[ Page 6341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 26). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 6341

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

Mr. Levi –– 6341

Mr. Macdonald –– 6342

Mr. Cocke –– 6342

Mr. Leggatt –– 6342

Mr. King –– 6343

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6343

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6346

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Kempf

Mr. King

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

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

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

(continued)

MR. LEVI: One of the things I think we should point out at the very beginning is that this flipping bill doesn't do anything for flipping at all. The word "flipping" is used there as an adjective in the first sense. I listened to what the minister said yesterday and to what he said prior to introducing the bill. The major problem with flipping is that people have been making a great deal of money getting hold of property, and some of them were real estate agents. I don't see anything in this bill that is going to prevent the kind of flipping sales that have been going on until today, even when this bill is passed and when the actual conditions of the bill come into operation by September.

The present legislation requires that real estate agents make a declaration in writing. It was not a very good system. There was no enforcement of that requirement. The only time any enforcement appeared to happen was when somebody complained — then some questions were asked about whether a declaration been made by an agent. Now we've got the example of the minister coming in with a new reporting form, in red, with heavy print. And in this particular situation any real estate agent or the firm to which he belongs or any person in that firm, registered agent or not, would have to make this declaration; then one copy would wind up going to the superintendent of real estate — who is a very busy individual, because he has to look after being the superintendent of brokers as well. They would then look at it. It's possibly tantamount to insider trading reports.

I would ask the minister to enlighten us as to what actually happens when a real estate agent reports, as recommended in this bill, the particular transaction goes through and he is found at fault. As I understand it, he can be disciplined if there is enough evidence, but the transaction stands. That certainly becomes a problem. It does not really protect the purchaser, which is really what this whole real estate licensing agency is all about. The person who has to be most protected is the individual who is purchasing or selling property, and that's where the agent is acting in one way or the other. In this case, of course, we're looking at the agent acting on his own behalf. That's a problem, and I don't think this bill gets at the problem of flipping whatsoever. It may be that the minister's intent is that it will be a deterrent and that somehow, if agents know that when they start buying property for their own purposes and they have to make this declaration, maybe they won't do it. On the other hand, maybe they will. It does not meet the intention. However, I think I should say right off the bat that if we're moving toward some kind of legislation, obviously we have to support it. The minister has had a number of months in which to put this thing together, and he would have been far better advised to put the bill out earlier and have the public and the real estate industry take a real hard look at what he was attempting to do, because I think he's falling far short of what he really wants to achieve.

I'll give you an example. One section of the bill deals with commissions — commissions have to be declared in the declaration. I'd like to read the minister a statement made by Mr. Alf Buttress, chairman of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, in the bulletin they put out in April. He's talking about the role of agents or licensees. Let me just read this into the record. "There is a view, which I share, that these people are not agents or licensees; they are investors." He's talking about the clients when they are investing. "There is no place in real estate for such people as licensees, because not only do they fail to serve the customer, but they also serve to bring our vocation into disrepute." He was saying this shortly after the minister made some observations about the flipping that was going on in the community. He's talking about the role of the real estate agent. He goes on to say: "If any licensee wishes to make the majority of his livelihood by real estate speculation, his real estate licence should be surrendered." If you're going to be a speculator you're in the wrong business. Then he goes on: "That would place him in the same position as an unlicensed speculator and any other member of the general public in seeking out what are considered to be good buys." I suppose he gets the best of both worlds if he's a licensee; he's got inside knowledge. It goes on: "More importantly, no vendor would be in a position, as is sometimes now the case, of paying a commission or part thereof to a licensee who may be acting in his own best interest rather than the vendor's, in order to purchase for himself." Then he finally says: "How a licensee can, in good conscience, participate in a commission when purchasing for himself is beyond my comprehension."

The minister has a section in the bill which points out that in the declaration he must talk about the commission. I would recommend to the minister that he take a look at that section and take a look at what Mr. Buttress has to say, because he's very specific about it. On top of having a person with a licence who has become a speculator, you don't reward him with the possibility, in this case, of also receiving a commission. We are talking now only in respect to the flipping.

