[ Page 2951 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 21). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Report and third reading –– 2951

Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 22). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2951

Mr. Levi –– 2953

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2953

Home Owner Grant Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2953

Mr. Barber –– 2954

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2955

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 12). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2955

Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 14). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2955

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 16). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Levi –– 2956

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2956

On section 23.

Mr. Levi –– 2956

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2956

Report and third reading –– 2956

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2956

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2957

Mr. Macdonald –– 2957

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2957

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2957

Mr. Macdonald –– 2958

Mr. Levi –– 2961

Appendix –– 2966

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. HALL: I'd like the House to welcome to Victoria and to the precincts this morning some visitors from Surrey. In the members' gallery this morning is Mrs. Doreen Nelson with Barry and Kim Nelson.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask for leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call report on Bill 21.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

NAYS — I

Bill 21 read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE
MINERALS REVENUE SHARING ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move second reading of Bill 22, I would like you and the members of the House to know that companion legislation, required for the full implementation of the agreement between the Fort Nelson Indian band, the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada, is being undertaken during these next few days by the governments of this province and Canada. I understood from the Hon. John Munro, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that it was expected that this bill, which is before the House in Ottawa, would be called for debate today. Because of some procedural problems associated with the order of their business, it is expected that that debate will commence early next week.

I think it important when considering this bill to reflect upon some of the history which is associated with it, in order that there may be a clear understanding of the reason for the agreement and the legislation which is before this House today. The setting aside of lands for the use and benefit of the Indians of British Columbia began during colonial days, prior to British Columbia becoming a part of Canada. It continues to the present, although most of the province's 192 bands have had the use of their reserves for at least half a century.

The Fort Nelson band of the Slave Indians, however, has occupied reserve lands in this province only since 1961. The reasons for this can be traced back to 1899, when Treaty 8 was signed between Canada and a number of the bands that occupied lands in the northern part of this province, The nomadic Fort Nelson band was not an immediate signatory to the treaty. Apparently the records indicate that representatives of the band could not be located by the federal treaty commissioners.

When the Fort Nelson band did accept Treaty 8 in 1910, the band nonetheless withheld the selection of reserve lands, even though the treaty provided for the establishment of such reserves. It was a part of the treaty that lands could be selected at any time following the acceptance of the treaty, and there was no pressure on the band to act at that particular time.

Treaty 8 is a matter which was concluded between the federal government and the Indian people. The province was not consulted with respect to the treaty, nor was it asked to share in any of the costs of its implementation. Subsequently, however, in order to fulfill its treaty obligations, the federal government sought provincial Crown lands for Indian reserve purposes, and article 13 of the terms of union by which this province joined Confederation required the new province to transfer tracts of land to Canada from time to time for the use and benefit of Indian people.

Subsequent to Confederation serious disagreements arose between British Columbia and Canada over the size of Indian reserves to be created, and as a consequence in 1912 the two governments agreed to the establishment of a commission which would attempt to settle the Indian land question once and for all. I think subsequent events have shown how difficult that task was. The commission conducted its work from 1913 to 1916, during the course of which many interim reports were issued. The question of reserve lands in the Treaty 8 area was dealt with in interim report number 91, which recommended that the province provide lands in the treaty area when requested to do so by Canada. In the meantime, however, and pending the establishment of those reserves, there were to be no restrictions on land use or alienation by the province. Whenever the Indian people were

[ Page 2952 ]

ready, they would be permitted to select the lands which they wished to have set aside as their reserves.

The Fort Nelson Indian band made its land selection known between the years 1952 and 1959. Some of the lands selected by the Fort Nelson band had, prior to their selection, alienations of interest in those lands, principally in the form of natural gas exploration leases. As a consequence, when the reserve lands were transferred to Canada for the band in November 1961 the province was obliged to retain the undersurface rights in order to fulfill its obligations under the alienations which had been undertaken — alienations, as I have indicated, which were permissible notwithstanding interim report 99 of the royal commission.

The retention of mineral rights, including rights to natural gas, petroleum and coal, was disputed by the band at that time. The matter was one of continuing discussions from time to time between the governments of Canada and British Columbia and the Fort Nelson band. Notwithstanding those discussions, no resolution was achieved.

The dispute was escalated when natural gas production began from pools located in part beneath the Fort Nelson Reserve No. 2, which is the largest of the band's reserves. I'd say that there are now two known natural gas pools which underlie this reserve in whole or in part. The Roger field is wholly beneath the reserve land while, according to petroleum technical estimates, only 7.44 percent of the Clarke Lake field lies beneath the geographical limits of reserve No. 2.

The anomalous situation in which the Fort Nelson band found itself arises from the fact that when the majority of Indian reserves, some created prior to Confederation, were formally transferred to Canada in trust for the Indians in 1938, there was no reservation of under-surface rights to the province with the exception of gold and silver, which by common law remained with the Crown.

In 1943 the difficulties which this reservation had produced resulted in an agreement between Canada and British Columbia — the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Agreement — which provided for the equal division of mining revenues between the province and the Indian bands being concluded. That agreement omitted reference to coal, petroleum and natural gas, which left open the question of the ownership of these resources. The province continued to deal with those resources as if ownership remained in the province. Canada, in part, and the Fort Nelson band in particular, continued to take the position that the resources belonged to the band.

This question of ownership and the disagreement arising therefrom continued from the late 1950s onward. In 1976 the provincial government, for the first time, gave serious consideration to the arguments which were being presented by the band and, as a consequence, late in that year and early in 1977 negotiations were undertaken in a serious effort to resolve this long-standing disagreement.

Those negotiations continued through until January 7 of this year, when I had the pleasure of attending at Fort Nelson with the Hon. Jake Epp, who was then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for Canada, for the purpose of signing the agreement that had resulted from three full years of intensive but responsible negotiations. During this period and at the first stages of these negotiations, the Indian band, represented by highly qualified negotiators, dealt directly with the provincial government and their officials, and when substantial agreement had been achieved, the matter was then addressed to the government of Canada, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Justice and their officials became involved. Following further negotiations, which included the government of Canada, the agreement was finally achieved.

The agreement itself, while complex, is, in fact, relatively straightforward. The complexity arises, Mr. Speaker, almost entirely because of the fact that the petroleum and natural gas industry — the nature of the resource — requires considerable definition and the application of formulas with respect to values. The details are unique, I think, to that industry. Taken as a whole, the agreement provides that the revenues from natural gas production from the fields which underlie the reserve are to be shared equally between the Fort Nelson Indian band and the province of British Columbia. The ownership, administration and the responsibility for management of the resource remain with the province.

The revenues are determined by calculating the volume of gas removed from the fields under the reserve. A complicated pricing formula is applied to that volume of gas, which takes into account every change in natural gas price and every change involved in the costs incurred in the production, processing and the transportation of that natural gas. The formula also takes into account the fact that some natural gas produced in this province is used domestically at one price level and some is exported at another price level. But the distinction between these two prices and the volumes of gas which can be determined or deemed to be available for export have been identified. That significant factor is taken into account in the pricing formula to ensure that the revenues, which are shared with the Fort Nelson Indian band, are in every way fair and equitable, based upon the two-price policy presently in existence.

Further than that, since the domestic price remains to a large extent under the control of the provincial government, and therefore it might be assumed that the manipulation of that price could be to the disadvantage of the Fort Nelson Indian band, provision has been made so that as the price of the product changes, both here and elsewhere, such changes are reflected in the formula, notwithstanding the fact that the government of British Columbia may maintain domestic natural gas prices at a level below the cost of production, which is the case in this province today. In effect, the share of revenues available to the band is in every sense equal to the share available to the province and to the people of this province,

I might point out one other factor which arose during the latter stages of the negotiations, which caused this province some concern. We found — and we advised the government of Canada that we found — that the Prophet River band were at one time members of the Fort Nelson band. They formally separated in 1974. Since the benefits under this agreement arose prior to that date, it was necessary to ensure that the members now in the Prophet River band would enjoy the benefits rightly due to them. This benefit has been determined by the federal government. The agreement provides that moneys are set aside for the Prophet River band.

