[ Page 6315 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

The Windy Bay Watershed Ecological Reserve Act (Bill M207). Mr. Lea.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

Southern Moresby Wilderness Park Act (Bill M208). Mr. Lea.

Introduction and first reading –– 6315

Oral Questions

Promotional film-making. Mr. Hall –– 6315

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Use of American personnel in government projects. Mr. Hall –– 6316

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Bus passes for the blind. Ms. Brown –– 6317

Mr. Barrett

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6317

Mr. Levi –– 6319

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6319

Mr. Stupich –– 6319

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6319

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981 (Bill 24). Committee stage.

On section 81 –– 6319

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 6321

Building Safety Standards Act (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On section 3 –– 6321

Mr. Barber

On section 13 –– 6322

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to section 37 –– 6322

Mr. Barber

Report –– 6322

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On section 10 –– 6323

Ms. Sanford

On section 13 –– 6324

Ms. Sanford

On section 14 –– 6325

Ms. Sanford

On section 17 –– 6325

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lea

Report –– 6330

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6330

Hon. Mr. Williams

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Howard

Mr. Lauk

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Railway's financial statements for the year ended January 2, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6338

Appendix –– 6339

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Roy Collier from the little community of Topley in my constituency of Omineca. I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to welcome to this hallowed precinct 25 extremely well-behaved grade 8 students from St. Jude's School.

MR. RITCHIE: I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Kehler from Matsqui and Mr. and Mrs. Fred Gietema from Sumas. Would the House please welcome these folks from Central Fraser Valley.

MR. KING: Mr Speaker, the Pacific Northwest Labor History Association held their 1981 conference at the University of Victoria over the weekend. On that occasion they selected a labour history person of the year. That individual is in the gallery today. I would like to introduce Mr. Tom McGuire, who is a long-time staff representative of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and an organizer in the mines of the United States as well as Canada. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and I would ask you to join us in welcoming May Taylor and Linda Peters, the leaders of the Pathfinders, and seven girls from the Third Surrey Pathfinders group visiting us today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the gallery today is a real long-time resident of the village of Princeton. I ask the House to please welcome Tom Coyne.

Mr. Speaker, one of the younger members of the Social Credit caucus is celebrating his — I believe — thirty-ninth birthday. I would ask the House to join me in wishing a very happy birthday to the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

Introduction of Bills

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Act.

Bill 27 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.

THE WINDY BAY WATERSHED
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Lea, Bill M207, The Windy Bay Watershed Ecological Reserve Act, 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.

SOUTHERN MORESBY
WILDERNESS PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr Lea. Bill M208, Southern Moresby Wilderness Park Act, 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.

MR. MUSSALLEM: May I have leave of the House to inform you what the flowers are on your desk today?

MR. SPEAKER: Please do, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I make this announcement on behalf of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). It has come to my attention that on your desk today you will have received flowers from one of British Columbia's premier tourist attractions, the Minter Gardens. The flowers are with the compliments of the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia, as a gesture of welcome to summer. I would like you to join me in thanking those people for their kindness, and to welcome what we all hope will be a successful tourist summer.

Oral Questions

PROMOTIONAL FILM-MAKING

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. In his fascination for Hollywood and its promotional techniques — and the latest fascination concerns actress Cheryl Ladd.... Could the minister tell me why the government is going to pay the cost of travel and hotel accommodation for an American camera crew to come to British Columbia to film this actress as part of a promotion?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry, with the communications branch that he heads, will be responsible for the distribution when the film is complete?

HON. MR WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be more helpful to the member if we took that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker, not as notice to the Minister of Tourism but to the minister responsible for the department of communications and Mr. Heal, who is allegedly coordinating all government communications and distribution. I ask the minister directly: to his knowledge has he instructed Mr. Heal to be responsible for the distribution of this film?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, not to my knowledge. But Mr. Heal's office, as I've explained before, is there for the service of all ministries, on their request, to assist them in what they may need in terms of those activities.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's responsibility for coordination of communications and the use

[ Page 6316 ]

of film in this province, is the minister aware that the B.C. film industry is shocked and dismayed by the actions of the government and intends to demonstrate against the activities of this imported crew?

MR. KING: I have a supplementary for the Provincial Secretary. I understand a memo has gone out from the minister's office to all cabinet ministers, indicating that Mr. Heal must be contacted and must coordinate all the advertising and filming activities of each department. Are we to understand that, in addition to Mr. Heal's budget for filming special occasions and propagandizing on behalf of the government, each ministry also has an additional budget from which it may hire Hollywood actresses to tout its ministry and its political image?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the member is well aware of the fact that each ministry has a budget for advertising and sales promotion. That certainly applies to the Ministry of Tourism.

USE OF AMERICAN PERSONNEL
IN GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

MR. HALL: I appreciate the minister's dilemma. The Minister of Tourism isn't here, and perhaps she's the minister responsible.

I'm going to ask the minister if he's aware that the government has announced that they're going to spend $45,000 to pay for the accommodation of some American cameramen and sound technicians coming up here, when we have British Columbian technicians out of work. They're going to spend $45,000 to make this film when we've got people who can do it up here.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has it come to the attention of the Minister of Labour that 12 to 14 American technicans and, as I understand it, only one Canadian will be used in this film project? Many of our technicians are unemployed in this province, and there's certainly not adequate work.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I recall reading something in the press last week and that's about all. It seems to me that a question very similar to this arose last year from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), involving work which was done at one of the ski mountains. I made an inquiry at that time. If the member wishes, I'll take his inquiry as notice and attempt to find an answer for him.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question to the minister. Doesn't the minister ever make representations to the federal Department of Employment and Immigration to prevent our own people from being put out of work by this kind of activity in the province?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was always under the impression that there was a fair amount of free access across the border. If there is some concern, then perhaps we'll look into it. It seems to me that the last time this problem came up there was an explanation for it, and I requested somebody in the ministry to make contact with the federal Department of Employment and Immigration.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour not aware that regulations prevent Canadian film technicians from working in the United States of America?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. After last year's experience — not only the one up north but also that of the jetfoil being manned by an American crew and the concern of British Columbians about Americans working in British Columbian jobs that British Columbians could be taking — has the minister issued a memo to other ministers pointing out that if they intend to hire American citizens for specific jobs he would like to vet those jobs first to ensure that no Canadians were available? Can the minister tell us whether he sent such a memo out?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I did not send such a memo out, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that there is no screening process in his ministry to protect jobs, paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, for British Columbians? Is the minister saying that they've learned absolutely nothing from the jetfoil experience, and that they're willing to take taxpayers' money and spend it on American workers while Canadians are unemployed? Is the minister admitting that there is no government policy, through his ministry, that automatically screens all applications for employment in government projects to see first whether Canadians or British Columbians are available? Is that what the minister is admitting?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Within the ministry there is a department which concerns itself with immigration. The member well knows that the provincial government does not have any control over the matter of immigration.

MR. KING: That's nonsense! You're hiring them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: From time to time concern is expressed with respect to people emigrating to Canada, particularly in the areas of technology and trade, when in fact certain communities in our province and country have not taken it upon themselves to do the training. Then we suddenly find significant applications by a number of people or companies in the community. At times we in government can send the expression that we are not pleased with this, or that in fact we would like certain companies to do more work with respect to training in our own community.

I repeat that we have no control, to my knowledge, over matters of immigration.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Labour is aware that this is a B.C. government job — not a private industry and not the federal government. Therefore the control is in the hands of this government.

It is public knowledge that Canadians are available for this job. With the knowledge that it is a government job that is completely controlled by this government and that Canadians

[ Page 6317 ]

are available for this job, what has this minister done to ensure that unemployed British Columbians can have this taxpayer-financed job available to them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: When the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) raised the matter, I anticipated what he was driving at. I said that I would take the question as notice and would inquire into it. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the member should think that the Ministry of Labour is fully informed about every conceivable item raised or policy practised in government ministries or in the private sector. I think that the least I can do is to make the appropriate inquiry. I said I would, and I'll take it as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister advise this House whether his ministry has a policy that requires, on government projects, a clearance through his department of immigration, for his information, whether or not there are British Columbians or Canadians available for that job? Is there a screening process that you've initiated purely for B.C. government jobs or government-financed jobs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that question one way or the other. I will find out whether there is a policy in government that we are to treat people differently than anybody else in the province.

BUS PASSES FOR THE BLIND

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Finance. There are 4,892 blind persons in the lower mainland and Victoria who have been asking the government for $25,000 to ensure that their bus passes can be used both in Vancouver and Victoria. Can the Minister of Finance tell me whether the government has decided it is more important to spend $45,000 on Cheryl Ladd's hotel bills than $25,000 for the bus passes for the 4,892 blind persons?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This administration need not apologize for the humanitarian activities it has undertaken. I think the response which colleagues such as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) have made to a variety of problems is a record to be envied across this country. The question is argumentative, in my view, in that it attempts to suggest that a decision was made in favour of one program over another. That conclusion is clearly incorrect.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. If the question from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is argumentative and suggests that a choice was made of one project over another, could the minister inform the House of the specific reason the government used to reject the grant to the blind people?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we deal with these matters as they are presented to Treasury Board — when I say "we" I mean members of Treasury Board — and I think that inquires into government policy.

MR. BARRETT: What's government policy — to cut off the blind?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're pathetic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the minister please come to order.

On Thursday last in question period a point of order was raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I have reflected, not only in the ensuing days but over the weekend, regarding his point of order.

I would like the House to be aware of the procedure which the Chair uses in trying to maintain order. The point of order that was raised simply suggested that the Chair should be very careful in applying very evenly to both sides of the House the same criteria for proclaiming members out of order. Just so that the House will not be confused, whenever an interjection takes place there is a certain leniency which the Chair allows, as all members know. Indeed, over the course of a day perhaps three or four interjections may go by completely unnoticed. However, when interjections clearly become interruptions, the Chair must then interrupt, and when a member has interrupted or interjected three or four times in a row, that member himself may be drawn to order, not just in general terms but by designation of his constituency. If following the Chair's standing there is still continued disruption, those members then at fault are subject to being named in person. That's the procedure that we try to follow. It is applied equally to both sides. I hope that is acceptable.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: In rising to move second reading of Bill 23, which I now do, may I make a few comments about the concept and object of the amendments contained in the bill. Basically, the amendments may be summarized into four compartments or divisions. They are time-sharing, prospectus requirements, a series of miscellaneous administrative or housekeeping amendments, and finally a very major amendment to section 28 of the act. I propose to briefly comment on the items in that order.

Dealing first with time-sharing, these amendments seek to clarify and expand the provisions in the Real Estate Act with respect to time-share offerings. The purpose of the amendments is to make absolutely clear that all forms of time-share offerings made in the province of British Columbia fall within the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Act. The two major consequences of that umbrella of the Real Estate Act being clearly made to cover all forms of time-share offering in the province would be, first, that the standard type of prospectus requirements will follow, and accordingly that all time-share offerings in the province must be accompanied by the appropriate, duly approved form of prospectus.

The further proviso relative to all forms of time-sharing which will flow from the amendment is that rescission rights will accrue with respect to the proposed purchaser. First of all, in a manner parallel to traditional prospectus offerings under this real estate statute, if material provisions of the prospectus have not been met within the prescribed period following receipt of the prospectus, the purchaser then has the right to rescind the time-share agreement. Additionally,

[ Page 6318 ]

in the case of these time-share offerings, we provide a seven day cooling-off period — what we call a seven-day, no-cause cooling-off period. This further provision is that in the case of time-share offerings in this province, within seven days of the later of the signing of the time-share contract and the receipt of the prospectus the purchaser may choose to cancel the contract with no reason necessary.

With respect to prospectuses, the amendments represent the necessary key step towards simplification of the real estate prospectus filing and approval process in British Columbia. In turn, it is hoped that that simplification will lead to a significant shortening of the time-frame for the processing of real estate prospectuses. In our view, both of those features will have a major impact on holding the line on and, we hope, minimizing overhead costs associated with bringing home-building lots, condominiums and homes into production in British Columbia.

If we are to simplify the prospectus procedure in this province, the superintendent of brokers must have the capacity to flexibly amend and simplify prospectus requirements. This is presently not possible, because prospectus requirements are built into the legislation as schedules to the Real Estate Act, and hence any attempts at streamlining involve necessary amendments to the legislation. Accordingly these amendments provide that henceforth the prospectus requirements under the Real Estate Act will not be filed in the schedules. Those schedules are hereby excised from the act, to be replaced by requirements and provisions relative to real estate prospectuses as prescribed by regulation by the superintendent of brokers.