[ Page 6342 ]

The minister has not convinced us that this is in any way going to stop flipping. It is not. It is simply going to enable a report to be made up to the superintendent, after the fact, that something took place — and there's the question of a declaration. If the purchaser has got a bad deal or has been involved in this kind of thing, nothing can happen to the deal. The deal stands. The purchaser may lose his licence. Then, of course, he's got to go through the civil suit in order to recover whatever damages there might be. I must say that it's a beginning, but it's not the kind of beginning that I think the minister was leading the public to believe the legislation would in fact make. I've devoted my remarks mainly to the flipping, because that's a major contemporary concern. Certainly there's the question of time-shared condominiums. Now that we're going to get into proper presentation of the prospectus, that's fine. That was something that needed to be done. It's not an easy piece of legislation in respect to this whole area of time-shared condominiums, because it's going on all over the world. All of the problems are now coming home to roost for a lot of people, particularly those people who are involved in these investments outside of Canada, where they simply had no idea what they were doing. This is an attempt to regulate that in the first instance, and that's fine.

I think the failure of the minister to really do something about the flipping question is of more importance in this legislation. That's not in this bill. All he's doing is trying to build some kind of accountability system, but that does not help the purchaser out there at all. That's what's lacking in this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: As the former Attorney-General says, we're going to vote for the bill, because it makes some gestures in the direction of greater disclosure. So you can't knock that; but as my colleague says, the flipping goes on and the bill doesn't prevent it. There is already a provision that a real estate licensee has to disclose that he is purchasing as such. If he doesn't do that, the client can refuse to go ahead with the transaction. It becomes null and void.

What we have seen out there in the last year and a half is a wilderness of speculation in real estate which has driven prices up, and where commissions have been made on an incredible scale ranging from 4 percent to 7 percent. I've even seen 7.5 percent. It has all increased the cost of accommodation. It's all built into the cost of the housing stock, which, as everybody knows, has become unaffordable for most people. We've seen all kinds of scams which are not going to be stopped by this bill — for example, the option scam, where the licensee puts down say $100, and takes an option on a property valued at $165,000 for six months. If the price of that accommodation he's got his hooks into doesn't go up to more than $165,000 in the six-month period, he loses his $100. That was pretty good bait, though, wasn't it? Hook the homeowner with the option of money, then see what's going to happen with the market. If you want to get out he can't even sue you; it's just an option. The bill doesn't stop that kind of practice.

You haven't stopped flipping in this bill. You haven't stopped the real estate industry from being part of the speculation which is driving up the cost of housing in the province of British Columbia. As my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) points out, the better part of the real estate industry agrees that this kind of practice should be curbed. All you have here is greater disclosure, a different kind of disclosure and a more dramatic disclosure. To that extent, it's fine. But I really wonder: is this minister serious about flipping? Is he on the side of the flipper or the flippee? I suspect it's the former.

MR. COCKE: The first part of the bill, of course, is devoted to disclosure. There's another part of the bill that particularly worries me; that's this whole question of timesharing.

It strikes me that the best possible way to drive real estate values up is this whole area of time-sharing. As a matter of fact, I understand that in Hawaii people are allowed to purchase into, let's say, a condominium for two weeks, four weeks, or any multiple of one forty-eighth they want. The thing that concerns me around this whole question of time-sharing is that I think this bill tends to give it a pat on the back. It gives it a little bit of a background of being okay.

Then, of course, I have to think about who it's okay for. I've been hearing a good deal about a project that's going on not too far from here down on the wharf. It strikes me that something that was not going to be time-shared — that's the Bawlf complex right down along the shore on the harbour, immediately adjacent to the protected area — is suddenly going to be in a position where they can sell time-sharing. That means that the value of the property, which is already inflated by virtue of its location and decisions that have been made around that location, will suddenly soar again. It's not only that one.

It just concerns me that here we are, when other jurisdictions are frowning on time-sharing, giving time-sharing some authenticity or some kind of governmental recognition. I think we should be going the other way. I'm concerned about those particular sections of the bill, which are actually in the majority. It's the major principle of this bill, other than flipping, because flipping is really not being addressed, as my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out.

Therefore I would suggest that, generally speaking, this bill is rather a disappointment. It makes a couple of progressive gestures, but beyond that it does very little. As far as providing recognition for time-sharing goes, that worries me stiff.

MR. LEGGATT: I agree with the comments of my colleagues that, in fact, the bill fails to address the problem of flipping. But it does strengthen disclosure, so it's very hard to be opposed to the principle the minister has placed within the bill. He hasn't really addressed or grasped the nettle around the most difficult problem, the whole question of conflict-of-interest in real estate transactions, which really has to deal with the unequal relationship between one person who makes it a profession to know what the value of property is and another who is a complete amateur on the value of his own property. I think everyone in this chamber agrees with the sentiments about trying to get a handle on the question of flipping that the minister has been publicly expressing for a long time. This bill does not do that. It's almost a case of false advertising that the minister's been engaged in, or labouring and bringing forth a mouse, because in fact he's had public expectations rise to a tremendous degree. There's bound to be a sense of disappointment when people get into the fine print of this particular bill. We're not against improvement with regard to disclosure, although that's always been in the law.... This is an improvement. The increase in penalties is certainly a welcome addition.

