[ Page 4597 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Statistics Act (Bill 32) Second reading.

Mr. Levi –– 4597

Mr. Nicolson –– 4598

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4599

Ombudsman Act (Bill 63) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4600

Mr. Macdonald –– 4603

Mr. Barber –– 4606

Mr. Lauk –– 4607

Ms. Brown –– 4608

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4609

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 66) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4610

Mr. Barnes –– 4610

Mr. Wallace –– 4613

Mr. King –– 4613

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4615

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 27) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4616

Mr. Lockstead –– 4617

Mr. Wallace –– 4617

Mr. Nicolson –– 4617

Mr. Mussallem –– 4618

Mr. Lea –– 4619

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4619

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) (Bill 40) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4620

Mr. Lea –– 4620

Mr. Nicolson –– 4620

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4621

Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 41) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 4621

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 32.

STATISTICS ACT

(continued)

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, if one looks very closely at the bill and its makeup, and if you leave out the interpretation section and the proclamation section, there are 16 sections, of which nine deal very specifically with the issues of secrecy, confidentiality, and the penalties which would accrue to individuals if they breached this Act. It's ironic that earlier this afternoon in another debate we were attempting to get some of the things written into the Act that exist in this Act.

This Act certainly goes a long way to ensuring some of the issues of secrecy which we raised in the previous debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sure that you realize the rules of the House that you can't infringe upon debate which took place on another bill, irrespective of what your individual consideration may be of that particular bill.

MR. LEVI: I appreciate that, except that I don't make any reference to the bill. I just made reference to a debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, you referred to a debate that took place this afternoon which was on a bill.

MR. LEVI: Was that the only one we had this afternoon? Oh, you're very sharp this evening, Mr. Speaker. You caught me at it; I accept that you caught me at it.

In this bill they go to some trouble to deal with the issues of secrecy with the question of discrimination about information. Who can have access to records? Again, in one of the sections they deal with secrecy, and there is a long section dealing with some of the problems that can arise. There's the protection of return and that is in relation to the information and receiving it from individuals. Then there are the offence sections which deal with breaches in this Act. That is, I think, a good move in respect to this.

Now before the supper hour we dealt with where we might be in respect to acquiring all of this information vis-à-vis the minister. The minister told us that if he has this information he's going to be able to do a better job. Well, I hope so. I hope that when he gets all this information the economy of British Columbia is going to pick up, but I don't know whether that's going to be the case. I don't know how all of this information - and he's going to tell us when he sums up, I hope, exactly what information he's seeking - is going to help him in the job that he is doing.

I wonder in respect to the Statistics Act whether, if he had had other information in respect to some of the operations that have closed down in the past 18 months, it would have assisted him, for instance, with the Queen Charlotte fisheries. Could he make a better judgment on what he did? His judgment there was that it was not in the interests of the government to back that corporation for another $2 million loan. I know they were seeking $1 million from the federal government. A.-ain it's a question of information. He's been asked, Mr. Speaker, on what basis he made the decision. On what basis did he make the decision in respect to Railwest? Would more data, more information, have been available to him? It might very well have been, in respect to the federal government, that if there had been an information-sharing agreement he might have been better off in respect to having knowledge about making bids for work for that organization.

As for many of the operations that have gone into decline since this government has been in, we have not been able to get very specifically the information from that minister, who is responsible for economic development, as to why certain decisions were made not to assist various enterprises that were operating and then had to close down. The minister should tell us, using as an example those companies that have closed down where there has been a great deal of unemployment created, where he might have been assisted if he had had more information.

The other questions relate, I suppose, to specifically whether this particular bill should really be in this ministry at all. After all, he's dealing with one aspect of the economy. There are also other ministries that are collecting information. What kinds of discussions has he had with his colleagues with respect to co-ordinating a lot of this information-collecting? I'm thinking particularly of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) since his ministry's research department provides some information similar to that which is put out by the Ministry of Economic Development.

Some concern has been expressed, as I said earlier,

[ Page 4598 ]

in relation to the issues of confidentiality and secrecy. But there is some credit to be extended to the drafters of the bill - I don't think the minister drafted it but he must have somebody doing it -

where they've started to put down very specifically the kinds of protections.... And that's okay; I think we can go with this kind of thing. But specifically regarding the economic development aspects and how he is going to be assisted, I look forward to seeing how the minister is going to make use of all this information to improve the economic development.

We don't want you to get up yet-, there are other people who are going to speak.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, we see that there is a piece of legislation here which, perhaps thankfully, is not the creation of yet another Crown corporation. This is something being created within the minister's portfolio rather than external to it. There will be a few innovations in this in terms of methods of employment which will have a few changes within the administration of the Public Service Act. But the purposes of this, I suppose, to some extent, are quite supportable and commendable.

One thing that does bother me about this Act, though, Mr. Speaker, is the powers which are given and, in particular, the powers to require the reporting for the purpose of gathering information. I think in section 7 we see what will really happen under this Act.

"A person having the custody or charge of records that are maintained by a ministry, municipality or regional district, corporation, business or organization, from which information respecting the objectives of this Act can be obtained . . ."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you must relate your debate to the principle of the bill and not to specific sections.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I'm talking about the principle of this bill.

". . . shall make the records available to the director or a person authorized by the director."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I repeat: you must relate your debate to the principle of the bill at this particular time and not to the separate sections of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: That's right. So the purposes of this bill, which would be to create and gather statistics and to organize them, will be so all-encompassing that it will be requiring and demanding information of organizations, corporations and businesses.

Now some of these businesses could be very small.

We could be talking about a little logging contractor who hires people. The ministry, in their wisdom, might be trying to help such a small organization, but they'll just be imposing upon them one more group of reports, things which they will have to fill out.

And it won't be the minister who'll be going out to these people and asking them for this information.

It'll be people who are working for his ministry, people who are very eager in the pursuit of their duties and will know what the powers invested in them are.

I think that this is a real serious problem, because in a very small business operation they presently have to make out voluminous forms for reporting their income tax. They're faced with reports to the registrar of companies, perhaps. They are subject to giving information to Statistics Canada. Now we'll have what in effect will be a "Statistics British Columbia." When you're talking about a small-business person, this person is one who does not like paperwork; it impedes them.

A logging contractor is interested in going out and, in the first instance, securing some sort of a contract, going in, felling trees, clearing areas, bucking up the logs and trucking them out to some loading area. He's very skilled and he's very well trained. But he is not well trained in doing huge amounts of paperwork, and I'm afraid that this is just going to take some of the small-business people away from the kind of work that they do well. Another example could be somebody who's in some kind of a repair business. He's going to get paid for repairing things; he's not going to be paid for supplying this kind of information which some agency deems to be necessary.

I would like to have the assurance of the minister that they are not going to work undue hardship in terms of demanding statistical information.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we, even as legislators, are probably daily bombarded by people who are trying to get information, perhaps trying to study legislatures, the duty of legislators and so on. People working on theses for PhD or Master's degrees send questionnaires, and it does get to be onerous. Just remember that we are sort of in a business where we are somewhat tuned in to doing paperwork; a great deal of our work is paperwork. But just imagine the situation with someone who is trying to create, build, repair or harvest, to do things in which paperwork is only a necessary evil which should be minimized as much as possible for them. I've had so many people in business complain to me - small-business people -about the imposition of reports, this thing always hanging over their heads. This is one more piece of paperwork.

For larger corporations I can see it will be some

[ Page 4599 ]

expense; they might have to.... Certainly somebody within the corporation will be able to do it, but they can at least delegate it to that person. But for the very small business?

I wonder also what the minister has in mind in terms of where they are going to gather the information by an organization. How all-encompassing is this? It seems almost any collective group of people can be compelled to provide information to his department now. Organizations - does that include political organizations? Is the government going to start data collecting on political, religious, social and cultural organizations? What about the Canadian-Italian society or something like this? I don't think that the minister perhaps.... It would be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to imagine for a moment what it would be like if the minister were in opposition. I'm sure that if the minister were in opposition, he would be attacking this bill.

I'm sure if the minister were in opposition he would be attacking this bill. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily attacking the principle of the bill, but I do have some concerns about it. I'm sure that the minister would be attacking this bill. That would be a pretty safe thing to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were supporting the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister would be attacking it, though. One would wonder how he would go about attacking this bill. He would be saying, Mr. Speaker, pausing for emphasis and effect, as he is wont to do, as he drooled over each word very carefully, "every business, organization, and so on, and so on, " and he would be filling us with fear and apprehension and we would be very, very concerned. We would be wondering, for instance, if this side had proposed such a piece of legislation, if perhaps we had gone too far. I'm sure that he would really have me thinking about this. He learned well how to do this from the Carnegie school in which he was once enrolled.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, please get back to the principle of this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an instrument which could prove very useful. I listened to most of the minister's remarks when he opened second reading and I think an awful lot has been left unsaid. I think that as far as the Act is concerned, certainly we can use more information in terms of making available to small business people the opportunities to enter various areas of this province. I'm thinking of demographic information and things which maybe Statistics Canada . doesn't see as important but we see as being very important. Rather than going to them, asking them to change a whole bureaucracy and taking maybe two years to get the kind of information we need, the minister, for his purposes, could certainly see that such a thing was done in fairly short order - perhaps a few months. A business wondering about the viability of locating in a certain area, wondering about population, average levels of income, age distribution, average education of people in a certain area, might be able to get this information. This can be very useful.

I would emphasize once again that this can be a very heavy burden upon people engaged in a small business venture if they're going to be too zealous in terms of sending out forms and demanding reports and then when reports aren't filled out completely, because it isn't completely intelligible and understandable to the person responding, maybe form letters go out chastising the person, and so on.

With a small business person the amount of paperwork and filling out of government forms -forms on sales tax, and things like this - all take up a tremendous amount of a person's time. The smaller the operation, certainly the more inefficient it is in terms of responding to these things which are demanded by government. I would certainly like the minister, in closing second reading, when he gets to do that, to give us some undertaking that he's not going to tie up small business in really onerous red tape. Even though he may have the best of intentions, this thing could end up being more of a hindrance than a help to some of the people whom we would pretend to help with it.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I really appreciate the concerns that the members opposite have brought up. It's unfortunate the member from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) is not in the House because I'd like to allay some of the fears which he raised during second reading.

First of all, he tried to tie the Systems Corporation in with the Statistics Act and I'd just like to say that the Statistics Act is no more related to the Systems Corporation than any other ministry - i.e. the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, or any other ministry of the government.

I do want to say that I think one of the successes that we've had since being government has been the fact that we have used statistics in making some of our decisions. I think that's one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker - and far be it from me to even have any semblance of bragging but, you know, we did compile our statistics - we have been reasonably successful in dealing with Ottawa.