The moneys which flow to the Fort Nelson Indian band are large. For the period from 1961, when gas production first commenced from the Clarke Lake field, until January 1, 1977, the effective operating date of the pricing formula under this agreement, calculations were made and on the signing of the agreement a lump-sum payment of $4.5 million was passed to the Fort Nelson Indian band. Up to the end

[ Page 2953 ]

of 1979, under the agreement, the band's share of gas production revenues exceeded $7 million. Depending upon the season of the year, revenues flowing to the Fort Nelson Indian band range between $200,000 and $500,000 per month.

I wish you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the government of British Columbia and the leaders of the Fort Nelson Indian band were concerned about the consequences which might befall an Indian band when suddenly presented with this treasury — riches of this magnitude. Therefore, during the discussions with the government of Canada in the final stages of negotiation, the question of the management and administration of those moneys was raised by British Columbia. We had discussions with the Indian band as to what management technique should be employed with such large sums of money, and also the extent to which the band would employ wise counsel in the expenditure of those vast sums.

I am pleased to say that the government of Canada, which has always had provision for dealing with funds which are for the benefit of Indian bands, recognized this special case. Discussions are going on between the Fort Nelson Indian band and the federal government which are designed to ensure that modern practices of financial management are employed in respect of these moneys which will be paid to Canada for the benefit of the Fort Nelson Indian band.

The Indian band itself has taken, I believe, a most reasonable view with respect to the utilization of these moneys. As the chief and the band councillors indicated to me in my discussions with them, their needs are not great and they are not in any rush to see the moneys flowing through to individual band members.

The Fort Nelson Indian band is still today somewhat nomadic, in keeping with its history. Their plans are, considering the amount of moneys which are available to them, at this time most modest. They would like some improved housing for the people on the reserve, they would like to have a modern water system, and they would like to ensure that there are facilities for the care of their elderly band members. That's about all at the moment.

They are prepared to have these large sums of money remain invested, managed and used over time for the continued development and benefit of band members today and in the years to come. With the approbation of the government of Canada, they are proposing to form a development corporation to seek the advice of qualified persons, whether they be Indian or not, in the management of that corporation, and they will seek to proceed cautiously in the use of these moneys. This is a step in which we, as the government of British Columbia, have no direct jurisdiction. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the government of British Columbia will continue to monitor the activities of this band and provide it with whatever assistance we are able to in ensuring that these funds are used efficiently and wisely in the interests of that band.

I would be anxious to hear what members of this assembly may have to say with respect to this bill. If there are matters of principle which should be answered by me in the course of this debate, I would be happy so to do. The bill is very short, and it may be perhaps possible for all those questions to be resolved to the satisfaction of members during the course of this second reading debate. I now move second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the bill and we will deal with it in committee. However, I just want to make one observation, because the minister did make reference to the.... He didn't call it the McKenna-McBride commission, but he was referring to that when he talked about looking at the reserves and the reorganization of the reserves back in 1912 to 1916. I think we should understand that this item is on the agenda of the federal government. This is a federal government initiative. Because the minister did make mention of the McKenna-McBride commission, I would hope that — probably when we talk about it in committee — it is time that perhaps the B.C. government also had its own agenda and looked to the question of the McKenna-McBride cutoff land problem, which is still very much unresolved in this province.

The minister raised it. I appreciate that we are dealing here with the few bands that are involved in treaties. The rest of the people in this province are not. But we should bear in mind that the initiative here came from the federal government. This is a complementary piece of legislation to enable that to take place. I would like to hear, perhaps later on, from the minister just what he intends to do about the other matters that are on the agenda of the Indian people,

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In closing this debate I would just say to the member that the question of the fulfilment of the several recommendations of the McKenna-McBride commission is one which is very much before the government, and I hope to have the opportunity during this session to discuss at some length with members of this House the steps which we have taken, which I don't think are appropriate to this particular bill. Certainly the question of cutoff lands is one which I'm prepared to deal with at whatever length is deemed necessary. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce guests.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am very happy that my wife, Donnie, has joined us in the gallery today, and I'm particularly happy that my daughter, Terry Brenna, is here visiting from Saskatoon. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

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

HOME OWNER GRANT ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce second reading of Bill 31, a bill to

[ Page 2954 ]

introduce a new homeowner grant. Applicants for the provincial homeowner grant will benefit from the completely rewritten homeowner grant. The previous act was poorly organized and contained many inconsistencies and ambiguities which made it most difficult to administer in a fair and consistent manner. The new Home Owner Grant Act sets out clear definitions and will enable the collectors to administer the act in a consistent fashion and thus reduce the dissatisfaction on the part of some people who've become concerned with the more or less ad hoc decisions.

Ambiguous definitions in the old legislation have led to inconsistent decisions and rulings being made between jurisdictions. We have tried in this new legislation to provide precise definitions for those items that cause concern. The new act for the first time extends eligibility for the grant to long-term lease holders, including 99-year lease owners. If an eligible apartment is leased under a lease registered in the land titles office and the lease has a term of at least 99 years, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is authorized to designate the apartment building for eligibility purposes. While most of the act comes into force and effect on January 1, 1981, provisions regarding the assignment of 99-year leases become effective January 1, 1980, so as to apply to the current year.

The new act will also increase the grant by $50, from $580 to $630 per year for persons 65 years of age and over and for eligible handicapped persons. The $50 grant increase will also come into force retroactive to January 1, 1980. The remainder of the act will come into force effective January 1, 1981.

The act also extends the principle of local autonomy by permitting the local municipal collector to determine whether or not the applicant meets the criteria for an extension of time. The collector may grant an extension of time where a person was eligible for the grant but neglected, inadvertently or otherwise, to apply. Previously, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs determined whether or not an applicant qualified. The rewritten act also removes the potential for abuse.

The act provides that no more than one grant shall be made with respect to any house or eligible apartment, and no individual is eligible for more than one grant. This rule is extended to an owner and his spouse, so that a man and wife cannot together claim two grants. Where the collector determines that the owner has received a grant to which he is not entitled, that amount becomes a debt on the tax roll against that owner's property. An applicant who knowingly or recklessly furnishes false information in the course of making an application for the grant is liable to a fine of up to $2,000.

The purpose of the provincial homeowner grant is to reduce real property tax levies by local government on residential homeowners. The act encourages home ownership and, along with the provincial revenue-sharing program, reduces the real property tax burden for local taxpayers. Since 1975, Mr. Speaker, the homeowner grant has almost doubled — certainly more than doubled in the case of those 65 years of age and over and the handicapped.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: Needless to say, the official opposition will be supporting this bill. We're especially pleased that after some years' struggle the government has now acknowledged the merit of the principle put forward by this side of the House for at least four years in a row: that owners of 99-year leases are, in fact, homeowners in every important sense, and are thereby entitled by right — and today by law to the homeowner grant.

If I may make a personal observation, one does note what a difference a year makes. I recall a year ago making this same speech at the same time and hearing claims from unnamed persons opposite that owners of 99-year leases were not homeowners at all.

MRS. WALLACE: Who was that?

MR. BARBER: I can't remember who it was.

MR. LORIMER: From which side of the House?