[ Page 6343 ]

There has to be some way of getting a handle on the flipping question, because the normal transaction for a real estate flip is that the real estate person, who holds a real estate licence and is an honest person, generally comes forward and makes a proposal for the purchase which seems attractive to a vendor. He's working on a rising market. He's looking at a market that's going up dramatically. Because of the special knowledge of the real estate agent, he's taking very little risk in getting into it.

One of the possibilities that the minister might look at.... I say look at because I think it needs more study than just being put in a specific amendment. I think he should study the idea of providing a delay in resale. In other words, if a real estate agent decides after fall disclosure to participate in the rising market or increase the rising market by proposing a flip, he shouldn't be able to flip that property for a couple of years. I think that would slow down the speculative aspects of the real estate market. I know the minister's trying to cool the market at the present time by controlling this, but possibly a caveat in regard to resale and an amendment to the law which would provide such a resale to be unenforceable might provide an additional sanction to prevent what the minister sees as a vice in the real estate market.

The second aspect that the minister has not dealt with, which is just as serious as flipping, is the question of the peddling of options. We have in an overheated real estate market now a tremendous number of fortunes being made by real estate dealers simply taking an option on property for a low cash price. That seals off the capacity of the owner to reach a profit in a rising market. That profit is therefore all scooped up by the person who is wise enough to option a good deal of property. There is an area, I think, that needs regulation as well.

It's not merely flipping that has overheated the market; optioning all over the lower mainland has driven the market very high. When you can get an option on a piece of property for a very low deposit, you're not that serious about the end price in a rising market. You're probably offering the person something more than the market value of his property in expectation of a rising market, and you're willing to lose a modest deposit in order to do so. The result psychologically is that everybody in the area where the option has been granted immediately has a higher expectation with regard to property values. That has a tremendous psychological upward lift where massive options are being taken. We've all seen examples of large developments — shopping centres and so on — where the option psychology has driven prices very high indeed. That, of course, drives land prices and housing prices up to the incredible amounts that we're now facing.

I'm saying to the minister that a re-examination of the whole option procedure should be looked at. Optioning itself is responsible for a tremendous increase in what people expect to receive for their property. Surely somewhere the peddling of options should be controlled. Once a vendor takes an option on his property, while the price looks good, he's suddenly had his expectations sealed off, but at a slightly higher level than the market. That means the whole market in that area rises. It seems to me that if the minister wants to address the problem of flipping, with a view to cooling off the real estate market, he should also address the problem of optioning at low deposit. That also increases the price and value of property — artificially I would say — in a particular area. I believe optioning would be controlled by a real estate operator here. I think disclosure would still be required in an option. Maybe the minister can address that. I think it does; if it doesn't, I'd appreciate knowing it.

We appreciate that there has been some improvement in the bill, but flipping and optioning haven't been controlled. Therefore I don't think it's necessary for the House to spend a great deal of time on this bill, because it really doesn't do very much.

MR. KING: I just want to join my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam in raising a concern about the absence of any provision in the bill to deal with the option-dealer controversy. Indeed it is a controversy in my particular riding. I know that the minister has received a great number of letters, as I have, from virtually every real estate dealer in the riding, expressing concern that the option dealers are not licensed in any way. I appreciate that there's a legal question here as to whether or not the option dealers are functioning precisely within the terms of the law. I understand, through a private discussion with the minister, that indeed there is litigation pending to determine precisely what the legal ramifications are, but I don't think that is a valid reason for failing to deal with the overall problem of option dealers: basically the fact is that they are largely unregulated, as opposed to traditional real estate operators.

I don't know whether there is a valid, legitimate function for option dealers, within certain parameters, or whether they are a total aberration that is not in the best interests of the consumers. I'm not sure about that; but I do know that they're an aberration in law as it exists now. As such, they're unregulated. and as such, they are a threat to the public interest. Indeed, there have been many well-publicized cases where older people in particular have been victimized by granting an option, only to see the market heat up and to lose the incremental profit — it was picked up by the option dealer. Of course, when one is moving from one accommodation to another, rather than using that increase as a speculative thing, it's a disaster in terms of trying to find new accommodation.