This is the type of information that this Act is going to allow us to get from Ottawa. We're tied into that. This is one of the reasons, as I say, that we have

[ Page 4600 ]

been relatively successful, because we've gone to Ottawa not to confront but to negotiate. We've negotiated because we have done our homework; we've had the stats. Of course, the opportunity we will now have with this Act, is to take the information from Ottawa and break it down into regions, which we have not been able to have before. That's one of the prime purposes of this Act - to get that information so we can go out to areas.... The member mentioned Skeena. Now we will be able to go and be able to compile that information. We'll be able to look at it on a regional basis and to determine what the problem is. We'll take those statistics and we'll certainly be able to make very intelligent decisions.

The fact was brought up, did we use statistics in dealing with Railwest? Well, the previous government had some statistics about railcar plants and what the forecast was for how many cars were going to be needed and so forth. What I really want to point out here.... I want to tell you that I'm not naive enough to think that we could have all the statistics in the world, but if we don't use them intelligently, we're going to be no further ahead. On the other hand, if you're going to make intelligent decisions, you just must have accurate statistics. So the two go hand-in-hand. But as I say, I'm not naive enough to stand up here and tell you that because we have these statistics, that's going to be the end-all. We're going to make intelligent use of these statistics.

With regard to the secret of success in dealing with statistics, I want to tell you that the real secret of the success in dealing with statistics is to not let those who gather the statistics interpret them. I've got good statisticians in my department, but I'm not going to fall into that trap of allowing them to gather the stats and at the same time interpret them, because that's where the secret of success is. The stats must stand on their own two feet; the stats must speak for themselves.

Now what are we going to do with this data?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Did you clear this speech with anyone before you started to give it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What type of information and what are we going to do with the data? Just for your information, because I know that you wouldn't have asked the question had you not really sought the answer.... Just let me give you some information. I'll just be brief and give you two or three quick examples. There are hundreds, but I'm not going to spend the time of the House to do it tonight.

We want to gather statistics relating to our economy, our industries, our society and our institutions of government: statistics than can reveal opportunities for the manufacturing industry; statistics that can reveal opportunities for them in offshore markets; statistics as to what we're doing, for instance, in our forest industry. How many people are employed? How many cubic feet of lumber do we export? Those types of statistics - that's what we want, so that....

This all relates, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that today, there are a lot of, stats being gathered. They are being gathered by Ottawa and they're being gathered from small businesses. Now what we want to do with that information, which is gathered from those small-business people, is to help those small businesses in their decision-making processes, by putting out bulletins and pointing out to them the opportunities that exist out there.

I Certainly you wanted me to assure you that we're not going to harass the small businessman. I promise you here in this House tonight that there is no way we are going to harass the small businessman with a lot of extra forms to fill out. I know the amount of time that it takes to fill out these forms about everything, but the point is we have to fill them out now for Ottawa. All I'm saying is that they go down there and they get buried in the computers. We want to pull them out. We want to make them available. We want to point out the opportunities for those small businesses.

I'm not sure that I've answered all the questions but I do want to assure you that this is a great Act. It's certainly going to be great for us to help make intelligent decisions, great for the people of the province, the little people, all of the people. Of course, we will make intelligent decisions. Yes, we will, because we're going to have accurate facts and figures.

Mr. Chairman, having said those few brief remarks about this great Act, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 32, Statistics Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

'HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I bring you another great little Act, a little longer in coming. Second reading of Bill 63.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the House, I'd like to state tonight some of the basic principles that are contained in this legislation, some of the reasons therefore, and indicate to you the direction the ombudsman will be taking in British Columbia.

His basic function, Mr. Speaker, will be to investigate complaints from individuals who feel aggrieved by the administrative processes of

[ Page 4601 ]

government. Where there's been an inequitable decision to an oppressive practice, it will be the job of the ombudsman to make inquiries, to gather all necessary information. Then if the decision or the practice has not been corrected, he will be enabled to make appropriate recommendations to the authority concerned, to the cabinet or to this assembly itself.

He's required to maintain confidentiality of information that is received by him in the performance of his duty, but he's empowered to publicize his findings, which will ensure on both counts the best of service before the general public.

This commissioner of grievances will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly. This assembly, however, must first receive a unanimous recommendation from a special committee of this House much similar to the procedure that was utilized for the selection of the auditor-general.

The term of office of the ombudsman will be six years. There is eligibility for reappointment. His salary will be equal to that of a supreme court justice. Upon retirement or removal from office, there are pension provisions within the bill. Full pension may be available after 10 years of service and the attainment of age 60. There is as well a disability provision, plus protection for a widow after five years.

Hon. members will recall the resignation and the appointment of an acting ombudsman provision. These are generally similar to those which were contained in the Auditor-General Act.

With reference to certain specific functions of the ombudsman. I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that his basic responsibility will be to investigate complaints regarding the administrative processes of government. The bill will empower him to make an investigation either as the result of a complaint he has received or on his own initiative. In addition he will have the duty to investigate and report on any matter that may be referred to him by this assembly or by its committees.

Where an appeal decision is available from a decision of an authority, the ombudsman may act following that right of appeal.

His investigatory powers, Mr. Speaker, are wide indeed, as is his jurisdiction. He's empowered to consider grievances concerning any department, ministry or branch of the government, Crown corporations or organizations where the majority of the members of the board of directors are appointed by the government, including companies in which the government owns more than 50 per cent of the shares.

His jurisdiction may also extend to complaints relating to local governments, schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, as well as professional and occupational associations.

I'd say this, Mr. Speaker, to any people who may see the advent of the legislation..as a disadvantage to government or to the public service. I would indeed respond very much to the contrary, because it will be welcomed as a means whereby members of the public can be satisfied as a result of an investigation of a third impartial adjudicator that their affairs are being handled equitably and their affairs are being handled fairly. If not, then the proper correction will be requested and be able to be followed through.

The person who will occupy this office will have ample authority to obtain information in any manner that is reasonable and practical, and fie may call for and hold hearings. He's permitted to enter premises and to request documentary and other information relating to his investigation.

He may summons before him and examine on oath any person who is, in his opinion, able to give information relevant to an investigation. The evidence that he receives will be subject to less stringent rules of evidence than are used in our courts of law.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I accept!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm glad to see the former Attorney-General is supporting the legislation. I think he will indeed agree that it was long overdue. I'm delighted to say, sir, tonight that this administration is following through, which perhaps the former one did not.

MR. MACDONALD: That's why you're slicing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I don't think we're slicing.

The legislation, Mr. Speaker, will grant the ombudsman the flexibility to refuse an investigation in the event of a delay by a complainant, or where an individual in question doesn't have any real interest in the subject matter of the complaint, or where there happens to be an available and adequate remedy that the complainant has not followed, or perhaps, say, where the matter is frivolous or if investigation wouldn't result in any benefit to the complainant in the prevailing circumstances. But once having conducted an investigation, Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman is required to notify the complainant and the head of the involved authority of the decisions and furthermore of the reason for the decision.

The bill also provides that the ombudsman may indicate any additional recourse that an aggrieved may be able to follow up. For example, where an investigation has shown there is some substance to the complaint, the ombudsman is empowered to make a specific recommendation. More specifically, a recommendation may follow where the ombudsman

[ Page 4602 ]

finds that the subject matter in the investigation was contrary to law, or unjust, oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or was made, done, or omitted pursuant to a statutory provision, or other rule of law, or practice that caused the result complained of, or that it was based in whole. . . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. I tell you, I'm not ad libbing this. I'm specifically not doing that, Mr. Member, because I think it would be most helpful to most of the members in the House that they were fully appreciative of exactly what parameters of jurisdiction and discretion that this gentleman has. If one chooses to ad lib, you see, Mr. Member, as you might do, you perhaps could well miss the substance of the matter. I choose not to do that.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I know, but you're breaking the rules of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I'm referring to notes, my dear friend.

Also, Mr. Speaker, he can determine as to whether or not a matter, "was based in whole or in part on a mistake of law or fact or on irrelevant grounds or consideration, or was related to the application of arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair procedures, or was otherwise wrong. . . ." A recommendation is also called for where the ombudsman determines that, "in doing. or omitting an Act or in making or acting on a decision or recommendation, an authority did so for an improper purpose, or failed to give reasons that were adequate and appropriate in relation to the nature of the matter, or was negligent or acted improperly. . . ."

In addition, Mr. Speaker, a recommendation can be made by the ombudsman where, "there was unreasonable delay in dealing with the subject matter of the investigation." Now where any of these conditions that I've mentioned exist, it's the duty, Mr. Speaker, of the ombudsman to report his opinion and the reason for it to the head of the authority. The ombudsman, in that case, is empowered to make such recommendations as are considered appropriate. The bill lists a number of the recommendations that can be made, but without restricting the ombudsman from making others. He can, for instance, recommend that reasons be given or that, "a decision or recommendation be cancelled or varied, or that a practice ... or course of conduct be altered. . . ." He may also wish to make recommendations that do not come within the scope of those articulated in the bill, and he will be able to have full rein to do that as well. You can gee, Mr. Speaker, that he is certainly empowered with the widest of discretion.

Once having made a recommendation, then the ombudsman has the right to request ". . . that the authority notify him within a specified time of the steps that have been or are proposed to be taken to give full effect to his recommendation The bill provides, Mr. Speaker, that the ombudsman can modify a recommendation. However, if after all of that has occasioned and an action is not taken by an authority that seems, in the view of the ombudsman, to be adequate or appropriate, then he has the power to submit a report of the matter to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and then to the Legislative Assembly.

I think of very great interest, Mr. Speaker, is this point: that is the provision that enables the ombudsman to publicly comment with reference to his general function or concerning any specific case. Also, Mr. Speaker, his proceedings are not subject to challenge, or review, or to be called into question by any court, except in the event that he has exceeded his jurisdiction.

Now some of the other features of the statute should be mentioned, I think, at this time. He will not have, Mr. Speaker, powers to interfere with, or make orders, or have compulsory powers against those who have been subject to investigation. However, Mr. Speaker, as it has been proven anywhere in the world where similar legislation exists, it's the status of the ombudsman and the undoubted weight that his recommendations and their publication will have with all concerned that is of considerable moment. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I foresee that this legislation will, by its very existence, ensure that our citizens will, to a greater degree than ever before, enjoy a fair, a just, an equitable relationship with the institutions of governing authorities. The presence of the ombudsman and the potential exercise, Mr. Speaker, of the powers I have mentioned will be an additional incentive to those who administrate to very carefully fulfil their duty to the general public.

There's a further provision in the bill to ensure that the ombudsman will be able to carry out his investigations, notwithstanding rules of law regarding Crown privilege, with respect to the disclosure of information contained in documents or other records. Furthermore, confidentiality provisions of the Public Service Act will not prevent the ombudsman from obtaining information from those to whom the statute applies. The bill will not erase basic privileges granted to persons respecting their giving of evidence, and the ombudsman and his staff will be protected from having to give evidence in a court of law with respect to any knowledge that he may have gained through the course of an investigation, except, of course, involving trials for perjury. The information or documents that may be supplied during an inquiry before the ombudsman will be privileged in the same manner as if the inquiry or proceedings were

[ Page 4603 ]

proceeding in a court of law.