It is the intention of the superintendent and this ministry to take steps as quickly as possible to simplify the form and processing of real-estate prospectuses. A substantial amount of work with respect to so-called bare-land prospectuses, dealing with production of individual building lots for homeowners in British Columbia, has already been done in anticipation of this legislation being passed. We hope within a fairly short period after proclamation of the appropriate sections that there will be in place in British Columbia a new and much simplified form of prospectus and prospectus-approval process for bare land subdivisions.

We hope that this will particularly assist the small subdivision house builder in two ways to produce house-building lots and bare land for home construction at more restrained costs. This will be the function of two factors. First of all, to the degree prospectus requirements are less onerous, there will be much lower overhead cost, particularly to the small builder and developer, in paying accountants, engineers and lawyers to produce the necessary prospectus. Secondly, if the time-frame is shortened, the savings are very substantial. For example, if a saving of 30 days for the processing of a real estate prospectus can be achieved, given today's interest rates and the average cost or value of a home-building lot in British Columbia at say $50,000 or $60,000, a one-month saving in the prospectus-approval period would likely save about $ 1,000 on that lot in interest-carrying costs alone.

Notwithstanding these desires to simplify and streamline, we are of course mindful of the need, through the regulatory process, to protect the consumer and the public interest. Obviously these goals will be met as part of the streamlining process.

May I just highlight the key features of the miscellaneous administrative or housekeeping provisions of the bill.

The maximum fine for offences under the Real Estate Act is now doubled from $5,000 to $10,000. Appeals from decisions made pursuant to the provisions of the Real Estate Act — and these are normally of a disciplinary nature, relative to real estate licences — are now to be heard by the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, as opposed to the county court of British Columbia. This should provide streamlining, simplification and lower costs to those pursuing the appeals route. There are further provisions with respect to a more clearly stated power to make regulations relative to prospectus and licence-fee requirements. There are provisions to maintain in good standing real-estate licences in this province if because of computer or administrative problems there is some short delay in the annual renewal-of-licence processing. Finally, the internal hearing procedures under the Real Estate Act are streamlined.

In my view the most important of these amendments concerns section 28 of the Real Estate Act. The present section 28 is deleted and a new section 28, much expanded, is its replacement. The new section 28 deals with the basic subject matter of the former section 28, which is the required disclosure duty of a licensed realtor where approaching a property-owner in British Columbia with the intention of purchasing that property essentially for the direct account or benefit of the licensed realtor.

The new section adds and strengthens the approach of the old section. First, it makes it clear that the section 28 requirements apply even in cases where the licensed realtor is approaching the property-owner by way of being part of a partnership or a corporation. Henceforth it will no longer be possible for a licensed realtor to avoid the requirements of section 28 by becoming part of a partnership or corporation doing the offering. Further, under the details required to be disclosed pursuant to section 28 there is the addition of full particulars with respect to any commission or commission sharing arrangement by which the realtor may benefit directly or indirectly. Thirdly, the form of disclosure will now be such as is prescribed by the superintendent of brokers in form and manner. That's important because it will mean, for the first time in British Columbia, that disclosures pursuant to section 28 will be uniform, province-wide and pursuant to a fair and effective standard laid down by the superintendent of brokers. They will provide a uniform, province-wide, fair and effective standard for advance notice and disclosure to all property-owners in British Columbia, when approached by a licensed realtor who wishes to acquire their property directly or indirectly.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the prescribed form is going to be of a colour which might descriptively be called blaze or loud red, so it's going to serve as a red flag to property owners. The wording will be prepared by the superintendent. Prominently and boldly on the face of the form will be the strong advice to property-owners being approached directly or indirectly by licensed realtors that they get independent advice as to the current fair market value of the subject property and as to the current market trends in that area for that kind of property.

We hope that this kind of suggestion, coupled with the necessary particulars now provided, will mean the virtual elimination of the kinds of problems that arise when the public deal with a licensed realtor directly for the sale of their own property and then feel that they've been taken advantage of through misunderstanding or lack of complete information. We feel that if members of the public, having had a

[ Page 6319 ]

proper and advanced chance to think about it and, hopefully, having obtained independent valuation on property and the trend of the market, coupled with full and complete disclosure of all the particulars and all of the interests of the licensed realtor dealing directly or indirectly with that property, still wish to complete such a transaction, it certainly should be their right to do so.

These steps, Mr. Speaker, are of benefit and interest not only to the consumers and property-owners of British Columbia but also to the very high percentage of licensed realtors who are the first to observe that in a very few cases a very small handful of licensed realtors can do great damage to the entire real estate vocation by unfairly taking advantage of property-owners. To the degree we have seen a very small handful of licensed realtors engaged in the so-called practice of "flipping" residential properties in the province, that is almost entirely because one of two things has happened: the property-owner has been incorrectly or not advised about the current fair market value of his property, or incorrectly or not properly advised about the trend of the market. Only if one of those two things happens can a person having acquired somebody's residential premises today quickly turn it over tomorrow for a very substantial gain.

So that is the thrust and the intention of the new section 28. We hope to have the new system in place by September 1.

Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks I want to acknowledge the strong support for this kind of section 28 provision that has been voiced by the organized real estate industry and vocation. I want to salute the significant number of real estate companies who, as a matter of company policy, have a rule that licensed realtors should not be engaged in the practice of acquiring residential property for the purposes of speculation. These provisions under section 28 apply with respect to all types of real estate, but may I say that in putting them into practice we shall be specifically concerned to make clear that the flipping of residential properties is not to be encouraged and is to be made virtually impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I will listen with interest to the comments of members. With those remarks, may I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to remind the hon. minister that it is rather unusual to debate a certain section in second reading. Perhaps he would remember that.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Social Service Tax Act in British Columbia by providing the authority in the act to tax a variety of transactions which can be grouped under the word "lease." The Social Service Tax Act and regulations up to this time have always contained a number of provisions enabling taxation of leases; some of the requirements are provided in the act while others are contained in the regulations and, indeed, in branch instructions to taxpayers and to the business community.

In the past several months it has become apparent that the current legislation lacks clarity and precision with respect to the taxation of leases and the whole area of such tax. Accordingly these amendments consolidate the legislative requirements in the act concerning the taxation of leases, in order that all taxpayers involved in lease transactions, whether they are lessors or lessees, can clearly understand the requirements for payment of tax under the legislation.

In addition to establishing the rates of tax on the lease price of leases of tangible personal property, including the variable rates on motor vehicles designed to encourage the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, the amendments also provide that — and I think this is an important point to make — rentals of tangible personal property for periods of less than one month are not taxed. The lessors pay the tax when they purchase the property. This arrangement covers the daily or hourly rentals of items such as tools, equipment, lawnmowers, fishing tackle, boats, etc. This does not apply, however, to vehicle rentals where the tax is paid on all rentals regardless of term.

Where persons use equipment within the province that is leased from out-of-province lessors, they shall report the circumstances and pay tax on the portion of the lease price that is attributable to the use of the equipment within British Columbia. The amendments set out the bases for calculating the proportion of such lease amounts on which tax is payable.

Several consequential amendments are made so that lessors have the same duties and obligations with respect to the collection and remittance of tax as vendors have under the act as it now exists.

Essentially, these amendments seek to clarify the law in this important area of taxation, in order that tax revenue from these types of transactions is not jeopardized and also that taxpayers have a clearer understanding of the law. The amendments are designed to take effect on proclamation so that regulations may be brought in at about the same time.

MR. STUPICH: May I say on behalf of the opposition that we accept the minister's explanation that it's simply clarification and it's not imposing any new levies. We support the legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for his brief remarks, and move second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 81.

[ Page 6320 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This bill was called last Friday. I was excused from the House to attend another function, and I apologize for that. In reviewing Hansard, I see that a number of questions were raised by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

First, I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) for going as far as he did. With respect to some of the questions — I now have a copy of Hansard — I thought that perhaps I could go over them for the benefit of the member. After answering the questions I will flesh out my remarks with some of the other reasons for it.

One of the questions asked by the member was: what other fringe benefits will those people now have eliminated as a result of this particular amendment? All the information I have is that none will be eliminated. For example, right now they do have medical coverage — extended medical benefits, superannuation, life insurance, dental insurance. These have all been rolled over within the last 12 to 14 months. By the way, those were all done by order-in-council. Right now the only one left over involves short-term and long-term disability.

I quote the member's second question: "I'm wondering if the minister could then explain what benefits are improved under this long- and short-term disability section for these particular people; that is, the staff and members of the boards of review?" Really, they are almost identical. But with respect to the specific question on long- and short-term disability, I have a couple of notes here which might be of some assistance to the member. If you took at them, the rollover is nothing more than the provisions under the Public Service Act for employees who receive those benefits. I think it must be understood that all of this is being done after dialogue among the Ministry of Labour, Treasury Board, Workers' Compensation Board and the staff and members of the boards of review. I'll comment on that a little later on.

The member has some concern as to the differential in benefits between the present Workers' Compensation Board plan for short-term illness and the comparable section in the provincial government short-term illness plan. Under the board's policy, employees are entitled to 1.5 days per month, which are cumulative, so an employee can take up to 18 days per annum for short-term illness. After six months the employee can take an additional 15 days which can be borrowed against entitlement for future years. Upon termination or retirement the employee, under the Workers' Compensation Board plan, can be paid out at 50 percent of banked short-term illness. Employees are also paid 100 percent of their normal salary. The provincial government plan for short-term illness pays at 100 percent for the first six days. Thereafter it is 75 percent of salary for a total of six months. Both of these plans, by the way, have a phased approach to full entitlement.

There is another item with respect to any differential. We're talking about long-term disability now. Under the Workers' Compensation Board plan there is a 15-day waiting period before entitlement for long-term illness, at which time 75 percent of the salary for the last day worked is paid for employees with total disability. This will continue until either retirement or return to work. Under the provincial government plan the provincial government covers to a maximum of $1,500 at two-thirds of salary; presuming that somebody was earning $1,500, he would receive two-thirds of that. He would receive 50 percent of salary over and above $1,500 per month. That plan also continues until either retirement or return to work.

I think it fair to raise the comment about whether or not there are many changes. I think that when there is consent and agreement to do this — and this is what I was advised as early as this morning.... These employees have not been removed from their existing plan. The agreement is to have no loss in coverage until the legislation is amended, so they are covered all the time. I am reading from a note from the director of personnel: "Please note the plans have been discussed with both the chairmen and members and staffs of the boards of review, and they are in agreement. Of course, many of them find this change to be desirable in that their commencement on the provincial government plan will result in an early payout of the 50 percent of the banked sick leave for all employees." So there is a benefit in the changeover.

I don't think there is any need to make reference to section 86 of the Workers Compensation Act. Subsections (3) and (5) obviously make reference to the superannuation fund, and also to any agreement with the Pension (Public Service) Act, both of which require the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Perhaps we should go back to find out the reason for the deletion as a matter of policy. You'll recall that last year, 1980, the boards of review were removed from the direct financial responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board to the Ministry of Labour. To accommodate this transfer, steps were taken to ensure that the transfer was complete — to include not only the direct salary but also the benefit plans. Those benefit plans have now been transferred, except the two to which I earlier referred — that is, short- and long-term disability. At present the boards of review are covered under this package. The amendment before the House will bring the boards of review under the short- and long-term illness plan of the provincial government and will remove — I repeat "remove" — the direct financial responsibility of the WCB for the boards of review. We all know that the ultimate cost is borne by the accident fund of the Workers' Compensation Board. The reason for the amendment is to change the carriers. That's clear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As a matter of fact, this was brought to my attention Friday night. When I arrived here last night to have a look at Hansard, I read what was said and thought perhaps I should be prepared today, unlike the way the member found me a little while ago. If that's all, I'll sit down.

MS. SANFORD: I just want to comment that I'm really pleased to see the minister so well prepared today. I don't have any further questions. He gave me more information than I wanted.

Sections 81 and 82 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 6321 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: As far as I can tell from reading section 3, we find in it no provision whatever which would determine whether or not appeals heard under this act shall be heard publicly or in camera. Can the minister tell us if this is a mistake of omission or if this is the policy of the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The approach presently used is a decision for the board. It has worked well for a large number of years. That's the similar approach proposed here.

MR. BARBER: As far as I can tell, that's no approach. There's nothing set out here to instruct the board one way or the other as to the policy of the government or of this Legislature. I don't think that's really very satisfactory. It may have worked well for years, but of course the basic system has not worked well for years, which is why we have the bill in front of us — a bill which the official opposition supports.

We support it though, in part, on the condition that the business of these appeals shall be done in public. I wonder if the minister could indicate what good reason there might be that an application by way of appeal under section 3 of this act could be found to be legitimately held in private, in camera and away from public scrutiny and the public interest? What good reason could there be for denying public access to the appeal process under section 3 of this act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The information from the board is always public. Certainly the minutes of their meetings or proceedings are available. I imagine they can deal with a fairly large number of appeals at any one time in various areas of the province.