I just wonder what the minister is planning. I would like to have some answers for the people who are writing to me and saying: "Look, what is the policy here? There's a dearth of any policy guidelines." Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this bill, which is a fairly major one, has been brought in without any provisions whatsoever that address themselves to that particular problem. I would appreciate very much if the minister would outline to the House his thoughts and his plan of action, if any, so I can respond in a reasonable and intelligent way to the people who are querying me in my own riding, and advise them as to what they might expect and whether or not there is some time-frame for action.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, might I make an introduction before commencing my remarks.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm advised that in the gallery presently is a very distinguished visitor from the state of Tasmania, Australia. He is the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal Party, the Hon. Geoffrey Pearsall. Would hon. members welcome Mr. Pearsall.

It's been a thoughtful debate in second reading on this bill, for which I thank members. I propose to address the

[ Page 6344 ]

points raised by them. My view obviously differs in that I think this bill is going to achieve the policy goals stated. The difference would be whether it does. In my remarks I propose again to review how the bill will work, particularly with respect to so-called "flipping." With great respect to members opposite, if they will bear with me, we've attempted here to zero in on the problem in a somewhat sophisticated way, rather than overkill by going far further than necessary with legislation. I'm of the view that these proposals, particularly in section 28, are highly creative and sophisticated and permit us to do, so to speak, with pinpoint precision what others might try to do with a far broader but unnecessary brushstroke.

The chief opposition critic, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), makes the point that there is nothing in the bill about "flipping." By name, there certainly isn't. We have, rather, dealt with the root causes and the root manner in which flipping operates. I'd like to make one thing clear to members; perhaps in committee we'll see amendments. While I have heard your concern as to whether the bill deals with flipping — and I'll outline why I think it does — I haven't clearly heard your policy views as to the preferred route to go. It may be inferred from what you have said that there should be a wholesale ban of sorts, or there should perhaps be some broad form of tax or penalty. For the record, I note the absence of the clearly stated policy alternative that would be put forward by members opposite.

How does this bill deal with the particular case of flipping? First of all, and not of greatest importance but of very great use, is the provision that by virtue of the new section 28, for the first time we will be able to gather data on the degree to which flipping is taking place. Hitherto that has been impossible. Under the new system provided by section 28, we are going to have the data as to the degree to which licensed realtors in this province are making offers on property of all kinds, and if those offers are accepted, we'll have data on that and we can track the progress of the result. For the first time, we're going to have hard, accurate and complete data with which policy analysis can proceed. May I say to members quite openly that if these provisions fail to be as effective as I think they will, I have quite an open mind as to further steps. If these provisions fail to be as effective as I believe they will be, and if the data we're going to get for the first time shows that the problem continues unabated or continues to a degree that it should be a public concern, we are prepared to look at further remedies. I stress that in my view that is not going to be necessary.

In dealing with the problem of flipping I think you have to ask the question: how, why and in what circumstances does it take place? You can't deal with flipping without going to the root elements of how it takes place. A flip is normally defined as the turnover of a piece of property in a very short space of time for a very substantial profit. If we're talking about a residential home, it means a homeowner has agreed to sell the property, and in say three weeks it can be turned over for a very substantial gain. In those circumstances one of two situations must have obtained if that property was sold directly to a licensed realtor for the realtor's direct account. Either the homeowner was misadvised as to the current fair market value of the property — therefore a person could, in effect, buy it as a steal or a bargain and flip it over — or the homeowner was misadvised as to the trend of the market. On day one the homeowner might have received current fair market value of, say, $85,000 without being aware that the market was increasing at, say, 10 percent a week, and hence three weeks later somebody picks up a $30,000 bill. If those two conditions do not prevail — if the vendor is truly advised as to current fair market value and currently advised as to the state of the market — it is virtually impossible that the homeowner is going to agree to sell the home for less than current fair market value. It seems to us that to deal effectively with flipping you've got to get to the root circumstances under which it can arise, which is that case.

I suppose there is a minuscule and theoretical possibility that a realtor, in effect, could say: "Mr. or Mrs. Homeowner, I would like to buy your home. We agree on current fair market value and the trend of the market." If, unexpected to everybody, and as a total surprise, either the market turns around or in three weeks some unique purchaser walks in who wants to pay substantially more, then in those circumstances, if the realtor has taken all the risk, that's a different kettle of fish.