MR. BARBER: On that side of the House. They said that therefore they were not entitled and never should be, and the usual intimations were made of strange socialist attitudes promoting lease holders as homeowners, and therefore we should keep our mouths shut. Well, fortunately a year has made a considerable difference, and I'm very pleased that the minister who just spoke acknowledges the difference and now accepts the argument.

MR. LEA: The wrong Bill is Premier.

MR. BARBER: I guess he wants to be Premier more than ever. Nonetheless I'm very glad to see this particular provision here.

In regard again to 99-year leaseholds, I would like, if I may, to identify certain persons who are in fact significantly responsible for the inclusion of this new and long overdue principle. In 1975 David Anderson, the former second member for Victoria, as the result of the general election, turned over a file to me; he turned over the file of his work with Villa Royale, a 99-year leasehold in the capital city. Mr. Anderson was able to demonstrate the very considerable work he had done in the last six months of 1975 — and as it turned out the last six months of his term in office — putting the case that 99-year lease holders were, in fact, homeowners like any other. David Anderson, I think, deserves credit for originally raising the public debate on this issue and for originally arguing for an extension of the homeowner grant. So I'd like to recognize David this morning and give him full credit for having done that five years ago.

I'd also like to recognize people like Sharron Simpson, Shirley Rycroft, Harry Schallen, Louis Lafonte and many others who, as public citizens and as leaders of residents' groups in 99-year leaseholds across British Columbia and particularly in Victoria and Vancouver, very actively helped put the case for the establishment of this new principle which this morning will be supported unanimously in the Legislature. Sharron, Shirley, Harry, Louis and all the others have worked extraordinarily hard in the last couple of years for this result, and I would once again like to name and congratulate them for the excellent work they did in putting forward the case, in shaping the argument and finally in winning the debate that 99-year lease holders deserve the benefits of the homeowner grant, as do all other authentic homeowners in British Columbia.

I think Don Lidstone in the minister's office deserves some credit too; I'm well aware that he was heavily involved in the ministry in promoting the several drafts of this. I certainly had a number of opportunities to talk with him in the last year about various formulae and various administrative

[ Page 2955 ]

means of allowing this to happen, and I congratulate Mr. Lidstone for his excellent work on the minister's behalf in helping this go through the bureaucracy.

Finally I'd like to congratulate John Taylor in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, who, once again as a senior public servant, has been heavily involved, for at least two and a half years since we first put the case to him, in determining what lawful initiatives could take place. As the minister knows, as he and I discussed on several occasions, and as the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows — we discussed it before as well — it's a difficult matter to designate precisely what constitutes a 99-year lease, and to make sure that people don't cheat; to make sure that people, by a quick redesignation of title, don't unfairly and unreasonably take advantage of a grant to which they're not properly entitled.

This act appears, by every test we can apply to it, to meet all of the objections that were previously raised. So I'm glad that's happened too, and I congratulate the several authors of it within the public service.

In regard to the rest of the legislation, of course, it is a sensible thing to amend the bill generally, by introduction of a brand new one in this case, to make it administratively more straightforward, clear and simple. That's a good thing and people in local government who have brought the issue to my attention are also pleased with these new changes because it makes their job easier. As members of the public service in civic government they welcome that kind of initiative because it's now, in a fashion, less contentious and a lot more clear. That's a good thing, too. For all those reasons, but especially because of the extension of the principle that the homeowner grant shall now be paid to the owners of 99-year leases, the official opposition will be supporting the bill and doing so gladly.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be very brief. The first member for Victoria raised a matter which I think should be spoken about so that there will be no doubt as to the views of this government and the opposition members with respect to this proper extension of the homeowner grant to people who, by reason of the way in which they regulate their affairs, enter into 99-year leases — a significant financial commitment to their residence. I just wish to say that the problem touched upon by the member, namely the possibility that those skilled in conveyancing matters or corporate involvement should not see this as an opportunity to gain a homeowner's grant in circumstances which might be seen to be bona fide.... To do so may have two results, both of them unfortunate. Firstly, those persons who have regulated their affairs in such a way that they bona fide have long-term leases by which they provide themselves with their home may be affected; questions may be raised as to whether or not there is bona fide in the way in which they have organized their affairs. Of course, the other equally unfortunate consequence would be that the government of the province would need to give further consideration to adjustments, regulations, limitations and exceptions to this aspect of this bill. I'm pleased to hear the first member for Victoria raise this matter. I wish to make it abundantly clear that if there are attempts on the part of individuals who are not bona fide 99-year lease holders to gain access to the homeowner grant concept in this province, I will not have the slightest hesitation in recommending to the government that steps be taken to ensure that there is no abuse of this legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 31, Home Owner Grant Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 55 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 12, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 14.

CONSUMER PROTECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 14, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16.

[ Page 2956 ]

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LEVI: I just have a question to the minister. Why is this section put in? Surely the elements of disclosure in terms of partnerships and that kind of thing are really quite desirable. As I see it, the information required from applicants regarding their partnership for registration as mortgage brokers is no longer considered relevant. Why isn't it considered relevant? Surely there's an issue here of disclosure.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry. I was unable to hear the question from the member.

MR. LEVI: The intent of the amendment is to no longer require information from applicants regarding their partnership for registration. I'm talking about the issue of disclosure in terms of any kind of business arrangement. Why is it seen necessary not to require it? Surely the business of having this kind of information is useful.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons. One is to facilitate the uniform licensing process, but the information the member speaks of is available through the companies registrar.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LEVI: I think this is referred to in the business as "the curbers amendment. " Curbers are people who sell cars outside of the car lot. They do a little curbing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Do you find that offensive?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no. He made a joke.

MR. LEVI: He made a joke. Do I laugh now?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You have no sense of humour; you probably never laugh.

MR. LEVI: The idea is that anyone that sells more than four vehicles is covered by this. Does this include the motor homes as well?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Fine, thank you.

Sections 3 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. LEVI: Regarding sections 23 and 24 and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, does the minister know of any mechanism that they have...? Would the public governors who are appointed — there are two now — report back? Are they in touch with the department in any way, or are they purely independent in that sense? Their role is to took after the public good — or is it? If it is, how does the government know what's going on if they're not reporting back? Is there no reporting system?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, there is no formal reporting system. The governors are independent of direct contact with the government. There is liaison, but in an informal way. There is no formal system of reporting.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 16, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See Appendix.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I should have said that arising out of changes in the dates of trustees taking office this amendment was necessitated and it may be that some consequential further cleaning up of dates in the act will have to follow by way of a statute amendment bill.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. SMITH: Now, with leave.

Leave not granted.

[ Page 2957 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this bill, while very short, is nonetheless one of significance in this province. Following the publication of the Keenleyside report in 1975, the recommendations in that report received wide public exposure, and it was often referred to and used as a basis for criticism of the organization of fire services in this province. One of the recommendations made by Dr. Keenleyside was that the National Fire Code should be adopted for British Columbia. Other recommendations contained in that report have already been dealt with by the government of British Columbia. The Fire Services Act which is before you today for amendment contains significant changes made with respect to the delivery of fire services in the province. This amendment is to carry into effect the recommendation by Dr. Keenleyside with respect to the National Fire Code.

I think it is appropriate at this time to point out to the members that the matter of fire protection is dealt with under two of our national codes. The National Building Code, which is in effect throughout most of this province, establishes the standard of fire safety for the construction of new buildings and for the reconstruction of buildings, including extensions, alterations and upgrading, to remove unacceptable fire hazards. It ensures that buildings have proper exit and entry accesses, that interior finishes have maximum flame-spread ratings, that sprinkler systems and fire detection alarm systems are installed, and that life safety systems are also installed in cases where they are deemed necessary.

