1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 3047

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Buildings Corporation annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3047

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report for the year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3047

Oral Questions.

Cheque for Burnaby Meals on Wheels. Mr. Lorimer –– 3047

Logging truck load restrictions. Mr. Lockstead –– 3047

Forest employment standards for independent equipment operators. Mr. Lock stead –– 3048

Alleged chipping of quality sawlogs. Mr. King –– 3048

Victoria Trade and Convention Centre. Mr. Barber –– 3049

Eckard commission report. Mrs. Dailly –– 3049

Matter of Privilege

Alleged misrepresentations by Social Credit newsletter.

Mr. Skelly –– 3049

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 3050

Cowichan Valley PCP spill. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 3050

Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Division on section 1 –– 3051

On section 3.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3051

Mr. Mitchell –– 3051

Division on section 3 –– 3052

Report and third reading –– 3052

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

On section 7.

Mrs. Dailly –– 3052

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3053

Mr. Barber –– 3054

Mr. Lorimer –– 3056

Mr. Lea –– 3056

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3058

Mr. Cocke –– 3058

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 3059

Mr. Barber –– 3059

Mr. Hall –– 3060

Mr. Barber –– 3060

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3061

Livestock Brand Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3061

Mrs. Wallace –– 3062

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 18). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3063

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3063

Mr. Lorimer –– 3064

Mr. Levi –– 3065

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3065

Mr. Macdonald –– 3066

Mr. Levi –– 3066

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3066

Mrs. Wallace –– 3068

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3068

Mr. Howard –– 3068

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3070

Mr. Macdonald –– 3070

Tabling Documents.

Annual return for the year ending March 31, 1980 in accordance with the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, together with a report of the Authority for the preceding fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3070

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3071

British Columbia Development Corporation annual report for the year ending

March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3071

Appendix –– 3071


THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to introduce today members of the Federation of Independent School Associations of British Columbia, who are here in the precinct and gallery and met with the various caucuses: first of all, Mr. Pel, the president of the Federation of Independent School Associations and the president of the Society of Christian Schools; Mr. Philip Thatcher, co-ordinator of the society; and Mrs. Boucher, who in addition to being president of Catholic School Trustees of British Columbia is also the president of the Federation of Independent Schools in Canada. Also well known to us is Mr. Gerry Ensing, who is the executive director of the society. I would ask both sides of the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: This is one of those moments when friendliness, compassion and concern of human beings for each other manifest themselves. I'm sure the House, as it expressed it earlier, unanimously welcomes the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) back to the chamber. When he was absent we thought of him with anxiousness, and we are pleased that he's here. We hope that he stays with us, in good health, for a long time to come.

MR. RITCHIE: Just to get my feet wet, I really appreciate those kind remarks. Indeed it is wonderful to be back. Apparently I am very healthy, other than a little mechanical problem they had to sort out. I'm in good physical shape and ready for the battle again. But I think I have learned from my experience and I can honestly say that we in British Columbia must be very thankful for our medical service, our doctors and nurses. I'd like to express publicly my sincere appreciation to the doctors and staff at the Abbotsford hospital. They were just wonderful. We can all be very thankful for the marvellous medical service we have here in British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I certainly want to add my welcome to my old friend. I am glad to see him back.

I have some visitors from the Cowichan-Malahat area in the gallery today: Mr. Howard Schesser, who is the deputy director of planning for the Cowichan Valley Regional District, and his wife, Mary Ellen; Mr. Roger Stanyer, the president of Local 180 of the IWA; and Mr. Ross Davies, the third vice-president and safety director for that local. They are in the precincts today to meet with some members of our caucus to pool our information regarding health and environmental hazards.

MS. BROWN: Professor Derek Bell, the recently appointed dean of the faculty of law at the University of Oregon, is visiting with us today. He is accompanied by his wife, Jewel, who is indeed a jewel, and their three sons, Derek Jr., Douglas and Carter. I wonder whether the House would join me in bidding them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Wolfe, Bill 37, Public Service Amendment Act, 1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Oral Questions

CHEQUE FOR BURNABY MEALS ON WHEELS

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I have been attempting for some three weeks to resolve a problem in Burnaby, but to date there has been no resolution. The Burnaby Meals on Wheels submitted their budget in December 1979. Payments ran out as of May 31, 1980. Meals on Wheels are carrying on without provincial funds. Two weeks ago the minister advised me that the cheque was in the mails. A week later he said that this was not correct, but that the cheque would be in the mail very shortly. On checking today I find that there is still no cheque in the hands of Meals on Wheels.

The preamble may have been somewhat lengthy but the question is very short, Can the minister tell the House whether or not the cheque has been sent?

HON. MR. MAIR: No. I can't, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the cheque does not come out of my ministry, so I am not able to do that. I have undertaken to the member before, and I do again, to do everything I can to expedite its delivery. The member can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I'm right in saying that the cheque comes out of the Ministry of Finance and not out of my office.

MR. LORIMER: Could the Minister of Finance report to us tomorrow whether or not this particular cheque has been sent to the Meals on Wheels of Burnaby?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I heard the earlier question to my colleague, the Minister of Health, and I take the question as notice, as the member suggested. I will attempt to report to the House, or, in the interests of time, directly to the member as quickly as possible.

MR. LORIMER: I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Is the treasury so short that a community group such as the Burnaby Meals on Wheels must suffer delays in their funding in order to finance this government?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is not in order, hon. member.

LOGGING TRUCK LOAD RESTRICTIONS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister received

[ Page 3048 ]

representation from the Association of Independent Equipment Operators alleging that independent log haulers are forced by some logging companies to carry loads in excess of the maximums set by regulations?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure that I have. I don't know whether you're referring to just currently, but from time to time.... It's always a very argumentative issue, and I have received — it seems to me, last winter....What I'm saying is that I am not aware of anything in the last, say, 30 days.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Our information indicates that they have attempted to contact the minister. In any event, should this information prove to be correct, has the minister decided to act to achieve tighter enforcement of load restrictions?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure of the question; but we're always trying to tighten up on the regulations, and, of course, the Motor Carrier Commissioner dealing with licences and rates and so on...it's a continuous effort.

FOREST EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
FOR INDEPENDENT EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. In view of the fact that independent equipment operators are protected by neither the Labour Code nor the Forest Act, has the minister decided to enact minimum standards for employment of independent equipment operators in the forest industry?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is irregular, hon. member, in that it does ask for regulation, and that is out of order. If the question could be rephrased somehow....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will try the question on the Minister of Labour, who, I'm sure, understands this question.

In view of the fact that the independent equipment operators are not protected by either the Labour Code or the Forest Act, have you, Mr. Minister of Labour, decided to enact minimum standards for employment of independent equipment operators in the forest industry?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question, hon. member, is the same question. The Chair is having some difficulty in relating the proposed legislation or enactment of legislation.... Simply by making it "have decided" still indicates legislation would be required, and I must so rule.

ALLEGED CHIPPING OF QUALITY SAWLOGS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister advise what investigation or investigations he has launched into photographic evidence which was presented to him recently both by the IWA and in the Legislature that good-quality sawlogs are being turned into wood chips by sawmill operators?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member didn't present any such photographic evidence to me; he presented me with a series of pictures which showed various logs going through head rigs and no evidence whatsoever that they were going into chippers. I have asked that member and I have asked the source of those photographs that they please identify the plant to me, which hasn't been done. But there was no evidence whatsoever in those pictures that those logs were going into chippers; in fact, Mr. Speaker, the photographs showed just the opposite — that the logs were going past the chipper chute and slabs were going into it, but that the manufacturing material was not going into chippers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, along with the photographs it was explained to the minister that the allegation by workers in the mill was that those quality sawlogs were being chipped. I'm not asking the minister to evaluate that evidence. I'm asking if in the face of those allegations he undertook any investigations on site at the mill to determine whether there was validity to the charges and allegations that were made.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just stated here in the House that I have asked that member to please identify the mill for me. I've asked the source of the pictures, the IWA, to identify the mill for me. This hasn't been done, and I certainly can't investigate that particular mill unless I know which it is.

But in further answer to the member's questions, I told the member, also during my estimates, that we are continuing our investigations of the use of logs, as we have been for the last two years. This type of observation is going on.

MR. KING: Either the minister has a very short memory or a very selective one, because I have copies of correspondence directed to him by the IWA identifying the mill as Fraser Mills, which was also outlined in this Legislature. So if the minister has difficulty I think he could review his correspondence and the record of his estimate debate in the House.

Can the minister confirm that chipping quality sawlogs, and even lumber, is contrary to forest policy in this province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If the member has letters advising that this particular mill was Fraser Mills, I wish he would forward me a copy of the letter that was purported to be sent to me, because I haven't got such a letter.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the government of British Columbia — and it has been for many years — that wood should be put to the best possible use.

MR. KING: I find the minister's request somewhat unusual in light of the fact that the letter was directed to the minister with simply a copy to me. Perhaps if he'd answer his mail he would remember it. But certainly, if he hasn't seen the letter, I would be pleased to provide him with a copy of mine.

Can the minister confirm that he has recently relaxed restrictions on log exports, allowing the export of quality timber in totally unprocessed form?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, not at all. The same requirements for permits to export logs are in place now as have been in place for many years, and there has been no relaxation whatsoever. As a matter of fact, this year the level of log exports is almost identical to what it was last year and the year before.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke back to the Legislature.

[ Page 3049 ]

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his kind welcome back. I also underwent the surgeon's knife, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that only my face is distorted.

I have one other question. Can the minister advise the House what he is doing about the loss of processing jobs from chipping good timber and exporting raw logs? I understand that there is a heavy export of raw logs. It was also my understanding that the restrictions had been relaxed in response to the export committee's recommendation. The minister says that's not so. At this time of high unemployment, has the minister initiated any action to protect jobs in B.C.?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member is receiving erroneous advice. There has been no relaxation whatsoever on the export of logs. We could, if we wished, have absolute prohibition of the export of any round logs from British Columbia. I am sure that would have the immediate effect of the laying-off of quite a large number of loggers logging this material being requested for export. But there's been no change in the requirements for log exports.

MR. KING: I have a final supplementary. Has the minister decided to initiate an inquiry into the widespread allegations of the misuse of sawlogs in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think I have stated three times within about the last five minutes that we have been investigating the use of logs for the last two years. This type of spot check is going on and has been going on for a couple of years now.

VICTORIA TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. BARBER: My question is to the Minister of Finance as minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. As he will know, it was reported yesterday that the B.C. Supreme Court held as not legal the bylaw passed by the city of Victoria. This evening the city is considering whether or not to pursue an appeal of that decision and/or to proceed to a new public hearing in order to meet the technical requirements of section 720 of the Municipal Act.

I'm asking the minister whether or not he can inform the Legislature and the council today if he has reconsidered the location of the Victoria convention centre, and if he has decided that it is to be located at another site. If he could so advise us today, it would save the city a lot of trouble in unnecessarily appealing a decision or in holding a public hearing for a building which may not be located at the Reid centre after all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take the question as notice,

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Attorney-General. On May 1 the Attorney-General undertook to inform the House of the opinion he was expecting to receive from his deputy re the allegations of political interference with the Eckardt commission. I wonder if the minister is prepared to give us that opinion today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The position today remains as it was when the question was asked earlier. I have not received my advice from the Deputy Attorney-General.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it is now 133 days since the Attorney-General commissioned this report. I wonder if he could tell the House when we can expect to have this report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will share the report with the House immediately it is received.

MR. SKELLY: I rise on a question of privilege. The question of privilege relates to a deliberate misrepresentation by the Social Credit Party caucus newsletter, published on May 9, 1980, of statements I have made in the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's got nothing to do with the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I will caution hon. members. for this one time only, that the member is standing on a point of privilege. Any interruption will be dealt with exceedingly harshly by the Chair.

MR. SKELLY: The Social Credit caucus report is entitled "Government Reports." It states: "Robert Skelly, no growth member from Alberni, recently stated in the House: 'We don't want to bring any power or energy to Vancouver Island. What we do want to do instead is to conserve energy. People should use less energy: instead of turning on the light you should use a candle or coal-oil lamp.' " I have at no time made that statement in the House.

On the other hand, the statement was made by the member for Surrey, Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm at page 1468 in Hansard, March 14, 1980. I contend that this constitutes a wilful misrepresentation of members' proceedings as outlined in Sir Erskine May, nineteenth edition, page 153. We went through every issue of Hansard in which I have spoken and could find no such quotation by myself. I would like to read the section from Sir Erskine May on misrepresenting members' proceedings. It says: "Wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members is an offence of the same character as libel." It goes on to describe a commons resolution dated April 22, 1699, where that Commons resolved: "That the publishing of the names of members of this House and reflecting upon them and misrepresenting their proceedings in Parliament is a breach of the privilege of this House and destructive of the freedom of Parliament."

I believe I have a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I would therefore move that a special committee of privileges be appointed to consider the matter of the statement attributed to the hon. member for Alberni on page 4 of the Social Credit caucus newsletter entitled "Government Reports," series 1, volume 1, May 9, 1980, and that the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee to comprise eight members to be named by the special committee of selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the Legislative Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Privilege Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudicing the member's case presently presented, I will take the matter under advisement and undertake to return with a decision at the earliest opportunity.

[ Page 3050 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when the Speaker is taking this matter under advisement and during his consideration, he would attempt to get copies of the Alberni Valley Times and review the columns by the member for Alberni, which are clearly full of lies, just so that he would have the whole story about....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this stage we are not proceeding on a debate; but yes, I take the information.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would hope you would avail yourself of copies of the Alberni Valley Times and the member's weekly report from the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would gladly make all of those columns available to you, the committee, or the member if he asks for them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be the opportune time, hon. member.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period I was asked a rather detailed question by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I didn't wish to take up the time of question period today to read the answer. Could I have leave to proceed?