To make a blanket provision that all such meetings shall be public, I suppose, would require advertising. It's certainly a bit of a farce to have public meetings unless you make it known that the meetings are public — not only make it known that they're public but invite people to participate in a particular appeal before the board. The procedure that has been followed for a number of years has been found to be very satisfactory. They're not closed in the sense that people cannot come and attend, but they're not advertised as other public hearings or meetings might be, because of the number and the difficulty in doing that which would cause further delay.

MR. BARBER: No one in the official opposition is arguing in favour of delay or further expenditure. We're arguing in favour of open government and an open-door policy. The minister says that's the policy. Fortunately, the law doesn't say any such thing. Section 3 is simply silent on it. It may or may not be a good thing that the minister is personally prepared to allow the meetings of the appeal board to be held with the benefit of an open door. However, that's not what the law says.

We always run into this sort of thing with Social Credit. They ask us to take their word for it, but they don't give us these provisions, guarantees or promises in law. They simply ask us to believe that it was the policy, is the policy and will be the policy, regardless of the fact that you can't find a word of that policy actually written down in the statute.

We are not calling on the government to take out full-page ads in the Vancouver Sun to advertise meetings of the appeal board. We'll leave that to their solicitors and friends who do that for them at election time. Instead we're asking what reasonable objection there can be to inserting a simple commitment within section 3: "Meetings of the appeal board shall be public." That's all it needs to say. It doesn't need to say any more than that at all. It would give legislative form to what I understand is the minister's political promise. If it has been the practice, let the practice continue. We only ask that the practice be enshrined in law. It's not good enough to have the word of a minister of the day on behalf of a government of the day. It doesn't work like that in the British parliamentary system. It works in written and codified law.

What objection would the government have to putting forward an amendment on its own — we know that if the NDP does it, it will surely fail — that simply says: "Every meeting of the appeal board shall be open to the public"? That's all there is to it. There are no ads and no advocacy, but a simple guarantee in writing of openness, that not only may both parties be present — because the minister tells us that's how it's always been done — but the public may be present as well. The minister tells us that that too is how it's always been done.

I'd like him to tell us these things with a little more conviction and with the weight of law. I'd like to read it in the law, and then I'd be prepared to believe the government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again it should be pointed out to the hon. member as well that these appeal boards are dealing with interpretation of the act and adherence to the act or the application of the act or the Buildings Code in particular circumstances. It's not a matter of rezoning or such; it's simply that which has been dealt with very effectively by similar appeal boards for a number of years. It is public information, but it is certainly also a matter of procedure and process. As I've said, we have such an appeal board right now.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition supports this act but cannot support in any way this minister's completely unsatisfactory reply to a modest and simple request we make. I'll make it for a third time. If it is your policy that these meetings be open, why can't we find that guarantee in the law itself? You say you've always done it that way. You tell us you have no objection to doing it that way in the future. If you want us to believe you, which we're prepared to do, give us not only your word but the power of enforcement by including it in the statute. It's a simple, straightforward and legitimate request. We do it in the name of openness, open government and all of the things that this place is supposed to stand

[ Page 6322 ]

for. It's a one-line amendment. There's nothing to it. It won't cost you any votes, any money or any sleep either. It's a simple commitment to openness, guaranteed in the law itself, as we have the opportunity to change it before us today.

Again, I do not move such an amendment myself. Invariably, amendments moved by New Democrats are doomed to fail. Therefore we ask the government to sponsor its own amendment — a simple, unobjectionable request. Open it up, and don't ask us simply to believe your verbal promise. You might not be here tomorrow. You may be appointed to the Canadian Senate. We wouldn't have anyone else's word to take for it, and simply the dull record of Hansard to point at to tell some other ministers: "See, that's what Bill said. Why don't you do it?" He would reply: "I'm not Bill. Besides, there's nothing in the law that requires me to do so." What we want is something in the law that requires governments to do so. We think that's what the people want too.

Will you reconsider and move a simple amendment in the name of open government and democratic procedure? Open it up. If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, again, I'm just wondering whether the hon. member understands the process, because certainly now appeals are available, although they certainly don't carry the weight we provided for here to a building inspector. The building inspector can consider such an appeal in his office and make the information available to the applicant. If such information were provided in writing in each and every instance now, perhaps there wouldn't be the need for this particular process. They could simply go to court with that information, although again that would be a rather lengthy period. The inspector certainly could be required to make that information public. In this particular instance we have an appeal board dealing with administrative matters. They could make those minutes available to the applicant or anyone else that requested them.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could tell us precisely what constitutes an offence under section 13, what the penalties for failure to comply are, and what the enforcement procedure is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The offences are spelled out in the bill, but with respect to what constitutes an offence the board has the same power as a commission under the Inquiry Act, and if someone were called in to give evidence and failed to attend, that would be an offence.

MR, BARBER: I understand the notion of "offence" designated in this bill; however, "offence" has a more general meaning under the Interpretation Act. It's that particular and more general meaning I'm looking for, because I was unable to find a helpful reference to it when I examined the Interpretation Act.

I'm also inquiring about the competence of the board to obtain enforcement of an order under section 13. Where would the board go in order to obtain satisfaction should they not be able to obtain it in the more ordinary course, as provided under the Building Safety Standards Act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This would be under the offence section of the Inquiry Act.

Sections 13 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the second amendment under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: My only question is to ask you to hold on for a moment while I look at it. I stupidly left my notes in my office. I'll have to go from memory.

Could the minister tell us what was wrong with the previous section? Why did you introduce a first amendment, and why are we now debating a second amendment? What is the material difference between the very first and the third version we have on the desks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The first amendment was very specific. "For the purposes of subsection (1), each of the following is a 'person responsible...'" and it listed  the persons responsible. In the second amendment it's more for the interpretation of the courts as to who was the guilty party or for what reason. It was felt that perhaps this would give the court a greater degree of discretion, particularly where you're dealing with, say, the construction of a home or some commercial building for an individual who's not familiar with all the laws and could be caught with someone having been involved in the building of it and not following all the rules as required but not advising the owner of this.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his answer.

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 45 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Building Safety Standards Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 6323 ]

On section 10.

MS. SANFORD: This is where we left this bill the other day. A few minutes ago I complimented the minister on being well prepared for section 81 of Bill 24. I have never seen a minister so ill-prepared to handle a bill as we saw in the case of Bill 19 the other day. I'm certainly optimistic that the minister has now had a chance to understand the bill and will be able to provide the same kind of answers he provided under the statutes amendment act which we dealt with earlier.

Section 10 is a section in which it appears to me that the authority of the local inspectors — those who are in gas safety inspection — has been eroded. I don't know if the minister has had a chance to look at that. I raised that question the other day. I'm wondering if the minister is now prepared to explain to me why that authority has been eroded, if in fact it has.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think if the member were to have a closer look at sections 8 and 9.... Under section 10, first of all, I don't think that (a) is in question — as to whether he will be appointed by the mayor or by the municipal council. I don't think there's any question about this under section 10. In subsection (2) there is a reference to the deletion of sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. There is a reason for it under section 7. We find that that particular section now deals with contractors, and there is no reference to local inspectors.

If you were to go to section 5, under "authorization" — it's referred to as section 8 in the bill — it says: "After the installation or alteration...to person shall use or permit the use of the house piping, appliance or vent unless an inspector or local inspector has been given written notification...." And under subsection (ii) it says: "...has authorized the use of the house piping...." I want to make one other point here.

One concern was raised with respect to the jurisdiction of a local inspector. So it's clear and so there is consistency through the act, the distinction between a local inspector and an inspector is simply that the former is appointed by a municipal council and the latter comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial government gas inspection branch. They have exactly the same authority, but there is some delineation between areas, depending on the gas pressures. For example, a gas pressure which does not exceed half a pound per square inch can still fall within the jurisdiction of a local inspector we often refer to him as a municipal inspector. But anything in excess of half a pound per square inch — referring to mains, meters and services from the main arteries to the residential or commercial connection — falls under the jurisdiction of an inspector. That inspector operates, I repeat, under provincial jurisdiction. A number of municipalities do not really wish to employ their own inspector. They can, by agreement, come under the jurisdiction of an inspector — not a municipal employee.

If you look at section 9 in the bill — that's section 5.... The specific section in the legislation which is in the process of being amended is referred to as section 9. It specifically states under the amendment: "An inspector may inspect house piping...." If you go down those particular sections, you'll see that the responsibilities of a local inspector have been enumerated.

I might raise one other item. I appreciate that when I was up on this before it wasn't too clear. I think you'll find a theme expressed in a number of the sections; it runs through the bill. I point this out, although it was referred to in an earlier reading. What's important in the thrust of this legislation — and also found in both the Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, and the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act — is everyone's shared responsibility. Government is not going to be there to provide not only all safety measures.... It just cannot do so.

Interestingly enough, after making further inquiries into the reasoning behind this, I found out that there is a concept originating in the Geneva Convention, to which Canada is a party, the thrust of which is that government alone cannot protect everyone. Therefore additional responsibility ought to be placed upon all people involved. When we look at anything with respect to gas or a boiler, we look at which engineers designed it; certain responsibilities must stay with them. We also look at the equipment itself and whether it has Canadian Gas Association certification. Next we look into the contractor; who is being issued the permit? The next question is whether he is bonded.

I think I made reference to bonding, hon. member. In fact we've taken your point and will be reviewing the extent of bonding. It was low in some cases. I asked the officials in my ministry to take note of your comment, and we're proceeding in that regard.

Following the contractor, work is done by a licensed gas fitter — and we've been through the exemption of the homeowner. On top of that there are the government branch inspections, and then there are the annual inspections. So when we take all of these components going into one particular enterprise, one particular boiler or whatever it may be, we're finding that that responsibility is shared by a number of people.

With respect to the section which we referred to earlier, you'll also find that the idea is that people who can take out a permit proceed to do so — or at least they file an application with the appropriate authority — but always through the legislation.... It was found that the tap was not to be turned on, the connection was not to be fired — whatever the case was — until the installation had, in fact, been appropriately inspected. The reason behind this is that surely government can rely upon whoever is doing this in the private sector to share some of the responsibility, take responsibility and accept the onus; after all, they're being paid for it. We come in the back door at the end and let go a final inspection before the key is turned on. That way we're not frustrating or holding up anybody who wants to proceed.

I don't know if I can really say much more about section 10. I'll sit down, and maybe the member will have another comment or two.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's explanation. It certainly clarifies it more than we were able to obtain the other day, but I still have some questions on this section. For instance, one of the sections gets removed. Section 10(b) states: "...subsection (2) by striking out 'sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11'" The minister just spoke about having responsibility given to the people who are making the installation — the people who manufacture the product and all that sort of thing — but if you look at section 9, which is being removed from this bill — and I'll refer the minister to section 9 in the original bill that's being repealed — it states as follows: "The gas fitter, before he installs an appliance, shall ascertain that the appliance can be used safely, and shall apply any test that an inspector directs." Now that has been

[ Page 6324 ]

eliminated. Here you have the responsibility being placed on the gas fitter to ascertain that the appliance can be used safely before he installs it. But that's being eliminated; that section is being removed, and it's not being replaced by anything that I can see that again gives that guarantee of safety.

The minister is getting a bit of assistance here. Perhaps the legislative counsel will be able to direct me to the section that assures that the gas fitter shall ascertain that this appliance is safe, because it's being removed by this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I though that perhaps section 10 was deleted for the reasons which I gave when I was last on my feet. But by doing that we end up sharing that responsibility. You will find, however, with respect to the deletion of section 10.... Would the member have a look at subsection 5(8) of the amending bill, "authorization before use": "After the installation or alteration of house piping, an appliance or a vent, no person shall use...the house piping, appliance or vent unless...a local inspector has been given written notification...." Subsection 5(8 (i), the next one, says: "... has authorized the use of the house piping, appliance or vent" unless there has been some exemption by regulation. We're talking about a home, and I thought perhaps we'd gone through it earlier.

Under section 5 of the amending bill, have a took at subsection 6(6) ; subsection 6(7) is of some help too with respect to authority. I think the important thing is where it makes reference to the gas fitter; before he installs an appliance he shall ascertain that the appliance can be used safely. Well, the fact is that it's not to be turned on until such time as it has been finally inspected. I think that we can rely upon all those involved in the installation to share some of that responsibility.

MS. SANFORD: Of course, the only problem here is that we don't know what's going to be in those regulations and who, other than the homeowner, is going to be exempted. There's always a problem with that. We won't know until those regulations come out. I appreciate that the minister feels that he has to bring in regulations to cover some of these situations, because it's impossible to inspect every installation. There's always some concern there with respect to what is going to be included in the regulations.