The report of the ombudsman and any fair or accurate account thereof in a newspaper or broadcast will also be privileged as if the report of the ombudsman were an order of the court. He will have powers of delegation, Mr. Speaker, and there's a provision that the assembly on its own initiative, or on the recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, establish rules for the guidance of the ombudsman and his staff in the administration of the legislation.

He's required to file an annual report with the Legislature. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that with the establishment of an ombudsman in British Columbia, we will have a person who can represent the conscience of the state and provide additional service for our citizens, move aside the bureaucratic roadblocks, wade through the red tape, approach the unapproachable and recommend improvements to administrative practice and administrative procedure.

Government and regulation, order and edict, law and bylaw, and the rules and the road maps that are constantly being imposed upon society today, obviously illustrate the need for a citizen champion independent of the civil service, independent of the system, independent of the administrator and independent of politics, to wade through administrative hurdles, to cope with crises and to recommend betterment, as well as to defend against unjustified and uncalled-for criticism - or in short, to render every man his due, I'd say, both for those within the organizational structure and for those who are dealing with it.

This is obviously a very personalizing trend in government. As the late Kennedy said, the job of government is to accommodate the citizen rather than the other way around. It's this type of function and this type of responsibility that can provide that kind of accommodation.

I think we're all looking forward to the early passage of the bill, the very early naming of a committee to select an ombudsman and the appointment of a person of integrity and skill and a profound sense of fairness to hang out his shingle with the doors open and to start doing the job, and to bolster both in philosophy and in practice the concept of individual rights and individual freedom for people.

We have waited many, many years in this province, Mr. Speaker, for the introduction of this legislation. Having spoken about it myself since about 1966 and having introduced a number of private member's bills ' it gives me a great deal of pleasure tonight to be able to move second reading. I would say I think that we've been able to produce the best bill of its kind in Canada.

Before sitting down, I would very much like to ask all hon. members to welcome to this assembly a young gentleman who at one time was on the press staff of the Eaganville Tattler or Bugle or Horn. What was it? The Eaganville Leader, I'm sorry.

In his earlier days, he happened to cover that great Winston Churchill. speech when he spoke in North America - the "some chicken, some neck" speech -and developed later on to one of the leading, if not the leading, criminal lawyers in Canada, the first ombudsman for Ontario, Mr. Arthur Maloney, Q.C. I wish all members would give a great welcome to Mr. Maloney tonight.

I'd like to mention to the members, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Maloney is chairing a conference to be held in Toronto early in September, which I think will be of a great deal of significance to the country. The topical items to be considered are the ombudsman; the person and the function; the ombudsman and access to information; the ombudsman and the Legislature; the ombudsman and the media; the ombudsman and the civil service; and the ombudsman as investigator. I'm sure this will be of considerable interest and of considerable value to the Canadian public. I indeed wish Mr. Maloney and his colleagues well with this great conference to be held.

MR. MACDONALD: I too want to welcome Arthur Maloney to the Legislature of the province of B.C. I hope he will advise this government on the selection of its own ombudsman. I hope that whoever is selected in British Columbia will be as much of a ... I was going to say a problem, Arthur - to the government of the day as Mr. Maloney is, because he is doing a very thorough job in the province of Ontario.

The Attorney-General said that the ombudsman has to be somebody who can make his way through the red tape. I think if we're lucky enough to find the kind of Moses who can part the red tape, as Arthur Maloney has in Ontario, we'll be very lucky indeed.

I'm going to be very short, Mr. Speaker, because of the extended nature of my remarks. (Laughter.) I just want to make three points about the bill. In doing so, I would like to say that I'm very pleased there's going to be a conference on the future of this kind of function in a democratic society.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That's one point

MR. MACDONALD: No, I haven't got to the point yet. But I listened to the agenda of the conference that is to take place in September and there are points on it that should be incorporated in this bill, such as access to information, because this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General of B.C. has presented is dripping with secrecy provisions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, oh!

[ Page 4604 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, it is. And that's my third point.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're overflowing with unction.

MR. MACDONALD: The first point I want to make is that there is still going to be a need in our society for watchdogs - representatives who will report to the Legislature all of the abuses that can occur - sitting on the board of the Law Society of British Columbia, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the dental association and the boards of our universities.

Let nobody suppose that this bill, with one ombudsman for the whole of the province of British Columbia, is going to solve all of the problems and abuses that occur within the great professions and other bodies that are appointed by the Legislature under a statute of the Legislature. Victor McCallum, the secretary of the Law Society of British Columbia, in speaking about this bill, made these comments: "You could say in most instances it will probably be a waste of time because we think we already do our discipline well."

The Law Society is under this bill, but what I'm saying is that this does not take away the need for a public watchdog appointed to the benches of the Law Society of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order. I've got to do this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: It's not in this bill, that's what I'm saying.

It does not take away the need for that kind of public representative on the governing bodies of the great professions of the province of B.C., the university boards of governors, and other bodies that derive their authority from a statute of the province, and which too often become closed professions unresponsive to real abuses and unwilling to disclose the information that ought to be public.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that very often the aggrieved person who can make a complaint under this bill is not the person who has been injured. There are countless cases where the really aggrieved person in modem society is John Q. Public, not somebody asserting his rights and a grievance, in a personal capacity, but the general body of the public which is, to a very large extent, the forgotten interest in modern society.

The examples are legend where this bill will be of no help. In the universities of the province of British Columbia we do have abuses. Although I believe in academic freedom I'm not going to be stopped from saying this because I so believe. We do have occasions where people up to the rank of professor are not giving full performance for the position and the salary they receive from the public. They may teach six hours a week, they may recycle the same lecture, they may or they may not receive their students in their private office or they may be doing outside work on university time. Who is the aggrieved person in that kind of a case, which is all too common in our society? Who is going to lay a complaint under this bill? They can't. The people who are hurt....

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Name one.

MR. MACDONALD: I would name one, except it's before the courts.

There's no question that that kind of abuse exists and somebody like Arthur Maloney could do nothing about it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Who are the aggrieved persons - the students? The students as a body suffer from not getting sufficient attention to their needs. The taxpayer suffers because he is not getting due performance for the money he pays in taxes to support higher education. Under this bill, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have told us a lot of things that are not included in the bill. Please get back to the principle of the bill and discuss the things that are in it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, when you look at the narrow construction of this bill, which talks about an aggrieved person being able to make a complaint about an abuse, you have to see how in terms of many abuses that are taking place in our society it does not enable the real abuse to be vented by an ombudsman. Too often it is a long-suffering group of people who are without voice and unable to lodge a complaint. Very often it's the taxpayer, very often it's a group of students and very often it's people who use legal aid services generally. That kind of abuse is really the principle abuse in our society. I regret that this bill does not establish somebody who can also be a watchdog for the public interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, that's just exactly what I've pointed out to you. It is not part of the principle of this bill. It may be an argument for another day at another time, but not on this particular bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've finished that point, but I hope that you've appreciated what

[ Page 4605 ]

I've said.

MR. SPEAKER: Very much so, hon. member, and I'd appreciate it more if it was in order.

MR. MACDONALD: The bill is too narrow in terms of a great many of the public abuses in the province of B.C.

Now the third point I make is, what is in the bill? And I've said this bill is dripping with secrecy provisions. You go to section - and I won't mention the section numbers, Mr. Speaker - but before the ombudsman begins to embark on his task, he and everybody who works with him must take an oath -imagine this - that they will not divulge to the public anything that they may learn in the course of their investigation. And I've summarized the section fairly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Divulge their findings, my boy.

MR. MACDONALD: No, no. They will not divulge any information received by him under this Act, or received by her under this Act.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Hardly a sunshine bill, eh, Garde?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: It's not a sunshine bill at all. It's let night fall. Night must fall. It's that kind of a bill.

MR. LAUK: Star chamber Garde!

MR. MACDONALD: It's the very antithesis, the very opposite, of a freedom of information bill. If we believe, as we ought to believe, that to let the sunshine in is the main way to root out evils and correct abuses, this bill goes in the opposite direction. In committee, Mr. Speaker, we'll be dealing in more detail with some of these sections.

I might say this: in Ontario, the secrecy provisions are pretty heavy, and I say this bearing in mind the very good work that Mr. Maloney has been doing in Ontario. Nevertheless, in that bill the ombudsman has the power to disclose information he may receive in the course of an investigation if he thinks it's in the public interest. Even that much power is not given to us in this bill that is before the Legislature tonight.

In terms of secrecy, the ombudsman in this bill and all of his staff not only have to take that oath, but "shall, subject to this Act, maintain confidentiality in respect to all matters that come to their knowledge in the performance of their duties under this Act."

Now we have many areas of investigation where there is a public right to know and where the only way you can really correct the abuse is by giving the public the right to know. I do not believe for one minute that this kind of a bill, which keeps the lid on, is the way to correct the abuses and to give the public due performance for their tax dollar.

The next secrecy provision is a general privilege to the ombudsman, which should not be in any Act, providing that he shall not, even in a court or in a judicial proceeding, be compelled to give evidence with regard to anything he has learned in the course of his investigations. Even in a court of law! Now why that excessive secrecy? Courts of law have a power to prohibit the discussion of certain things, such as personnel matters, that might affect the reputation of individuals. But again, there's a heavy secrecy provision in this bill.

"An investigation under this Act shall be conducted in private. . .

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: The investigation under this Act shall be conducted in private ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, how else can you do it?

MR. MACDONALD: ... unless there are special reasons why the public should have a right to know. That's what the section says. And the very opposite should be the case as, I understand, in Ontario it is, where the investigation is public unless, in the opinion of the ombudsman, there are good reasons why secrecy should prevail. Such reasons can exist. I don't deny that for a moment, Mr. Speaker, but they are very limited. The occasions in which the public doesn't have a right to public knowledge, public applications, public records and public correspondence are very few and limited. Yet in this Act, the right of the public to know is made an exception, where, in exceptional circumstances, the ombudsman may allow an investigation to be held in public. Even the report of the ombudsman under this Act cannot contain information that has been gleaned in the course of his investigation.

Another secrecy provision, similar to what is in Ontario, is not one that I can approve of because I think ombudsmen are capable people who should be able to judge these things themselves. But it provides that on the certificate of the Attorney-General, the gathering of the information might interfere with a prosecution, it might involve disclosure of cabinet business, or it might involve disclosure of proceedings in executive council or a committee of the executive council. Then, when that certificate has been filed,

[ Page 4606 ]

the ombudsman's office is at an end, in the sole discretion of the Attorney-General of the province.