Leave granted.

COWICHAN VALLEY PCP SPILL

HON. MR. ROGERS: I should start off by reminding all members that I replied on June 20 by way of formal letter to the member, in which I said I would keep in touch with her. However, in respect to the alleged PCP spill in Duncan, the issue was first brought to the attention of our fish and wildlife branch a month ago, when a farmer complained that his livestock had become ill. Two members of our staff, Mr. Ken Austin and Mr. Ted Oldham, visited the site and discovered there were eight possibilities that had to be examined as a means of determining what had caused the cattle illness.

The possibilities are as follows: Was it the location of the tar field near the stream? Was it the location of the herbicide spraying program which the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway had begun approximately a month ago? Was it the location of the Canadian National Railway storage of ties near the stream? All of these ties were sprayed with creosote. Was it the wood preservative or PCP that was said to have been stored in the tank car? Was it the refuse that was associated with MacMillan Bloedel's dry-land sorting procedures? Was it the discharge from the truck-washing plant? Was it the steam cleaning plant? There are five to ten acres of dry-land storage, all paved and constantly covered with bark from logs which periodically falls or is washed into the stream. A final point is that the area is also the watershed.

After consideration of these eight possibilities, Ted Oldham and Ken Austin narrowed down the issue to three basic possibilities. These are: oil traces, PCP and fecal coliform. The results of initial tests indicated there were less than 0.1 parts per million of oil found in the stream, less than 0.001 parts per million of PCP found in the stream and surrounding areas, and 11 parts per million of fecal coliform, which is considered below normal for a stream in an agricultural area. You couldn't drink it but you could swim in it, the staff tells me; I don't know that I would want to do either. In addition to the first study, an examination was made of the level of Mr. Williams' water supply. The results were found to be 0.2 parts per million, which is below the danger level.

The results of the initial sampling state that neither oil, PCP or sewage refuse was considered to be the source of the current problem. After the results had been determined, members of the fish and wildlife branch were informed that Mr. Williams had his cattle slaughtered, and a large portion of lead content was found in the bloodstream. As a result of this, on Monday the 23rd, Bill Thomas asked Ken Austin and Ted Oldham to sample the site, including the well of Mr. Williams and the stream, for phenol, arsenic and lead. As a further check, I am informed that Mr. Austin also checked for iron and other suspended solids. It is important to note that there was a rush placed in obtaining the results for the samples. They should be coming within a week and a half. A further point worth noting is that while we must show our concern for finding the source of the unknown substance, the ministry doesn't have a magic box with which to locate the source quickly. There are over 70 possibilities, hon. member, which can be carried out, each one of which requires a sample. If we did this it would cost approximately $300 per sample. Yesterday the question of financing and samples was raised in the House. Perhaps I can add a further point. If we package the 27 parameters, referring to the possible methods of sampling in our own lab, the cost is over $107 per sample. The total cost of that becomes rather exorbitant. I think we can find out without going through all the various possibilities.

I have a couple of answers on acid rain and on the dam at Atlin but I think I'll save them for next week.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like, with leave, to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Cowichan Malahat.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: After listening to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, I'm not sure that I'm not answering the same question in indicating that the bureaucracy works in wonderful ways and we have two people working on the same problem. In any event, the hon. member asked me yesterday:

"One final question, this one to the Minister of Health. Wells in the area that I've been speaking about are only some 30 feet to 40 feet deep. In recent weeks, since this pollution occurred, water has intermittently appeared that has been brownish in colour in at least three of the walls. Yesterday, at the request of the residents, your Duncan representative came out and took water samples. The residents were told that it would be some two to three weeks before they could know whether or not the water was safe to drink. Now I'm asking the Minister of Health, as the minister responsible for the health of those people, whether or not he can do anything to accelerate those tests. "

I must say I am mystified as to where the information came from that it would take two to three weeks, because I am informed by the public health inspector that samples were

[ Page 3051 ]

taken on Tuesday and the people were advised that they had been sent to the lab and verbal response would be relayed to the officer in question on Monday next. If there is any problem or danger, immediate action could be taken. He relays to me that he has no idea where the hon. member got the idea that it would take three weeks. If the hon. member would like to give me some idea of that I would like to take it up with my staff. That kind of information should not be given out, because it is misleading. The people are entitled to know the facts.

I am also instructed that more samples will be taken tomorrow — Friday — and those results will be made known to the public health inspectors on Wednesday next.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: With leave of the House I would like to introduce some very distinguished guests in the members' gallery.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We are very honoured in British Columbia today to have Mr. Norman Campbell, who is an internationally recognized producer and director of television musical shows, and Mrs. Aileen Campbell, who has won renown in her own right as a stage producer and lyricist. The Campbells, the House will be pleased to know, have returned to their native British Columbia to write the music for "The Wonder of It All," a stage adaptation of the life of Emily Carr which will be presented by the Four Seasons Musical Theatre Society on Friday night. Accompanying the Campbells in our gallery are Mr. Peter Mannering, the artistic director of the Four Seasons Musical Theatre Society, and the theatre's secretary-treasurer, Maureen Milgram. As we all know, a growing theatre in British Columbia is of great significance in our own citizens' lives and it will be a great addition to tourism of the future. I hope all members will not only join me in welcoming the Campbells home to British Columbia but will take the opportunity to see "The Wonder of It All" when it debuts Friday night at the Newcombe Auditorium. Again I would ask the House to welcome these fine British Columbians.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN CORPORATIONS
BORROWING AUTHORITY INCREASE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland Nielsen Chabot
McClelland Rogers Smith
Heinrich Hewitt Jordan
Vander Zalm Ritchie Brummet
Ree Wolfe McCarthy
Williams Gardom Curtis
Phillips McGeer Fraser
Mair Kempf Davis
Strachan Segarty Mussallem
Hyndman

NAYS — 22

Macdonald Howard King
Lea Dailly Cocke
Nicolson Hall Lorimer
Leggatt Levi Sanford
Skelly D'Arcy Lockstead
Barnes Brown Barber
Wallace Hanson Mitchell
Passarell

An hon member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We covered this particular topic of Hydro borrowing at some length under second reading. I just wanted to go on record for reminding this House that Hydro does not seem to be accountable to anyone for its actions. Hydro operates under its own act and this borrowing bill, which will increase Hydro's borrowing from $5.6 billion to $6.4 billion overall and will constitute about three-quarters of the total debt of this province. We have had no indication from the government or from the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority on how they intend to spend these funds. Exactly where are these funds going? The Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission lines or Site C projects.... We don't know. Therefore we on this side of the House intend to vote against this section.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a small item to the attention of this House. I'm worried about what's going to happen to this money that Hydro is attempting to borrow. It involves possible expenditures or fines that may take place if the Attorney-General acts on certain requests that have come from my riding. I would like to bring to the attention of the House an application made by B.C. Hydro for permission to spray 2, 4-D....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that is entirely out of order under this section. That would possibly have been more appropriately discussed in second reading. As you know, in committee we are strictly relevant to the section and there is nothing in this section that indicates that the subject matter the member is now canvassing is at all in order.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that it definitely deals with B.C. Hydro, because B.C. Hydro is a corporation. I would like to read you the reasons I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The

[ Page 3052 ]

Chair is bound by the regulations of the House that we must, particularly in committee, be bound by the strict relevance of the section we are debating. The debate that the member was engaged upon would certainly have been in order in second reading or estimates, but not in committee at this stage.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind you that during the course of second reading I attempted to raise the matter of Hydro's use of herbicides along its rights-of-way and elsewhere, and I was ruled out of order at that time. I think we should try to be consistent, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are now dealing with nothing other than the borrowing authority under this section. We're not dealing with herbicides; we're not dealing with anything other than what is specifically laid out in this section. It is of some surprise to the Chair that this point has to be continually repeated to hon. members in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, further to my point of order, not only was I ruled out of order at that time and now you tell the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that he would have been in order in second reading, but further to that, Hydro obviously is borrowing funds for the use of these herbicides that the member is attempting to raise in this debate. It seems to me that that should be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might seem to the hon. member, but it does not seem so to the Chair.

MR. MITCHELL: If you would just allow me to read one little section, it's on this that I really feel there are grounds to debate it under this section. The corporation is going to borrow three-quarters of a billion dollars, and under the Pesticide Control Act there is a section that if there is a conviction laid by the Attorney-General they will be forced to pay a fine of no more than $2,000, and it will be laid to the corporation. I feel that if this corporation is going to borrow three-quarters of a billion dollars, the expenditure of $2,000 is a part of the discussion. Within that area I feel I'm on sound ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has allowed the member some latitude in bringing forward the point that he wanted to make, but now I must advise the member that continued discussion on that particular topic is out of order and does not fall within the confines of the section.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland Nielsen Chabot
McClelland Rogers Smith
Heinrich Hewitt Jordan
Vander Zalm Ritchie Brummet
Ree Wolfe McCarthy
Williams Gardom Curtis
Phillips McGeer Fraser
Mair Kempf Davis
Strachan Segarty Mussallem
Hyndman

NAYS — 18

Howard King Dailly
Cocke Nicolson Hall
Lorimer Levi Sanford
Skelly D'Arcy Lockstead
Brown Barber Wallace
Hanson Mitchell Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 9, Crown Corporations Borrowing Authority Increase Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 34.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1980

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 7.

MRS. DAILLY: Yesterday we had a considerable amount of debate on this section of the bill, but for those members who may not have been here and for the edification of people in the gallery, I would like to pose, once again, some of the reasons why the opposition is very concerned and intends to oppose this section of the bill.

This is an amendment to the Highway Act. As a representative of, I believe, the largest municipality in British Columbia, the municipality of Burnaby, with over 150,000 people, I am particularly concerned, as are my other Burnaby colleagues, over this section of the act, because we believe that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has taken unto himself through this section powers that never before have been given to a Minister of Highways in relation to large areas such as Burnaby, Vancouver and Victoria.

Any area with a population over 30,000 was excluded before from this particular act in terms of the powers granted to the minister. I'd just like to go over what some of these powers are which this minister has now taken upon himself.

This is to do with the matter of the designation of arterial highways. That power is now given to the minister in areas the size of Burnaby. He has now taken unto himself the right to control the construction and the maintenance of arterial highways. All the powers, previously the municipality's, to

[ Page 3053 ]

lay out, construct and maintain the highway, the minister has taken unto himself these powers.

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, he's taken the power under this section to fix a distance from a highway at which fences, buildings and other structures may be placed, including the power to order demolition of any structure along the highway.

This section appears to give the minister total zoning control at and around an arterial highway even into a municipality the size of Burnaby. As I said earlier, these powers were limited to smaller communities. This type of arbitrary zoning control by a Minister of Highways did not exist before. Yet here we have the Minister of Transportation and Highways for the Social Credit government presenting us with this section which is tucked away inside the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Not only are we concerned over the fact that he's taken unto himself these extraordinary powers, but the other great concern we have is whether he has even discussed this with the municipalities that are going to be the ones involved and concerned about this major change. It is a major incursion into the local autonomy of these large municipalities.

So our concern is right now. Yesterday we never heard from the minister. We're very interested in hearing from this Minister of Transportation and Highways if he can give us any rationale at all for taking on these awesome powers which the Social Credit government seems determined to have in so many areas. Also, I would like to know whether the minister has at any time informed the Burnaby council, the mayor, or any of the officials that he had any intention of presenting this amendment to the Highway Act to the Legislature today.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to clear up a few points that have been made. First of all, to the member for Burnaby North, I did speak on this yesterday. But I realize the opposition weren't listening and they didn't want to listen.

MRS. DAILLY: You didn't say anything, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: That, of course, is your opinion; you're entitled to that — I didn't say anything. I'll try and clear it up when....

I get quite thrilled over the point that it's secret. I don't know what's secret about the B.C. Legislature. I haven't found anything very secret about it. This is here for debate and has been on the order paper for some time, so I can't say that it's very secret.

The proposed change is to section 29 of the Highway Act. The members of the opposition are concerned that this is a move to allow designation of feeder routes for the new Annacis highway.

MR. BARBER: You're not allowed to read from notes — only in your maiden speech.

HON. MR. FRASER: I appreciate your concern and I have some detailed answers.

Members have not studied the statutes or circumstances very closely. The present Highway Act provides for arterial highways in all municipalities regardless of population, but it restricts arterials in cities and towns with a population of more than 30,000. Consequently, the present situation is that arterial highways may be, and have from time to time been, designated in Delta, Richmond and Burnaby. However, since New Westminster is a city with a population over 30,000, it has been excluded from the ability to have the province pay for and maintain arterial routes. The facts are, therefore, that if we're concerned about the Annacis highway the only city which would have to pay its portion would be New Westminster. I say to you people: is it fair that Burnaby has arterial routes paid for by the province while New Westminster pays these costs itself? I would like to inform the House that the mayor and council of New Westminster not only support the Annacis highway proposal but are also in favour of the proposed revision to the Highway Act.

The opposition members are concerned about the effects of sections 31, 33, 34 and 42. I would like to respond to these concerns one at a time.

Section 31. It should be noted that section 31 requires that there be consultation with the council before designation is proposed to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 33. This section makes the ministry responsible for control and maintenance of arterial highways. This provides for setting of speed limits, load limits and other operational requirements.

Section 34. This section give the ministry the power to carry out the bylaws of the local council. The opposition would like us to believe that this is an independent veto power, On the contrary, it is the power to carry out the wishes of the local government.

Section 42. This provides for setting of regulations for set-back of fences, buildings or structures from the highway, and also the right to direct removal of signs, shrubs, buildings, etc., for the safety or convenience of the travelling public. This is not arbitrary authority, as it may exercised only for safety or convenience purposes or where the road bed is affected. It should also be noted that it is subject to payment of compensation.