There is one further thing under this section. I'm going to refer the minister to the original bill. If he looks at the original bill, we are at section 6, and then we're removing sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Am I correct? Does the minister agree with that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I think....

MS. SANFORD: I haven't asked my question yet. We're removing sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 from the original bill. Section 10 does that in the amending bill, right?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

MS. SANFORD: If you look at the amending bill, you will find on page 2 that section 7 is replaced. Section 8 is being replaced — "Authorization before use" — the one that the minister was just discussing. Section 9 deals with inspectors and what they may inspect. Then the next section that I find in the bill is section 11. I want to know where section 10 is. Surely we can't put a bill through this House with a section that's missing. I cannot find the new section 10 anywhere. I hope I've made my explanation clear enough.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's under section 16.

MS. SANFORD: I think you're wrong, Mr. House Leader.

Would the minister please tell me where section 10 is in the new bill?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, the inspection of premises is now not a function, in that sense.

MS. SANFORD: I just want to know where section 10 is.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Section 10 is no longer in existence. Could I refer the member to section 9: "An inspector or local inspector may inspect house piping...but only an inspector may inspect a gas installation exit." We're talking about the inspection of the installation, not the inspection of the premises.

MS. SANFORD: That's not my question. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister understands my question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The other thing is that I'm advised by legislative counsel that when you repeal a section, there's no need to make reference to it in the new bill.

MS. SANFORD: I'm rather confused by this. In the old bill we repealed sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. In this amending bill we put in new sections 7, 8, 9 and 11, but for some reason we don't have a section 10. I wonder if the minister could explain why there's no section 10. Usually when you're reading a bill you go right through section 1, 2, 3, etc. In this old bill they replaced the sections that they were repealing, except for section 10. I can't find any section 10.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think if the member were to look at a number of statutes on the books, she would find that when, in fact, a section has been repealed, it is often then left blank. If you have to change all of the numbers within the bill, it involves a total rewriting. This is an amending bill. It was deleted and that was it. That was the method of draftsmanship which was recommended by the legislative counsel, and it has been followed through.

MS. SANFORD: I'll have to accept the minister's explanation. I just find it rather strange that when they're replacing all these sections, for some reason they forgot to replace one. The House Leader seems to think it's somewhere else in the bill, but I think he's wrong even though he says he's right. Obviously they've decided not to have a section 10 in this new bill. That's fine; if that's their decision I shall have to accept it.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MS. SANFORD: We're changing the word "board" to "advisory committee" and so on. One of the appeal procedures will be to this new advisory committee or appeal board. As I understand it they're going to be one and the same. Am I correct?

[ Page 6325 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Under the existing Gas Act reference is made to a "gas appeal board." There is now going to be an advisory committee. Following through on the bill you will find that where "advisory committee" is used there's a purpose for the advisory committee, with respect to making recommendations, etc. If you're not satisfied with the local inspector's decision at the municipal level or the inspector's decision at the provincial level you then go to the chief, and if you're not happy with the chief then you can go to a gas safety appeal board. The legislation is parallel both in structure and purpose to the electrical inspection appeals and the boiler and pressure vessel appeals. I think you'll find a great deal of similarity between these.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MS. SANFORD: Section 22 is repealed by this, and section 22 says that a "chief inspector shall...issue a licence to any person recommended by the board...." The chief inspector seems to have lost his authority to issue a licence. Can the minister explain why section 22 has been repealed? Is the minister prepared to answer that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, section 22 is repealed, but I think if the member refers to section 17 in the amending bill, she'll see a couple of preambles to that with respect to striking out "repair" and substituting "design," followed by "and licensing" after "registration." If one goes down and looks under (g), "permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)" which is "for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class of certificate," it's to be found in the regulations. That's really what it is. I think there's probably a better reason for putting in regulations: you're setting out the criteria for examinations, qualifications, work experience — and I suspect that old word "technology" comes up again. With the changes which occur in this area it may very well be important that they can be subject to change and adaptation quickly. I might also add that what is important about these is that the advisory committee — which is going to be composed of people who work day to day with gas — is really in a position to know what is going on in the field, and I'm sure it will be making recommendations from time to time on any changes in regulation.

I think I can repeat that it's been absolutely years since this has really been attached. I can understand their reluctance to some degree to incorporate everything within a bill.

MS. SANFORD: He refers to another section here, but since he's referred to it under this particular repealing section, I will too. I would like to know what the qualifications are required for this person whom the chief inspector is going to designate. It doesn't give any information anywhere in the bill about what qualifications this class of persons which is going to be designated....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I could deal with it under section 17, but since the minister has raised it now....

Let me ask another question. I asked this the other day. Who appointed that chief inspector? We learned that his name was Montgomery. He said that it was provided for under the legislation. I can't find where it's provided for that he becomes appointed. I would also like to know who appointed him. Were you the minister who appointed him as the chief inspector, or was it some other minister at some other point? Under what authority in the legislation did that happen?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, I have some difficulty in trying to answer that. I'm going to have to get back to the member on it. The gentleman to whom she referred was, to the best of mv knowledge, the chief gas inspector when I was appointed to this portfolio. How long he's been there I don't know. I gather he has been with the ministry for a number of years. As to the appointment of a chief inspector, wasn't the answer given last week — by "way of regulation"?

MS. SANFORD: Where does it say that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that specific question. I'll have to get back to the member on that, if she could continue. There's somebody in my office right now who is monitoring the House. I think when they hear my request for information assistance, it could be coming down here forthwith.

MS. SANFORD: I'll accept the minister's explanation of that, although I still don't think that this person has ever been appointed chief inspector. That may be the case, but he's going to find out for me.

I should point out that there's no section 22 in the new bill either. That's another section that's missing.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to know what qualifications are required for the person who's going to be designated by the chief inspector. There's some requirement in the legislation about people who are appointed, but there is nothing in the bill that I can determine that says what qualifications a person must have if he is designated by an inspector. It seems to me that this person can have unlimited authority. At least, the chief inspector, if he is going to halt a project, can halt it for only 30 days under the legislation. But this new person who becomes designated has nothing in the bill that will limit him to a 30-day designation. He can do whatever he pleases. Secondly, he doesn't need to have any qualifications according to the bill.

My question to the minister is: where in this legislation does it state that a person who is designated by the chief inspector has to have any qualifications, and what sort of restrictions are placed on that person who has been designated by the chief inspector? According to my reading of this, this person who is designated has more authority than the chief inspector himself. I'm wondering how we can improve safety if in fact we have people designated who are unqualified and who have authorities greater than the chief inspector under the bill.

[ Page 6326 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the earlier question, I'm advised that the chief inspector receives that designation pursuant to section 14 of the Public Service Act. I've just pulled out the bill here. The marginal notation heading is: "Use of classification title." I appreciate the concerns the member raises, but if we look under (g.1) it says: "... permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)." Surely if he's going to appoint someone it's going to be someone who in fact will be capable of discharging the duties.

A note was just passed to me on this item. This particular section will permit government agents, for example, to issue permits. We're talking about rural portions of the province. What happens if we don't have a gas inspector — or any other inspector, in some areas of the province — and it's difficult to service them? It seems to me that it would be appropriate, for example in the town of McBride or Valemount — if I can use the Chair's riding — where there are people who don't have those services available to them. It may very well be designated to a government agent.

MS. SANFORD: Designation by him or of him?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Designation by him, I would expect.

A set of the regulations are passed over. The regulations are going to set out what the qualifications would be if somebody is going to be designated to carry out the duty. If we look under (g.1) it says: "designate a person or class of persons." That's obviously pretty wide. But I think that as a result of that designation there are going to be certain limitations imposed upon the recipient of that designation, and those restrictions will be found in the regulations. For example, here is one set entitled: "Regulations respecting gas fitters, contractors and dealers." It seems to be clear. There is reference to experience in insulation, etc. So I think that's probably going to be canvassed.

MS. SANFORD: So now we learn that they're going to be done by regulation. The minister initially said that obviously they're not going to designate anybody who is not properly qualified, but anybody who is appointed.... It specifies in the legislation what qualifications anybody appointed must have, but anybody who is designated apparently is going to be covered by regulation somehow, although the minister wasn't very clear on that.

The other thing he said was: "Surely they wouldn't appoint anybody who wasn't properly qualified." But if we're going to be dealing with legislation as important as this, regarding gas safety in the province, we can't assume that these people are going to be designated or that they're going to be properly qualified or whatever else. My question to the minister is: how are these people who are going to be designated different from those who are appointed? In other words, what difference in qualification is there going to be according to these regulations you're going to be bringing in? Is there any difference? Are they of a lower standard? Are they not as qualified?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Someone has to have some authority to designate. Somebody has to do it — to take someone's place. We agree with that. However, if someone is going to be designated to do a job, whether it's for a short period of time or whether it's going to be for a longer period, depending upon the circumstances, surely the qualifications of whoever is designated — the administrative act being the designation.... Whoever's going to make the appointment is obviously going to have to look at the job experience. The question then comes in: should that be incorporated within regulation? I suggest it should.

In reply to an earlier question you raised with respect to the chief inspector, there are a couple of points I wanted to raise. In 1970 Bill Montgomery was successful in a competition for the position of chief inspector (engineer 6) — I suppose that's part of the public service. I might have misled the House with respect to an earlier question. I referred to the Public Service Act, the section under the act and the marginal note with respect to classification. You can also find the reciprocal section in section 14 of the existing Gas Act, which is entitled "Appointment of staff." "A chief inspector, who shall be a professional engineer, and inspectors, clerks and employees as are required for this act may be appointed under the Public Service Act." These are complementary sections.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister please advise where in the legislation the authority of these persons who are designated by the chief inspector is outlined?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: At this time I cannot give any more thorough an answer than I have, and I refer to the provision in the amending bill where permission to designate is given to the chief inspector — "permission is given."

I think we have to rely upon the calibre of the people who are in place, the nature of their responsibilities and the regulations under which they work. If we have to spell out all the qualifications of an administrator or chief inspector I think we would end up having a fairly husky statute in a number of areas. I apologize to the member. I know she doesn't find that answer satisfactory, but I'm afraid I just don't have any more to say on it.

MS. SANFORD: You don't excuse poor legislation by saying we have to rely on the people who are in charge of the legislation — we have to rely on the chief inspector. That's not what the job of this assembly is all about. We probably have a very good chief inspector at the moment, but who knows what the next chief inspector might be like or how he might interpret sections of the act when they are so fuzzy that we don't know what authority these people who are designated have, where the limitation on their authority is or what kind of qualifications they have to have. The minister talked about the government agent appointing gas inspectors without any sort of qualifications, authority or limitation on their authority. According to this legislation right now, the people who are designated have more authority than the chief inspector. At least there is a section in the old bill that limits the authority of the chief inspector. There is absolutely nothing in either the old bill or this new amending legislation that limits the authority of the people who are designated by the chief inspector. We don't know what their qualifications are going to be. We don't know if we're going to have government agents appointing them or police chiefs. Are they going to be appointing gas inspectors? Are we going to have regional board directors appointing...?

Interjection.

[ Page 6327 ]

MS. SANFORD: Oh, well, really! No, Mr. Chairman, it does not there limit the authority of anybody who is designated. I'm waiting for the minister to give me an explanation of that.

He's getting more notes from upstairs; that will help.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, this is my last run at this item. Subsection (g.1) specifically states the following: "...permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue" — underline the words "to issue" — "a document referred to in paragraph (g)." We go back to paragraph (g) and read: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class of certificate...." The chief inspector issues a certificate — I repeat, issues a certificate — as to what the qualifications will be for any recipient of that certificate, and we go to the regulations. I'm advised that it's common practice now not to recite in legislation all of the qualifications, for the same reasons that we don't recite in detail some of the items under the boiler and pressure vessels act.

One of the things is that there are constant changes. There are changes in technology and qualifications; they are constantly upgrading courses. It seems to me it would be much easier for those responsible for the administration of the legislation and for working under the legislation to have some regulation which could be put in place very simply by an order-in-council, instead of having to carry on their day-to-day business activities, which some do right now, having no jurisdiction or authority to do what they are doing because the legislation has got them by the throat. It's much better to find out and set out the ground rules and then use regulations from time to time to accommodate those people whom we were sent here to serve.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister still hasn't answered the question specifically. A chief inspector has some limitations placed on him in the old legislation — and I certainly can read that for him if he wishes. For instance, he cannot hold up a project for any more than a month's period of time. It's section 23 in the legislation. Yet we have this person who has been designated without that kind of restriction having been placed on him. For instance, if this new person who is designated lifts a licence, he is not limited to the suspension that the chief inspector is limited to; nowhere in this legislation does it say that he is limited to a period of one month. So I must assume that when this person is designated, he can lift a licence, if he so wishes, forever. Where in this legislation does the limitation which applies to chief inspectors apply to those who are designated by the chief inspector?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's permissive power.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's permissive power, but if he's been given permission to use that power, in my view, there should also be some limitation on that power, as there is on the power of the chief inspector. For heaven's sake, we've got somebody here who has more authority than the chief inspector himself. All I want the minister to do is to tell me where in this legislation it limits the authority of the person who has been designated by the chief inspector. At least in the present legislation there is a limitation — and it's very clearly written out in section 23 of the act: "The chief inspector shall not revoke a licence until he has given notice to the holder of it in accordance with the regulations that he will hold a hearing and has held the hearing, nor shall he suspend any licence for a period of more than one month." That's clear; it's in the legislation. We understand that the chief inspector can lift or suspend a licence for a period of 30 days. Now we have this new person. We don't know what his qualifications are going to be, but we're told: "Well, in regulations surely they'll do something." "Surely," because the minister doesn't know. But where in the bill does it limit the authority of this person who is designated? I can't find it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering if the member would have another look at section 23. It has not been repealed and stays in. Section 23(1) gives the power to the chief inspector. That's not repealed.