The National Fire Code applies to buildings in use. It ensures that fire and life safety systems installed under the National Building Code are maintained and will perform as they were originally intended. In addition, the National Fire Code establishes a standard for prevention, containment and fighting of fires originating outside buildings, which may present a hazard to the community, and sets standards for the transportation of flammable and combustible liquids.

In the adoption of the National Fire Code for use in this province, it is considered necessary and desirable that certain significant adjustments be made to the National Building Code which will meet the requirements of the various areas of British Columbia and will accord with the Fire Services Act and the changes in fire services which followed the adoption of that legislation. This amendment which is before the House today will ensure that in the adoption of the National Fire Code the fire commissioner and members of his staff, under the Fire Services Act, will be able to modify the national code to the extent that is required to suit the needs of British Columbia.

Also significant in the amendment, and included in the adaptation of the National Fire Code to British Columbia's purposes, will be the provision of a right of appeal, which we consider to be necessary in view of certain inadequacies that we perceive in the appeal provisions in the national code. I think it is important in the continuing adjustment of fire code standards for the province, as the need for changes arises and changes are made, that the system of appeal be improved.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the Attorney-General pay some tribute to Hugh Keenleyside in the course of his remarks. I am glad his report has not been forgotten. I had almost forgotten it myself, but I remember very well what an excellent report it was. The questions we have on this particular bill we will ask in committee.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's in report stage? It can't be.

We will allow second reading to go through — without, I may say, calling a division. Anybody else who calls one does so at his own risk. [Laughter.] I already interrupted my breakfast this morning. Our trenchant questions will be reserved for the committee stage of this bill, after we have read it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate on second reading — and it has been an enthusiastic debate [laughter] — I think it is only appropriate to have it recorded that the Keenleyside report was commissioned when the second member for Vancouver East was the Attorney-General of this province. I think it is significant, having commissioned the report and having given very careful consideration to it since it was published in 1975, that he should not know that all of the provisions and recommendations of the report have now been adopted into law in this province and that this is the final step. I am sure that between now and committee stage the hon. member will have the opportunity to refresh his memory.

I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 25, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there was some small confusion regarding Bill 20. I now ask the Minister of Education: when will the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 18, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980. If we conclude that one, we'll be moving to Bill 9.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, although these amendments to this act are primarily housekeeping, they are very important to the administration of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. They can be highlighted under the categories of confidentiality of files, obligations of licensees, selling of preclearance or trafficking in preclearances, appeals, the right to search for and seize liquor, and inspection of agents' warehouses.

Under the topic of confidentiality, one of the sections will provide the branch with guidelines with respect to confiden-

[ Page 2958 ]

tiality of its files and records. At the present time there are no rules. The branch and the employees of the branch are often faced with many difficult decisions as to providing information and to whom it should provide information, primarily from licensees, lawyers, accountants, consultants, researchers, the media and the general public. By establishing rules, we hope to ensure that relevant information will be more accessible, and that sensitive, private or confidential information will be available only to proper authorities.

The obligations of persons who obtain special licences are also clarified in these amendments. Every year about 45,000 persons obtain these licences, and it has not been clear in the past that such licensees would have the same obligations as a permanent licensee. Amendments also define breweries, wineries and distilleries as licensees.

Mr. Speaker, we have clarified the appeal procedures. In the past we found considerable confusion on the part of persons holding licences as to whether they should appeal to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission or to the minister, and the amendment removes the confusion, we hope.

Trafficking in preclearances is a problem addressed by the amendments. The addition of a subsection clarifies that a preclearance obtained by an applicant — presently this would be most typical in an application for a neighbourhood public house or cabaret — is not transferable without the approval of the general manager.

Another area where change is required is in the rights of the branch with regard to agents and their warehouses. Because of changes in policy which now permit agents to warehouse liquor for sale through the liquor distribution branch, it's necessary to have specific powers for the branch to inspect such facilities.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Searching for and seizing liquor is a potentially sensitive area, one which requires close attention. The amendment clears up a jurisdictional problem between the general manager and the provincial court.

This section also applies when liquor has been seized and no charges have resulted. Formerly a person whose liquor had been seized could apply either to the general manager or the provincial court. Questions have been raised as the propriety of such an application being made to the provincial court when no charges have been laid. This amendment solves the problem and also simplifies the procedure.

Another amendment regarding the authority of a peace officer to search for and seize liquor is a redraft of the existing provision and provides that a peace officer may search anywhere, except a residence, without a warrant. Under the present legislation officers of the branch are empowered to search an individual if they suspect he is in illegal possession of alcohol. The amendment limits that power to peace officers. We feel this is strictly a law enforcement function.

Mr. Speaker, those are the highlights of our amendments. I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this should be called the "bad old days bill" — you know, a return to the slush funds of the liquor interests, Colonel MacGuigan and his secret hearings, Anscomb with his winery and Gordon Wismer with his liquor graft. That's what we're talking about in this bill.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Are you going to go further back than that?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. The former Attorney General could not hold his liquor, just as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) couldn't hold his liquor. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) could not hold his liquor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are on Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: This bill simply extends the Socred system in two areas. First you pull down the blinds of secrecy over the liquor application process and, secondly, you reinforce this kangaroo procedure whereby appeals — only one kind of appeal and that is the appeal from denial of the liquor administration of a licence, say, for a neighbourhood pub — can come to the minister's desk. If it happens to be somebody that should get it, in the opinion of that minister, he gets it. This is reinforcing, in a small particular, the commissar-like powers of the minister to grant liquor licences in his own office. Their capital value might be hundreds of thousands of dollars before too many years pass by. We're not talking about small change here.

Now let me step back and say what has happened in the last three or four years. When the NDP were government, we set up a body called the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. It was not only to hear appeals in matters like the Vancouver Stock Exchange and that kind of a listing, but it was to hear appeals under things like the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which was changed and divided into two parts. That commission was headed by Leon Getz in the early days, and all members will know that they hold regular legal hearings. They publish reasons for their decisions and they've established a body of jurisprudence of which the province of British Columbia, I think, should be proud. But when the Social Credit administration came into power, they very quickly — well, it took a couple of years.... Under the then minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), they made a little change to that procedure. They said that sort of open, fair hearing before the Corporate and Financial Services Commission was fine, except if you wanted to appeal against the denial of a permit to run a neighbourhood pub, to get a lounge or that kind of thing. They'd say: "If you feel aggrieved by that, don't appeal to the open hearing of the commission. Go right into the minister's office and see if he recognizes you. "

That section of the act is now being amended again in a small particular, as the present minister honestly points out. It's merely to add that the appeal to the minister is in relation to a process in the licensing process, and I suppose that refers mostly to the pre-clearance letter. If you can get a pre-clearance letter, you're on your way to the bank. I'm going to give you chapter and verse of just how that can happen and how it is happening in this province at the present time.

In terms of the confidentiality section of this act, no person who is, or has been, a member of the liquor administration branch shall be compelled to disclose information. It's a drawing down of blinds about information relating to the granting of liquor licences and permits, which is coming at a very strange time, but which is perfectly consistent with the Social Credit philosophy that what we do best we do in

[ Page 2959 ]

secret. One might very well ask why this kind of information should not be open, as it would be on an appeal to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, and as it would be on these appeals to the minister's office, which are supposed to be open but are really not. How can they be, when you just go into the minister's office? You used to go into the present Minister of Health's office — somebody's been turned down and he can grant it. It's the power of a commissar, and the power to reward friends and punish enemies. That's the power that can be exercised on the sole discretion of the minister without any kind of a judicial process, without reasons being given. Why draw down the blinds of secrecy, having already abolished the appeal process in respect to rejection of these permits? Why shouldn't that information be open, Mr. Minister, if you have — and you say you have — an appeal process?