The opposition were concerned about zoning controls, Mr. Chairman. It should be noted that in these sections there is no mention of powers to zone or to create bylaws.

The points made earlier by the opposition members are irrelevant to the revision of the Highway Act, which is under consideration here today. This revision to the Highway Act provides for fair treatment to all municipalities and cities. It will enable designation as arterial highways of those routes within large cities which carry heavy volumes of traffic travelling through the city. This will relieve these large cities of the cost of building and maintaining these routes.

This revision does not in any way affect the following municipalities: Burnaby, Delta, Richmond, Surrey. It only affects New Westminster and Vancouver in the lower mainland. In any of these cities the designation of streets as arterial highways has no relevance to zoning. It supports and makes effective local bylaws on any streets this ministry takes over. It enables the province to adequately meet its responsibilities.

I think it is not only fair but also essential that New Westminster, for example, be treated the same by the province as neighbouring Burnaby. This will, for example, allow the province to take over the maintenance of the Queensborough Bridge in New Westminster. I might say, that is a costly item to the city of New Westminster. As I recall, at one time that bridge was partly looked after by the province and then it was turned over to the city. The maintenance and upkeep of the bridge is expensive. Under this

[ Page 3054 ]

amendment they would be relieved of those costs. While I appreciate the concern of the members of the opposition, I don't think their concerns are warranted.

MR. BARBER: I know the minister appreciates some of our concerns, but apparently he doesn't appreciate all of them. If he did, he would have referred at somewhat greater length to a section that I'll refer to now.

The minister is aware, as is any person familiar with the problems of land use, that where you build a highway of any consequence, so too population goes there or leaves there.

The principle of transportation in an urban community is one which recognizes that the impact, designation and construction of a major highway — in this law it's called an arterial highway — determine to an enormous extent the uses to which the land adjacent may be put. Clearly, if you designate a road that was formerly a through road as an arterial highway and you upgrade it to those standards, the living conditions of the human beings who happen to own homes along that former small-use road will change drastically. For the minister to purport that this had nothing to do with planning or with the human values of those who are affected or the economic values of their property is to purport a wrong thing.

Anyone concerned about planning is concerned about roads. Anyone concerned about how roads are designated and paid for and how they are constructed and chosen in the first place has to realize the extraordinary powers that are now being conferred upon the Minister of Highways in an urban community where never before did he have those powers and, indeed, where he is yet to make a case that he needs them.

I would advise again, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has yet to make any case whatever as to why he needs these powers. If the minister chooses to make a grant-in-lieu to a municipality in order to maintain an arterial highway, let him do so; he's empowered by the Highway Act to do that. The minister does not need the power himself to designate an arterial highway for the reasons he has offered. There may other reasons; we'll get to those in a minute. If his solitary concern is to assist in the construction and maintenance of arterial highways in such poverty-ridden municipalities as Vancouver and New Westminster, then he is empowered by law to simply make a grant. The minister doesn't shake his head. He knows that's the case; he's empowered to do that. The Highway Act, reasonably enough, allows him to do these things.

The minister, in fact, told us today, if I understand him correctly, that his authority has nothing to do with zoning, planning or any of the other options open to a municipality. Well, with all respect, we read the law quite differently. The minister has agreed that by introducing this seemingly innocuous amendment to the Highway Act, other key portions of that act now come into force. They never did previously. One of these is section 34(2), which is the one I propose to read. If you listen carefully you'll see precisely how under this new statute, if it passes, the minister will now be given these old powers in a community where he never previously had them. section 34(2) reads:

"The ministry, for an arterial highway" — that being the key phrase in all of this statute — "has all the rights, powers and advantages conferred by bylaw, contract or otherwise on the municipal corporation having control of the highway before it became classified as an arterial highway under this act, and the minister may sue in the name of the minister on these rights or under the bylaw or contract in the same manner and to the same extent as the municipal corporation might have done if the highway had not been classified as an arterial highway."

What is the consequence of that? It is simply this: it allows the minister to take action that previously was reserved solely for the municipality itself. It allows the minister, in his interpretation of such zoning as may previously have been granted by the municipality in the designation of an arterial highway, to take steps even to the point of lawsuit to have his will done. This clearly confers on the minister powers that were previously restricted solely to the corporate municipality, in this case, as he tells us, Vancouver and New Westminster. Section 34(2) — and others, which I will refer to in a moment, as well — gives to the minister certain of the previously exclusively held rights and prerogatives and options in law that the municipality alone could exercise. So it is not simply what the minister tells us. The minister's intentions — I don't doubt him; he is an honourable man — may be personally restricted to paving the potholes on the Queensborough Bridge. However, not suspecting the minister's motives, I do suspect those of certain others who are prepared to push the Annacis crossing through at all costs and are prepared to do so over the considerable and vocal and increasingly powerful objections of neighbourhood groups concerned about the integrity of the neighbourhoods through which inevitably the access roads and feeder routes will have to pass.

There is another issue at stake here. As a result of the sections which will now come into power — 31, 33, 34 and 42 — new authority has been granted to that minister. He may tell us that he would never propose to use such authority. He will not deny that this authority now includes the right to order the demolition of buildings. Now why would a minister need that in an urban community? Where all the roads are already built, where no new decisions could be taken on the basis of an old plan — unless a new plan were in the works — it doesn't make sense that he should require these powers. Why, for instance, if all that the minister wished to do is to pave the potholes on the Queensborough Bridge, does he also require the power to order the demolition of structures within, as is conventionally organized, half a mile either side of the median of the arterial highway? Well, if you are in trouble over the Annacis crossing you might need that power. If you can't find the access and feeder routes to make the Annacis bridge succeed you might need that power. You see, the power to demolish structures in an urban community is a vast and expensive power. It is a power of the sort we doubt this minister or any other should have.

The minister himself said two days ago — I quoted it yesterday and will quote it again now — that the problem with Annacis is not the structure itself. Any competent engineer can build a bridge — at least so they thought in Tacoma and at the Hood Canal and other places. But by and large the rule applies that any competent engineer can build a bridge and it will not fall down. However, the problem, as the minister himself said two days ago, with the Annacis crossing is not the structure. It is access to the structure. The problems there are twofold. On one side of the river the problem is that you will be removing certain acres of land currently within the ALR. The problem on the other side of the river is that to obtain the clear flow of traffic and the

[ Page 3055 ]

access and feeder routes that are required for Annacis you have to go through built-up neighbourhoods.

The minister himself gave another clue just a few minutes ago., He said that the only interest here is the interest he has in safety and road conditions and the usability of the road itself. Do I misquote the minister? No. Those are admirable intentions in isolation. We are all concerned about safety and road conditions. I am glad he is too. There was never any doubt. We are both concerned. The point is that if what you are really in the business of doing is giving yourself a legislative out for a year from now when Annacis doesn't work because the feeder routes are inadequate and the access through those urban neighbourhoods cannot be obtained, then suddenly you see why there would be the necessity for the powers of a municipality — which is to say the power to demolish buildings and to undermine the economic value of those private property owners who once held them. The minister tells us that there is also the power to fix compensation. Of course. That is not in dispute. The point in question is why you need the power to demolish buildings if all you propose to do is pay for the potholes on the Queensborough Bridge.

There are other legislative options. It is not necessary — if the minister's intentions are all that he has said they are — to have all these other powers as well. If the minister wants the power to pave the Queensborough Bridge and Kingsway, to pave North Road, and he finds he does not technically have that power right now, then he could bring in another and totally different amendment to the Highway Act to give him that power. It would be a restricted, narrow and perhaps even welcome power which the opposition would support. Instead the minister has chosen a very different and significantly more dangerous course. By virtue of the provisions of 31, 33, 34 and 42 of the Highway Act, which will come into play should this amendment pass, he now has powers which he himself would have us believe he does not intend to exercise. He tells us he doesn't want to have anything to do with that new authority, no matter how vast and sweeping it may be; he tells us he doesn't need it and he doesn't want it. I ask him in reply: "Then why are you giving it to yourself?"

There is a test, Mr. Chairman, and it's called the Gaglardi test; it was a test first enunciated by David Anderson, the member for Victoria at one time. Mr. Anderson said: "Look, in a two-party province neither party trusts the other; in a two-party province neither party wants, out of government, to be given, when in government, powers that the other party can abuse later on. Every time you examine what happens when a minister proposes to give himself awesome new powers, apply the Gaglardi test just for a minute and ask yourself whether or not you would trust Phil Gaglardi with those powers." Now no right-minded person would — at least, given what happened in this province during his tenure in office.

If this minister wouldn't trust a New Democrat minister — who shall be elected after the next election — to have this power in urban communities, why does he ask us to trust his administration any more? If neither side would trust Phil Gaglardi to have these powers, why should either side propose that anyone have them? The minister has failed to apply the Gaglardi test, which is: although you may be personally trustworthy and although you personally might never abuse this authority, what would happen if some unscrupulous person came along and used this new authority and did so? How would you feel then? What would you think at that point? What doubts might you then have in hindsight about the wisdom of granting future Ministers of Transportation and Highways that authority? Apply the Gaglardi test and you'll see that this section fails to meet the requirements of that test.

. The current Minister of Transportation and Highways is a nice guy; he's honourable; he's not a crook; he doesn't give deals or favours to his sons; he doesn't build bridges, for instance, on his own ranch with Highways equipment and Highways material. He doesn't do that; he's an honest minister. So we have no doubt that in his personal hands the likelihood of personal abuse of this is zip. But that's not the issue. We're not writing a law for that person; we're writing a law for this province and for all of the ministers who may come at some time in the future.

So apply the Gaglardi test and ask yourself whether or not even though you may personally not want to abuse, and would never abuse, these authorities — you would trust a New Democrat to use the power that you say you wouldn't misuse.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You really want the opposition to have this new power? Well, if you can't honestly say yes, maybe neither you nor we should have the power in the first place. Maybe the power should remain where it has been for years: in the hands of the municipalities. Maybe the power should reside where it belongs: in the hands of local government. Maybe the power should stay where it is: in the hands of the most competent authorities. and those are local authorities.

The power to designate an arterial highway, which could be any old road until you name it such, is a very significant power. The further power to order without appeal the destruction of the property of citizens on either side is an awesome power. The power to do all of the things which sections 31, 33, 34 and 42 will now allow you to do is a power that must not he granted lightly. The minister wants us to award it to him lightly. because the reasons he's offered are the lightest of them all. He says he wants to guarantee the safety of existing roads. he wants to make sure the traffic flow is adequate and in control and he wants to pave potholes on the Queensborough Bridge. In isolation those are all perfectly reasonable things. But the point is that the minister has not asked for an isolated power; he has asked for a broad, sweeping power. Therefore it's reasonable to ask if he needs it. So far the minister has not made a case that he needs such a broad, sweeping power — to order demolition, to lay out, construct and maintain highways, and to do all of the other things through urban communities — that he never had before.

Let me restate it, Mr. Chairman. In the unorganized territories of British Columbia it is legitimate that he have this power. There are no municipalities in many of the places where the minister might designate an arterial road connecting with a major road — be it Highway 10 or 5 or 11 or 41 or whatever. A connecting road, connecting one small unorganized community with another across a major highway, designated "arterial" may be an appropriate thing for him to do. We don't object. In fact, even in communities under 30,000, where the minister currently has these considerable powers, we don't object.

Let me restate that we don't object because it's clear that in those communities the planning resources, the planning

[ Page 3056 ]

capacity, the planning will of many of those people is pretty thin soup — they don't have the skill at command. In these communities the planning apparatus often consists of a part time town clerk, who may be an honourable, tough-minded, hard-working guy, but who doesn't have the necessary skill.

To the contrary, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs do have the skills. Those skills are welcome, that planning ability is a good thing, and we take no objection. But we're talking about grown-up municipalities like the city of Vancouver, which has well over 600,000 people, or a community like the city of New Westminster, one of the oldest organized cities in all of British Columbia. These are mature, independent, autonomous, able communities, who are well able to decide for themselves on questions like the demolition of buildings, the set-back of structures and where the roads shall go to feed Annacis and other crossings. They're perfectly able to do it for themselves. They don't need a man sitting in Victoria deciding for them.

I point out again that if all the minister wants to do is to guarantee the safety of arterial highways to assure that traffic flow is handled ably on them, and to pave the potholes on the Queensborough Bridge, then let him bring in another amendment to the Highway Act that does not give him all these additional powers. Let him bring in an amendment which specifically says that his authority in these Urban communities over 30,000 shall be narrowly restricted to paving arterial highways, or whatever it is he cares to do on the narrow basis of his own argument.

The minister can't have it both ways. He can't argue a narrow case and have us enact a wide law. If you only have a narrow case to make, bring in a narrow amendment, and I expect we'll support it. But you are making a narrow case, passing a wide law and giving to yourself great powers that you never had before, which we suspect you shouldn't have at all.

The minister himself is an honourable guy and would pass the Gaglardi test, but the possibility for the future abuse of these powers is real. The minister should ask himself whether or not he would trust us with these powers. In this province, hardly ever do Socreds trust New Democrats with any additional powers, and vice versa. It is the nature of our politics. If the minister, who's an honest guy, can't honestly say that he would trust a future New Democrat minister with all of these powers — although it may be that for rhetorical purposes he might hint he would — then he's got to ask whether or not such broad powers are necessary to serve the narrow purpose he's described. If he cannot answer that — if he cannot make a better defence of his intentions — then we cannot accept the amendment and will continue speaking against it for some time to come.

MR. LORIMER: This amendment is only six lines long, but it creates for the Minister of Highways these awesome, sweeping powers. My colleague says he will not abuse those powers, but the powers will be there and may well be abused.