MS. SANFORD: I cannot get the minister to understand the problem here.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can't, but nobody else does either.

MS. SANFORD: Look at it. Section 23 outlines the authority of the chief inspector.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: He must listen if he's going to understand this.

Section 23 of the old act outlines the authority of the chief inspector. It also specifically limits his authority. All right, that's section 23. But in the amending bill we are giving the chief inspector authority to designate, and nowhere do we outline what qualifications these people who will be designated must have, nor do we provide authority to limit their authority as provided for the chief inspector in the old legislation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again I make reference to section 23. Next to that section are the regulations. The regulations have received their authority for preparation under the statutes. Nothing which is going to be contrary to the law on the statute books in the regulations can be put. Any regulations with respect to designation or issuance of a document, whatever it may be, are still going to have the restrictions, or fall within the perimeter of the.... It's been there all along, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: The regulations which have been issued do not contravene section 23 in terms of the chief inspector, because it's the chief inspector who is outlined here. Any regulations that contravene this would not be permitted. But that applies only to the chief inspector. I'm referring to this other category provided for in the new legislation: those people who are designated have no limitation. The regulations there.... Is he telling me that they're going to be covered?

Oh, he's getting another message. It's a good thing he has somebody upstairs who's listening...

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You bet I do.

MS. SANFORD: ...and sending down messages to....

[ Page 6328 ]

MR. BARBER: This one says that his tea is ready.

MS. SANFORD: His tea is ready, is it? Well, maybe we should move the committee rise then. Is that what you want?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, you don't want that. All right.

Let us see now if the minister has the answer about how the authority of those who are designated under the new statute is limited. I'm giving him a chance to read it. He's reading it out loud so he can understand it. Are you ready, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I'm not.

MS. SANFORD: You're not. Well, I'm just wondering: are we going to have this person limited in his authority through regulation, or what? I can't find it in the bill. It's nowhere there. The minister can't find it either. Can you help him, Mr. House Leader? You're a lawyer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Take another look at (g.1).

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I've looked at (g.1), but nowhere in there does it limit their authority.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under the act.

MS. SANFORD: Under which part of the act? Tell the minister so he can tell me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find another way to say what I have now said six times. If you would just be patient, maybe we'll come up with something here.

I'll try again. I'll go to section 1(g) or wherever it is, and I'll make reference to the following: all he can do is issue a document. That's number one. That's all he can do. He cannot revoke or suspend a licence in the same manner as a chief inspector under section 23 of the existing Gas Act. With respect to the question which the member has raised again, I'll repeat: the statute is now drafted. It gives authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prepare regulations. If those regulations do not fall within the provisions of the statute as passed, they would be ultra vires. Certainly any regulations containing the qualifications of anyone so designated to whom a certificate is issued must be found within the authority of the statute, and as incorporated in the regulations. If there are limitations placed upon a chief inspector, whatever the guidelines or the qualifications are, those are subject to the regulations and passing on would be exactly the same. I just can't do any more than that, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: I want to make sure that I have this perfectly clear. Section (g.1) says: "...permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue a document referred to in paragraph (g)." Paragraph (g) says: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation" — that's the one that I was referring to earlier — "and suspension of any class of certificate, licence, registration, permit or approval." According to my reading of this — I'm not one of those smart lawyers — this person who is designated can do all of the things that are outlined in paragraph (g). He's trying to get some more information, I know, but it says very clearly in (g) that this is what people who are designated can do: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class of certificate, licence, registration, permit or approval." So if he lifts a permit, where is the limitation, as has been provided for in section 23 of the old bill to the chief inspector, on this person who is designated? It's not there. It says he can issue a document. Surely the document referred to is a revocation of a permit. I think you follow me, Mr. Chairman. Can you help the minister? Maybe the minister will get it figured out this time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We're going to take another run now. You're very persistent, Madam Member. What happens if the chief inspector is in Prince Rupert, God forbid? Let's say that the chief inspector makes a decision. What he can do is designate someone to execute that decision for him in some area. Okay? Maybe that was a genuine misunderstanding, and finally I think this is what we've triggered on over here as to what you may have been getting at. Is that right? So we've asked somebody.... If I see any more yellow sheets of paper come in here from the engineers upstairs with their damn slide-rules....

What happens is that the direction is given, the decision is made, and he's asking somebody to carry it out. All he does is issue the document referred to in (g), but I presume that "...providing for the issuance, renewal..." under (g) is an administrative function of the chief inspector.

MS. SANFORD: Suddenly we have a whole new interpretation of this section. Now we have an interpretation which says these people who are designated can't do anything but carry out the orders the chief inspector has already given. If the chief inspector has already given the order, why does he need to designate anybody else to give the order that he's already given? This is a whole new interpretation the minister is bringing to the section. First of all he said he couldn't do any of these things it says in here; now he says they can, but only when the chief inspector has said they can; only when he's carrying out the orders of the chief inspector that have already been issued. Does this person have any authority other than to carry out the orders that have already been given by the chief inspector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I've gone over this so many times that I...

MS. SANFORD: I've got a new question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Have you?

MS. SANFORD: I asked you a new question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot read any more into this matter. It seems to me that if the member is about to take issue with what I see.... It seems to me, and I've said it six different times, that he has the authority to issue a document. We go back to the issuing and all he's done is delegated that authority down to someone in the province. That's all I can see, and I don't know what more the member is reading into it. I'm attempting to accommodate you, but.... I think

[ Page 6329 ]

it's pretty clear. If the chief gas inspector for the province is located in Vancouver and if some authority is going to be issued it makes it clear in here — "permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons to issue a document" — that somebody is going to issue it in Prince George, Prince Rupert, Terrace or Nelson. I think that's all that's happening. As a matter of fact he is not passing off a decision to revoke or suspend a licence; that decision is coming from the chief inspector.

I think we can then go back into here and look at section 23(2): "The chief inspector shall not...." In other words, the authority is there. With all due respect, I think perhaps the member was looking for more in that section than was really there. Perhaps I haven't assisted and didn't jump to that point earlier.

MS. SANFORD: The only thing I'm reading is what is written here. That's all I'm reading. Is the minister stating that those people who are designated can do nothing but carry out the orders already given by the chief inspector? Can these people who are designated do anything other than carry out the orders already issued by the chief inspector?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would imagine they could have a number of other functions. I can think of people....

MS. SANFORD: Uh-huh....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not "uh-huh" or anything at all. Is somebody going to hang around here and wait to be designated so they can be issued a document by the chief inspector? Is that all they're going to do — just wait out in rural parts of the province with no other job? I don't know who's in here or what else he can do.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is completely contradicting himself. He just finished saying these people who are designated can only carry out what the chief inspector has already authorized. Therefore, he said, they don't need to have any particular restrictions. For instance, if they lift a licence or a permit, then they obviously must have some restrictions such as the chief inspector has — 30 days only. But if these people can act on their own and do things other than what the chief inspector has outlined and already ordered, then they must have some restrictions on their activities.

The minister cannot see that. He keeps contradicting himself on this section. One time they can do this and that, and they're going to be covered by regulation. The next time they can do only what the chief inspector has already ordered. Now he's telling me that they can do more than what the chief inspector has already ordered. Which are the things they can do that the chief inspector has already ordered, and which are the things they can do on their own? I don't know.

I'm completely confused by the answers the minister is giving on this section this afternoon. I do not understand whether this new bill places any kind of limitation on those people who are designated — I think that if you're going to have people like government agents designating gas inspectors, surely some kind of limitation must be placed on their authority. Even the chief inspector for the province has some limitation placed on his authority.

My next question to the minister is: what activities can these designated people carry out above and beyond those which the chief inspector has already ordered? That's a very simple question, Mr. Chairman. The minister has explained to us that, oh, yes, there are some things they can do. Oh, he's going to turn his back on us, is he?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has just told us that there are some things these designated people can do above and beyond what the chief inspector has already ordered. What are those activities? Where are they in the bill? What activities can they carry out above and beyond what has been directly ordered by the chief inspector?

I don't understand this, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to get information about a very important bill that relates to gas safety inspection in the province. If we're going to have people like government agents — as the minister outlined earlier — designating a person within some rural area, surely there must be some kind of limitation placed on that person's authority. Does he have the same authority as the chief inspector, and if so, why is that not included in the new legislation? Does he have authority beyond the chief inspector's? We must assume that from the wording of this legislation, because there is no limitation placed on his authority.

We finally got out of the minister that the qualifications for these people who are going to be designated are going to be included in regulations. At least, that's what the minister guesses; he doesn't really know. What kind of activities can these designated people carry out above and beyond what the chief inspector has already directly ordered? Initially, he told us that the only thing they could do was what the chief inspector had already ordered. So what activities can these designated people carry out above and beyond what the chief inspector has ordered? That's a simple question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know, I really don't know what the member is up to, Mr. Chairman. For the fortieth time, if we turn around and read section (g), where it says: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, etc." of documents.... If we go down to (g.1).... Sometimes it's required for the administration of the regulations, as called for under the act that carries that out.... Your boss tells you: "I'd like you to do something for me." You say: "Right."Well, that's what's here: "...permitting the chief inspector to designate a person or class of persons" to issue a document. I don't know what could be clearer than that; the case has got to rest. To issue a document; the authority to delegate — that's all it says. It doesn't say that whoever does that has more authority than the chief inspector, or that he's carrying out the chief inspector's functions. I've said it 16 times: to issue that document.... This is like Chinese torture. That's all I can say.

MS. SANFORD: My next question then: could that document be a revocation of a permit or a licence?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would have to say, Madam Member, that I think my understanding is that it would not include the revocation.

MS. SANFORD: But it says that; (g) says "revocation...."

[ Page 6330 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. I don't see how you can read into this that somebody who is issuing a document can in fact be carrying out that revocation. It's issuing.

MS. SANFORD: It can be a document of revocation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I know, but you've got to separate the acts. There's obviously one act which is an administrative decision made by someone, and further down, it seems to me, we've got somebody executing.... I feel fairly safe in answering that question. No, it is not a revocation; it could not be.

MS. SANFORD: The only thing I can do on this particular section, then, is to encourage the minister to reword the section, because it's very clear: it says that a person can issue a document referred to in paragraph (g). In paragraph (g) it says: "...providing for the issuance, renewal, endorsement, revocation and suspension of any class of certificate, licence, registration, permit or approval." That says revocation; it's right there in (g). If that's not what the minister intends, could he please bring in an amendment that would ensure that that is not what he intends? What the minister guesses is not what is in the legislation. What the minister supposes is going to happen should be included in here in black and white. The only thing I can do at this stage, because the minister does not read what it says, is to encourage him to get another message from upstairs that would in fact amend that section.

MR. LEA: I think we have to put this into some political perspective. What the minister is saying is that he understands what he would like to do if he were administering the act, but, as is wont to happen in political circles, the minister may not be the one administering the act. It could be anybody, and it could be tomorrow. His understanding of what it is doesn't really matter; it's what it says in the legislation. As long as the minister doesn't completely understand what's in the act — or chooses not to — that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that the legislation says one thing but the minister says he understands that it can be another way, or something else. It just isn't good enough for legislation to go through this House in that haphazard manner.

I suggest that if the minister had taken the time to understand this bill before he brought it into the House, we wouldn't be in the problem we're in today, with the minister not understanding his own legislation. It takes a member of the opposition, the member for Comox, who doesn't have the staff to begin with, to take the time on her own to understand this legislation and to speak about it in an intelligent way. It seems to me that we have seen something in this House that we haven't seen before in my nine years here: a minister bringing into the House a bill that he does not understand at all, and then asking us to trust him and accept that he has a special meaning for the bill that's not written in the bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's working on it now.