We had a bill passed tonight in second reading, Mr. Speaker - the systems disclosure Act - which provided a heavy fine if somebody revealed confidential information to anyone at all in regard to computer information. Under this Act that the Attorney-General has presented, where you have that kind of a section where an Act forbids the release of confidential information, then the ombudsman cannot receive that confidential information.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not ombudsman ombudsman.

MR. MACDONALD: Never mind what it is. You know perfectly well what I'm saying. Who said that? Take that member's name, Mr. Speaker!

"A person who is bound by an enactment to maintain confidentiality in relation to, or not to disclose, any matter shall not be required to supply any information" to the ombudsman. That's right in the Act. That means that if the ombudsman was to investigate a case in ICBC, as he might well be called upon to do, in our Automobile Insurance Act there's a confidential section, as all the members of this Legislature know, and the ombudsman would be stopped in his tracks and could not pursue that investigation under that section. I say this is secrecy gone wild.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're all wet.

MR. MACDONALD: I certainly am not. I'll read the section in detail, if you like.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The section should not be read in detail. That can be done in committee.

MR. MACDONALD: "A person who is bound by an enactment to maintain confidentiality in relation to, or not to disclose, any matter" - that would be an adjuster under, say, ICBC - "shall not be required to supply any information or to answer any question put by the ombudsman in relation to that matter, or to produce ... any document" to the ombudsperson. The secrecy provisions in this Act go on ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know that it offends against the rules of this House during the debate on second reading for members to deal at length with specific sections of the bill and to read it. I know that the members of the government would be pleased if the hon. first member for Vancouver East would read the bill; perhaps he would be good enough to go away and do it privately and come back when he's ready to debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken, hon. member. With the principle of the bill, please continue.

MR. MACDONALD: The member has a very good technical point, Mr. Speaker, but I want the principle that I am speaking about to be clearly understood by Mr. Speaker and the Legislature. The principle is that if you go through this Act, as I would be glad to do in detail, and as I will do in committee, you will find that the secrecy provisions are all-powerful in relation to the ombudsman, who should be able to expose to public attention what is the public's right to know. That's the best way to correct abuses. The Attorney-General used to be an exponent of "let the sun shine in, " but in this particular bill, to far too great an extent, it is hole-in-the-corner investigation.

So, Mr. Speaker, while we support the principle of an ombudsman, and we always have in this party, there are grave limitations to this bill. Particularly, the' public's right to know in terms of public information and public proceedings and public applications has been suppressed under the bill as introduced by the Attorney-General.

MR. BARBER: I'm pleased that this bill, which is certainly an improvement over last year's, now includes the possibility that people with grievances against local government and local school districts will have an opportunity, through the ombudsman, to have them aired. I'm pleased for that improvement and on that basis alone I'm happy with this year's version in comparison to last.

I have a couple of questions about the relationship between the ombudsman, as the Attorney-General sees it, and a couple of major agencies of the province which, at least in one regard, deal very much with aspects of local government. As the Attorney-General sees it, what will be the administrative and practical functioning relationship between the ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission? What will be the lines of connection and sharing and mutual participation, if any, that you anticipate between the ombudsman, as provided for in this bill, and the human rights commissioners, as provided for in the other legislation on the books?

As an MLA, together with many of my colleagues, I've spent a lot of time dealing with members of the Human Rights Commission and dealing with the staff of it. Many of the items that have come to our attention would appear likely to come to the attention of the ombudsman when that person is in place. I would like to know from the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, the connections, if any, that the Attorney-General views should exist in principle between the work of the ombudsman and the -present work of the Human Rights Commission.

Secondly, along those same lines in regard to local

[ Page 4607 ]

government, I would like to know about the relationship, if any, between the ombudsman and the inspector of municipalities. I act as the critic for municipal affairs, housing and transit on this side of the House. I have received, for the last year and a half, better than 55 apparently serious and substantial complains against municipal government by aggrieved persons. These people include small businessmen. They include citizens and ratepayers. They include professionals. They include people who believe they have a legitimate case to make against apparent impropriety on the part of local government in British Columbia. At the moment, the only provision that they have at hand is to go to the inspector of municipalities and ask for a review of the case and, indeed, possibly for a public inquiry under the specific provision now available in the Municipal Act.

At the moment the only provision they have at hand is to go to the inspector of municipalities and ask for a review of the case, and indeed possibly for a public inquiry under the specific provision now available in the Municipal Act.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think it important that the people of British Columbia understand where, if anywhere, there exists a provision for a relationship between the ombudsman and the inspector of municipalities. Precisely because this new bill, to its great credit, does include the possibility of investigating malpractice, malfeasance and maladministration at levels of local government in the province, it seems to be very important to be able to state at the outset the role of the inspector of municipalities as it shall be maintained and the new role of the ombudsman as it is conceived.

So those are the first two bodies of questions I have about the relationship between the ombudsman and other levels of government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Of municipalities? I well appreciate that, but obviously there will be an exchange of points of view and criticism. Obviously the provisions for public inquiries under the Municipal Act appear to overlap to some extent the provisions for similar inquiries under the Ombudsman Act.

Once again I would like to repeat that I welcome the fact that local government shall be subject to analysis and criticism by the ombudsman. What I want to know from the minister is whether he sees a relationship. If so, what is its nature, its complexion and its dimensions between the office of the ombudsman and that of the inspector of municipalities?

The second and last group of questions that I have tonight for the Attorney-General is on the levels of staff that the minister expects will be required for the ombudsman. Based on experience in other provinces, presumably the Attorney-General can tell us the extent to which they have been able to project the likely number of inquiries that would be made to the ombudsman. Based on those inquiries, can the minister tell us the number of staff that will be required? If so, in what field of study and jurisdiction will they be required? What kinds of expertise in each of those fields will the ombudsman have available to him? How many staff will he have available in the key areas of inquiry that will come to his attention? Will they all be located in Victoria or Vancouver? Will the ombudsman in fact be able to hold through other regional centres, say, in Prince George or in the Okanagan Valley, opportunities to meet right there in person through his representatives - right there and not by mail - with aggrieved parties who have a representation they wish to make to him, or are we back to the usual situation of having to go to Vancouver or to Victoria, no matter where you live in the province, to make your case personally? Where will the staff be located? What kinds of and what numbers of inquiries have been projected?

Finally, can the Attorney- General indicate to us when he expects, upon proclamation of this bill, the ombudsman to be in place and his staff to be in the process of being hired? Can the Attorney-General tell us when he expects this will likely be in operation?

Those are my question, Mr. Speaker: relationships between the ombudsman's office, the inspector of municipalities and the human rights commission; the numbers and levels of staff; the positioning of those staff; and the kinds of numbers of inquiries they will be expected to handle, say, in their first year of operation. I think it would help the people of the province a great deal if they could understand some of these practical facts of application as they will come to bear on the establishment of the office of the ombudsman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm in wholehearted favour of the Ombudsman Act, and I don't wish to delay these proceedings a minute longer than they should be. However, there is one point that I wish to bring to the attention of this House, and that is in the schedule where it mentions universities.

I hope the committee is appointed in great haste. I hope the committee works in deliberate haste and appoints an ombudsman to investigate the University of British Columbia. We've seen a series of absolute utter scandals at the university in the past year that make that university a national disgrace across the country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member ' you are dealing with something that could very well be dealt with in committee. -Speak to the principle of the bill. It's in the schedule, and you're dealing with it in

[ Page 4608 ]

committee form.

MR. LAUK: I am urging members to pass second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, in order to get to problems like this. It's in May and it's in Beauchesne that I can raise examples of why the ombudsman should be appointed. It's because of the hardworking, devoted, and skilled academics and teachers at the University of British Columbia that the actions of a few black sheep should mark their reputation so badly.

The president of that university refuses to act in a responsible manner. The president of that university should resign, because he has not felt....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are out of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am not out of order. I'm talking of an example where the ombudsman could investigate and take action.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I certainly will. You're such a clown. I do it every day in the corridor. You're afraid to do it outside of the House. I do it every day in the corridor. Come on out!

MR. LEA: You're afraid to do it in or out!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this schedule includes the universities for this investigation, because of Dean Finn and because of Professor Kane, who is ripping off the public and has been suspended for three months.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Order!

MR. LAUK: Even after two academic deans have recommended the dismissal of that person, the president refuses to fire those people. I get up hesitatingly to condemn those actions and say the University of British Columbia should be taken in hand by the ombudsman and that terrible situation exposed.

Those two professors should have been fired without hesitation. At least Mr. Kane should have been fired and the dean should have been demoted for those actions using public funds for their own personal gain. I would not bring this up before this Legislature unless there was this inaction on the part of the president of the University of British Columbia.

I hope when this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, that if action has not been taken against the offending parties, the ombudsman will be asked by the government of the day or by a committee of this House to investigate the actions of those people and have a full report.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You sound like an inactive lawyer.

MR. LAUK: I see here Inspector Clouseau in the comer is on the attack.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I urge all members to pass this bill in haste.

There are other areas that were mentioned briefly by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , the Law Society being one of them. The Law Society has elected benchers. It's my belief that unless they have public members and unless their deliberations are in public, the public cannot be satisfied that the profession is acting in good faith and honestly with their clientele. It's that handful of people who give it a bad name. When the disciplinary hearings are not open, the public thinks that it's all lawyers. When action is not taken against professors who rip off the public purse and they are given slaps on the wrist, the people think all professors do that. We know that's not true. This Act, we hope, will go a long way to rectify those wrongs, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly supporting second reading of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes debate.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to defer to the member.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, please, may I first of all thank the hon. Attorney-General for his act of chivalry? I certainly appreciate his deferring to me. I was late getting up because I was anticipating the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) making one of his brilliant speeches and I was waiting for him to rise to his feet.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he always makes a brilliant speech. I'm going to be very brief anyway, and refer specifically to the opening remarks of the Attorney-General, in which he continually referred to the ombudsman by the pronoun "he."

HON. MR. GARDOM: I said "his or her."

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the "her., , Hopefully, in considering somebody for this position,

[ Page 4609 ]

the Attorney-General will not be thinking solely in terms of a male, because certainly the people who will probably be using the services....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's why I said "his or her."

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that, and I was listening very carefully, as I said before.

I just want to say that the people who will probably be using the services of the ombudsperson more than anyone else will be women, quite frankly. It would help greatly if the person who was chosen to be ombudsperson had some sense of a~ feminist perspective. I hope that the Attorney-General will take this into account when he is choosing a person to fill this very important position.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I recognized the hon. the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon.

Attorney-General would care to defer to you....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I will ask my questions when we're dealing with the next bill. I think this is incredible.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you like me to defer to you? I'd be happy to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: State your point of order, please.