For a long time now the Minister of Highways has had powers of planning for wherever highways exist in the smaller communities. In most of those communities there are no planners, and someone should do the planning on behalf of the people who reside in those communities. It's my belief that the amendment that should come in is one to cancel those powers that presently exist for the Minister of Highways and transfer them to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the planning field, in my opinion, the Highways ministry plans for one purpose by and large — generally for highways and the communities, to facilitate the use of highways and the better movement of traffic on those highways — whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs can look at a wide scope of options and a wide field of interests in the community and could probably have a much more effective method of planning than that of the Ministry of Highways.

So it would be my opinion that the amendment should be the opposite. Instead of giving those extra powers to the Ministry of Highways, I believe the Ministry of Highways should have its powers curtailed in the field of planning in this province.

I'm also convinced that the Minister of Highways is not clear on the powers that he has or is trying to grant to himself, and I'm quite sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not aware of them. If they are aware, then there has apparently been a struggle between the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Municipal Affairs for power, with reference to planning in the urban areas of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That doesn't happen in this government.

MR. LORIMER: It smells a little here, Mr. Minister of Finance. That could well be the case, but I don't think it is, due to the fact that I don't think either the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Highways knows the possible end result of the amendment that is before us. So I might well agree that there has been no power struggle, but I think there will be a power struggle in the weeks to come now that they're both familiar with what they've done by this amendment.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is not here at the present time. I expect that he is consulting with his staff to see what this amendment means. He's wondering whether or not the Minister of Highways has, in fact, usurped some of his authority. In my opinion, the Minister of Highways may be more able to look after planning in the areas. I think the matter should belong to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. At the present time they have considerable powers — the Ministry of Highways — to check over any bylaws passed by the smaller communities and regional districts, and can have the power to veto certain approvals to bylaws. I would prefer to see the larger communities — those over 30,000 that have a planning department — take care of the local planning within that community.

There are other powers that have been mentioned that the Minister of Highways can grasp, in any event, and it would appear to me that this is not only a poor amendment, but a backward amendment. The amendment should be reversed to take powers away from the Ministry of Highways and transfer them to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. LEA: I don't think we should cause a panic — I don't think we could cause a panic — in the populace about what I consider to be another loss of freedom. You can take all of these little things that happen over the course of time with government, and each one in itself doesn't leave people with a complete lack of freedom in society. But when you start adding them up, one after-the other, then I think it's time for the opposition to caution the government on taking too much power into its central location; that's in Victoria.

[ Page 3057 ]

It's a temptation for any government to take more and more power unto itself, because it's oftentimes pragmatic; it's more efficient in some cases to take things into the central level and deal with them. Or at least that's been a supposition put forward by some proponents of the theory that if you can bring everything into a central position, then you can get a bit more efficiency out of it. I think there are a great many more people these days, including myself, who think maybe the other way around, in the final run, is the more efficient way, and that's to decentralize the decision-making process.

One of the safeguards of freedom that we have in our system is the different levels of government platforms that we have. We have municipal governments; municipal governments generally are much closer to the people. When you are dealing with things that surround you immediately and personally, then it's probably the most desirable thing to have the group that is making the rules that will affect you personally and immediately at the local level.

We then have our provincial government, because we have provincial matters that must be attended to. At that level, because it is more democratic to have those decisions made at the provincial level — it's better to have, for instance, resource decisions made at the provincial level as compared to having those decisions made at the national level....

But at the national level there are, obviously, issues that have to be dealt with by a national government, dealing internationally on fisheries and resources. We do have to have our national voice to be heard at an international level.

I'd like us to consider a little more simply what our job in the Legislature is, because I think we tend to get too hung up on the complexity of it all. I believe that, very simply, our job is that we're sent here to make those rules by which society will have to live — the rules surrounding provincial matters. That's what our job is — to come here and say there are going to be certain provincial rules. People have elected us to make those rules; we call them laws. But basically they're just rules, and everybody in society has agreed, no matter who you vote for, that once the rules are made you have to obey them. You have to obey the rule; you have to obey the law. If you don't obey those laws you have disorder, and we must have law and order in order to run our society. But it seems to me that time and time again this government forgets the basic principles of democracy.

Just what is it democracy is replacing in our society — and it is replacing something. If we had no rules, if we had no structured society — political philosophers refer to that as the state of nature. We would have maximum freedom to do anything we wanted. We could set our own rules, be our own administration and our own executioner of the rules we personally set. You'd have maximum freedom. But along with that maximum freedom in that perfect state of nature you would have maximum insecurity, because each and every other person would be living by his or her own rules and there'd be no safety for any of us personally. So we decided that we'd go into a structured society, a society of constitutional law and order, but within that structure there are safeguards, because it's all too easy to make life too secure and do away with too many freedoms, and we must maximize those freedoms at every opportunity. That is another one of our jobs in this Legislature — not to take away freedom but wherever possible to enhance those freedoms.

This amendment in itself won't bring the world tumbling down, but what it does do, in my opinion, is take away the opportunity for communities over 30,000 that have the means and the will to do their own planning and make their own decisions.... It will take those decision-making processes away from people at the local level. That is what is happening here in this piece of legislation, in this amendment. Another little freedom is being taken away. What is frightening about it is that it is one in a long series. The now Minister of Finance, when Minister of Municipal Affairs — in Bill 42 of that particular session — gave more powers to the central government. We have to look at Newton's third law: you can't have a force without that force being opposite in direction and equal in strength. When you take a power unto yourself you take it away from someone else; that's a law of physics that applies in every case that I've ever looked at. And it happens in law too. The minister said: "From now on I, the minister" — whoever is holding the Municipal Affairs portfolio — "shall decide whether any bylaw passed by a municipal council will be allowed to stand or will be set aside. "

MR. BARBER: He could even rewrite it to his own convenience.

MR. LEA: Or rewrite it to his own convenience and push it on and make it stick on that city council. We saw this government bring in the Government Reorganization Act, which took away to the cabinet room from this Legislature powers that it had previously held, therefore confining and narrowing that decision-making process to an even narrower scale than this Legislature already has.

We've seen all of those things and more happen over the course of five years with this government. It is frightening, because I don't believe that the kind of arguments we're making here in this House make a dent on that side of the House. That to me is the frightening part. I remember when this party was in government and every day, without fail, from this side of the House they raised themselves up and demanded the world listen to them as freedom-fighters. Today I would like to hear those ministers stand up and talk about freedom; it would be healthy. Not since they've been elected have they talked about freedom; what they have done is take away freedom. They've inched and inched away at the freedom tree and they're climbing higher and higher, taking freedom away from the people of this province inch by inch. Again, in this amendment, another freedom is disappearing off the freedom tree.

They are not the freedom-fighters, they are the freedom takers, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is another grasp to take away the freedom of municipal councils and therefore people at the local level in this province. As I said, what bothers me is the look of puzzlement on their faces when you talk about having to safeguard freedoms and having the opportunity to run your society by constitutional law and order. They look back blankly, appearing not to understand what we're talking about. I hope they understand it. I hope they can make an argument for what they're doing and against what we're saying, but we get no argument. All we get are blank stares and ridicule because we've had the audacity to mention that many of the areas that they are delving into are taking away the personal freedom of councils in this province, and therefore taking away freedoms at the local level to decide on issues that affect you immediately and personally. Again, it is happening. It is frightening that this government doesn't seem to understand. As my friend

[ Page 3058 ]

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) pointed out, they want to cure a narrow situation and they bring in a wide law that gives them more powers than they need to do the job at hand, as outlined by the minister.

I, believe it is incumbent in this debate for the Attorney-General of this province to stand up and discuss freedom, the different layers of government and the way we have to safeguard those. The Attorney-General of this province, the chief of all our lawmaking machine, should explain to us in a philosophical way why he agrees, once again, with this taking away of a municipal power and, therefore, taking away and stripping away from that freedom tree another branch from the local level.

I would like to hear ministers stand up in this debate because probably every time we get to one of these issues — whether the opposition is right or wrong in the specifics — they are debates that every member of this House has an obligation to enter. It is the very core of the reason that we are here. In this Legislature we are here to make the law. That government, as part of this Legislature, administers it for the people of British Columbia, but here in this group we make the laws and pass the laws. For this group to, time and time again over the past five years, chip away at the freedom tree is an item that every one of us has an obligation to join in debate over. Maybe we don't have an obligation to raise our voice in this Legislature when we are giving a freedom, but every time we chip away and take a freedom previously held at a more local level we are in danger of going against the very reason we were asked to serve in this House by the people in our constituency.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't think that we've convinced some of the members on the other side about this very small amendment. The member for Prince Rupert didn't really say anything about the amendment. The first member for Victoria made a few interesting comments about it. One, if I recall, was: "Would you trust this to the NDP?" It goes on the statute books. My answer is that we certainly would, because you'll never have the opportunity, in my opinion, to ever exercise government. That is what you were saying.

The member for Victoria really zeroed in on section 42. I think I should read it into the record because I think he missed a few points in it. This is what section 42 says:

"(1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may fix the distance from a highway at which fences, buildings or other structures may be placed, and at which trees, shrubs or hedges may be planted.

"(2) The minister may direct the removal of a tree, shrub, bush, hedge, fence, signboard, gasoline pump, building or other object growing or standing on land adjacent to a highway where required, in his opinion, for the safety or convenience of the travelling public..."

That is a very important section. I would suggest to the House that it definitely is a responsibility to be concerned about the safety of the travelling public. Section 42(2) continues:

"...or when an object might cause drifting or accumulation of snow or is injurious to the road bed, but subject to payment of compensation ..."

In other words, if compensation is required — in a lot of cases it isn't, but in some cases it is — it provides for that. I really don't know what all the concern is about. I would like to also remark that the amendment was put in there to give a break to the municipalities with a population over 30,000. They haven't had it in the past. If you want a little history on it, I believe not many years ago the level of population was 2,000 and it's been moved up gradually over the years by different increments: 2,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 and then to 30,000. We are now saying it's above that, so I don't feel concerned at all about the concerns the people have on the other side.

MR. COCKE: I understand what the minister is saying. The minister, I believe, is losing track of the opposition's criticism in one aspect. You see, Mr. Chairman, we're in total support. I am, particularly, from New Westminster. The only money I can ever recall as coming from the Highways ministry was an allocation for an overpass which was on a road going from New Westminster to Coquitlam. I was delighted to see this minister actually carry out an undertaking made by his predecessor, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). That's the kind of thing that a city the size of New Westminster requires in terms of assistance from the provincial government on what can be deemed to be a highway or a road that carries people from one municipality to the other.

We're placed in a terrible spot in New Westminster, as I have outlined to the House during other bills, and we've discussed this question. We've got Burnaby on the one side with a number of highways. They are judged to be highways and are treated as such by the Highways ministry, on the other side we have Surrey and Coquitlam in the same position. Here we are, carrying all the traffic and getting no assistance. So from that standpoint I'm in total agreement with the minister providing some assistance. For the minister's information, frankly, the amount of upkeep on the Queensborough Bridge is not really where the action is, as far as I can see. I think Braid Street to some extent, and certainly to a very large extent 10th Avenue and in on to the Pattullo Bridge, is probably one of our greatest problems. Certainly we require some assistance. Now you are going to run the Annacis throughway through New Westminster as well. I can certainly understand your feeling of obligation toward that city, in terms of some kind of highway assistance. Okay, let's provide the assistance.

Under a number of acts, not the least of which is the Municipal Act, this government has the right to change zoning. I don't see why the minister requires zoning in this particular "assistance" he's giving to Vancouver and New Westminster. It goes beyond that, anyway; I'm sure it's going to refer as well to Victoria and other municipalities or cities which are of that particular size — the ones that haven't been treated before.

Can the minister tell us why he cannot put forward an amendment that will give the kind of assistance required, and at least show the city some respect with respect to their autonomy in planning? I don't think there's anything magical in the minister's office. I can imagine what's going to happen. It's going to mean that everything is going to grind to a halt in terms of any kind of development, particularly in our town. Now we're going to have to go through the city. Then you're going to have to go through the Highways ministry. Anybody who has had that experience knows that there is nothing slower, with the possible exception of the Lands ministry — that has slowed almost to a grinding halt. As a matter of fact, I think that sometimes the Ministry of Lands....

[ Page 3059 ]

MR. BARBER: Works backwards.

MR. COCKE: Precisely. It works backwards; it's so slow in terms of any kind of decision coming out of that department. I understand that they don't even acknowledge letters. I think the Highways ministry is a little bit better than that, in terms of at least letting a person or people or corporation know that they have the matter before them. This is the kind of problem we're facing — you know, the awesome powers and so on. The government has awesome powers in any event, particularly a centralized gang like this one.

This particular section gives the municipalities and the cities another hurdle to go over. It's going to take forever and a day to get any kind of approval for development. I'm sure that in the future oftentimes we will find people dead and gone before they can ever achieve the development they're asking for.

There is a faction in all of our departments: it's called a bureaucracy. Part of that bureaucracy likes to put the brakes on everything.

If you don't give an approval, you can't make a mistake, so the best thing to do is not to give an approval, and then you're in no danger of making a mistake. I don't think there is anything that follows more closely than that; it's like day following night. Put in your request, fill out all your forms, send them in and watch the cobwebs grow and grow on the forms. That's really what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. Why don't we clean this up a little bit; say to the local governments: "Stay in line." That government has the power, through the Municipal Act, if they see ribbon developments that should not grow.... If they see cities or city-municipalities doing what they feel is wrong, then for heaven's sake, first consult and then, if necessary, bring down the power of the government through the Municipal Act. But I see absolutely no necessity for getting this whole bureaucracy involved in planning in our municipalities.