MR. LEA: ...but he's working on it now. It looks like they're redrafting the legislation. It seems to me that the only fair thing — not just for the opposition or the government — is to take the bill out and to bring it back in when it's written properly and the minister understands it.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, before the members pose questions that they may have with respect to my responsibilities in this ministry, I would like to make a few opening remarks. In introducing the estimates for this fiscal year I would like to offer some observations which will assist the members in dealing with the estimates of this ministry. I'm pleased that in a period when fiscal restraint must be shown, a considerable increase in resources has been made available to the Ministry of Attorney-General to fulfil its program responsibilities. Total funding available after efficiencies achieved to control government growth totalled $267.2 million, an increase of $27.5 million or 11.5 percent over the previous year. In addition to a financial increase there has been an increase of 50 positions permitted to the establishment of the ministry, both through additions to establishment and through transfers from other government ministries.

On reviewing these estimates members will appreciate the wide range of responsibilities which fall to the ministry. Central to those responsibilities are the administration of the justice system in British Columbia, including the provision of resources to the provincial, county and superior courts; the management of the criminal justice system, incorporating prosecuting services throughout the province; the provision of legal aid through the Legal Services Society to individuals requiring assistance; and the responsibility for a full and effective range of correctional initiatives from juvenile to secure institutional programs.

The superintendency of policing services in the province is another major responsibility which falls to the ministry, and the importance of that role is ever increasing, from both an effectiveness and a fiscal perspective. Other major responsibilities are imposed by such widely varying enactments as the Land Title Act, the Fire Services Act and the Coroners Act. Members will also appreciate that many of the ministry's programs are demand-sensitive; that is, they are reactive to a demand from our citizens which statutorily the ministry must provide. Additionally, demand for service has greatly increased as a result of growth in the nongovernmental section of the justice system, including police forces, which have increased almost 50 percent in numbers in

[ Page 6331 ]

the last decade, and a more than doubling of the number of lawyers practising in the province over the same period.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

The ministry's estimates are dominated by expenditures in three primary areas: salaries, policing services through the RCMP contract, and the rental of facilities. Expenditures in these areas represent in excess of 85 percent of total ministry spending. The area of discretional spending, Mr. Chairman, is exceedingly limited. In developing estimates for presentation to the House, the ministry considered a number of critical needs which must be addressed during the fiscal year. These needs incorporate both internal administrative and management improvements and the need to significantly increase funding in a number of critical program areas.

The ministry is concentrating on improving performance in the areas of policy analysis and planning and internal management. These processes have resulted in a number of senior appointments over the past year, including senior staff responsible for policy planning and research, management and support services and policing services.

A major objective of the ministry during fiscal 1981-82 will be to encourage an increased community awareness of ministry programs and the involvement of the community in those programs. Major restructuring has taken place to achieve this objective in the previous fiscal year, notably the development of a single special projects branch, which incorporated four existing programs, and the restructuring of public information programs. Resources are allocated to continuing important initiatives in Counterattack, including the educational program, and to supporting crime-prevention initiatives — in particular, the community's involvement in that important activity.

The ministry also states as a priority the need to continue to develop effective correctional programs in British Columbia. Improvements and progress in such programs in recent years have been significant. Development of initiatives such as alternatives to incarceration, the juvenile programs and the community-based initiatives have been particularly successful and are continued in this fiscal year. Additionally, the ministry intends to assess and begin to deal with the urgent need of providing facilities for improved correctional programming in British Columbia. Through this fiscal year the ministry will review, assess and evaluate existing correctional facilities and produce a plan through the year for the redevelopment or replacement of many institutions. Members must appreciate that the majority of the facilities for adults operated by the corrections branch are out of date and do not meet the minimum correctional standards which have been adopted by the United Nations. Such facilities have done little, if anything, for either inmates or staff, or to advance programming developed by the corrections branch.

In the area of court administration the ministry provides those services which are necessary to support the effective functioning of the courts at all levels. British Columbia has been an innovator in the development and implementation of policies and programs providing for an integrated support system to all levels of the courts. It is a relatively new system, and progress has been made over the past two years in extracting major improvements in the process. However, the pressures of a growing population, the steady rise in the incidence of crime, the growth of the legal profession in the province, the number of courtrooms and sitting judges and other factors necessitate the addition of fiscal and other resources to sustain that service. That increase has been provided in the estimates which are before the committee for consideration.

Members will also note major increases in funding provided to the criminal justice division and the legal services to government division of the ministry. These areas — traditionally underfunded and often sustained in previous years by special warrant — are now provided with resources necessary to effective programming for both public- and government-oriented services.

With the assistance of officials of the ministry I would be pleased to respond to any questions which members may have with respect to these estimates.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is fortunate in his staff in the public service of the province of British Columbia that serve in his ministry. He's unfortunate in the kind of society in which we live. I can remember the time, which doesn't seem too long ago, when Gordon Scott and Oscar Orr used to manage the Vancouver provincial court. It was called the police court in those days. They did it almost single-handedly. Now, as the Attorney-General says, we have all these new lawyers in the province. The number has doubled in the past decade. Surely that's not responsible for the crime wave, is it? There does seem to be some kind of Parkinson's Law at work there: the more lawyers you have, the more cases you have and the more convictions you have. Then you need to build jail space, and so we go.

We'll be asking detailed questions on the administration of justice. I hope it will be more of a question-and-answer thing, but I want to be critical of the department too. I think that it's far too secretive, as represented by the present Attorney-General. It's draw-the-shades, button-the-lips and watch-out-for-leaks that we see in the administration of the Attorney-General's department. I think it's the least open ministry of all the ministers we see over there. I think that's a great tragedy. If people are to respect the law, they should be able to see the processes, even if looking at them is uncomfortable for the Attorney-General or his colleagues. What we have seen are clam-ups and secret inquiries.

I want to direct the Attorney-General's attention to one matter at the present time and initiate it with a few questions to him. This government very proudly brought in the office of the ombudsman with strong independent powers of investigation and provisions that anyone obstructing his work would be liable to fine under the summary convictions act. I would have hoped that this ministry above all would be the one that would make sure that the spirit as well as the letter of the Ombudsman Act would be lived up to to the full, and that where there was a request for information this ministry would be behind the ombudsman saying: "Let's make sure that you get the information you want."

I must admit I'm not too happy with the answers the Attorney-General has given in respect to the very important matter as to whether at long last some independent person will have a look at the evidence the Attorney-General's been sitting on in respect to what is known as Gracie's Finger, after the Eckardt commission. The ombudsman has authority under his act which I think is very plain. Section 10 of the act provides: "The ombudsman, with respect to a matter of administration, on a complaint or on his own initiative, may investigate...." He's had a complaint — and he's had that complaint since about last fall, although I don't know the

[ Page 6332 ]

precise date of it — from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association asking him to review whether or not there's been abuse of process in respect to the Eckardt commission. He may investigate a decision or recommendation made, an act done or omitted, or a procedure used — three very broad matters with respect to whether there was fair play or something else with respect to the Eckardt commission. His authority extends to investigating whether a procedure used by an authority.... Under the definition in the act that clearly includes a commissioner appointed under legislation or under order-in-council. That includes Larry Eckardt.

On April 1, in answering questions in oral question period, the Attorney-General was asked whether he'd been approached by Mr. Friedmann, the ombudsman, for his position with respect to the inquiry the ombudsman felt he had to go ahead with. Presumably the ombudsman approached the Attorney-General because he wanted the Attorney-General to say, "Yes, go ahead with your investigation," or, "I will assist you in that investigation." The Attorney-General replied: "I had a discussion with the ombudsman with respect to that matter, but it is not within my area of responsibility or jurisdiction to dictate to the ombudsman whether he should or should not proceed with any investigation. He does so in accordance with the provisions of his statute."

He had approached the Attorney-General asking for the position of government. He came with an opinion — I don't know who it was from, but I understand it was a learned opinion — that it was his duty and that he had no choice but to proceed with the investigation, look at the documents, hear evidence and do whatever was necessary to get to the bottom of it. What did the Attorney-General tell him? He simply gave that answer.

Then he was asked: "Did the Attorney-General offer any opinion whatsoever to the ombudsman as to whether he should proceed with this particular investigation?" The Attorney-General said: "Mr. Speaker, the answer is no." Yet immediately after that, without answering the question the ombudsman came to see him about — whether he had the government's approval to go ahead with this, as if he needed it — and without saying what legal position the government was prepared to take, the Attorney-General proceeded to ask for a legal opinion from his own ministry.

If the Attorney-General meant the first answer — that it's your responsibility, you get your legal opinion and you proceed or not as you see fit — why does he begin to act as if he were a criminal defence lawyer and look for a legal opinion as to whether or not he should cooperate with the ombudsman? He didn't tell Mr. Friedmann that; he just went back into his ministry and set the wheels in motion to get that legal opinion. Why wasn't he frank with the ombudsman? Why didn't he say: "I'm going to seek an opinion as to what the position of the government will be?" He didn't say that. On May 1 he said he was getting that opinion.

The first question I put to the Attorney-General is simply this: have you had that opinion, and what is the opinion you've received?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I continue to be amazed at the inability of the hon. member to recognize the sensitivity that is associated with the office of the ombudsman when he comes into relationship with government. It certainly is a matter of which I am acutely aware.

With regard to this particular matter, the ombudsman's complaint with respect to the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, I was unaware that there had been any complaint resting in the office of the ombudsman for all this period of time, but he did come to me to indicate that he had an opinion that he should proceed, and I was immediately concerned as to the implication there would be for the position of the ombudsman if it were to be perceived by anyone that he was indeed seeking the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether he should or should not act upon such a complaint, particularly because I had been made aware by the ombudsman that he had received an opinion from counsel in Ontario with respect to that particular matter.

However, the ombudsman, notwithstanding that he was in possession of that opinion, indicated to me that if I disagreed and wished to challenge his jurisdiction to deal with such a matter, then he would be prepared to accommodate me and place the matter before the courts. Nonetheless, not long after the ombudsman met with me the matter became the subject of public comment, and my responses to the hon. member in question period were accurate. I did not offer advice to the ombudsman. I did not do so because I was very conscious of what the effect would be upon the ombudsman — and I suppose upon the Attorney-General — if it were perceived by anyone that he was seeking advice from government with regard to his responsibilities.

Yes, it is true that I sought an opinion. I was advised that this was a matter of a first instance. It had never occurred to me that the ombudsman's jurisdiction — since it is clear from the statute that it deals with bodies which are established by order-in-council — would not extend to a royal commission. Nonetheless, because it was a matter of first instance, I asked for an opinion as to what the ombudsman might do, based upon the opinion which he had received from Ontario, and what the status of a royal commissioner or a royal commission would be once it had discharged its responsibilities. That opinion was obtained.

I subsequently indicated to the ombudsman that there was no intention on the part of the Attorney-General or the government to challenge the decision which he had made, based upon an opinion to proceed with that particular complaint. Indeed, the only communication has been with respect to information the ombudsman sought from those government ministries associated with the royal commission. Through the officials of the Attorney-General those ministries were advised to respond to the ombudsman indicating their willingness to make available to him such information as he could properly request for the purposes of his complaint and the inquiry.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Attorney-General then whether he will assure the House that he will make available to the ombudsman the transcripts of evidence from some 40 witnesses, I think, that was taken in the Prelypchan-Vogel internal inquiry into this matter. Will those be made available to the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, they will not be made available.

MR. MACDONALD: That's obstruction.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In dealing with the complaint which he has under examination, the ombudsman has available to him the same information that was available to the persons in my ministry who undertook a review at my re-

[ Page 6333 ]

quest. It would be inappropriate for the ombudsman to utilize the information which we have obtained, when in the course of his own inquiry he would have the opportunity of speaking with exactly the same people and eliciting the available information.

MR. BARRETT: Straight coverup.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not straight coverup at all.

MR. BARRETT: It is so a coverup.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no coverup whatsoever. He can talk to exactly the same people we talked to. He can make his own assessments of their evidence.

MR. BARRETT: Straight coverup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will have order in the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The complaint that the ombudsman has under consideration is one which is significantly different than the matter which was under review by my ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General of British Columbia held a secret inquiry into a matter of public importance, paid for by public funds. The ombudsman was asked to investigate the same subject matter on which the Attorney-General held a secret inquiry. The Attorney-General has consistently refused to make available to this House the affidavits that were said to be backdated, and the transcripts of the evidence. The ombudsman has a right to look at public documents, including investigations that the government has made at public expense into the subject matter of the complaint. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the refusal of the government to make available to this House, the people of the province, or even to the ombudsman, public documents relating to the subject matter of the complaint in his own department is obstruction within the meaning of the act.

MR. LEA: Note the Premier and Grace.