I'm making the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) uncomfortable, and I'm going to send him a snorkel. We'll flood your valley, too, you know.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's what the socialists wanted to do in 1963.

MR. MACDONALD: Let that go. That was not on the bill, Mr. Speaker.

If you say in this bill that you have a proper appeal process in respect to applications for a licence — a neighbourhood pub, a marine pub, a lounge — why do you have to pull down the blinds on releasing all of the information that's relevant to that appeal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of Gordon Gibson coming back?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the reports of my coming political demise have been somewhat exaggerated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) come to order, please. Thank you very much. All hon. members, the second member for Vancouver East has the floor on Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to designate myself if these people don't be quiet. I'll run right over my time, not because of my own words, but other people's.

Now, we've got a real funny one in this bill. What do you call it, the Wismer bill? The Col. McGugan bill? The slush fund bill? The B.C. Free Enterprise Education Fund bill? It gets the funds in nicely, eh? Nobody knows anything about it and you draw down the blinds. You say you have a fair appeal procedure, but then you want to foreclose on information. You don't even want any past employee of the liquor administration branch talking about an application and saying: "That was not handled properly. That one was partiality." Well, that's what we're talking about.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Which pub are you speaking of?

MR. MACDONALD: I'll come to one specific instance before I finish.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope you do. Was it 1975 or 1976?

MR. MACDONALD: It was 1978 — the Grammas marine pub at Gibsons. I want to know what Grammas knew in the granting of that licence that the other applicants for that licence didn't know. I'll come to that.

So, Mr. Speaker, in 1975 there was a full and fair appeal to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission — an open appeal — and the NDP instituted that. You are now extending the secrecy of the process and the discretionary powers of the minister to decide these matters, which inevitably — and I'm not attacking the minister in a personal way; he's new in this — is going to lead to the power to punish enemies and reward friends. That's what we're talking about in this particular bill.

The minister says: "Let's have an example.'' I'll give an example. When the former minister, who is now the Minister of Health, was the appeal body under this act, and was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a family by the name of Janowsky applied for a neighbourhood pub at Gibsons Landing in the province of British Columbia. They were from Kamloops and they were strangers to the Sechelt Peninsula. They were not strangers to the minister. They applied under the name of All Sports, and it later became Grammas Marine Inn Ltd.

I am not talking about a case where Mr. R. Dale Janowsky, former and perhaps future partner of the Minister of Health, was the advocate or counsel; I'm talking about his seeking this licence in his personal capacity along with members of his family, Richard Janowsky and Etna Janowsky. There were two problems about the application that had been made by Janowsky at Gibsons Landing. The first problem was that they couldn't get a neighbourhood pub because the rules of the neighbourhood pub forbid the grant of an application when it's too close to a highway — the minister would know about that part — and also when it's within a mile of another certain kind of liquor outlet. Already in Gibsons, within a mile, you had Cedar's Inn up the top of the hill and you had the Legion. So the application of the Janowskys could not be granted.

I should add one other thing. There were also three other applicants for that licence. The community wanted a neighbourhood pub in Gibsons and there were three other applicants. As far as I know they were local people; I know one at least was local.

So the Janowskys had a problem. The problem was miraculously solved by a change in the regulations; that change in the regulations made it possible for them to get their licence. It came in the form of an order-in-council of April 20, 1978, signed by Hon. Mr. Mair, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Premier. It established an entirely new category of pub which could be granted at Gibsons Landing, called marine public houses. It established the way in which you applied for a marine public house.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, although great latitude is allowed in second reading, could you please relate to the assembly how your statements relate to Bill 18, the bill before us now?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm opposing the secrecy provisions of Bill 18 and I'm giving an example of the kind of

[ Page 2960 ]

thing that could be covered up. It should be brought to public attention. This is an example of an application that would be made under the same act and which would be covered by the "confidentiality provisions" of the new bill.

So they established the marine public house at Gibsons and across the province. Miraculously — just like the bread and fishes which were miraculously produced in such a short space of time — the Janowskys' application for the new marine public house was granted within five days, and the other applicants are still out there wondering whatever happened to their applications; they didn't hear a word. The Janowskys' application was granted in terms of a preclearance — and I'll come back and tell you what the preclearance is if you have any confusion about that, Mr. Minis ter. I'm talking about a preclearance letter which went out from the liquor administration within five days of the passage of the order-in-council and before it was even published in The British Columbia Gazette, which didn't take place until May 9, 1978. What I'm asking is: what did Grammas know that the others didn't know? How in the world could they make an application of that kind unless they had friends at court?

Under the new complicated provisions of this order-in-council which require for a marine pub — no minors permitted.... Some of the things are fairly open and straightforward. The seating is a little different; I think it's 85 here rather than 95 for the neighbourhood pub. But you have to have facilities for moorage of boats; food; ice; fishing tackle; basic marine provisions; laundromats and laundering facilities; adequate hot and cold showers for men and women. I would think that somebody who's going to apply for a new marine pub which wasn't in existence until April 20.... No such thing could be applied for, because there wasn't one. That order-in-council, I suppose, was registered the following day with the registry and not even published until May 9, 1978. I would think that somebody who got advance notice of that order-in-council could get together an application form with all these complicated things — the new requirements for a marine pub — and maybe get it into the liquor administration board. I don't know whether they'd mail it, because the mails would hardly allow you to get your application in and your preclearance letter out within five days. That's blinding speed. But the other three applicants, residents of the Sechelt Peninsula, didn't know of the new order-in-council, so they could hardly apply, could they?

The preclearance letter went out with blinding speed, as I said, within that period of four days. That was the ball game. Grammas' application was investigated over a period of more than a year and finalized by a grant in 1979, when the licence was finalized. The point is this: the preclearance letter, issued in very mysterious circumstances within that short period of time — to get the complicated application in and then have it immediately acted upon in a preclearance letter — was the ball game. When they had that and they appeared before the local council at Gibsons, they were the only ones....

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: You asked for an example. He's giving it.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, he asked me earlier to give an example. I'm giving it to you in spades.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, that's not an example. There was no appeal, which is apparently what he's concerned about.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm concerned about secrecy.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I see. You've changed your tune.

MR. MACDONALD: On both.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, all hon. members, please. The second member for Vancouver East has the floor and we are debating Bill 18. It would be appreciated if we could stay within the content of Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, if you get what's called a preclearance letter on your way to getting your application accepted, in the circumstances of this case, I say that was all you had to have to put your rival s out of business. What happens, as the minister knows, is that it has to go to the municipal council of the area. But the municipal council had its hands tied by what this administration had done, as is pointed out by Ted Hume. This is from the Peninsula Times of June 21, 1978, shortly after the new order-in-council: "Planning Committee chairman Ted Hume noted in his motion that the Janowsky application is the only one of four such requests thus far to have received the required liquor administration board preclearance." That was the preclearance issued with blinding speed — when they couldn't get a neighbourhood pub and the regulations were changed to one they could get. "The Janowsky application that was stated was the only one we could act on." That's what they said in council.

With leave, may I allow an introduction to interrupt my speech without losing my place?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I appreciate the hon. second member for Vancouver East giving me the floor to allow an introduction of a school from Surrey. We have with us the J.T. Brown Elementary School and their teacher, Miss Donna Bodner. I would ask the, House to welcome all the students from the J.T. Brown Elementary School.

MR. MACDONALD: I hope I didn't lose my place, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that hon. minister would play that kind of a trick and get me sort of grounded on that kind of a thing.