Having said that, I appreciate the fact that we're going to get some assistance on highways in some of those areas, but at what a cost! I just suggest to the minister: how about asking for a recess? Or let's pull this bill for the moment, get on with something else and then come back with an amendment that's more suitable. I'm sure that can be done, because really what these few lines do is give the minister the same.... These rules and regulations in the Highway Act all apply to our town and all the other towns. And good heavens, by the time you get through reading this, it scares the blazes out of you. You wonder if you can ever get anything done. I feel that the minister should have this whole area sharpened up. Let's not create another great problem for our municipality-cities. What does the minister have to say to that?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I have to say about it is that the member for New Westminster has admitted that it will help the Corporation of the City of New Westminster, and really he's kicking a gift horse in the mouth.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that marvellous! That's the reply from the hon. Minister of Highways: "kicking a gift horse in the mouth." That beneficent minister, that magnificent altruist! Look, this is the people's money that we're talking about. It's about time that those cities had some assistance. But why do you have to give them assistance on one hand and then tell them they can't make their own rules on the other? You do have the last resort. you do have the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Kicking a gift horse in the mouth indeed!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, this bill gives power to the minister to remove people from their homes and to remove business from their premises. This bill is another Social Credit attack on private property in British Columbia. It's typical of the disrespect in which private property is held by this coalition: it's typical of a consistent attack on the principle of private property by the coalition government. They don't care about private property rights: they treat them with disdain and disrespect, and they always have.

The minister tells us that the only point is to allow payment for arterial highways. The minister fails, as usual, to speak to the whole issue. section 41 (4) — look it up, Alex, page 13 of your copy — already is the device which, with [illegible] brief amendment, could give the minister the power to do what the MLA for New Westminster has been requesting for years, which is to share provincially in the local cost for the maintenance of arterial highways. Section 41(4) reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI may authorize an annual grant to any city having a population in excess of 30,000 to defray expenditure on a street where it is considered in the public interest that the street is a necessary connecting link in the arterial highway system of the Province." Now how could the minister do only and narrowly what he says he wants to do? Well, he could amend 41(4) to read "expenditure on a street and arterial highways" and then go on. That's all he needs to do, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, we may shortly introduce such an amendment and take the minister at his word.

We want the municipality of New Westminster to be granted provincial funds to upgrade and maintain its roads, and the guy who's fought harder for that than any other member in this House is the long-time MLA for New Westminster, Mr. Cocke. Everyone knows that's a fact.

What we do not want is for you to be given powers that you do not need, by your own admission; what we do not want is for any other Minister of Highways to use those powers for a wrong purpose without our consent in the first place.

This bill gives you more powers than you need, if the government is speaking truthfully when it tells us what it proposes to do with those powers. If all you want to do is remove hedges and snow, if all you want to do is allow New Westminster to fix up the Queensborough and other roads, then bring in an amendment to 41(4), include arterials therein, include a designation for arterial highways in the interpretation section of the same act, and you can do what it is you say you want to do. But if the government insists on bringing in these awesome, sweeping powers, then we have to suspect the government has another motive. We have already proven beyond contest that the government may make a grant to municipalities for this purpose. We have proven, beyond contradiction, that the government could simply make a grant to New Westminster and other municipalities over 30,000 to fix up their now arterial roads. And we've demonstrated how you could bring in a brief, simple, uncontentious amendment to the Highway Act. as it is cur-

[ Page 3060 ]

rently written — 41(4) is the way you could do it. We've demonstrated all those things.

We will, if necessary, introduce that amendment ourselves, although it would surely have a better chance of passing if the government introduced it. But the government would be well advised to withdraw the current amendment, which gives it powers that it does not need and should not have. The government would be better advised to amend 41(4) as we've suggested. We will then support that new amendment, because it won't be giving you powers you shouldn't have. It'll be giving you the ability to do something that should have been done a long time ago, which is to assist the communities of New Westminster and others to maintain these roads. That's what my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has fought for. It's the powers that you don't need that we are fighting against.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the minister's explanation as to why he requires this section in the Highway Act doesn't sit too well with me. To make a somewhat lighthearted remark about it, I think the member's memory is going. When you grow older that's the second thing that goes. It's not that long ago that we had the throne speech, and in the throne speech is reference to the particular section that we're referring to. I think the member has forgotten that in the throne speech, following the paragraph regarding initiating long-range plans to work in partnership with our municipalities — and I'll be talking about that in a second — "My Minister of Transportation and Highways will propose that the existing provision of the Highway Act be amended so the province may establish provincial highways in any city or city municipality. " That's not what you just said when you explained why you wanted this act. You talked about snow removal and hedge-trimming. But in the throne speech it tells why you really want it.

It goes on to say: "It presently excludes city and city municipalities from having classified provincial highways where the population exceeds 30,000. The amendment will remove anomalies created by the expansion of a number of cities within the province in recent years." You just said it only referred to Vancouver and New Westminster. And yet the throne speech itself refutes that remark, Mr. Minister. There's a serious difference between what you said and what the throne speech says — a serious difference. The throne speech says "a number of cities within the province in recent years" and in your explanation you said Vancouver and New Westminster. One story is all I can handle at a time. I can't handle a throne speech that says one thing and a minister that says another.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Come on, you were able to handle Goldberg and Barrett at one time.

MR. HALL: No, no, I can only handle one of those. I will want a victory and then move over to the next one. You know that, Garde.

Now then, I want to now tell you that, in the spirit of the cooperative partnership that was referred to in the throne speech, I decided I'd better phone Surrey and find out just exactly what partnership there was developing in my municipality with the minister. The man who pulls most of the weight in Surrey is Mr. Closkey. Surely you know Mr. Closkey; he nearly became a deputy minister. Nearly. But I guess you must have ganged up on him somewhere along the line.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: No, that's why you don't know him, that's for sure. He never made it.

But anyway, Mr. Closkey, who is a very close confidant of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, doesn't know anything about this section. There's the cooperation. He doesn't know anything about this section at all.

He never heard anything from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Transportation and Highways about the largest municipality in B.C. in terms of geography and people combined. We've not heard a word from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Transportation and Highways about this section; the mayor has not heard, a word from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Transportation. I've not got on to the city of White Rock yet, because I wanted to get back in the House and catch up with the debate, but I should be phoning the city of White Rock shortly to find out all about the long-range plan to work in partnership with the city of White Rock on transportation, roads and section 7 of Bill 34.

That just isn't good enough. Section 7 places powers in the Minister of Highways' hands that he doesn't need, according to his explanation, and that he said he does need when he was writing his part of the throne speech for the Premier. Which are we to believe — the throne speech or the explanation we just got? I can't vote for this section until that is cleared up, and if it is not cleared up to our satisfaction, then I guess we've got to keep on going at him either here or in estimates until we do get some explanation as to which explanation it is that represents accuracy — what is really happening in transportation and in highway development, in terms of the Highway Act.

You know, I can remember things and I think it's time the government started to remember what they said in February and not allow it just to come back to haunt them in June and July.

MR. BARBER: I think we've demonstrated that this bill gives the minister the authority to demolish buildings within a certain distance. The distance ordinarily affixed is half a mile from the median line of any arterial highway in the communities....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It is half a mile. That's right. Ask him. Are you the Highways minister? How would you know? We've asked and that's the distance ordinarily affixed. It gives him the power to demolish buildings and the authority to sue and act in law in all of the ways that a municipal corporation may act in law in order to designate whatever he wants, wherever he wants it in a city or city municipality. The minister tells us that it is for the innocuous purpose of snow removal and pot-hole paving. If that were so — and only that — one has to ask why he needs this power to do all of these other things. If he doesn't need the power he shouldn't have it. We have demonstrated that he already has the authority in law to make grants to municipalities for these admirable purposes of maintaining safe roads and guaranteeing good road conditions from an engineer's point of view as well as from the driver's.

[ Page 3061 ]

Heavens, I'm just advised that given the proximity of the Blanshard Street extension, he could even order the demolition of the parliament buildings. Even Social Credit wouldn't do that in Victoria, although they've done every other thing that you could possibly imagine to defeat themselves in Victoria. Right now they're on the way to defeating the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), courtesy of the minister of science and tunnels. However, that's another issue.

Apart from the self-defeating instincts of Social Credit on Vancouver Island, the central question remains whether or not a Minister of Highways should have such broad authority over land use as is implied and explicit when you give him the authority to demolish buildings and drive people from their homes and businesses from their premises. The government probably thought I meant it facetiously when I said this was yet another Social Credit attack on private property rights, but I'm not entirely facetious at all when I say that, because if they don't need the power they shouldn't have it. If they're going to exercise it they should tell us where, and if they're going to keep quiet, then the people of British Columbia have every darned right to be suspicious of what it is they're really up to.

On June 24 at 4:30 p.m. the minister said: "A bigger problem than building the structure is getting access to it." He said that in relation to Annacis Crossing, a most unwelcome bit of engineering business, a highly contentious issue in which our disinterested and impartial Chairman, of course, has no interest whatever. "Hear, hear," he says — the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) banging his gavel. I know that's the case and I pursue the claim that if all the minister wants to do is remove snow, trim hedges and pay grants to New Westminster, then will he accept our proposal to withdraw this amendment and substitute instead an amendment to section 41(4) that would allow him to do that and only that? If the minister doesn't need any more powers, he shouldn't ask for more. If the minister is telling the truth — and I have no doubt that he is; he's an honourable man — that all he wants to do is pay money to maintain and designate arterial highways in great urban communities like New Westminster and Vancouver, then we tell him that he does not need the broad, sweeping power he's asking for. He doesn't need it at all, Mr. Chairman, and he never did.

Now there is an apparent contradiction between the government's intentions as revealed in the throne speech and the minister's explanation as given yesterday, today and tomorrow, — because we'll be on this tomorrow and maybe even a bit longer.

AN. HON. MEMBER: This section?

MR. BARBER: We're perfectly serious about this. If you're prepared to withdraw this section and substitute instead the amendment we propose, then get on with it, and we'll support that amendment and the person who has the guts to bring it forward. It's not often in this House that the government accepts an opposition proposal, but when they do they often get credit from not only this side of the House but also from the general people. They get credit for having the courage to admit that they should have taken a second look, and having taken a second look, proceeding with a better law than the first one. We ask the government to take a second, look.

May I make the case for the nth time. If all the minister wants to do is pay grants to designate and maintain arterial highways and no more — all of which is in the interests of safety and no more — then we tell him he doesn't need this power to do it. He already has another power more than adequate in section 41(4). If there is a technical problem with the Interpretation Act in regard to the designation of a street as opposed to that of an arterial highway, then let him amend section 41(4) — and we will support it — and add the phrase "arterial highway" there. Then the minister may authorize an annual grant to any city to defray expenditure on a street where it is considered in the public interest, etc. Half an hour ago we pointed out that the government already has the power to pay money to municipalities for road purposes. Okay, there's no dispute about that. Specifically, you have the authority in section 41(4) to pay money to municipalities which have populations in excess of 30.000, so there's no dispute about that either. If you need, by virtue of some legal advice you may have had, the specific authority to name an arterial highway as one of those "streets" to which you may — through a municipality — make a grant, then that's fine too; we don't object to that either.

What we object to most seriously and repeatedly is this government giving the Minister of Transportation and Highways powers that he does not need and should not have. What we observe as well is that as long as they continue to ask for powers in excess of what they say they need them for, then we have to ask what other reasons and motives they have for wanting those excessive powers.

So I ask the government — maybe they're consulting about it now; I hope so — will they withdraw this section? If so, we'll instantly give leave for withdrawal. Will they come back instead with an amendment to section 41(4) which would designate arterial highways and allow the minister to pay the money to maintain them? Is the House Leader going to speak on that? If you'll accept this proposal, we can get on with the rest of the bill in good short order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't wish to deprive the member of his opportunity to make some remarks and he will certainly have an opportunity to make additional remarks. But I have had a discussion with the minister, and the minister would like to analyze with his officials the remarks that have been made during debate today.

On that basis I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. BARBER: That's very fair.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK BRAND ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: In moving second reading of the bill I'd just like to take a few moments to discuss the principle of the bill. Its purpose is to replace the current detailed and outdated Livestock Brand Act with a more general act that

[ Page 3062 ]

provides the necessary authority to aid in the control of cattle rustling in the province, and at the same time to place the details of brand regulation and brand inspection in the regulations relating to the act.

Major changes in the ministry's policy with respect to the administration of this act have rendered the current act outdated. For example, the current act relates to inspection of stock being driven on the hoof whereas practically all stock movements are now made by truck. The current act requires the use of truck seals whereas sealed shipments, in most cases, are impractical and if not used properly are a false sense of security. The current act also requires the inspection of all cattle slaughtered other than those of a bona fide rancher for his own use. This is an expensive and impractical provision from a regulatory point of view.

There is also a need to clarify the regulation dealing with the detention-seizure powers of an inspector as well as to redefine a branch, a stock dealer, a hide dealer, as well as who is entitled to slaughter stock at a place other than a licensed slaughterhouse. The new act will make it possible for brand registration and inspection procedures to be quickly amended to effectively meet the requirements of an ever changing industry. It will also enable the ministry to administer the act and its regulations at the lowest net cost to the taxpayer, taking into consideration manpower and material resources that are available to do the job. The board of brand inspectors and the executive and livestock administration of the committees of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association have been consulted with regard to the drawing of this new act. With those remarks I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't have a written statement to read regarding this act, but I do have some remarks I would like to make about it. I agree that the existing piece of legislation that this particular bill is replacing is a very old piece of legislation and certainly needs revising, but I'm not in complete accord with the minister. He seems to feel that the way to do this is to put everything into regulations. That, basically, is what this act is doing. We are replacing some 24 pages of legislation with five pages, one of which is a very lengthy list of regulations. It seems to me that in doing that we are taking out of the hands of the legislators of this province the right to make decisions and we are placing those rights in the hands of employees.