MR. MACDONALD: You've got the colleague of the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources, stating to the press that she sees red behind this investigation: "Mrs. McCarthy emphasized again Monday that to continue the investigation is an affront to both her and Eckardt." Why have an ombudsman and then stop him in his tracks from looking at public documents that are paid for by the taxpayers? Why have an ombudsman who might run the risk of showing that that investigation of the Attorney-General was a sham and full of inconsistencies? He refused to put Dan Campbell and Larry Eckardt under oath. What kind of secret investigation are we going through in this province? Then when you pass legislation under which it is mandatory for the ombudsman to investigate and under which it is obstruction of justice when the investigation is blocked by the government, the Attorney-General comes before this House and says: "That evidence is sealed. I won't let those records be shown to the ombudsman or anybody else."

We're demanding that the Attorney-General fulfil the letter and spirit of the act under which the ombudsman has to make this investigation, and open his files as he's required to do by law. The answer that he has given, that the transcripts and affidavits are going to be secret.... Why shouldn't the ombudsman of British Columbia, as part of this matter, have a right to look into whether oaths of secrecy were administered by the commission and then backdated, so that, in effect, perjury was committed? Is that not something he has a right to look at? I ask the Attorney-General, not referring to the transcripts on this occasion, but to the affidavits of the Eckardt commission relating to secrecy: will those affidavits be made available to Mr. Friedmann in the course of his investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member speaks of affidavits. I'm not aware of any. With respect to anything dealing with the royal commission, its administration, its staff, the work they did or the instructions they received, all matters associated with that affair and all documents produced by that commission in the course of its work are available to the ombudsman. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, the ombudsman has made a request for all that material, and the ministries that have it in their possession have been instructed to make it available to him.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General why the instruction to other ministries doesn't apply to his department, in terms of the Prelypchan report.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The subject matter of the so-called Prelypchan report — and there was no report prepared by Mr. Prelypchan.... The work done by the officials of the Ministry of Attorney-General was on a matter quite separate and distinct from that which the ombudsman has under review. As I understand his complaint, the ombudsman has the responsibility to examine the entire workings of the royal commission, and not the narrow aspect of the matter which was reviewed by my ministry.

MR. BARRETT: If the Attorney-General is asked by the ombudsman to supply the material that has been the subject of the narrow investigation by his department, will he make that available to the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's already been a subject of discussion between the ombudsman and me. The answer is no. The ombudsman's investigation does not turn upon the matters which were under review by my ministry.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General who determined whether or not the material that was reported in that narrow investigation was germane to the ombudsman's investigation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That was determined by me and my staff. The ombudsman himself, in dealing with the two complaints, has indicated that the investigation which he is making into the matter does not touch upon the matters which were the subject of review by my ministry.

MR. BARRETT: Has the ombudsman informed the Attorney-General in writing that, in furthering his investigation, he will not require the material that was subject to the narrow investigation by his department?

[ Page 6334 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, he has not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Would the Attorney-General undertake to get a written decision from the ombudsman that he has indicated to the Attorney-General that he does not wish the material that the Attorney-General is refusing to deliver to this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to ask the ombudsman whether that would be in the form of an undertaking or not. The decision is, of course, the ombudsman's.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not clear. Is the Attorney-General saying that the ombudsman indicated to him verbally that he didn't want that material?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So that the member is clear, the ombudsman has indicated that the matter which he has under investigation is not the subject of the matter which was reviewed by my ministry.

MR. BARRETT: I'm rather handicapped, because I'm not a lawyer. I just asked a simple question, and I get an evasive answer.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not evasive at all.

MR. BARRETT: It's a very calm debate. I don't know why you're so touchy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm calm; but you keep misstating the situation, because you're ignorant....

MR. BARRETT: Don't be touchy. I'm just a friend of yours. I don't know why you're touchy.

I'll just ask you this: did the ombudsman say to you that he did not want this material that was the subject of a narrow investigation by your department? Did he indicate that to you? I know that you've said to me that it doesn't relate, in your opinion, to the areas he's investigating. But I'm asking you a specific question: did he say to you that he didn't want this material?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: It's because I'm a little bit slower that I have to go over these questions to get the answer to the question. Up until now we had the Attorney-General dancing away from the question. Now we have the answer that he was not told by the ombudsman that the ombudsman did not want this material. But there was an impression left by the use of clever words earlier on in this debate that the ombudsman didn't want this material. Now we have an answer saying that the ombudsman at no time told the Attorney-General that he did not want this material. The Attorney-General has not laid arty evidence before this House that the ombudsman has not asked for the material.

We find that we're dealing with an Attorney-General who finds it necessary to dodge around this issue. As my co-member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has said, the Attorney-General is involved emotionally and politically with friends — cabinet ministers.

It leaves a bad odour for the Attorney-General to keep this material secret. It leaves a bad odour for the Attorney-General not to explain to my colleague why those allegedly backdated affidavits are not displayed here in this House for public view. It leaves a bad odour with the general citizenry that somehow an internal investigation has taken place and a secret report has been prepared but not made available to the public.

When my friend the Attorney-General was a Liberal, had he been confronted with a similar situation he would have been angry. He would have asked the Attorney-General of the day why he was keeping the report secret. Would it not have been the role of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound when he was a Liberal and was critical of the then Attorney-General, Mr. Bonner, to say that the public has a right to know what's in those documents? Can I ask the Attorney-General what has changed since his becoming the Attorney-General that allows him to believe that those documents should remain secret? Can you give us a reason why those documents should remain secret and why the report should remain secret? I'd like to hear what reasons you've come to for why that in-house investigation should remain secret.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I just say to the member, when he speaks of backdated documents and other such matters, that no such documents are in the possession of the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Any documents which we examine in the course of our limited review remain in the possession of the other ministries or agencies of government where they appropriately belong, and they are available to the ombudsman in the course of his inquiry as well. Upon his examination of them, I'm sure he will draw such conclusions as he deems appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: Is the Attorney-General saying that all those documents are available to any member of this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's my recollection that those documents which pertain to the investigation undertaken by the ombudsman — except, I think, the accounting documents associated with the cost of the commission — are presently lodged in the archives of this province and have been since shortly after the royal commission completed its responsibilities, and they have been under examination by many people over all the intervening months.

MR. BARRETT: Is it not true that one key document by Ms. Vi Barton has been lost?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The information, as I recall it, with respect to that particular document is that Miss Barton indicated that it had been sent to Victoria with documents when the office was closed. That document has never come to light.

MR. BARRETT: Has there ever been an investigation by the department as to where the document might have got lost, or was it just accepted that it never arrived? Has there been any attempt to find out what happened to the document?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The document would have been either in the records of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary or in the archives. They were examined by officials of my ministry, and all those documents have been made available to the ombudsman.

[ Page 6335 ]

MR. BARRETT: Why then, with all this evidence, is the internal report being kept secret?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What the member refers to as the internal report was a report made to me by the Deputy Attorney-General, and it was tabled in this House.

MR. MACDONALD: If the ombudsman was investigating some of the very strange things that happened in the course of the Eckardt commission, particularly as it drew to a close, surely he would want to have in his possession the transcript of what, say, Dan Campbell said in the course of his internal closed investigation of the question of asking Mrs. Dale Mearns to fly to Victoria and pick up some maps that Mr. Campbell, who was the Premier's assistant at the time, had prepared, and then fly back to Mr. Eckardt with that package. If somebody wanted to get to the bottom of this thing they would say, "I would like to know what Mr. Campbell said about that to Mr. Prelypchan," and see whether he's saying the same thing today or whether he has given different versions. If anybody wants to investigate whether there was fair play in this thing, as the ombudsman does, he surely wants the statements about exactly the same thing. The Attorney-General keeps saying it's an entirely different matter. It isn't. It is not a different matter at all. You would want to have the statements these people had already made and then to investigate whether they were true, whether one statement was consistent with another, or whether blatant political interference was shown in the transcripts of evidence that has already been taken and on which the Attorney-General is sitting.

In history — I can remember reading the papers — the Attorney-General was a member of a party that demanded the report of Inspector Butler on the Sommers affair. Quite rightly, because there you had the government of the day sitting on the report of the RCMP that said there was a prima facie case against the Hon. Mr. Sommers, as he then was. To protect their colleague in office, the government at that time refused to release the Butler report. It's still in the Attorney-General's office. I've read it in the meantime, and I suppose the present Attorney-General has too, because I didn't take it with me when I left that office.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's gone.

MR. MACDONALD: It's gone?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Apparently.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll tell you where it is. It's in the lower left-hand drawer, the one with the key.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Could you send me the key, Alex?

MR. MACDONALD: Okay.

We're very good-natured, while the Attorney-General is sitting on a body of evidence relating to the Eckardt commission which should be public, which should be made available to this House, and which definitely, under the statute of the ombudsman, should be made available to him, with all other materials. I say, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has said, that it's absolutely ridiculous to say that the ombudsman can go to any other department and get anything they've got with respect to the Eckardt commission, but that he can't come to the highest law officer of the province, because he's going to be obstructed there; he won't get it.

There are all kinds of strange things that took place during that Eckardt commission. The very way it came out indicates that there was a lack of due process in what happened. Even the commissioner, Eckardt, at one point said: "Why don't the worms come out of the woodwork?" Well, the reason is, Mr. Chairman, that every time they stick out their heads, they're beaned by the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General is stonewalling a proper investigation of the ombudsman, and that really is a matter for the Offence Act and a fine. To keep documents, after passing legislation which requires full production, is an obstruction of justice. Let the sun shine in on what's happened; let's see what people have said about this; let's see if what they're saying today is the same thing.

The Attorney-General is sitting on that evidence. Is it because the Premier's office was involved? Is it because the Premier, through Dan Campbell, who was then his assistant...? Maybe the Premier will answer this. Did Dan Campbell, with the approval of the Premier, prepare those maps and the voting records of different areas and then make a phone call to Mrs. Dale Mearns, who was a Social Credit worker? The first employee employed by the Eckardt commission was a Social Credit campaign worker. This is that great clean government. I'd like to know, and the ombudsman has a right to know, whether the Premier instructed Dan Campbell to make maps of his own and then have them flown over just as the Eckardt commission was coming to an end. Did a special plane come over, pick up his precious maps and his political census-taking to show how this riding could be won or that riding could be lost if the boundaries went here or there? Did the Premier know what his own executive assistant was up to?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The Attorney-General is saying that's none of the public's business. "They'll never know that we've closed ranks. We're going to sit on vital evidence and block the ombudsman's investigation." That's what the Attorney-General is telling the House today. The chief law officer is surely the one who should be out in front, saying: "Let's make everything available to assist the ombudsman." He might have reluctant colleagues, but as chief law officer of the Crown he has some ethical and legal responsibility to see that the statute is lived up to — the Ombudsman Act which was passed by this government. It says that when there's a legitimate investigation — and the Attorney-General has admitted this is a legitimate investigation — all materials are open to the ombudsman. It's bad enough to hide it from the public and this Legislature — maybe that's a political question — but when you also hide it from the ombudsman on a legitimate complaint, that's obstruction of justice.

MR. KING: I'm trying to understand the debate as it goes along, and not being a lawyer either, I'm having some difficulty. The point that troubles me at the moment — I'd like the Attorney-General to explain it to me, if he wouldn't mind — is that the Attorney-General has indicated to the House that the ombudsman is free to proceed with his investigation in the same fashion that the Attorney-General's internal investigation took place. He says he's entitled to investigate and

[ Page 6336 ]

interrogate the same witnesses. It's my understanding that the ombudsman has jurisdiction only with respect to government employees and employees of government agencies. Is it not true that Judge Eckardt is no longer in the employ of the government or an agency of the government? Is it not true that Danny Campbell has left the government service, along with the staff of the Eckardt commission? Does the ombudsman have any jurisdiction to interrogate those private citizens — as they are now? If he does not, as I believe he has not, then is the Attorney-General not setting up a situation where any meaningful investigation by the ombudsman at this time is totally frustrated? I'd appreciate the Attorney-General's explanation of those points.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to stand in my place. I've sought the floor on two or three occasions. Of course, I do not expect to receive it at any time, but I think it's my just and rightful due.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it not traditional in this House that when we're embarked on the debates on the estimates there is a give and take and a flow between government and opposition to ensure the movement of the vote? The member asked some simple questions. I don't think the Attorney-General wants to avoid answering. I think it would behoove us to follow the standard tradition of response to the opposition questions, rather than interrupt with a new subject or a new speaker. He's prepared to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. However, in debate it is also customary to go from one side of the House to the other. Inasmuch as two of the opposition members had spoken, the Chair recognized the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. BARRETT: My point of order is related to practice. I wouldn't want this chamber to get a bad name from somebody on the government side attempting to block the flow of debate or to act as minister of defence for the Attorney-General. There could be a public misinterpretation of that member's role in the debate at this point. He could be changing the subject entirely, and people might believe that he was just defending the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I believe the Chair has the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he's on the same subject is he?