MR. LEA: I know that you have to recognize the first person on his or her. feet. The fact of the matter is that that member for Vancouver Centre was on his feet, but you had thought that we had had our last speaker, and you were looking towards the Attorney-General and missed it. I saw it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you have eyes in the back of your head?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, in response to the last lady speaker, she seems to be under the impression that the individual for the office is picked by the government or picked by myself. I would really re-impress upon the hon. member that the ombudsman in British Columbia will be as the result of a unanimous decision by a committee of the Legislature and will be determined by the Legislature. It's been clearly indicated by myself - and I think it's common sense to restate the fact - that it is obviously a position that is open to a well-trained individual, a person with the highest standards and of the greatest integrity, and of either sex. I don't think you really need to re-emphasize that.

In responding to the member for Vancouver Centre, I don't choose to respond to his remarks because they were at the usual level of debate that he is involved in in this House. Dealing with the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , he did contribute to the debate and made the best contribution, I'd say, of anybody in the House. He made a very valid point when he talked about the Human Rights Commission. He also made reference to the situation of the inspector of municipalities and wondered what could occasion in the case of what might be considered overlapping jurisdictions. It has been the practice throughout the country, and with ombudsmen throughout the world for that matter, that where another agency has a specific capacity to deal with the matter, that is the agency that does deal with the matter, and the ombudsman would yield his jurisdiction unto that specific agency unless there happened to be a total failure on the part of that agency to act. Then, of course, the ombudsman would be able to come in. But paramountcy, by virtue of custom and practice, would certainly be to the separate and to the individual agencies. You gave the two illustrations of the Human Rights Commission and the inspector of municipalities.

Then the hon. member asked me what size the office will be; how many people will be employed in it; where the offices will be situated; and the number of employees. Well, it's not possible for me to give you any kind of a specific answer on that tonight because when an ombudsman is appointed in the province of British Columbia and he receives his mandate and his jurisdiction, at that time the government expects to be fully consulted by the ombudsman as to his specific needs and requirements. I would like to say that we're hoping that we're certainly not going to be running into a massive bureaucracy because that, in the view of the government, is not the appropriate route to take.

We find a variety of sizes of budgets and numbers of personnel in Canada. I'm going to use 1970, and these are the latest figures I've received; in Alberta, roughly $360,000, 19 people; Manitoba - $137,000, six people; Saskatchewan - $280,000, 12 people;

[ Page 4610 ]

Ontario - $3.5 million, 110 people; Quebec -$74,000, 29 people; New Brunswick - $133,000, five people; Nova Scotia - $127,000, five people; and Newfoundland - $92,000, three people.

I'd now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the remarks of the hon. first, second or third member for Vancouver East. He talked about dripping with secrecy. Well, I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member was overflowing with unction or with ignorance when he made his remarks tonight. He failed to appreciate these rather basic and elementary facts: that the ombudsman can investigate; he can report; he can complain; he can comment publicly; he can publicize; he can bring his findings to the attention of the authority; he can bring his findings to the attention of the person aggrieved; he can bring his findings to this - attention of cabinet; -lie can bring his findings to the attention of the Legislature.

The hon. member talked about letting the sun shine in. I like to hear those speeches from the hon. member. I particularly like to hear them from him by virtue of the fact that he Rip Van Winkled through three years of office. He fell asleep with his hand on the blind. Let the sun shine in. Mr. Speaker, when this former administration was in office, did they ever produce an audit or-general? Did they ever produce the office of an ombudsman? Did they ever produce quarterly reports? Did they ever produce something that would provide proper accountability of Crown corporations? No! And he says let the sun shine in. He Rip Van Winkled through three years of office. That's all that happened over there.

Mr. Speaker, I do say that we have in this bill the best bill of its kind in the country. I'm very, very happy that the bill was not passed last year because I think it gave people in the general public in the province an opportunity to vent their ideas and make their suggestions. It also gave the officials and myself an opportunity to consider the legislation, and I think the amendments and the changes you will find in the bill are indeed an improvement over last year's legislation. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that in discussions with the ombudsmen throughout the country I think they are universal in their approach that this is the finest bill of its kind in the country.

I cordially move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 63, Ombudsman Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 66.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BUILDINGS CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I have a short explanation here. There are three amendments to the original Bill 23 in Bill 66. The first amendment is to increase the number of directors from five to nine and provides for people from the private sector to be eligible to be directors, which they were. not under the original bill. Also under section 1 it provides that a non-public employee director can be paid for his duties.,

Under section 2 we are removing the expropriation powers from the corporation. It was an error that they were there in the first place.

Section 4 is a housekeeping item. The reference to the Companies Act is in twice; this is removing it from the one section.

The last section, section 5, provides for an orderly .transfer of employees from Public Works to the corporation. This is definitely an advantage to the employees, as they will not lose any of the benefits.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief, knowing that I will have a further opportunity to discuss some of the aspects of this amendment bill in more detail in committee, but I would just like to reflect somewhat on the previous debate only for two seconds. I don't want to be ruled out of order, but judging from a decision of the Speaker I can see the reason for having an ombudsman is that those of us in the Legislature perhaps will need to refer to him to protect ourselves from the Speaker from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: You weren't in the chair. It's no reflection on you, Mr. Speaker - just on the one who was in there before you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're now debating Bill 66, which has nothing to do with the ombudsman. If you wished to debate that bill you should have been in the House and debated it when it was before the floor.

MR. BARNES: I attempted to get on my feet - I was denied access to the floor. That's closure. Just the other day we had an example of how we try and co-operate in the House, and this Attorney-General refused to give me an opportunity to speak on the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not correct, and you know it!

[ Page 4611 ]

MR. BARNES: It is correct.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I asked if you wished me to defer and you said no.

MR. BARNES: Well, why didn't you just defer and remove all doubt?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'll go back to the bill now, but I just wanted to get that off my chest - I felt very offended by that.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment bill is a feeble attempt, really, to clean up a bill that perhaps should not have been introduced in the Legislature in the first place. The creation of the B.C. Buildings Corporation has, in effect, removed a large number of public employees from active employment, or will do so before the new B.C. Buildings Corporation is fully in operation.

It's a shame that there wasn't something in this amendment bill to indicate that the other 800 or so people would not be lost in the shuffle. I'm not talking about those whom you've included in the transfer procedure, but those we've been talking about for the last six months or so. There still is no guarantee that those people are going to find employment, as far as I'm concerned.

This is one of the reasons the opposition was opposed to the wholesale transfer of a department to a Crown corporation. We also pointed out our fears that the public would begin to lose its bargaining position as far as control over costs was concerned. Once the private sector begins to get operational with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, private directors and other kinds of interests and influences start to take over. B.C. Buildings Corporation could conceivably become just as removed and out of touch, as far as the public interest is concerned, as B.C. Hydro.

These are fears that haven't been allayed, certainly not by this amendment, although I notice we had a big round of applause when it was mentioned by the Minister of Highways that the expropriation section was being removed. Certainly that's a step in the right direction, but I think there should have been four more amendments to the bill than the ones that were included in Bill 66.

There has to be, for instance, some explanation as to the tendering procedure within the B.C. Buildings Corporation. We talked about that during estimates and we still do not have a firm answer as to how these will be controlled. We still do not know, for instance, to what extent regulations will require the B.C. Buildings Corporation to seek public tender. How much latitude will the corporation have to make decisions, for instance, in the custodial help that it, will have in the various government areas - this precinct, for instance, and Government House? There's nothing in the legislation so far that ensures that the public interest will be protected. I still feel very strongly that what we have is a gift to the private sector of public funds to be used as they see fit.

I think that we will have to wait to see just how it works out, but certainly you have increased the board to nine, permitting private interests to be in the decision-making process. What controls will be on these people? Will they be subject to oaths of allegiance to the Queen? Will they be responsible and how will they be responsible? How much latitude will they have to make arbitrary decisions without having to go to tender? Will there be a ceiling on the amounts of money involved before small jobs could be let out - say a $500 job here, a $500 job there, or a $1,000 job here? A number of these kinds of things would normally not come to public attention, but if these things can happen, what controls will the public have? The fear is misuse of these funds.

Certainly you're not likely to be hiring very many people that might be opposed to your political views, and that's going to be one of the other concerns. These people may have a private haven, a private source of funds with which to invest - real estate deals, various kinds of purchasing programmes that may or may not become subject to the new ombudsman.

If we were to decide we can't get information to public access through normal channels, we may have to try and get it through the ombudsman. Maybe he may want to comment on the fact that there is some need there for the MLAs to get information, because we don't get it through co-operating with the government. There are many things that we can't find out without being accused of stealing files or what not and having to run the risk of going to jail for trying to get information.

So there is every reason to be concerned about how the B.C. Buildings Corporation will function. I have asked this question before but I still would like to know how I will be able to get information if I should want to ask a question. Will 1, as critic, be put on the mailing list of the B.C. Buildings Corporation? So far I have received nothing. That indicates to me that there is no attempt to co-operate with the opposition to ensure that we have access to information. It seems to be a question of "we've got the information; it's up to you to try and wrangle it out of us the best way you can by hook or crook, but if we catch you we're going to accuse you of stealing."

You're talking about honesty, you bring in an ombudsman bill, you want to try and give the impression that this is an open government - "let the sun shine in." You've made a few amendments, but the main amendments haven't been made or even mentioned.

[ Page 4612 ]

I'm really quite concerned, as I said earlier, about the question of oaths of responsibility. Public servants are subject to the Public Service Act. Now you bring in the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which will be dealing with the private sector, and these people will be functioning in the roles that were previously carried out by public servants. Now what parallels have you there to explain that there will be no problem? We know that public servants have a commitment to the government and to the Crown, but how will you achieve the same thing with the public sector? What kinds of rights will these people have? I don't think that you could expect a contractor to have the power to subject these people to oaths, say, if they were just doing casual work or coming in occasionally cleaning up buildings and so forth. This to me is a potential problem.

Right now we have a number of cleaners working in this building who, I understand, are under oath. What happens if they are laid off, as one of those 800 people, and you get a contractor to come in and do the same work they are doing? But this contractor decides that he will use these people because of their experience. They cease to be public servants, but they become employees of this new contractor. So to look at them, it looks as though they were still carrying on their routines as usual, except they are not public servants anymore; they are working for a private contractor. Now many of them have access to the offices - to the Premier's office, the offices of all the members. What responsibilities will be placed upon these people? Just what is the procedure going to be in regard. to this kind of change?

In any instances where this has already happened throughout the province, could you comment on what is happening in regard to their liability for any loss of confidence or their responsibility as far as any confidential material is concerned? Perhaps you have answers for these, but I just think of them as things that could be somewhat of a precedent-setting thing in the province. I don't know if it is happening in any other jurisdictions where there are private people working in the offices of the government, other than in administrative offices where services are provided, but certainly in the legislative building, MLAs who are operating as politicians and, in many instances, dealing in very confidential information, should not be exposed to people who haven't taken any oaths of secrecy in that regard.