I was interested to note that the minister indicated he had discussed this with the people connected with the livestock industry. I too have discussed it with people in the industry — apparently not the same people. Perhaps they are; I don't know. I have been told in no uncertain terms that generally the livestock industry and the farming, community are extremely concerned about the trend that is so evident in this government, particularly in regard to legislation relative to farm operations. It is a trend to take things out of legislation and put them into regulation. Certainly if there was ever an outstanding example of that being done, this particular act is doing just that.

We have in this act a number from A to R, some of them with three and four parts of regulations. The meat of the act is in the regulations and the bill becomes a minute part of the total which was spelled out in the original act. Not only that, but some of the clauses in this act certainly seem to change the degree of responsibility that was spelled out in the previous act. For example, in the act which this one is repealing, section 47 says — and this has to do with the cancellation of licences:

"Where the licensee holding a licence issued under this act contravenes a provision of this act, the minister, on proof to his satisfaction of the fact or existence of the contravention and after hearing the licensee, if he requests to, be heard, may suspend the licence and all rights of the licensee under it for the period the minister sees fit or may cancel the licence.

Then where the licence has been cancelled, the minister can review an appeal.

The suspension and cancellation clause in the bill we are presently discussing, under section 4 reads.... You know that talks about the minister; we're talking about elected people, the people really responsible. Under section 4 of this bill it says:

"Where the recorder believes that a licensee has contravened this act or the regulations or has done or failed to do something that the recorder considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of the licensee, the recorder may suspend or cancel the licensee's licence."

Now there are two things there. Firstly, we're moving it out of the elected person's responsibility into the hands of some appointed official to make this decision. There is nothing to indicate that there would be any hearings or any opportunity for the licensee to present his or her case. I suggest that this bill is certainly not a good substitute for the bill which it is repealing.

I'm extremely concerned about the amount of power that is being placed under the regulations. So much of it is removed from the elected arena — the area for which the minister is directly responsible. To introduce this legislation on the pretext of updating what, I agree, is a very outdated piece of legislation — as the explanatory notes say — and still to water it down so much and to put so much into the regulations, is a continuation of a trend that is becoming more and more unpopular in this province. The trend is certainly unpopular with the farm population and has been mentioned to me by every person I have contacted in the livestock industry regarding this piece of legislation. That was the first comment I received when I made phone calls regarding this bill. It was mentioned in conjunction with the feeling of the general trend that this government has of putting everything in the hands of the bureaucrats and removing themselves from the responsibility to administer their own legislation.

While we have no choice except to support this bill, because naturally the old bill is outdated, being some 30 years old, I want to express very strongly and very clearly my concerns about the change in responsibility and so much in regulations where we have no knowledge of what's going on or what's happening. Those regulations can be changed at the will of the minister or with an order-in-council with no discussion in this Legislature.

Now it may be said that the Livestock Brand Act and branding of cattle and prevention of rustling and so on is something that is a minor thing and shouldn't be discussed here, but I think that if we're going to protect the people for which this act is designed, they deserve the same kind and degree of protection as any other group of people for which a piece of legislation is written. It's just not that democratic to place so much power in the hands of the people who are

[ Page 3063 ]

administering the act rather than in the hands of the people who write the legislation. While we are proposing to support the act, that is a point that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat is quite correct. The old act, I believe, had something like 61 sections and we reduced it. She will also note there are amendments on the order paper which will extend the act to 13 sections.

I think she mentioned the act would now be in the hands of the employees. Any change to regulation, of course, would go through the cabinet and not be decided upon by the employees. I think the amendment to regulations would accomplish one major thing, and that is that by allowing the change by regulation we're able to respond more quickly to the industry. Instead of having to wait for the House to sit to debate changes in an act, we are able to get input from the industry, and staff are able to make recommendations to me as minister. With the industry's input we can then move forward to regulation amendments which will resolve any problem that occurs. I think that flexibility is a big improvement over the system that we have at the present time. I think the Cattlemen's Association recognizes and understands that they would have that input before any amendment to regulations took place.

The member also mentioned the recorder under section, 4, and the fact that the recorder rather than the minister had the ability to suspend or cancel licences. I'd like to point out two things. First of all, the recorder must comply with the act and its regulations before he takes any action to cancel or suspend a licence. Secondly, under section 6 of the act there is a Board of Brand Commissioners, which is appointed, and any individual has the right to appeal to that board should he feel that he has been unfairly treated.

So with those comments I move second reading of Bill 32.

Motion approved.

Bill 32, Livestock Brand 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. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. MACDONALD: I suppose I have to defend this section now — defend secrecy — because the minister isn't here — in terms of applications for liquor licences.

Secrecy's very important in certain circumstances where licences have been granted in a kind of strange way. It's very important that the facts should not come out to the public. Therefore we're bringing into this House a section which provides guidelines for the employees of the liquor licensing branch — in effect telling them not even to talk to an MLA about it.

Oh, there's the minister. Now I can attack the section; I was defending the section on the basis that it was very bad for the public to hear about improper things, Mr. Minister, if they occur in the administration of the branch. But now that you're here to defend the section, I can attack it. Is that okay?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Sure, go ahead.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask this question of the minister under "Confidentiality," which incidentally is very strangely worded, as the minister and Mr. Gould behind him would probably recognize. It doesn't say that you can't do these things; it says that no person past or present shall be compelled to do things. Really, what you 're doing is firing a warning shot, are you not, over the present employees of the licensing branch, and even over past employees of the licensing branch — telling them that if it doesn't fit into these three situations, they can't be compelled to yield up the information and therefore presumably shouldn't. Why do you word it like that? That's my first question.

In terms of the marine pub application I referred to, Mr. Minister, we are in total disagreement as to whether the other three applicants had anything like natural justice done to them when someone was persistent and as a result got the licence. We can't debate that at any length at this time under this section, but if the member defends that kind of thing where you have four applicants and the one who is persistent and somehow, by buzzing around Victoria, finds out about new regulations and bangs in his application and gets the answer back within five days of the new change, before the others have even heard about the change, and they weren't notified.... If you can defend that kind of thing, Mr. Minister, you can defend anything.

Whether we can debate that under this section may be a little questionable. Maybe we should debate it under the minister's estimates as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on section 2 in committee and there must be strict relevance to the section.

MR. MACDONALD: I am asking, through the Chairman, what kind of information should be secret. Let's take that application for the marine pub licence as an example. Why should any part of that be secret?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We are speaking about information which would be on file in the offices of the liquor control and licensing branch. That information could include the information in the application. That information in the application I would not consider to be in the category of sensitive material, but in the records within the liquor control and licensing branch there may be information which perhaps could be considered sensitive from a business or personal point of view by those persons who may be licensed or engaged with the branch in some other capacity.

I asked my officials to offer some examples, and they advised me. We may have private business records of a licensee or a criminal record, which is part of the check we do. Some of it may have to do with the actual business, the amount of sales and so on, information perhaps of some use to another person involved in the same business, which

[ Page 3064 ]

probably should remain confidential. The other information generally available to anyone who has reason to have the information would not fall into that category, I don't think, of being sensitive material.

We are attempting to supply guidelines to employees in the liquor control branch, guidelines that at the present time they simply do not have. As I mentioned when we were discussing this in second reading, a tradition of some kind has developed in the liquor control and licensing branch where employees have developed the idea that all information should be considered to be confidential. We hope we are spelling out to them an opportunity to make certain information available, as may be directed by the general manager. The sensitive material, I think, would deal with the individual applicant, as to his personal life and his business life, dealing with his capitalization, perhaps his business, his profit margin, if you like, and the rest of it. We think that that information should be generally restricted unless there is a reason it should be made available. I think the general manager would have that opportunity to demand that the information be made available.

Mr. Gould tells me that the choice of the word "compelled" was to suggest that an employee or ex-employee could not be forced to testify or provide information except in the circumstances outlined in this section. I am further advised that any employee or ex-employee can always give the information if he wants to, on his own volition or under direction. If that makes any sense, that is the explanation I have been offered for the use of the word "compelled," to try to identify that it would be compulsion of some kind.

Mr. Member, I can assure you that the confidentiality section, as I mentioned last week, is very similar in nature to the confidentiality sections of many of our acts in the ministry. There certainly is no attempt nor desire to prevent a person who should be able to get that information, from getting the information he seeks. Remember, we are dealing only with liquor control and licensing. We're not dealing with the liquor distribution side. Information sought by a person who, upon examination, should have reasonable access to the information will certainly be provided. It is not an attempt to restrict information but rather an attempt to set guidelines to the employees so there is no confusion in their minds as to what information should be provided. I can't in any way see how this would prevent a reasonable person, with just need or cause to have the information, from getting the information. I can assure you of that. I think it simply sets out in the act a procedure of some kind, and provides for certain instances where there is no question that whatever information asked for will be available.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the minister let me say this: to take the example I gave, you had four applicants in Gibsons. So you had in effect an adversary procedure. It seems to me that the other three people were entitled to know on what basis their applications were rejected. If it had been an appeal situation — which it wasn't, Mr. Minister — all of the information would be available on the appeal process. Supposing the licence of one of them had been denied and they appealed — which they could then do.

Would not all of the information you referred to — including the fact of whether or not there had been a criminal record — come out on that appeal? And you say it is an open appeal process. So I don't think the examples you gave of other legislation — and some of those we might quarrel with as to the degree of secrecy involved in them.... But here you have a situation where you may have two or three different people applying for a neighbourhood pub, lounge or marine licence in a given area. It seems to me that should be an open process. Otherwise, the danger remains — and I think it undoubtedly happened in the marine pub case that I referred to — that there would be gross injustice done to some applicants and they won't be able to do anything about it, because there won't be any appeal and the facts will not be out on the table. So I am against this section.

I don't think there is any reason why what you are doing under this section.... If, as you say, all you are doing is to give the general manager the authority to release information, surely it's public information anyway. Even in the case of somebody with a criminal record, supposing they apply for a licence and they are rejected on that basis. When they put in their application, knowing that the character of the applicant has to be part of the consideration as to whether that licence should be granted, why shouldn't that be public? It certainly would be if, say, you were turned down by U.S. Immigration to go to the United States because you had had some conviction. Then that is part of the reason.

What you are doing is unnecessarily requiring that the information that can be divulged, even to an MLA, about an application has to be such as is authorized by the general manager of the branch — who, I would like to add, is a man of unquestioned integrity and a very capable administrator. So I am against the section, and I am certainly against what happened at Gibsons, because obviously that was grossly unjust to the other applicants. If the files had been open and these three other people who applied for that licence, Mr. Minister, had been told the only reason the Grammas pub people got it was that they were persistent, and they got it before the other people even heard or were notified about the change in the regulations, they would say to themselves, "There has been something very strange about the case of Grammas pub," and they would be perfectly right.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I think we all appreciate the fact that liquor is a fairly sensitive area under any jurisdiction, which makes all the more reason why there should be complete openness and availability of information regarding applications under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

Those that make applications for licences — whether they are granted or refused, but especially if they are refused — should have the opportunity of checking the files to see why one application was turned down and another was successful.

The minister has stated that there may be something in the application with reference to that person's personal or business life that should be kept secret. I am of the opposite view. I think that if they want to make an application under this act, they should decide whether they should make it, having consideration for their personal life and their business life. But just because they make the application, that information should not be hidden from those who make applications and who are refused, or from the general public.

The information set out, in my opinion, should be completely open. What we need is an open government. As I mentioned, if someone doesn't want to divulge that he has gone bankrupt in some previous enterprise, or feels that that might be a bar to his success in obtaining a permit, then I would suggest that person should not apply. I don't suggest that that particular information should be hidden from the public.

[ Page 3065 ]

There is also the problem of applicants to become agents for listings for wines or other spirits. The question of secrecy here, in my opinion, applies to those who are applying for licences. That should be an open book as well.

I've received information that in some cases where applications are made for listings certain agents can brag or boast to their competitors well in advance of the announcements by the liquor control and licensing branch that they are going to have an agency and a listing for certain spirits. There is something basically wrong when someone can accurately forecast, weeks ahead of the board's announcements, which listings are going to be listed and which ones aren't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with licensees or applicants for licences in this section.

MR. LORIMER: That's correct, but basically I'm using this as an example in dealing with the secrecy or confidentiality referred to under section 2. This is an area of concern, I am sure, for the minister. I would think that for his protection, and for the protection of the board itself, this confidentiality should not be used in applications under the act. It would seem to me that the minister would be most concerned that everything that goes on with all the applications should be open to the public so that everyone can see why the decision of the board was such and such, and cause is shown why that decision was made.

MR. LEVI: I want to ask the minister if he could explain to us what is not in place at the moment that this section will in fact put into place. As I understand it, all the people covered by the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act — the people who work in the liquor stores and in the department — surely are subject to the requirements of the Public Service Act in terms of the usual things that are required of public servants. I've been looking, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find the actual oath. I've got the Public Service Act in front of me, but I can't actually see where the oath is.

This liquor operation has been going on in British Columbia in an official way for well over 60 years. All of a sudden the minister comes and tells us that he wants to include in the act a section found in other acts. Is he suggesting that if, up to now, there had been a leakage of information by employees, in some way they had no remedy, no penalty or no sanction? It seems to me that that sanction is there under the Public Service Act. So I tend to approach this a little bit mystified as to why he is doing it. Is there something more specific than that? That's the one thing that he has knots on. He's given us a number of reasons for this; he's talked about the fact that it's in other acts, and perhaps the act would then conform with other acts, and that kind of thing. But the kind of prohibition that you want against employees giving out this confidential information is presumably already there. So what does this amendment add to the act? That's what I'd like to know from the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think the problem perhaps we may have in either agreeing or understanding in a similar way what we are trying to accomplish by this section is caused by the manner in which we approach the section. I've told the members that our purpose is to clearly identify what the restrictions may be on the release of information and clearly identify circumstances where the information will be made available, and that employees would not be compelled. The member who just spoke — or perhaps the previous member — mentioned indirectly the mystery surrounding the liquor business in the province. I'm told by people who have been involved in the branch for some years that one of the reasons for this mystery has been the continued reluctance on the part of those engaged in the branch to provide information, because, I am advised, they are not clear on what they can say or what information they can give.