MR. MUSSALLEM: If I may reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Attorney-General needs no minister of defence of his estimates.

I do believe I have the right to be heard on matters of very great importance to me. If the opposition wish to pursue the Eckardt report, that is their privilege, and they will have ample time. I've listened for an hour to an issue that has been raked over the coals in this House many times. There isn't a part of it that I haven't heard at least ten times already.

MR. LEA: What about the answers?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Answers I have heard: good, right and truthful answers.

I feel I have the right to stand up and discuss issues that are of prime importance to me and to the people of British Columbia, and not only to my constituency.

I wish to discuss a matter that is of vital interest to the entire society — in fact, I think the future of our society hinges on it.

MR. BARRETT: Coverup.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. Leader of the Opposition says: "Coverup." I do not wish to listen to that. There is no coverup. I'm bringing up a subject of vital importance. I am the member for Dewdney and have a right to take this floor, and I now do so. I say now to all who want to hear....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Dewdney has the floor, and I would ask members to afford him the courtesy and, indeed, the right that each member has in this chamber.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've lived most of my life in British Columbia, and throughout the years and the various Attorney-Generals, particularly as time goes on.... What more can we ask from law than that our families sleep peacefully in their homes, our wives are safe in their homes and our children are safe where they live? We have security under the law of this land, the British rule of justice, and yet we take the time of this House to discuss a report that has been gone over at least 20 times for political motivation and nothing else.

I come here to bring up an issue that is of vital importance to the young people of British Columbia and to me as a citizen of British Columbia, and I have some direct questions for the Attorney-General. On that basis I think I have the right to take this floor.

I am very concerned with the lawlessness in our country: lawlessness created by the consumption of alcohol by the young and the ability of the young to obtain alcohol easily. I'm concerned about that. I think that's a matter of vital importance. I think this House would be well served if we could debate that for a considerable length of time. I'd like to know what the Attorney-General can do in this vital matter that distresses mothers and fathers and families in British Columbia — the consumption, misuse and abuse of alcohol. It's all right to say that it's with us and that we can't do anything, but it has now become an epidemic. It's time we moved directly in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention an incident that happened a short while ago, when a young man of 22 phoned me in great anger and said: "I want you to do this for me. I want to get my dozen beer back." "Well," I said, "what happened to your dozen beer?" "I bought a dozen beer from the liquor store and I put it in the trunk of my car. I hadn't gone two blocks when a policeman stopped me and asked me to open the trunk. I opened the trunk. He seized my beer." I said: "You bought the beer and paid for it?" "Yes." I said: "Well, there must be another reason." I finally found out from him that there was a girl in the car who was 18 years old. He said: "Yes, that's true. But what's wrong with that?" I must commend the policeman, knowing the facts of the case.

[ Page 6337 ]

I found out that it is legal for a policeman to search an automobile if he assumes that the liquor is being used for illegal purposes. I am pleased to hear that that is the law in this land. But I am concerned that alcohol can very easily get into the hands of the very young. After my casual investigation, I found out that any day in any liquor store individuals will will go in and buy beer or whisky for minors outside the store and openly hand it over. That is happening. It is of vital importance to me. I address the Attorney-General and say to him: what are you going to do about it? That is a dangerous situation.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You may laugh. They want to talk about the Eckardt report. I'm telling you, I'm talking about something that concerns the lives of our people. Only last week in three separate accidents six of our people in Maple Ridge were killed as a result of the consumption of alcohol. If that isn't a serious matter — six young people killed in six days.... We sit here, and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) laughs and suggests I'm diverting the debate. I'm not diverting the debate. I'm merely bringing the debate on to the issues of the day and not on to this silly Eckardt report or whatever you like to call it, and not on to the silly issues of what the ombudsman did or didn't do. Let the ombudsman do his job. Who created the ombudsman? This government did. We're not criticizing the ombudsman.

I say to you that these are the important issues today. I'm concerned, and I'm not making jest of it. I'm saying to the Attorney-General that it's not good enough to sit down and say: "Well, we can't help it." We have got to help it. We have got to stop the liquor from going out of the liquor store and into the hands of young people below the age at which they're allowed to have it. It can be done. What's wrong with demanding of everybody who buys liquor a signed statement saying that this liquor will not be given to or get into the hands of a person under the age of 19 years? What's wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what you recommend?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I certainly recommend it. I recommend also that the drinking age....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm talking now about liquor. You can bring up any issue you want. The deep-rooted disaster in our society is the consumption of liquor by the young.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I would like the debate to go on, but I want to make my point clear. I am concerned. I can play this over to many tunes. The BATmobile did its job. We need a new and innovative plan. I think it's high time that we took a person's signature for every bottle of booze that leaves the liquor store. We don't have to be in a hurry to sell liquor. If it makes a bigger lineup, let it be. Liquor is costing our taxpayers.... Anyway, we could cut our taxation in half if we could cut off the disaster created by liquor. Our budget of $3 billion this year will go to the disaster created by liquor. You think that's not so? Experts tell me that half our tax dollars go to correct the damages done by liquor. Those accidents in Maple Ridge recently where six people were killed will cost us up to $6 million in hospital and costs.

We stand here and talk about the Eckardt report. They refer to Gracie's Finger. We've heard that so often. Let's talk about the things that really count. Let's talk about the lives of our young people and serious matters. Let's talk about the families of the dead who have to suffer. Let's talk about the children who will never walk again because of those accidents. Let's talk about the serious things. I appeal to the Attorney-General. This is a matter of utmost importance. I will continue to stand on this floor and bring up this question time and time again until we have some logical answer for what can be done to correct this terrible traffic problem.

I recognize that the province of British Columbia is not alone. It is not a new problem. It's a disaster that goes through our society. I would like our Attorney-General to take the leadership and do something big, something direct and something new. I think the idea of a signature on a piece of paper would just be a little breakthrough. At least when a person signs it and says, "I will not allow this liquor to get into the hands of a person under the age of 19; I guarantee it, I give my word, my honour and my oath," I think that would deter a little bit. I don't think you'd find anybody going to the liquor store, buying a dozen beers or a bottle of rye, and turning around and giving it to a child if he had to sign his name and say: "I'm not going to give it to anybody." That's the recommendation I make. It's a little thing, but it's important. I appeal to the Legislature to talk about issues that count and get off this silly thing that they've spent an hour on already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Skeena, I'm sure members appreciate the problem the Chair has with the very fine line that's drawn between the responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) in the liquor administration policy and the enforcement policy of the Attorney-General. I would commend to all members to keep in mind the very clear delineation between those two ministries when addressing the Ministry of Attorney-General.

MR. HOWARD: You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that nobody formally raised a point of order about the member for Dewdney dealing with that matter. We all know he's a bit disoriented in this chamber anyhow about getting things right on the mark most of the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must commend to all members that personal allusions to members in debate, whether made in jest or otherwise, are certainly out of order. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I meant disoriented in the sense that this is a subject matter that you yourself said might more appropriately fit under Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He's not sure which ministry deals with what, that's all. One is always gracious to the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, I want that member to remove that statement. There is no disorientation. It's a question of law, and law is the department of the Attorney-General. A facetious remark like that is not acceptable to me.

[ Page 6338 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair did go to some length to try to explain the problem the Chair has in the very fine line that's drawn between the two ministries. An hon. member has asked another hon. member for a withdrawal of a statement regarding disorientation. The matter could very easily be resolved, hon. member, if the member would undertake to....

MR. HOWARD: I didn't mean anything at all, and I really don't know why the member for Dewdney should be so upset.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the Attorney-General said that the ombudsman will not have access to and will not be provided with — whether he wants them or not — the transcript or the report prepared by Norman Prelypchan or the transcript of the discussions that he or other people in the Attorney-General's department had with anybody regarding the Eckardt report. If I'm correct in the understanding that that is being removed from the eyes of the ombudsman and denied him, could the Attorney-General tell me under what authority he can make that decision?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the work done by Mr. Prelypchan was done for the purpose of providing me with an opinion with respect to the nature of conduct alleged against a member of the executive council. It therefore falls within the purview of the part of the statute which makes such opinions not subject to the disclosure of the ombudsman. That, however, does not in any way impede the ombudsman from making his full inquiry into the complaint which he has before him.

While I'm on my feet, I'll respond to the question posed by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). While he is seeking a legal opinion, I think if he refers to the powers of the ombudsman and the statute to obtain information, he will see that the ombudsman will have full opportunity to make inquiries of persons who may have been engaged in the royal commission but are no longer there employed or, indeed, any person who was then but is not now a member of the public service.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I understood the Attorney-General to say that the inquiry conducted by officials within his ministry would be excluded from examination by the ombudsman because of — what provision in what act? I didn't quite get what the Attorney-General said there.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Section 11 of the act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: Section 11, which is the jurisdiction, and not section 17, which is another section which precludes it. Just the one — section 11 ?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's sufficient.

MR. HOWARD: If the Attorney-General says section 11 is sufficient to give him authority to deny the ombudsman access to this information, it sounds to me like the Attorney-General would grasp at almost any straw to deny the ombudsman access to that information.

MR. LAUK: I've carefully looked at the various sections that are applicable, and the Attorney-General points out section 11. I don't know how on earth, using even a strained interpretation of the convention or law of privilege between solicitor and client, the Attorney-General can escape his responsibility under this very act to provide the transcripts of the evidence taken by Prelypchan on a critical issue involving the investigation of the ombudsman. I don't think anyone but the Attorney-General says it's not a critical issue and part of the gravamen of the ombudsman's inspection in this matter. Section 11(1)(b) says: "This act does not authorize the ombudsman to investigate a decision, recommendation, act or omission of a person acting as a solicitor for an authority or acting as counsel to an authority in relation to a proceeding." If the Attorney-General is allowed to escape his responsibility under the Ombudsman Act by this section, then all you have to do to cover up even illegal behaviour on the part of government and its officials is merely to hand the matter over for review by a solicitor, who will then take evidence and documents into his possession and report to the minister. Any minister of the Crown can do that on any issue.

If the Attorney-General's interpretation of section 11 is correct, the ombudsman would have absolutely no jurisdiction to investigate. That's what the Attorney-General is suggesting. It is consistent with the role that this Attorney-General has played since the beginning. He has been reluctant and, indeed, unenthusiastic in the provision of information to this House. On every possible occasion he has given evasive answers to questions put in question period, by the press and in debate for two sessions now. This is an incredibly legalistic, narrow view. No one can take a Crown minister and force him — particularly the chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney-General — to obey the law, particularly if there's no will on the part of the government to make him do so.

Section 11 obviously doesn't apply. If it did apply in these circumstances.... You might as well take the whole Ombudsman Act and chuck it out the window. It isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the British Columbia Railway's financial statements for the year ended January 2, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 6339 ]

Appendix

57 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

1. Has Roger Skillings been appointed to a staff position within the Ministry?
2. If the answer to No. 1 is no, has Roger Skillings been engaged as a consultant to the Ministry?
3. If the answer to No. 1 or 2 is affirmative, what are the details of the position he has been engaged for?
4. What salary or fee is associated with this position?
5. What are the duties of this position?
6. When is the position expected to terminate?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Not applicable.

"3. Administrative Officer 3 with the Recreation and Sports Branch of the Ministry. Qualifications include advanced degree in physical education; international experience as an athlete or official; abilities normally associated with considerable experience in implementing sport development programs.

"4. The salary is $2,033 a month, effective November 12, 1980.

"5. Under general direction of the Chief, Sports and Fitness Division to advise sport governing bodies on matters related to management and programming; review applications for financial assistance from the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund; to manage the Provincial athlete assistance programs and develop a sport recognition program.

"6. Not applicable. Mr. Skillings is confirmed as a regular public servant."

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

20 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled Building Safety Standards Act to amend as follows:

Section 37,

(a) by deleting section 738 (1) and (2) and substituting the following:

"738. (1) Subject to any regulation under section 740 (1) (g), every council has the administration of the building code applicable in its municipality and is empowered to enforce it as if it were a bylaw of the municipality.

"(2) Subject to any regulation under section 740 (1) (g), every regional board has, in that part of its regional district that is not within a municipality, the administration of the building code as it applies in that part of the regional district, and is empowered to enforce it as if it were a bylaw of the regional district.",

(b) by deleting section 738 (4), and

(c) by deleting section 739 (1) and (2) and substituting the following:

"(1) Where construction or alteration of a building or part of a building is carried out in contravention of the building code, every person responsible commits an offence.

"(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), each of the following is a 'person responsible':

(a) a person who carries out the construction or alteration;

(b) a person whose employees carry out the construction or alteration;

(c) an owner of the building who authorizes or permits the contravention of the code."