What I would like to conclude, since this is not really a debate again on BCBC and just a few amendments.... I don't want to rehash the speeches that I have made half a dozen times already about B.C. Buildings Corporation. I will say that I haven't changed my mind about my fears and I'm sure the members of the opposition still have the same fears. At the same time, we recognize that the government will be making its moves regardless of our opposition.

Therefore we are going to have to be patient and see just how correct we were as time goes on.

I After looking these amendments over, I feel that they are at least a step in the right direction. The one on expropriation was certainly a very serious one; it caused a lot of concern. You have withdrawn that. I think the -others, except for the one on the board of directors, are generally just enabling moves, to make sure that the transfers can take place with the public employees who have themselves already agreed with certain of the terms. There doesn't seem to be any point of contention that I know of in respect to this.

But I just feel that unless the minister is going to be more specific about those things that we have been asking him, then we are going to be guessing and hoping that we are going to find out what is happening. I think that you are encouraging those of us who sincerely are trying to help the government do its job to be unduly suspicious, because I have asked questions with a certain amount of enthusiasm and interest because of your personal reputation, Mr. Minister. I know that you are a man of integrity and I certainly think that you would like to see things operate in the best interests of the public.

I would like for you to maybe admit that there is cause for concern in regard to some of these things getting out of hand, and that maybe there should be some other amendments, not just dealing with the mechanics of transferring the new people to the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the board of directors and this kind of thing, but with some regulations. Who is going to make the regulations for the B.C. Buildings Corporation? There's just nothing at all to talk about the mechanics. What about the role of the Purchasing Commission in relation to the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Which authority will be ultimate in terms of decisions? Will it have complete autonomy, other than it is required to concede to the board of directors? So far, there just isn't any way to nail down the hierarchical structure and commitment to the people of British Columbia.

You have a $200 million borrowing capacity; is that going to be it for this fiscal year? What percentages of that will be added on each year? Are we looking at the possibility of a several-billion dollar deficit in the next five to 10 years because of expansion programmes by the Building Corporation?

Certainly, in all fairness, if you consider performance of other corporations, there is a possibility that this could be another corporation that would be an embarrassment to the government by lack of foresight and by the kinds of things that could happen.

What protection do we have in the way of purchasing land and making land deals? You have a person who is an expert in land transactions and land assembling and so forth who probably has lots of friends who have been colleagues over the years, and

[ Page 4613 ]

who are much more aware of potential deals and opportunities. What curbs and controls will be on the chairman in terms of these deals that are going to have to be made on behalf of the people of British Columbia? To what extent will he be in the position to make arbitrary decisions? This could be a bit frightening.

I would just conclude by asking if you could ensure the House that we will be able to scrutinize the procedures that ICBC will be involved in without having to wait for the annual report. Will you give us an open invitation - for instance, to those of us in the Legislature - to feel free to pick up the telephone and call the department for any information we'd like to know as to what transactions have taken place? We want to just feel that we can get information when we require it, or would there be a problem with us having this information, from your standpoint?

Mr. Speaker, I'll just conclude on that note, hoping that we'll have an opportunity to scrutinize the bill section by section during committee.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): First of all, I want to commend the government for removing the expropriation clause from the bill. I think that this is very reassuring to the opposition, and certainly it must be reassuring to the public at large, who had perhaps begun to wonder how much power this government really wanted within some of its Crown corporations and other arms.

The other area that I just want to touch on very briefly relates to the transfer of employees from the Ministry of Public Works to the corporation. I must say that I've had contact with several employees who are very uneasy, not only about the provisions of the transfer and so on, but the uncertainty which apparently will prevail over a fair period of time.

But in particular, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if he has any concern about the definition of the word "transfer." I understand - and it's obvious to the minister and everyone - that there will be more people seeking positions with the corporation than there are jobs for them. So in a sense, Ministry of Public Works' employees will be competing for jobs with the corporation.

One of the employees has written to me. In the letter, it points out that the word "transferred" could easily be misunderstood by the Government Employee Relations Bureau who might well take the position.... In fact, those employees from the Ministry of Public Works were not transferred in the normal sense of the word, but had to compete for a job with the corporation because their numbers exceeded the number of jobs available. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether this has been brought to him as a query and as a concern, and if indeed he considers that the wording in section 5 is adequate to prevent any such controversy over the interpretation of the word "transfer."

Perhaps we should get into this in committee discussion, Mr. Speaker, but very briefly, let me also ask if the minister has any concern about the fear of workers presently with the Ministry of Public Works who have been told that they will not suffer any reduction in salary, for example, - and again, as covered in section 5 - but may in fact be offered jobs in a different location or a different department or in a completely different area of employment

I'm thinking again of Public Works employees who have come to me in some concern - architects, engineers and skilled technicians - fearful that they would be given one choice, perhaps of a different job on a different ministry and in a different location. Of course, if they do not find that acceptable, they are then fearful that when a second job in another location is offered which is equally unsuitable, they may be discharged. In other words, they will be laid off even though the minister in his public statements has made it plain that there will be no layoffs.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we can all understand the apprehension of employees in a government department who have chosen employment with the government - many of them have been employed for many years - thinking that government employment provided a measure of security. Perhaps they tolerated some of the circumstances of government employment simply because of the associated security. Now it's quite obvious that the security is not quite what they envisioned.

I can't exaggerate, Mr. Speaker, the number of employees who have come to see me, many of them with several years of employment. They are really very distressed at the uncertainty and the possibility of a major disruption in their lives when they are in their 50s. That's a time of fife when most people are reasonably settled and assured of their future in a particular form of occupation.

These are my two questions, Mr. Speaker. The interpretation that might be placed by the union on the word "transfer" and secondly, is there some assurance in section 5 that persons offered alternative positions will not be discharged since the offer may be unacceptable to them for a whole variety of reasons? Not the least of these is the proposed location and the different department in which they are to be employed.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the bill. I too feel that it is a step in the right direction that the government has removed the expropriation reference from this particular bill, although, Mr. Speaker, it really doesn't diminish the government's right to expropriate. They certainly have that authority under other statutes that would be available for the purpose of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, as I understand it.

[ Page 4614 ]

1 am very much concerned about the fate of all of the Public Works department employees. So far I haven't heard a clear statement from the minister in terms of what the plan is with respect to all the maintenance and janitorial work that must still go on throughout the government buildings of the province.

What really has me concerned is the understanding I have that the B.C. Buildings Corporation now will be responsible for all the buildings and all the maintenance and so on. All of the employees who historically did this work are going to be offered the same jobs under the new corporation. They may or may not get a job with the new corporation. There may or may not be some maintenance or janitorial work under the new B.C. Buildings Corporation, as I understand it.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this work has to be done. Who's going to do it? The minister hasn't made a clear statement on this. Is it anticipated that all of this work will now be contracted out to janitorial services in different communities? Because if it is, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this approach is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia far more money than the previous arrangement whereby permanent staff was kept by the government under the old Public Works department to do this kind of work.

I foresee the kind of problem that I have in my own riding, where there are a number of government institutions in the village of New Denver, some 60 miles from the city of Nelson. If the local maintenance staff are to be laid off in that community where we have a forest service, a Ministry of Human Resources office, and a senior citizens pavilion.... There is maintenance work and there is janitorial service related to all of that. We also have a Ministry of Highways building.

If we are to rely on commercial janitorial services, the closest of which would be in the city of Nelson and would be looking at time involved in traveling around to these isolated areas to replace permanent staff, we are not looking at a saving. We are looking at the disruption of long-term employees and a vastly more costly procedure for performing the same kind of work.

I don't clearly understand what the minister's intention is; he hasn't laid it out clearly. He talks in the bill, Mr. Speaker, about the transfer of employees but he doesn't delineate their function. He doesn't outline whether they'll remain the same and he doesn't even give any guarantee that there will be similar work under the new Crown corporation.

I'm very concerned about the security of employment for the workers, some of whom have been in the government service for many, many years.

I'm concerned from another angle, too, Mr. Speaker. I see a variety of ways in which this government is moving that really give me great cause for concern. It's not my position to accuse the government of any ulterior motives, for what I suggest is that they are setting up, in many respects, a situation where ministerial discretion, where the absence of clear legislative guidelines and clear rules allows a system of patronage to be reintroduced in the province of British Columbia. That is a dangerous thing that went out, we thought, with the old coalition of the 1940s. I see the spectre of it being reintroduced into the province of British Columbia with this bill and others like it. Here we have loyal, long-term employees in the government service summarily uprooted from their traditional role and function and guaranteed very little in the form of future tenures. Sure, they'll be offered jobs, but who wants to be uprooted from a position in Cranbrook and offered a job in Pouce Coupe? Who wants to be uprooted from a 10-year job in the city of Victoria and offered alternate employment in the village of Golden? That's no tenure. That's no security for employees - none whatsoever.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's a ruse for the Minister of Highways and Public Works to hold that out as some tangible form of security for employees in this province - an absolute ruse. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not just my view. The minister sent emissaries to the city of Nelson to meet with the Public Works employees from the entire district. I want to tell you, Mr., Speaker, they got virtually chased out of town because they couldn't answer any questions. They could give no undertakings to the employees as to what their plans were. I'm not condemning the officials who went up there to do that job; I condemn the minister for failing to outline precisely what the plan is. Nor is the plan revealed in the statute that is now before the House.

Now I don't know what the minister's plans are. Perhaps he got stampeded into this by his cabinet colleagues, because the bill is without adequate pre-planning and forethought as to what should be an orderly transition of the administrative set-up, if that's what he wanted to accomplish. It really causes me grave concern, Mr. Speaker, when I see around 800 employees threatened with disruption here -between 800 and 1,100 employees - and no clear understanding of what the new structure is going to provide. The janitorial work has to go on. It has to go on in the city of Victoria, and virtually every town throughout this province. If the work is going to be contracted out, why is there no mechanism in the statute for a system of open tendering so that there can be no image or no taint of patronage in the awarding of this kind of work to people who may or may not be friends of the government?

You know, they say the road to Hades is paved with good intentions, Mr. Speaker. I don't doubt for one moment but what the minister's intentions are good, but that's not the way one should write legislation. Legislation should be clear and concise

[ Page 4615 ]

and it should provide the blueprint for what the minister expects to accomplish. I want to tell you that this statute before the House is riddled with ambiguities, vagaries, and uncertainties, both from the point of view of those employees presently under the minister's jurisdiction and also from the point of view of members *of this House who are concerned that greater efficiency be achieved, if that is indeed the objective of this bill. We are not persuaded that greater efficiency will be achieved when we see the possibility of long-term, dedicated employees being laid off to be replaced, presumably, by professional commercial agencies, sometimes traveling up to 100 miles to get to the location where they're going to have to perform a function for the ministry.