The member mentioned the oath of secrecy that is common among public servants. I suppose if you were to use that as an example you might really wonder whether you can say anything to anyone. It's never really been clearly understood within the branch what should and what should not be made available. Mr. Member, I'll give you a couple of examples of what some of our people have been asked. We've had requests from the media and other people for, as an example, a list of the owners of every licence in British Columbia. There are in excess of 5,000. That information is public. It is known; but it's a huge amount of work to compile it. We've been asked whether we should simply supply this because someone has requested it. or whether we can perhaps avoid supplying it by saying: "I'm sorry, it's confidential information."

We've had other requests for more specific information on categories of licensees. I've had requests for a list of every owner of every neighbourhood pub and every transaction that's taken place in that. These are very large requests and they require a great deal of compilation.

Here is an example of information that I don't think should be available to anyone at their casual pleasure. Within our files we have personal information about a licensee, a person who, in his previous years, was convicted of a very, very serious crime. He has spent a fair amount of time in prison and was released. Since that period of time he has acted in a very, very responsible manner. At some time in his life he applied for and received a licence and is a very successful operator. I don't think that information should be generally available to anyone simply because they might wish to look through every file and every application. This would be on an older application.

There's a lot of information available. but none of it, I would suggest, falls in the category, as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) suggested, of secrecy. It is certainly not our intent to have the information in that category of secrecy. To have some of the information confidential, yes — as it relates to the individual and as it relates to that individual's business.

The application procedure is somewhat different than some of the information that may develop over the years in a file and, as I said to the member, when there is an appeal, it is open to the public. No one ever attends, but they're open nonetheless.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon mentioned the listings committee, which is under the Liquor Distribution Act, but if that member.... I am very distressed to hear his remark, and I'm sure he shares my distress that if somebody has accurate information about listings which are announced sometime thereafter.... If they have that information weeks in advance or even days in advance, I would like to hear from you, because that's very serious. The listings committee has a very important function, and even to suggest that perhaps somehow someone might have advanced information of what will be approved is very, very serious

[ Page 3066 ]

indeed. I'd like any information that anyone might have on that.

Mr. Chairman, I can't add a great deal more to what our intent and our desire is. We feel that this is something that should have been part of the liquor control and licensing processes for some time. We hope it will resolve the question that comes to us constantly from people within the administrative branch as to what they can make available and to whom. And we intend to tell them.

MR. LEVI: I'd just like to pursue one thing with the minister. I don't want anyone to misconstrue this. The burden of his argument, which is a serious one in one respect, dealt with criminal records and people who committed criminal offenses, have been out of jail for some time and have been living a perfectly lawful existence. There is a remedy for the problem of the secrecy around that issue that was made possible by the pardons act some 12 or 14 years ago. I know that it's been expressed from time to time by police agencies that they have some concern about people with criminal records getting into any aspect of the liquor industry. It's quite possible for anyone who has a criminal record, who has been convicted — I'm thinking now of indictable offences — and has served a sentence.... After five clear years they have a right to apply for a pardon. Once that pardon is granted the public record is expunged. They do not have to declare that record; nor can anybody, under any circumstances, make it public. Having dealt with that, there are options for people who have that concern in terms of a criminal record; that's been taken care of in the federal area. The ministry might look at that. We can go into a range of areas where we have concern about people with criminal records — in general commerce, not just in the liquor industry.

On the availability of information, I agree with the minister that we don't want people coming and frivolously saying: "Give me a complete printout of...." I hope most of your records are now on computers. Oh, I'd better correct that for the record. I understand it's not in the computer yet. I have been able to write to the department and get certain information in the booklets that they publish. I appreciate that there shouldn't be a wholesale acceding to requests of people, as the minister talked about. However, the minister might, from my point of view.... I'm not suggesting he's going to get off the hook from the point of view of my friend from Vancouver East. If this confidentiality section will clear the way for a more adequate amount of information — as I raised, I think, once before — in terms of the annual report, then fair enough — if this is going to explain to the personnel of the ministry that there are certain things that we can and cannot do. Nevertheless, it's the language that becomes the problem. Going back to the criminal record aspect, the minister might take note of the fact that that should not be a concern of the ministry in terms of someone's criminal record, because there are other remedies for the resolving of that problem, available to everyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence and been out of trouble for a certain amount of time.

MR. MACDONALD: If the purpose of this section, as the minister says, is to make information more readily accessible and to define what information may be released, he's gone about it in exactly the wrong way. Through these guidelines, he has restricted the outflow of information except in these circumstances — in particular (f) at the end, the only sort of out: "where the general manager authorizes disclosure." Why not say that the thing is open, and if you feel there are legitimate exceptions make them. You've gone the other way and pulled down the blinds with this kind of section.

Suppose the question arose as to who were the real applicants for a pub licence when they were applying under a company name. The branch, I would think, in investigating that application, would find out who the real beneficial owners of the company are. They may not be the same as appear on the records of the registrar of companies. They may be or they may not be. Why shouldn't that information as to who the real applicants are be available to other applicants seeking a licence in the same area? The minister told me in reply the other day that the people in the marine pub at Gibsons shouldn't be damned just because of their name, and that they had lived for some period of time on the the Sunshine Coast. He completely omitted the fact that R. Dale Janowsky, the former partner of the minister, was a beneficial owner. Anybody reading the minister's remarks wouldn't pick up that impression whatsoever. But he is; he's listed in the registrar of companies as a director. That means he's an owner of the licence along with two other Janowskys.

I'd say, Mr. Minister, that you should have been bringing in a section saying this process is open but we have reservations about certain types of information in certain circumstances and we don't want to have provide a huge pile of typewritten paper for anybody who comes along. That's all right; you can achieve that in many other ways. What you're really saying — even to MLAs — is that where we want to, in certain cases, the only information you can have is by the leave and grace of the general manager of the liquor administration branch, whoever he may be in the future or in the past. Also you're saying in this section that no past employee of the branch can authorize information. Why do you do that? Suppose there is something improper about a licence application that has already been granted, and somebody who's retired is asked about that by the press, by an MLA or by anybody. Why do you seal his lips?

If it is your intent to make information more readily available, Mr. Minister, you're going about it totally the wrong way. You're saying it shall be available only at the fiat of the general manager, who after all, as the general manager of the branch, is really subject to the minister.

I say in those cases where you want to, you can pull down the blinds, whoever that minister may be, and I say that's not acceptable.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the minister would give us an example of — the section is paragraph (f) — where the general manager authorizes disclosure. Under what circumstances would the minister envision that the general manager could do this? I appreciate that that's the part of the section where it is acceptable. In what circumstances would he do this? For instance, would he, if he thought it was an appropriate piece of information — using the minister's example and concern — let it be known to somebody that an individual in fact has a criminal record? Under what circumstances would he make this kind of information available? What would he do? Is there some kind of special circumstance in which this might take place?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I don't think the example of the person with a criminal record would probably fall in that

[ Page 3067 ]

category. I would think that the general manager would be more likely to authorize disclosure in a general sense if there were.... For example, Mr. Member, the government of Alberta a few months back asked if they could get information about our history of neighbourhood pubs and what our experience had been. I would think that that is perhaps an example where the general manager may authorize disclosure of certain information. I doubt if it would be specific information; I doubt if it would contain the names of the owners of the pubs or whatever; but it would be the experience of it, and much of that information would come from the files. The general manager could authorize disclosure, I suppose, under any circumstances, but I would think it would probably be for the purpose of studies, surveys and generalized information rather than specific information.

I submit to the House again that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) could perhaps argue that the wording may be backwards or upside down; the effect, I think, will be the same. I don't really think we wish to start bringing in regulations listing all the exceptions and the circumstances; I think we can cover that off with this very concise wording that our good friends and legal counsel put together for us.

MR. LEVI: Let me try an example on the minister, Mr. Chairman, and see whether this might be an appropriate thing for the general manager. Suppose that an individual takes over the licence of a hotel and has a discussion and there is an arrangement made, it's purchased, and the person who owned it has gone out of the picture. He said, "Oh, we've got a great thing here, and showed him all the accounts and said, "We're selling 500 barrels a month," or something like that. But then the individual wants to know — and he's not told by the person who's selling it — whether this particular hotel has been the subject of a number of reports by liquor inspectors. You know, they go around and they may have had a number of complaints. Now would a new licensee be able to go to the department and say: "What can you tell me about the past operation of this place? What kind of problems were they having and can I expect to have the same problems?"

Is that the kind of information about which the general manager might say: "Yes, we can release that."? Is that the kind of information they might release?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, that is an example. That information is made available now when the person applies for transfer. If you are dealing with a major licence, such as a hotel, a fair amount of time is usually spent with the general manager or staff about the history of that hotel and difficulties that may surround it, usually including — fairly confidential information — a series of police reports, which very often name a great number of people. Yes, that type of information would be available.

MR. LEVI: We're not setting out to sandbag the minister. We wouldn't want to do that, but the more questions we ask and the more answers he gives — he is candid about his answers — we wind up with the sum total of: well, it's all going on anyway.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MR. LEVI: Well, a lot is going on. For instance, the minister just said that if they want a transfer of licence they spend a lot of time with the manager. He makes available inspectors' reports and police reports. All right, that's open. I'm not surprised that he said that. I understand that that has been the practice.

We keep coming back to this section of the act. If everything was going on anyway.... I don't see in this act that it proscribes, in any particularized way, people from doing anything. What is happening now is presumably what will happen next week, with absolutely no change whatsoever. I don't see that there would be any change in the behaviour of the staff of the minister's department that deals with this. This isn't particularized. In the example that the minister has given there is the give and take of information depending on the particular situation. I suppose I go back to: what will change? I presume we may get a whole slew of regulations, but I think you could bring the regulations down within the existing section of the act without having to bring in the amendment. Will anything really change in terms of the giving of information, which the minister just exemplified with the transfer of a licence, like, say, a hotel? I don 't see that anything will change in that sense. So why? Is there some other deeper. rather mysterious reason for this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. there is no deep or mysterious reason for it. We have. as I mentioned, a bit of a tradition in the liquor control and licensing branch, where.... A great mystery has developed over all of this, and there is a reluctance on the part of a great many of the staff to give out information associated with the liquor licence or an operation. One of the reasons for that, I am advised. Is that they're very often unsure as to what information they can divulge. Clearly, Mr. Member, if we have a licensee who may operate a pub, hotel or a restaurant, and if he were to phone and ask what last month's figures on a specific restaurant or chain of restaurants are, or somebody else, how their business is and what their volume is, we wouldn't tell them. Presently we certainly would not simply tell them because they phoned in: "How's my competitor doing? What kind of volume?" We feel that information is of a confidential nature to the licensee.

But, more important than that, if you were to speak to some people in the industry you will find that they very often get very little information, if any. A lot of people can get very little information if any from many of the people within the branch because they do not feel that they are in the position to give out information relating to licences in this industry.

I agree with you that we should not have this mystery surrounding the industry. By way of example you showed the Washington state report, and the information contained in that, I think, is.... Some of it may be a bit redundant, may be a little too much. but I can't really understand within the area of liquor why any of it need be a mystery, other than the personal information relating to the individual and/or his business.

We believe that these amendments will probably provide more information to, perhaps, more people without the problem that seems to be associated with it now, that you really can't divulge any information. If someone mentions liquor and someone mentions information, I'm sorry, very often the case is that I can not give you any information.

This will change it, I believe, somewhat. It will also offer guidelines for that which is occurring now, as you suggested.

[ Page 3068 ]

Sometimes, and I think it's unfortunate, in the past people who were licensees and knew people within the branch, had dealt with them for some period of time, perhaps were able to get information more readily than others who were either new in the industry or did not have any form of association with people in it.

This will make it fairly clear, I believe, that indeed you are authorized to provide information. You are authorized to provide specific information and, if there is a question, the general manager can authorize that information to be distributed.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the more I listen to this discussion the more confused I become. Let me just read from this section one example: "No person who has been an employee of the branch shall be compelled to disclose information except where the general manager authorizes disclosures." That would be one case. How does the general manager, authorizing a disclosure, compel a past employee to divulge information? It seems to me that "compel" means that you force them to do it. I think what the minister has been saying is that you allow them to do it. I just don't understand what we are trying to do with this section. It doesn't make any kind of sense. How does the general manager, authorizing a disclosure, compel a past employee of the administration to divulge a piece of information? That is what the minister says this is going to do. I don't understand how that happens. I think the House deserves an explanation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the member should know that nobody can compel another person to do anything.

MRS. WALLACE: Then why are you saying it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN. No one can be compelled to do anything. An ex-employee, presumably, cannot be compelled to do anything either — unless you wind up in front of a judge, and I suppose there is some compulsion there or else you face the penalty. That's very clear. As you will see, Madam Member, it reads: "No person who is or has been an employee shall be compelled." That includes a person who is. So we use the same phraseology to cover those who were and those who were not in all of these circumstances. You can arrange it any way you want and come up with whatever you desire. But if you and the others don't understand, I really can't add much to your net knowledge. The concept is to provide guidelines for employees in the liquor, control branch so they know what information they can give and to whom they may give it.