You know, the procedure all sounds great. You've got to not only get your preclearance from the liquor administration, but then you have to go before the municipal council. But as they point out very clearly in the Gibsons council, the guys who wanted a facility and came along with the only preclearance were the Janowskys, so they got it. They got the approval of the council.

MR. KING: Do you think the minister recognized his former law partner?

MR. MACDONALD: In fairness to the minister, I

[ Page 2961 ]

should give his position. In the Victoria Times of May 16, 1978, when he was asked about this matter — it had been raised earlier — the minister, your new-found colleague of five years ago, said that he has not been associated with the law firm since December 1975, and at no time exerted any influence on the granting of the preclearance. He said he was not even aware of the application. His partner was applying for this licence and he was not even aware of it. That's the statement of the former minister from Kamloops. But then he's a little more aware later on, on May 13, 1980: "Mair meanwhile suggested that there was nothing mysterious about the pub licence. He said there were a lot of applicants waiting around for the regulations to be changed to permit marine pubs. Janowsky was just the first to pounce.''

Grammas pounced first. But apart from who put the tiger in Grammas' pounce, and what Grammas knew that the other applicants didn't know, because they didn't even receive the courtesy of a visit from a liquor administration inspector; they didn't know the regulations had been changed; they were not informed of the change; the Gazette — if they read it — had not come out.... Grammas pounced and got the marine pub licence, and the minister knows nothing about it. Every once in a while he visits his former partner in Kamloops — I would say probably, in terms of the firm, his once and perhaps future partner — who is a political crony. And he knew nothing about it!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. second member for Vancouver East could relate the debate to Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: As suggested by the minister, I am giving an example — not of the appeal process, because in the area of granting a permit there is no appeal; it is only when one is refused that there can be an appeal. I am giving an example of a subject area where we should not pull down the blinds and pass this so-called confidentiality section.

The former minister — who was the minister in charge at the time Grammas got its preclearance letter — is a member of the law firm of Mair, Horne, Janowsky and Blair, and had been a partner of Janowsky for many years. Talking about this kind of application, I don't mind saying quite frankly that I do not think a minister of the Crown — even though he has severed connections — should still have a law firm out there which is using his name, because people assume that that is a government law firm. The administration assumes that that is a government law firm. They used to say something about "justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. " I am glad to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) took his name off. I got right out too. I think it is wrong....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on a Consumer and Corporate Affairs act, Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but this application was made by this firm with the minister's name on it, and people would assume that that is a little different kind of an application when it comes in that way. In terms of the range war that the lawyers fight in Kamloops for legal patronage, do you know how much Mair, Horne, Janowsky and Blair got in the last three years from this government? Two hundred and ninety thousand dollars. Oh, they lost the federal battle for the patronage, the legal spoils, the prosecutions and all of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about John Brewin?

MR. MACDONALD: That may be a funny one too, but I am talking about this one. I don't know about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members, we have to return to second reading of Bill 18 and the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. MACDONALD: Anyway, do you remember how they fought for the federal Liberal patronage in Kamloops — how they fought and Mair lost out?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, Bill 18.

MR. MACDONALD: He won hands down in the provincial lottery for legal assistance, through your department, Mr. Attorney-General. I know some of it was Legal Services Commission. I'll give you the figures — five times as much as any other firm got.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on Bill 18. Our standing orders indicate that we must be relevant when we are discussing matters before us in the House.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was looking at the Attorney-General and I thought for a minute that we were examining his department, but we haven't quite reached that stage.

Anyway, whose name led all the rest? The minister who knew nothing about it, eh?

Mr. Speaker, I am serious when I say this bill is a return to the bad old days. I don't think there should be secrecy in a field which is as fraught with the possibilities of corruption as liquor. I think there has been nothing in our province — and other provinces; Nova Scotia or wherever you turn — which has more corrupted the political process than liquor, secrecy and campaign donations. In the case of Nova Scotia, they directly paid the Premier himself an additional amount over and above his salary while he was Premier — bought him. Well, they didn't buy him. I'm not attacking his integrity. He is a friend of mine, if I may say so.

I do attack this kind of drawing down the blinds in an area of this kind. We thought for a while that we had got away from the bad old days, but I have seen them creeping back under this administration. To pass this present bill, which contains these sections which are euphemistically called confidentiality but which in fact say to the public servants, "Don't whisper a word about anything that is happening in the application process," and to enhance and enlarge the powers of the minister to allow people to appeal to him in his own office, where the hearing is without reasons, to enlarge those powers rather than have the appeal to a public body which gives reasons for its decisions, is a retrograde step and a very dangerous one for this province to take.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just want to, for your

[ Page 2962 ]

interest, quote the section on confidentiality in the bill, and then make some general comments in respect to that. It says:

"1 No person who is, or has been

(a) an employee of the branch, or

(b) engaged in the administration of this act or the regulations shall be compelled to disclose any information contained in records of the branch respecting the licensee or any applicant for a licence, except

(c) where the disclosure is necessary to administer this Act or the business of the branch,

(d) where the disclosure is made with the consent of the licensee or applicant to whom the record relates,

(e) in court proceedings, or

(f) where the general manager authorizes disclosure."

Mr. Chairman, for some years the Liquor Control and Licensing Act has not really had a section in there. That section seeks to amend section 4 of the present act, which reads:

"(1) Officers and other employees required for the purpose of this act may be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act.

"(2) The general manager shall issue written directives to the officers, and a directive affecting the public shall be made available for public inspection at the offices of the branch."

That's all the present act says, and now we have the minister bringing in a rather detailed section. I think that we might well ask, and have the minister explain to us when he closes debate, just what the purpose of this is, because people who work in the liquor branch, as the section says, "may be appointed pursuant to the Public Service Act." Within that act are requirements by all public servants in respect to the job and the nature of confidentiality and what their obligations are. But in this particular amendment that I'm dealing with the minister has taken the trouble to spell it out; he's gone to some trouble to point out to public servants that no information has got to be made available unless under the certain circumstances that are outlined in the amendment. Why has it suddenly become necessary to have this particular amendment to the bill, given that as far as we know the operation of the branch has not had problems in terms of leakage of confidential information?

Now we're dealing, Mr. Speaker, with an industry which is worth well over $500 million, and I think in this fiscal year a little over $500 million; last year it brought in to the government some $262 million. It's an exceptionally high profit industry. I think it's part of the confounding problem that governments have, because on the one hand they operate the liquor industry and on the other hand they're also responsible for health matters relating to alcoholism, and there is always the argument of the conflicts about how far you go with selling liquor and how far you go with trying to combat the problem of alcoholism due to the sale of liquor. Well, that one has never been resolved — it has not been resolved by this government or the previous government — but it's one of those conundrums that one day we're going to come head on and face.

Now we must have some very serious concern about the issue of confidentiality, and the reason I raise this, Mr. Speaker, is that generally speaking we don't know a great deal about the operation of the liquor administration branch. Now I know that they do publish an annual report. The latest annual report which was tabled in the House for April 1, 1978, to March 31, 1979, has an item on page 2. It says:

"Communications division. After many years of maintaining a low profile, the branch entered into a formal information program during the fiscal year with the establishment of the communications division. The objectives of the new area were to provide the branch's public with timely, consistent and appropriate information on the role of operations of the branch, and to improve morale and increase staff awareness of the branch's objectives and job responsibilities.

"To meet these internal-external information needs, programs were developed to communicate with customers, including licensees, branch employees, the news media, other government agencies, suppliers and agents, special interest groups in industry and trade and associations."

The only group that's missing from there is the legislators. However, we can, I presume, go over there and talk to the various people in the liquor administration branch about what they're doing. They're not given, at the moment anyway, to a great deal of information in writing. The number of press releases that group issues is very small.