Now I'm speculating because nowhere is there a clear outline of what the minister's intentions are. Nowhere yet, Mr. Speaker, in any of the public statements that the minister has made, has there been an outline of what. the programme is going to be. I have had access, Mr. Speaker, to some of the material that the minister has distributed to the employees of the Public Works branch. I want to tell you that unfortunately nowhere in that dissertation by the minister is there a clear outline of what the programme is going to be. This is just not good enough.

It's very difficult to debate a statute and stay within the bounds of reason when the minister has failed to lay out any parameters. The only restrictions we can put on the debate under these circumstances are the bounds of our own imagination. And if the minister feels that some of the criticism is unfair, I suggest that it's only as a result of the very minimal information that has been put before the members of this House, both in the statute and in terms of any press releases which the minister has issued.

So I certainly hope that on second reading the minister will sincerely try to provide an outline of the new administration he conceives; an outline of the functions; the staff, if any, which will be required under that new institution; the extent to which any and all contracting-out work will be awarded; and the mechanism by which it would be awarded. They are important questions that should be put before the House, Mr. Speaker, certainly before we go into committee stage on this bill. I want to suggest to the minister that unless we have that kind of information, we're certainly going to have to dwell for a great deal of time on the section-by-section scrutiny of this bill.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll go back to front here, starting with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan with his concerns.

He is concerned about the janitorial services. It's envisioned that we will put that out to tender in the communities involved, but it will take quite some time to do that. He did mention the fact that he traveled. I might like to point out that this is one of the things we're trying to get around. This has been going on in Public Works for some time. And I'm referring to tradesmen, electricians and plumbers who are traveling from points like Terrace to Prince Rupert to do repair jobs. We think that should be done in the community, in that case, of Prince Rupert. They have been spending a lot of time traveling and that's exactly what we're trying to get around, because we feel that's costly, as you pointed out. It would be if we had contractors doing that. We'd rather have it doing ... in the case of electrical work, repair work and plumbing work, surely there are people in a community, using as an example Prince Rupert.... But what has been happening under Public Works is that they have been sending them from the community of Terrace, which was the regional headquarters. Consequently they spent more time traveling than they did doing the actual work. I might say....

MR. LEA: That's because of the roads. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FRASER: That's unfair, Mr. Member. Regarding the employees themselves, I might say that it's my understanding that B.C. Buildings Corporation reached agreement with their union on most of the provisions in here. We have said before.... they've batted around figures here, as to how many people are involved. I'd like to restate the figures as I know them. There will be 1,100 people taken on in BCBC, who exist in Public Works now. There are another 300 who don't change at all; that's the safety division section of Public Works. That provides for 1,400. Then there are these other 800, which is the figure we've discussed here before, who have been offered all kinds of alternates as far as their future employment is concerned, including taking early retirement and retraining programmes. As I say, their union has agreed to this. That is my information. I don't believe the professional side of the union has, but the other part has agreed to these different things. I might say that this is going to be a slow process and I can't see the total transfer being effective until at least April 1,1978.

To the member for Oak Bay, I think that was your concern - the transfer of the employees. As I say, their union has agreed tentatively and they're now working out the details about retraining, severance pay and, of course, they have first opportunity to apply for the 1,100 jobs. That's the process that's going on there now.

I think it was probably the member for Vancouver Centre who mentioned the directors. Yes, that's correct. That's going from five to nine. And you mentioned the chairman. Well, the chairman will be guided by the board of directors. I can't see that he'll have any really extra powers. And yes, I would

[ Page 4616 ]

envision that they would take the oath of office. Now you referred, I believe, to an oath of office for the contractors. I would like to report further on that in the committee, because I'm not clear on that. I might point out that contractors don't take an oath of office now. On any contracts we've been letting with Public Works in the past or in my experience with Highways, I know they don't take it as it is.

Regarding tendering, which has come up tonight and I think it came up before, I might say that practically everything will go out to tender the same as Public Works has been doing. There are a few things that they weren't putting out to tender but we want to eliminate as much as we can. The Treasury Board is the one that gives the authority for it to go out to tender. In practically all cases, I would assume that it will be awarded to the low bidder, which has always been the case in the past, so I don't see really any change taking place there.

Regarding the borrowing authority that was mentioned, it is $200 million. Mr. Speaker, my observation is that that will be quite ample. We don't anticipate going over that amount. Of course, if it does become necessary, it has to come before this Legislature to increase the authority. But in the foreseeable future I can't see us needing to go beyond $200 million because that money is going to pay.... It will take a great deal of that to complete the large downtown Vancouver building and buildings here in Victoria. We envision that we will be putting out probably to the private sector to bid and probably leasing back from them, so we don't envision a large building programme conducted by Public Works. We will put out propositions to the private sector and then probably lease from them. That's why I don't think we will exceed the $200 million, but time will only tell that.

The member for Vancouver Centre was concerned regarding information. I can say to you, Mr. Member, that you are welcome to contact me anytime and I will co-operate fully with you and give you the information you want. I think you already have contacted us a couple of times. I assume I will be the minister responsible reporting to the Legislature on an annual basis through the annual report.

I think I have covered most of the queries that have been put forth. I now would like to move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after this.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. minister. We have to complete second reading first.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, British Columbia Buildings Corporation Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 27, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) .

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (NO. 2)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): I will be brief. I do, however, have about three minutes of comments to make to describe the intent of the bill.

Bill 27 contains a number of amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act, which could be considered to be of a housekeeping nature. Section 1 of the bill, for example, says that a peace officer may, when giving evidence in a proceeding, refer to a report prepared by him for the purpose of refreshing his memory.

The need for this arises from questions which were raised in a court when an officer referred to an incident report which he personally had completed at the scene of an accident. Previously accident reports could not be used for any purpose, including the court, for purposes of giving evidence. We now have a new incident report which must be made out by an officer. This amendment to the Motor-Vehicle Act will permit the officer to use this new kind of report to refresh his memory in giving evidence.

Section 2 removes from the superintendent of motor-vehicles the power to issue conditional suspensions, conditional suspensions having been eliminated from other sections of the Motor-vehicle Act already. There will be no partial suspensions in future for any reason whatsoever. In its place, the superintendent issues a full-term licence on a probationary basis to allow the person time to prove that he or she can drive in a proper manner. This will permit uniformity of treatment under all sections of the Motor-vehicle Act where suspensions are involved.

Section 3 has been requested by the courts to clarify the court's position and circumstances where a person is convicted under certain sections of the Criminal Code and his licence is automatically suspended. The amendment requires that he or she surrender their licence immediately to the court. They don't have to be sought out at a later time to recover the licence. Hon. members may recall that we passed similar legislation last summer. However, the courts have requested clarification of their position in demanding the driver's licence at the time of conviction. This new wording is designed to achieve this end.

Section 4 endeavours to make sure that an individual who gets his or her licence back as a result

[ Page 4617 ]

of an appeal under the criminal code is in fact going to proceed with that appeal. As things stand now, appeals are launched with what seems to be no intent to carry them through. The appellant gets his or her licence back and continues to drive, even though the appeal may not be proceeded with.

Section 5 of the bill adds public utility vehicles to the list of equipment which does not have to obey normal traffic rules when engaged in highway or road construction or maintenance work.

Section 6 is added to require that all of the drivers of these vehicles shall operate with due regard for safety, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition and use of the highways and the amount of traffic that is or might reasonably be expected to be on it.

Section 7, Mr. Speaker, is really the same as section 1, except that it applies to bicycles. This is to say the peace officer can refer to the incident report which he now has to prepare under our recent legislation to refresh his memory in the court.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, these are really only housekeeping amendments. I therefore hope that this bill can be passed quickly.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, the opposition agrees with the minister, to a large extent, that these are primarily housekeeping amendments to the various sections of the existing Motor-vehicle Act. However, Mr. Speaker, there is one section of the Act that does trouble some of us a wee bit, and that is section 3. 1 know we're not supposed to be discussing sections, Mr. Speaker; however, the minister referred to the bill section by section, and I don't think I'm out of order by discussing the principle of section 3.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in some of these bills such as this the principle is more than one and it involves some discussion of the sections because it is an amendment bill. I'm prepared to listen to that, as long as we don't go into great detail with respect to the section involved.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I would just like the minister, when he's closing debate, to perhaps just clarify or expand the powers of the court or the superintendent under this particular section.

I know there was some concern expressed to some members of our caucus on this particular section of the bill. I hope I'm wrong, but I have been told that this may be giving undue power and causing undue difficulties for some people who do have problems with the motor-vehicle branch and the court system in the province. So perhaps when the minister is closing debate he could expand on that section a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister the background to the amendment which in effect now no longer gives the judge any discretion to allow a person to drive, for example, at work. I gather from the amendment involved in section 2 that a suspension can no longer be partial. I realize that we're all very concerned about cracking down on drinking drivers, but I think also that justice has to be dispensed along with a certain amount of discretion and mercy, and I wonder if the minister would care to tell the House the background of discussions or the proposals or whatever information or suggestions have led to this amendment - where the suggestions came from, and to what degree the courts themselves have been consulted or brought in to the conversation.

At a time of high unemployment if a person's job depends on his licence and he loses his licence for 30 days, he may well suffer far beyond the period of 30 days by losing his job. It may be that the minister has an explanation or vindication for tightening up the law to this degree, but I know that I've been advised by lawyers who appear regularly in court who are of the opinion that this is taking the penalty to an unreasonable extent by taking away the judge's discretion to remove the licence for pleasure driving but to allow the person to continue to drive the vehicle in order to maintain his employment.

I notice that the explanatory note points out that this brings this section into line with other sections dealing with suspension. My second question would be whether or not this amendment becomes inevitable in order that it has to conform with other sections and prevent discrimination on the whole subject of suspension. In other words, I presume that if this amendment were not proceeded with there might be some kinds of offences where you could get a partial suspension and other types where you can not, Again, it would perhaps create lack of uniformity in the whole Act.

So I really have two questions. What was the origin of the proposal to the minister, or what was the information he acted upon in bringing in this amendment? Secondly, is it now an amendment which simply has to be implemented in order to make the whole area of suspension uniform throughout the Act?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention to the minister that perhaps the removal of some area of discretion.... I would like to hear the reasons for it. I would like to point out to him that in rural areas where we don't have public transportation, the suspension of a driver's licence can mean that a person simply can't be employed.

The types of occupations that people have which require driving fairly long distances to a job site, to an assembly point for a logging operation or some such

[ Page 4618 ]

thing.... People who live in rural areas and drive in to the job site are much more dependent upon an automobile. Some kind of a discretionary suspension or partial suspension could sometimes be a step forward . . . at one time, I suppose, when such a practice was instituted, I think people would have assumed that this would have been a step toward the changing of undesirable habits, and that it might be sort of a rehabilitation or something.