At the present time there are no guidelines, and it is very unclear what authority they may have. The member mentioned earlier that they have taken an oath of secrecy. How far does that go? Are they not permitted to give out any information? I don't know why liquor is as sensitive an area as it is but I suppose that is because of the great history of the product over the years. It is very sensitive, and the employees in the branch have always been sensitive as to what information they may give out. This is the first time they have been advised in any way that they will be permitted to give out information.

You can combine the words as you so choose and come up with what might be described as a legal puzzle. The words were put together by our legal counsel to mean what we had intended it to mean. I suppose we can argue for some time about what a word means and so on. I offered you an explanation of what we are attempting to accomplish. You, as a member of this House, have probably on occasion sought certain information; I doubt that you have been denied the information. It is very, very clear that if you, as an MLA, were to seek information and you had a problem getting the information, the general manager could authorize that disclosure and compel the employee to provide you with that information, provided he has control over that employee. If it is an ex-employee, I would suggest there would be very little control.

MR. HOWARD: The minister mentioned earlier that there is almost, in a historic sense, a mystery around liquor licensing and dispensing and administration and so on. I think that is probably correct, partly because the product itself relates to certain propensities and weaknesses in human beings; partly, I suppose, because booze and bribery have gone hand in hand in the past and may well be going hand in hand at the moment; partly because liquor has been and still is a very profitable enterprise for those engaged in it, a very powerful enterprise and activity. A lot of loose money floats around and changes hands.

With respect to licences and licensing, one wonders about the secrecy aspect of the involvement. In that regard I'd like to make reference to a television program that I'm sure the minister is quite aware of. It was shown on February 10 of this year. It was a "W5" program involving some of the participants. In it were a Mr. Woodland, who in the program was identified as the chairman of the liquor commission; a gentleman named Kevin Cassidy, a B.C. Development Corporation loans officer; and a gentleman named Ken Stewart, who was identified as a B.C. liquor control board marketing director. The conversation involved the relationship between a brewery and licensees or retail outlets for beer. I'd like to read from the transcript a bit to, I think, put forward what I'm trying to get to with respect to the question of secrecy and how secrecy and confidentiality can be used to hide what are perhaps — to put it in a generous sense improper activities in the industry.

There was a gentleman by the name of Jim Reed, who was the host of this particular program. I don't want to be accused of being selective; I will gladly table the whole script if someone wants me to. I'm just taking a few words from it. The first part of it is Mr. Jim Reed, the host of the program, saying:

"In B.C., and, in other. provinces, hotel owners are allowed to serve only one brand of draft beer at a time in their bars. That could lead to under-the-table deals to induce hotel-keepers to change the brand of beer they serve.

"Although the beer companies deny such deals go on, government officials say they do and describe one ploy. The officials say that hotel owners are offered benefits, for instance, to sponsor sports teams in the community. They say that some of that money sticks to the pocket of the hotel keeper. If beer companies were to make that kind of payoff to buy their way into bars, that would be a criminal act. Or would

[ Page 3069 ]

it? In other words, a brewer will offer a hotel owner money in return for his account."

Then comes into the scene Mr. Woodland, who is identified as the chairman of the liquor commission. Mr. Woodland says: "It's not only money; in fact it's rarely money. It may be some tangible benefit to him to do this." In other words, Mr. Woodland, the chairman of the liquor commission, is agreeing that, yes, beer companies do offer under the-table deals to licensees or to beer-parlor owners to change their brand of beer. Jim Reed then interrupts and says: "Nevertheless it is a criminal act to offer a benefit. It's a bribe; it's a corrupt practice."

And what does B.C. Liquor Board's marketing director, Ken Stewart, think? Continuing on with Mr. Reed: "I mean the breweries just make out the cheque for $2,000 or $3,000 and hand it to the hotel owner, and then he cashes it and does what he wants with it. Mind you, he puts the ball team out, but he may only spend $200 on that."

Ken Stewart, B.C. Liquor Board's marketing director, says: "That's true." No denial, no question, according to the script and the program. He said: "That's true." Jim Reed said: "Now that's a criminal practice." Ken Stewart says — and this is very revealing, I think, about the attitude of some in the ministry or on the board: "I don't understand why you feel that would be a criminal practice, if the brewer supported a ball team legitimately and the licensee chose not to put the dollars up front this year, perhaps saving them for next year."

What's illegitimate about that? But, no, you've raised a very good point, really. Nobody really controls the way this dollar is distributed. Mr. Stewart is saying basically two things there. He's saying he's agreeing with Jim Reed that, yes, the hotel owner could get $2,000 or $3,000, put out $200 for a local ball team and stuff the rest in his pocket. That could happen. Mr. Stewart admits that could happen. If that did happen, he is also saying — and this is the surprising part of it — that he doesn't see how that would be a criminal practice.

Jim Reed then went further and said: "We asked the big three about those charges. Carling O'Keefe replied that sales abuse charges were ludicrous" — and I'm putting this all on so that you get the balance as the program was presented — "Labatt's told us that the beer business in B.C. is just the same as in the rest of Canada — above board and most respectable — and, finally, Molson's told us that they found charges of sales abuse incredible, nonsensical and ludicrous."

MR. MACDONALD: What about Ben Ginter?

MR. HOWARD: Ben wasn't on this program.

They added that the entire beer business in B.C. was losing money and there wouldn't be cash available for such abuses anyway. Well, now just examine Labatt's, Carling O'Keefe's and Molson's balance sheet and annual reports for the year and you will discover that perhaps they're not losing money in their activities.

This program arose, incidentally — with response to a question asked earlier about Ben Ginter and the difficulty he had — with respect to a brewer by the name of Bob Naismith, who decided to try to break into the B.C. beer market in Prince George, and the difficulties he had with government, the licensing procedure, the mechanics, the procedures, and what appeared to be protectionism given to Labatt's, Molson's and O'Keefe. That's how this program arose.

To continue with the quotation from Mr. Reed: "...but as "W5" has learned, even if such abuses did take place, the public wouldn't know about them, because the investigations are secret." That's where we're getting to here.

Ken Stewart comes on the scene again. He said: "Well, we had information that came from an investigatory source, both from our own people and others, that there was an inducement offered — a considerable inducement offered — to transfer accounts from one brewery to another." Then Jim Reed interrupts and says: "Cash?" Ken Stewart says: "Cash." Jim Reed says: "Now isn't it possible that Prince George Breweries, a small company, has been a victim of those practices?" Comes Mr. Woodland back onto the scene: "I can't make any statements on that. Let me say this, that all breweries, at one time or another, endeavour to do this, regardless of their size. " You will have to draw on your own imagination for what they attempt to do. It seems to have fitted in with the rest of the flow of the program. Here comes a gentleman into the picture now by the name of James Nielsen: "If there are corrupt practices going on in the brewery industry and we're made aware of this, then those persons who are involved in that are going to be in very serious difficulty." Good statement from the minister. Jim Reed says: "Do you turn evidence of your findings over to the Attorney-General and the police?" Mr. Woodland, the chairman of the liquor commission, says: "No, we deal with this in our own manner. We act in our own way, in seeing that the matter is corrected or righted within here."

Here we have on the one hand government officials saying: "Yes." As Mr. Stewart said: "Yes, we had information that came from an investigatory source, both from our own people and others that there was a considerable inducement offered to transfer accounts from one brewery to another, cash, etc. It was dealt with internally." What happened? Any other type of activity of that nature which is bribery would have been dealt with by the Attorney-General's department. It is considered to be a criminal offence and should have been dealt with in that manner.

But here it's kept under wraps; it's kept intact; it's kept within the liquor administration branch operations somewhere. It doesn't go outside; it's dealt with internally. And that is what I think puts forward clearly — out of the mouths of people who are employed in the department — the connection between the concern that the citizenry have about secrecy in the operation of the liquor business and this particular amendment that's before us now. As long as this is continued as a practice, the mystery that the minister talked about a while ago is going to continue and prevail. Suspicion will lurk around what is a mysterious operation.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, booze and bribery have gone on for a long period of time, and according to officials working in the department, it's going on right now — that's their own statement. Nothing occurs about it in any criminal sense and that's a sad case to have to look at and examine.

I want to get into the question of the difficulty that Mr. Naismith had with licensing and that sort of thing; that's another aspect of it, and I just wanted to deal with that particular point there.

I think that as long as the law of this province seeks to confine matters in a way where secrecy prevails, where it

[ Page 3070 ]

isn't open, where the Attorney-General's ministry is not brought into the picture when criminal acts are discovered or suspected, then the general public is entitled to take the view that there is something rotten in the whole scheme of things.

The minister is not really doing the general public, or his own image or the image of his government, a service by seeking to continue this element of mystery or secrecy.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to respond, because I appreciate what the member is saying. Mr. Member, just for the clarification of those who may be listening, the program you referred to was not a live program, nor were all the participants together. It was done in segments. That's why everyone would not necessarily be aware of the conversations or comments of the others.

I stand by the statement I made, and, Mr. Member, I can assure you that I have not been advised of that which you refer to — that there was indeed some type of tangible evidence that inducements had been made by way of cash offers, and that nothing was done about it. As far as I am concerned, that would automatically go to the Attorney-General's ministry for consideration of whether charges should follow.

A lot of incidents occur that affect a licensee which are handled internally by way of an appeal to the general manager. They may result in the suspension of a licence for a day or two or some other penalty to a licensee, but they generally do not involve criminal actions. Usually it is a separate charge of overcrowding, serving a minor, being open extra hours or some other relatively minor violation and they do result in suspensions.

The other, much bigger case that you put forward contained in that transcript, was never brought to my attention. Certainly no one has suggested to me that that is occurring. I'll get a copy of that transcript from you, because I did not see the program and it has not been brought to my attention. Mr. Member, I will go back to that specific incident and find out what it was. If it is possible, I would suggest that they proceed — as it should have been proceeded with to begin with. I don't believe anyone should turn a blind eye to anything that could be occurring in that. If there is good information it will be proceeded with, I can assure you.

MR. HOWARD: It's a very acceptable response by the minister — acceptable to me and, I am sure, to others.

I think the point we want to make though is that the sense of what was sent or that program is that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Woodland said that the normal practice when they discover that perhaps something of this nature is happening — as Mr. Stewart said it was happening.... In the words of Mr. Woodland, the normal practice is "not to turn it over to the Attorney-General" — regardless of what it was. "No, we deal with this in our own manner. " The simple question was asked of him: "Do you turn evidence" — not of a specific case — "of your findings over to the Attorney-General and to the police?" He didn't say, "In some cases, depending on facts," and this sort of thing. He said a blanket, flat: "No, we deal with this in our own manner. We're in our own way in seeing that the matter is corrected or righted within here."

That is the terrible part about it, if that is the normal practice, then it wouldn't come to the attention of the minister. It would happen internally. I will readily give the minister the transcript to look at this particular instance. I think for him to go to Ken Stewart and say, "What case are you talking about?" — much more than that is required. What is required is a complete change of attitude so that the common practice is that if things of this nature are taking place and are discovered within the inspector's staff or the liquor control board, that ends up in the A-G's hands and isn't dealt with, as Mr. Woodland said, internally.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As a final comment, I can assure the member that that attitude, policy or whatever has changed, if not yesterday then effective immediately.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister says that it's a whole new day of openness in this area. Yet in relation to what was said by the hon. member for Skeena, this information respecting a licence, in this case a hotel with a beer licence, shall not be made available to people except where the general manager authorizes disclosure or it comes up in court. That is drawing a veil of secrecy over this kind of information.

Why shouldn't everything be open about a licence, including whether the licensee is sponsoring a ball club and has $2,000 and only spent $500 on the ball club and as a result of that was favourable to Labatt's or one of the others in terms of the barrels of beer that he was going to buy? What is the meaning of the secrecy respecting the licence? There may be exceptions where information should not be divulged, but they are rare. Here you are making information respecting licences secret except where you can go to a senior civil servant and get an authority that it be revealed.

Ben Ginter, when he had his brewery, as far as I know never got a chance to sell a barrel of beer to a single hotel throughout the province of British Columbia. He used to come and plead for a quota system so that he would get the right to sell barrels of beer in relation to the number of dozens of his beer that the public picked up at the liquor outlets, so that he could survive. He didn't belong to the club, and it was a total shut-out. I think the guy is selling soft drinks now, or something of that kind. He was shut out completely. Why?

Why shouldn't information respecting licences be open? If you open the process up, you're going to eliminate some of the practices that undoubtedly prevail out there. Even in the case I was mentioning, where you had four applicants for a neighbourhood pub.... Then a whole new form of licence comes in, and one of those applicants knew two things, somehow. He knew that the new regulations had come in and he knew that the licensing branch was ready to handle them in a very quick fashion. If information was disclosed, would it not have been disclosed by the licensing branch to all four applicants? I would certainly think so. Yet here we have a provision that restricts information.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon Mr. Curtis tabled the annual return for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, submitted in accordance with section 4 of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, together with a report of the Authority for the preceding fiscal year, a financial statement showing the assets and liabilities of the Authority at the end of the preceding fiscal year, and a covering letter from the auditor-general.

[ Page 3071 ]

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the sixth annual report of the British Columbia Development Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved. The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

32 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 32) intituled Livestock Brand Act to amend as follows:

(a) By renumbering section 11 as section 13.

(b) By adding the following as section 11: "R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 44

"11. The Cattle Horn Act is amended

" (a) By repealing the definition of 'dealer' in section I and substituting the following:

'dealer' means a person licensed as a livestock dealer under the Livestock Brand Act; and

"(b) By repealing section 9. and

(c) By adding the following as section 12: "R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 246

"12. section 2 (2) of the Livestock Public Sale Act is amended by striking out 'stockdealer' and substituting 'livestock dealer'."