The annual report talks about an attempt for a great deal of openness. They've got an education program and a communications program going. They're going to inform everybody within the bounds of the existing act, and presumably once this particular section is passed there'll be other information. But there will be a tendency, I think, when this legislation is passed, for the giving of information to be a little more restrictive. It may very well be that the minister might argue that the reason this amendment is being brought in on the issue of confidentiality is because for the better running of the business of the liquor branch and the various companies that deal with the liquor branch, and because of business competition, it's desirable. Well, I don't particularly subscribe to that argument. One of the great debates that goes on in the corporate sector is the whole business of disclosure: how much information needs to be made available to the public in terms of corporate operations? There is always a great deal of curiosity about the amount of information that should be available in respect to the liquor administration branch and to the various corporations that deal with liquor. We had, some weeks ago, a rumpus in respect to Mr. Nick Clark, where certain allegations were made — albeit in the press — in respect to Mr. Clark's role of having a crimp put in it because of what he was doing in terms of the operation of the liquor administration branch.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's not only difficult, but it's going to be impossible; I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has established that position. If we pass this legislation there is going to be a great deal of secrecy about what takes place in the whole operation of liquor in the private sector and in the public sector in this province.

I want to give you an example. In the state of Washington they publish a report. This is the Washington State Liquor Control Board for roughly the same years — July 1, 1978, to June 30, 1979. This is the report that we publish here and this is the report that they publish down there. What's in here that is missing from our report is perhaps the kind of information that this amendment envisioned will never be made available. I want to point out to you that after giving a complete

[ Page 2963 ]

rundown on how much money they make, where the money is made — in what particular towns, through what particular outlets.... Of course, they have a government revenue sharing program down there between municipalities, counties and the government.

At the end of the book there is a very detailed summary of all of the companies that do business with the government and all of the agents that deal with the government, how many cases of liquor are bought and from which groups. In fact, you have all of the information that you really need to know and that we do not know about in this province unless we go seeking the information. It's not a question of seeking the information. The state of Washington make it available as a matter of course in their report. There are always great debates going on behind the scenes in the liquor industry about agents and their competing for shelf space and the kind of products that they would like to have on. It's possible to analyze in the report from Washington state whether anybody has a pre-empted position in terms of the role with the government and how much they get on the shelves, but we don't know that in British Columbia. We've had a history in this province of dealing with the liquor industry at arm's length, publicly and privately, in a kind of embrace.

The whole history of this province, from after the First World War right up to the middle of the 1950s, is a series of allegations and innuendos about the role of liquor and the power that it has in terms of influencing government. There were great debates in this Legislature and commissions were ordered in this Legislature to look into the whole question of how the liquor industry operates. Certainly since 1950 we've had two royal commissions. We had, I think, the Stevens commission and then we had Judge Morrow's commission, but at no time did those commissions deal with the kind of issues that appear to be involved in this particular amendment confidentiality.

I said it at the beginning of my remarks. Why does the minister find it necessary to bring in guidelines as to how much the staff can tell either the public or individuals? Why has that suddenly become necessary? Is the government getting ready to produce a book like this, a report like the state of Washington report, which gives all of the details of all purchases and transactions almost to the minutest detail? They talk about the companies, the kind of wine they sell, the size of the bottle, how much money was made, what it cost for the case. They talk about markup; now there's a question. Confidentiality — what is the whole issue here in the markup question? There have been some accusations made by the industry in general that the markup on liquor in this province is too big. We had the second member for Vancouver East a few weeks ago in this House talk about the seven increases in beer. That interests a large number of people out there. There are also other increases. Last year in Ontario there was a debate put on by the industry in respect to the excessive marking-up of liquor in Ontario.

If we are to move towards confidentiality — I suggest, in respect to the corporate sector, you can read "secrecy" for I "confidentiality" — then we're going to have a great deal of difficulty finding out the nuts and bolts of the liquor operation in this province. It is important that we know about this because it's a big industry — a half a billion dollar industry at least. That's just on the revenue for a year. It represents a significant amount of money for the government in terms of its revenue. Something of the order of almost 6 percent of the total budget of revenue to this province comes from liquor. If we're to move towards confidentiality, then we have to be suspicious as to what it is they're attempting to cover up.

A few months ago an announcement was made by the Quebec Minister of Justice. I just want to read what this says. It was published in the Montreal Gazette on January 26, 1980. The story is headlined: "Twenty-five Firms Accused of Bribing Liquor Board Employees."

"Twenty-five distilleries and spirits and wine importers were charged yesterday with paying bribes totalling almost $1 million to employees of the Quebec Liquor Board and its predecessor, La Régie de Liqueur du Quebec. The affidavits filed by the Quebec Provincial Police alleged the payments were made between 1965 and 1977. The board operates about 200 liquor stores across the province. The Régie was phased out in 1971."

Now the companies. Alberta Distilleries Ltd. was charged — they list a number of other companies. Nearly all of them are doing business in this province. We have been told, although I don't think it was in this House, by the Attorney-General that information was sent by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Quebec to every province in Canada relating to some kind of problem in respect to this particular issue — I think it was called kickbacks or bribes. As I understand it from the information I have, this matter is under consideration by the Attorney-General's ministry here. When they did a series of raids on these various companies, they picked up information which indicated that this particular problem of bribes did not just stay in Quebec. It went across the country — to Ontario. In the last four or five months Ontario has had a number of officials from their liquor branch in court. They were fined heavily for accepting various considerations.

Nobody's suggesting at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, because we don't have the information from the Attorney-General as to whether the information is based on anything.... Nevertheless, we have always had in this Legislature and in the general public a great deal of suspicion as to how that industry operates, and its relationship with governments. We don't have in this province, unfortunately, a large number of people who chronicle the history of this province, so the public is not generally aware of the kind of role that the power of the liquor industry, particularly because of what was referred to in those days, I suppose, as bootlegging in the United States....

We became a major source of supply for the United States. We operated some of the largest and fastest well-armed boats that used to deliver liquor to the United Sates. There was a constant war being fought within this province by the police and the customs to prevent this kind of thing happening. Tragic events took place as a result of this kind of operation that was going on in the 1920s and 1930s, up until 1934 when the Volstead Act was repealed in the United States and that kind of problem went out of the window. Nevertheless. a large number of people were able to make substantial fortunes. Those companies were the subject of a royal commission inquiry in 1928 under excise and revenue.

In 1928 there was a royal commission. They came to British Columbia and they called all of the people that ran the liquor industry as witnesses. Unfortunately — and my friend the former Attorney-General is laughing — I tried to get a copy of the transcript of that hearing and I couldn't get it. I'm still trying to get a copy of the transcript from the National Library in Ottawa. They had all of the liquor owners in the

[ Page 2964 ]

1920s before this commission. An excellent man was doing all of the cross-examination for the government, a Mr. Rowell, who was famous for the Rowell-Sirois report. I can't find that yet. I was, looking at the newspaper clippings and I began to realize how powerful liquor industries were and how influential they were in the operation of every govern ment of that day, never mind just this one.

That's the kind of history that we started with in this province. As we go on, we know there were allegations, court cases in respect to where parties get their money, resignations and prison sentences. Al Williams told it all in his trial that took place.... What we look for....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Williamson.

MR. LEVI: I beg your pardon. I'm sorry, I obviously upset the Attorney-General. Yes, you're quite right. It was Al Williamson, who is in no way related to the present Attorney-General or to the former Minister of Lands and Forests.

There are always hints about it, partly because there's a tendency to be secret. Having all of this knowledge, the minister responsible for the department comes into the House and tells us that he wants to amend the bill, restricting the degree of openness that can exist with public servants. This is already covered by the Public Service Act anyway. He spells it out and I'm very curious as to why he's spelling it out.

