be a reference to a collector or other person named by the Council."

Section 57: By deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following:

"(a) by striking out 'by the Court of Revision and authenticated as required by section 360 is, ' and substituting 'and is authenticated by the Local Court of Revision, %"

By adding the following as paragraph (c):

"(c) by inserting 'Local' before 'Court of Revision' where it last appears."

Section 69: By deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) in subsection (5) , by striking out 'sections 348 to 360, inclusive, ' and substituting 'section 355'."

Section 145: In paragraph (b) by adding at the end the following definition:

"'improvements' for purposes other than levying of rates includes buildings, structures, machinery and other things so affixed to the land as to make them in law a part of the land;".

By adding the following section after section 159:

"159A. Section 401 is amended by renumbering it as section 401 (1) and adding the following subsection:

"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) (b) and (c) , where the Collector is advised by the Assessment Commission of a change in the name or address of a person entered in the assessment roll, he shall enter the change in the real property tax roll."

44 Mr. Gibson to move , in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 44) intituled Systems Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2: By adding the following:

"(6) (a) If any Member of the Legislative Assembly should be appointed to the board other than a member of the Executive Council, then at least two members of the Legislative Assembly shall be so named of whom at least one shall be a member of a recognized political party other than the government party."

44 The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 44) intituled Systems Act, to amend as follows:

[ Page 4596 ]

Section 2 (10) , line 3: By deleting "its powers and duties." and substituting "the powers and duties of the corporation."

Section 3 (2) (e) , line 7: By deleting "provisions" and substituting "provision".

Section 3 (2) (f) , line 3: By inserting "provided by the corporation" after "data processing services".

Section 3 (2) (h) , line 1: By inserting "the government of" after "Canada or' .

Section 3 (2) (j) , line 3: By inserting "to them" after "data processing services".

Section 3 (3) (c) , line 3: By inserting "processed by the corporation" after "information".

Section 3 (3) (e) , line 2: By inserting "exercising its" after "duties and".

Section 3 (5) , line 1: By inserting "pursuant to subsection (2) (f) " after "charges".

Section 6 (3) (b) , line 2: By deleting "government entities and other users, " and substituting "users of the data processing services of the corporation, ".

Section 6 (3) (c) , line 1: By deleting "reconciling" and substituting "resolving

Section 8 (4) , line 1: By inserting a comma after "section".

Section 8 (6) , lines I to 3: By deleting "The aggregate of the amount that may be advanced to, or borrowed by, the corporation under section 3 or this section shall not exceed the aggregate amount of $25 million" and substituting "The aggregate amount that may be advanced to, or borrowed by, the corporation under section 3 or this section shall not exceed $25 million".

Section 9 (1 ) , lines 3 and 4: By deleting "or to such day".

Section 9 (6) (a) , line 1: By deleting "year, " and substituting "the preceding fiscal year, ".

Section 10, lines I to 6: By deleting section 10 and substituting the following: "Comptroller-General.

"10. The Comptroller-General, or a person designated by him, shall audit the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation and shall examine and report to the minister on the annual financial statements of the corporation and the cost of the audit shall be paid by the corporation."

Section 13 (3) , line 5: By deleting "objects" and substituting "purposes".

Section 15 (1) , lines 2 and 4, and section 15 (3) , lines 5 and 7: By deleting "officer or".

Section 17 (1) , lines 2, 3, 6, 14, and section 17 (2) , line 1: By deleting "officer or".

Section 17 (2) , line 2: By deleting "officers or".

Section 19 (1) , line 1: By deleting "and employee" and substituting employee and agent".