I would be very interested to know what the background experience is behind this and what is found to be impractical in this. For impaired driving, for instance, it's absolutely mandatory under law. Then people request, in the case of impaired driving, some sort of jurisdiction, and there is no way of giving that. This shouldn't be dealing with impaired driving because already there are mandatory suspensions and there can be no discretion shown there. I'd be very interested, in closing second reading, to hear what the story is behind this and the experience which leads to this change.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a pointless discussion for me to bring up the issue I wish to make at this time, but this total disallowance is an unfair status in my opinion. Partial suspension has its place.

I know we're being very tough, and I believe in being tough on drivers who have transgressed the bounds of reason for drunkenness, or whatever, and there are many other causes. But what I speak against is the inequity of suspension. As I pointed out before to a previous Attorney-General, if he was suspending for any reason whatever, what difference would it make to him? What difference would it make to a doctor practising in this city if he or she was totally suspended? What difference would it make to me? But it makes a great difference to a man who earns his living by it. I say that is an inequity under law, and there is no such thing as an inequity being correct. There's no such thing as inequity being justified by the so-called act of protecting the public. We must find a better way than this total arrogance of saying to any man: "If you have transgressed, you have received the final word and you're out."

That is all right, Mr. Speaker, if you are fair to everyone concerned, but it is unfair and it is inequitable. How can we in this chamber stand and speak of justice when we do not dispense justice? I say to you this is the antithesis of justice when you can treat one man or one woman differently from another. There are ways of doing it. I have suggested them on this floor; I will not do it again. But the unfairness of total suspension is that people who' sit in positions of arrogance can sit there and say: "Well, if I ever transgress, I don't mind. I'll take my punishment." I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what punishment? No punishment at all.

MR. WALLACE: Do you mean I couldn't make house calls, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Somebody could drive it. That's the point. The point is made by the hon. doctor.

MR. LEA: He thinks he's back in 1930, talking about house calls.

MR. NICOLSON: That's how long he's been out of medicine.

MR. WALLACE: I always made house calls. How dare you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM: He would get somebody to drive him. Do you hear that? That's the point at issue. Where is the fairness under law? I appeal to the Attorney-General, since he looks so bored to death there, that it is wrong, unjust and improper. Just because we sit here as hon. members, beyond this category, is no reason we should not attempt to justify the fairness of this Act. There's no justice in this clause. It is wrong, and it cannot be made right because we say so. The hon. doctor made the point. Do we hear it? Somebody would drive him. Yet what about a man who earns his living by driving?

One man I know earns his living by shoeing horses. He's suspended now for six months and he should be - of course he should be. But it's not fair that he loses his living, when the honourable doctor (Mr. Wallace) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , or a member of this House can get somebody to drive them. Where is the justice under law? I say to you it's wrong, I say to you it's unfair and I say it's unjust. The principle of law is fairness and equity. When you bring in a law that is not fair and just....

The members smile! That's the horrible part of it, Mr. Speaker. The smiling attitude: it doesn't affect us. That is wrong, that is a disaster, that is a mistake. We should have the gall to justify it. An Act of this kind makes me just a little ill. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have not prepared those amendments, but it should be amended in this area. It is wrong, it is unjust and it is terrifying.

I'd like to have your attention. Here is this young man, twenty-eight years old, who went to Oregon to learn to shoe horses. And he's got a little business, a wife and a family on the lower mainland. His life's work is shoeing horses. And he's a good horse-shoer; he calls himself a farrier.

He wasn't intoxicated, no, but he did something that is perhaps even worse. They call it hit and run. I don't think the boy ran; I think he panicked. But here we come to this lad's problem. He cannot shoe

[ Page 4619 ]

horses anymore because he can't get around. His wife doesn't drive. What can he do? He's out of a job, he's out of a living. And we sit here and say we're fair? We say this is just?

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) wouldn't lose his living. I wouldn't lose my living. No other members here would, because they don't have to. Yet that boy is unable to make a living, and we say we are dispensing justice. I say this is the antithesis of justice.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) have put a question to all of us that we'll probably have a little difficulty answering in good conscience, because there is one justice for one and another justice for another, if the law doesn't apply evenly. I agree with the member for Dewdney that it does not, as it so often does not, because a $20 fine for a millionaire is a lot different fine from a $20 fine for somebody making minimum wage. It doesn't apply there either.

That's another subject we can raise later about a percentage of a person's wages being the fine as opposed to a straight flat-out fine. Then we'd have a little bit of equity, possibly. But in this one the member for Dewdney is correct. We all know of cases where it is more of a penalty for some to have their driver's licence suspended than for others. Obviously for some it's no problem at all because you can rent a car and a driver and it doesn't affect your income that much. That's a little different from the person who doesn't make that kind of money. So there are all sorts of inequities. But I would think that the way we're handling it now - a straight suspension with no latitude for the judiciary to make a decision - is probably not correct.

It sounds right, Mr. Speaker. When you first run into it you think: "That's right. If a person drives an automobile in such a manner that he's going to endanger other people, and they've done it before, then we have to be severe and that's it." But also I think we have to look at it in a different light: is it really just when one person suffers more from a penalty than another?

I would think the government should take a long look at this and maybe bring an amendment back in that at least we could debate in committee stage -people who represent people from all walks of life, in every different part of this province - because it really is, I think, in many cases an injustice to do what the law calls for now.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, three members have focused on the removal from the Motor-vehicle Act of conditional suspensions. This was done essentially in 1975 in most sections of the Act. What has replaced the conditional suspension is one of two things: either complete suspension of the licence or a probationary extension of the use of the licence. In other words, the individual either has his or her licence removed, or they continue to have their licence on a probationary but full-time basis.

The conditional licence was one which was really, in its precise terms, unenforceable. For example, the individual would have a licence or continue to have the use of their licence~ say, during their working hours only. That is simply not enforceable. So the legislation, in most sections of the Act which were changed by the previous government, really went to.... Either you had your licence or you didn't have it.

To answer the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , for example, there is the option now of a probationary licence. You have it full-time. You are on notice, however, that if you commit further serious offences, you might lose your licence entirely for a period of time. There are the two alternatives: you either continue to have your licence on a probationary basis or you lose it altogether. So there is an option; there is flexibility.

What is removed here, to be very clear, is a conditional licence which says you can drive between 2 and 4 in the afternoon. Well, who polices this? How could this possibly be a law which was effectively enforced? That which is unenforceable is being removed. The latitude is still there to permit licences to be used on a probationary good-behaviour basis. That essentially is the answer to the question and resolves the dilemma which several members found themselves in when addressing themselves to that change in the Act.

Section 3 was debated at some length last year, or at least the substance of it was. The taking away of the licence of the offending party at the court at the time the decision is handed down is certainly administratively the best thing to do, because otherwise that individual has to be sought out at another time and another place. Often it's very difficult, if not impossible, to recover the licence. So the courts have requested this power in order to effectively remove the licence which the court has ordered to take place in any case.

MR. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill at this time.

Motion approved.

Bill 27, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4620 ]

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (NO. 3)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In calling this bill for debate, I would advise the House that Bill 41, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977, deals with the same principle, which is the metrification problem which affects certain motor-vehicle signings in this province. Perhaps the House might indicate whether they would deal with them both at the same time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency attached to this legislation. On September I of this year all of the provinces and territories of Canada are expected to go metric, at least insofar as our highways are concerned - speed, distances and weights. The most important element of this, of course, is the speed signs on the highways and in our cities across the nation. It is expected that the various provincial and other jurisdictions will proclaim their legislation by the first of next month. The weight and other measures need not be proclaimed until the middle of next year.

Incidentally, current plans in the United States are for speed signs to be in metric in the United States of America in August of 1978. So, roughly speaking, Canada is moving 12 months ahead of the United States in this connection.

The legislation simply uses our foot, pound and second system and converts it to metric by rounding to the closest convenient digit. The appropriate changes, following this approach, are in the legislation and apply to various sections of the Motor-vehicle Act in one instance and the Commercial Transport Act in the other instance.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in regard to these two Acts and others concerning the metric conversion, I would urge that the government try to keep in some kind of contact with what's happening in the United States. I feel that a lot of the metric conversion was pushed on us by a federal bureaucracy gone amok in its urgency. I believe that the United States is not coming along at this point in many areas at the same speed we're going in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: What speed is that - miles per hour or kilometres?

MR. LEA: Who knows? You don't even know what the weather is in the States! But I just feel that we could be running into some pretty dangerous areas, because if we're going ahead of the United States, where is that going to leave us? In order to do some of the things that are called for in this Act, even changing highway signs, and the problems in warehousing.... It's going to cost a fortune to change to the metric system.

MR. KEMPF: Tell Trudeau.

MR. LEA: Tell Trudeau? Every province jumped in with both feet as quickly as they could get there, including the government that I was in. But I'm just not sure that we're going to be ready at the same time as the United States, and we're going to be caught with our pants down in a great many areas. I would urge the minister and the government to find out what is happening in the United States in a lot of these areas so that we can co-ordinate a little more closely. I think if we follow the lead of the federal government, it's strictly in the hands of the bureaucrats and they could care less, because they don't have to pay the bills or deal with the problems. It's always going to end up back in government politically and in every other way.

I think that you really do have to check to see whether we're going at the same speed, or we could end up in a lot of trouble in a lot of different areas.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out to the minister. I think he'll understand the point - maybe no one else in the House will - but I kind of object to the way we've gone into metrification too. Instead of going to an MKS system, we're now mixing units of force with units of mass. The pound measures force and the pound measures weight. The kilogram is a unit of mass, which is universal. It's unchangeable. If you take a weight of six pounds up to the moon, it weighs one pound on the moon. But if you take a mass of one kilogram to the moon, it is still one kilogram of material. So we have a mixing of units here.

MR. LEA: We won't take it to the moon.

MR. NICOLSON: This is going to cause a great deal of confusion, really, when you try to introduce people to physics. People are going to be taught.... At least when we were working with the British system of units and you took them into something completely different, such as the metric system, the MKS system of units, they could accept this. In fact, I would like to point out to members here that really, we should be changing from pounds to newtons ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. NICOLSON: ... and not kilograms, because it is a newton ...

MR. LEA: I don't give a fig for newtons.

[ Page 4621 ]

MR. NICOLSON: . . . that measures the phenomenon of force or weight, and not a kilogram. Now that I have that off my chest, Mr. Speaker, I'll ....

MR. WALLACE: We should call them apples.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'd simply like to say that the government now has ready an extensive media campaign to describe not only to our own citizenry, but also to visitors from the United States and elsewhere, what these changes are and how they're taking place. This media campaign will cost several hundred thousand dollars. It will also be in the form of a brochure mailed out to every householder, billboard signs, TV, radio clips and so on. This will be carried out immediately on proclamation of the bill. I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 40, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 3) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, again, we're dealing with metric measurements. In this case, they're substantially weight measurements as they apply to commercial transport or trucking in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it was agreed that we would read them both again.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.