The minister issued a press release on April 30 and he starts off by saying: "Amendments to remove ambiguities and deficiencies in B.C. liquor laws were introduced in the Legislature today. Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister James Nielsen, who is responsible for liquor control, licensing and distribution, outlined several major highlights of the legislation." I didn't get the impression when the minister introduced the bill that they considered these to be major highlights. I thought he indicated they were a little bit of housekeeping.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

He continues: "Rules of confidentiality of branch files will be established to ensure that relative information will be more accessible and that sensitive material is available only to the proper authority." What has changed in the operation of the liquor administration branch for the minister to spell this out? What really has changed? Is he telling us that certain information he wants to get from companies has never been available, or is he saying that information that the various corporations wanted was not available for them because the ministry wouldn't allow it? What does it mean? What is this exchange or reduction in the availability of information?

It's fair comment to say to the minister that this is not just a housekeeping change. If there was a problem, tell us about it. Did you require certain information from liquor corporations that would benefit the operation of the liquor branch? Did our taxation department require information so that they could get an adequate understanding of what was taking place in respect to the payment of taxes? After all, it's not just the provincial government that's involved in this; it's also the federal government that has an interest. Even if the minister gives us a satisfactory explanation there's no reason for us to consider for one minute allowing this bill to pass, because all it tends to do is to restrict the availability of information.

If there's nothing to hide, there's no reason why the minister cannot give consideration to looking at a giving of information of the kind given in the state of Washington annual report. There's nothing wrong with that at all. We do not know as a matter of public information who are the major suppliers in the liquor or wine industry — whether any of the companies have a predominant position in respect to the sale of their particular wares in warehouses. We have never had a discussion in this House about what that kind of selection process is. We've had a lot of complaints, either by letter from individuals who've complained that they can't get a particular product, or occasionally we hear from a corporation that's having trouble getting the right kind of shelf space so that they would be able to move their wares in a particular way. But we don't have any of that information. Not only do we not have that, but now the minister is telling us that even less information is going to be made available.

The great debate in the corporate sector right now and also among accountants, Mr. Speaker, is the business of how you make information available. That's important. This particular section of the act can only have one ultimate result. I just want to repeat what it says. In section 2(4): "A person who is or has been (a) an employee...." "Has been" — the suggestion here is that if this passes, an offence can be committed by somebody who is no longer a public servant. But because he was an employee of the liquor administration branch.... If this section passes, it means that the arm of the law can reach out to somebody who may have been out of the government for 5, 10 or 15 years. Why? Why is it necessary?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The former Attorney-General makes a good point. It says here: "No person who is or has been (a) an employee of the branch, or (b) engaged in the administration of this Act or the regulations" — that includes the minister who is introducing the bill — "shall be compelled to disclose any information contained in records of the branch, respecting...."

I'm not quite sure what "shall be compelled" means. Is somebody going to pick him up off the street, take him into the back room, punch him out and say: "Look, we are compelling you to tell us what's going on"? The former Attorney-General, who was responsible for some of the most monstrous errors in writing legislation — he had more bills turned over by the appeal court than anybody — sits there and goes: "Harrumph!"

AN HON. MEMBER: Step outside and say that!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you talking about me?

MR. LEVI: No, he's the most recent former Attorney General. We'll call him "former Attorney-General no. 1." And then we'll talk about the others. From now on he is referred to as "numero uno." Perhaps he is feeling bad because he is now the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

I want to go back. These are the kinds of questions that the minister should be prepared for when we get into committee stage.

"No person who is or has been (a) an employee of the branch, or (b) engaged in the administration of this act or the regulations shall be compelled to dis-

[ Page 2965 ]

close any information contained in records of the branch, respecting a licensee or an applicant for a licence...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it is irregular to a degree to refer specifically to sections in second reading, where we are covering the principle.

MR. LEVI: Quite right. I appreciate what the Deputy Speaker is saying, but this particular section is a problem that we have with this bill. Inside the great cloak of secrecy — or confidentiality, but I would prefer it to read "secrecy'' — we are also looking at going way past present employees to former administrators of the act and regulators, and they can be placed in trouble. There has to be a very basic reason — that the minister has not yet told us, but I hope he will share it with us — why he suddenly needs to have this kind of legislation. We dealt with amendments to the liquor administration branch in 1977, 1978 and 1979. It was not necessary to bring in this kind of thing.

The general discussion in the community at large with respect to how business was being conducted was on the basis that there needed to be a greater openness — in terms of the government as well. We look forward to the day when the government brings in a freedom of information bill and we can really get the information. Meanwhile, we could look just over the border to another administration that is quite prepared to make the kind of information available that exists in this report. That information — and some of it that is in there — I suggest would be restricted by the intent of this legislation.

Now the minister introduced the bill; he spent very little time on this section; he talked about other amendments in the bill, but not on this one. He characterized the bill when he first introduced it as a little bit of housekeeping; he just wanted to clear this up. In some of the other bills the ministers sometimes say: "There is a little bit of a problem here in terms of definition." But the one section that he never really explained to us was the business of why it is entitled "Confidentiality."

Of course, we are prepared to take the position that it's more than confidentiality; it is in fact an infringement of the right of people to know. Now there is the big argument, of course, that always takes place — not only in this industry but in the corporate sector — as to how much information should be given on one corporation or another by a regulatory agency which could affect the balance of competition. You know, that's the kind of argument that was on some years ago in respect to trade unions versus corporations — how much information should be made available.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in an industry that is worth over half a billion dollars and next year will probably go to $550 million and in the following year to $600 million or $700 million — and probably down the road, in four or five years, the revenues will be almost $1 billion.... By then, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) will have retired from this august chamber and will be living in the south of France.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How far down the road?

MR. LEVI: Oh, possibly three or four weeks, depending on the whims of the Premier, how he's feeling tomorrow when he steps out of the bathtub. We're going to go next week or the week after.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There he is: he's giving away vital, confidential information about the government. He just gave us some information, Mr. Member; we simply have to analyze what he was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I would implore the minister, through you, to tell us what it is he's talking about when bringing in this section in  respect to confidentiality. That is absolutely essential. If we're going to have any reasonable debate on this bill, particularly in the committee stage.

We have made a number of allegations. The first allegation is that there is secrecy, that the only way that you apparently can conduct business in the liquor industry is behind closed doors. Another suggestion is that it's sometimes only friends of the government who can get advantages. Those are charges that are being made and they have to be answered.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: We're talking now about the government which compromises an amalgam of politicians who go under the title of Social Credit. Well, that's the way it is — it came together and it sticks together with glue, and it will probably fly apart the same way.

Those are two allegations. The first one is: can business only take place in this industry behind closed doors? Is that what it is — only friends of the government can get the kind of assistance that's needed in an industry? We know that if you have an opportunity to get into the industry, it's almost like a licence for printing money. Why, the Bronfmans, who are extensively in the whisky business, were very sly in a small operation two weeks ago and got rid of $2.3 billion in oil and gas shares. You know, that's just a sideline.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that your friend Sam Bronfman?

MR. LEVI: Watch it there, Mr. Member, or else I'll have you up on privilege. A joke's a joke, but that's it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Mr. Levi moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, with us today in the gallery is Mr. Ted Reeves, a stalwart citizen of Maple Ridge. With him are his brother and sister-in-law from England, who are visiting British Columbia and touring the province. I request the House to make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

[ Page 2966 ]

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

20 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled School Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 1: By deleting paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) by striking out 'until December 31 of the next calendar year,' and substituting 'for 2 years from that date, '."