Given that the root circumstance is no advice, incorrect advice or incomplete advice as to current value of the property or the trend on the market, how do you strike at that? How do you ensure that the vendor is so advised? We believe you remedy that problem by ensuring that the vendor is so advised. Through this bill, in a form and manner prescribed by the superintendent of real estate brokers, there will have to be advance notice given to the property-owner of the intention of the licensee to make the purchase, and in the course of that notice we will take all reasonable steps to ensure that that homeowner will acquaint himself with the true facts of the market and the situation, and get some independent advice.

I would caution members that until you've seen the precise wording and layout of the form, you may want to defer your conclusion that this approach is not going to work.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam raised the very good question of what happens if a real estate licensee fails to observe the provisions of section 28: isn't it still too bad for the homeowner? My view is that that's not going to be the case at all. There's going to be a very serious and effective remedy both for the superintendent of realtors and for that homeowner if section 28 is not observed. First of all, let us consider the case in which a realtor consciously chooses to ignore section 28 and deal with a homeowner without reference to it. In that case, as I've indicated publicly, the penalties applicable under the statute in terms of suspension, cancellation of licence and possible fines are going to be substantially increased under a new get-tough policy, and realtors are going to be well and fully warned that anybody who wishes to avoid section 28 by choosing not to follow it is going to be in very serious trouble as far as the superintendent of brokers is concerned.

MR. MACDONALD: Can a vendor back out of a deal?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm coming to that, Mr. Member. Just let me finish.

Let's consider a second situation in which the realtor — and this may get to the point raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam — has complied in a sense with section 28 but not honestly or accurately. There are going to be provisions on that required form of notice that the realtor must complete. It's worthy of note that for the first time, as a consequence of this bill, the section 28 kind of disclosure is going to be uniform and province-wide. Up to this point it was up to the realtor to author his or her own manner of

[ Page 6345 ]

complying with section 28, including the form of notice and the wording, and so forth. Let's assume that a realtor is working with the new prescribed form and chooses to, shall we say, shade the truth, or be incomplete in completing that form. There would be two consequences. Apart from, first, any civil remedies that may accrue to the homeowner, a civil remedy based on the negligent or fraudulent miscompletion of the form, there will be the full range of offences under the statute. Apart from non-use or misuse of the form, there are going to be the usual and remaining provisions at common law for civil remedies in terms of damages for negligence or damages for breach of duty of care from the licensee to the homeowner. In my view, there is going to be broader and far more complete protection for the vendor than has been the case in the past.

The member raised the question of input: should the bill not have been circulated for advance input? I want to assure members that, over the three or four months that I have worked with the problem, I have had lengthy meetings and discussions with the B.C. Real Estate Association, the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Real Estate Institute of B.C. and individual realtors. Of course, I've had a raft of mail from the public, some of it including complaints from members of the public about particular cases that affected them. In assessing the mail and the complaints, it's clear that the real root cause of the problem is what we're striking at — the homeowner who did not have adequate or full knowledge of the value of his home, or alternatively, of the state of the market.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam also raised the question of commissions. As an additional factor, the new particulars to be provided under section 28 of this bill will include full particulars of any commissions or commissio- sharing. The member makes the point, if I understand him, that in any event that's probably wrong, because if you're dealing on your own account you shouldn't be earning a commission — there are conflicts of interest. First of all, there is a perfectly legitimate kind of commission arrangement that may arise with which we would normally have no quarrel. That is the case in which the purchaser is paying the commission. I think the former Attorney- General would agree with me that there is a very substantial distinction at common law concerning the duties of a licensee to a vendor in terms of who's paying the commission. Situation (a), under which a licensee approaches a homeowner, completes the necessary declaration, and makes it clear that he is receiving a commission paid for by the purchaser as the responsibility of the purchaser, and not by the vendor, is much different that situation (b) where, in effect, the vendor is paying the commission. So there's a very distinct difference at law, and my point in response to the member is that, as between the provisions of the form as it will be required and the provisions of common law, I think the question of commissions is very effectively dealt with.

The member has also said that flipping will still continue under the provisions of this bill. In my view, flipping in the sense that it has concerned members this morning in debate is going to be virtually impossible. On the data which we'll have a year from now, we'll see just how accurate my prediction is. We have not gone so far as to impose a broad and heavy-handed form of penalty that would apply to all realtors, the majority of whom are very hard-working and responsible people. We are trying to target in on that very small handful of realtors who would use their licence as an inside track for personal benefit or gain. We also have not followed the route of some complete and wholesale ban of activity that goes far beyond what is required to deal with the problem of flipping; nor have we brought in legislation superimposing some special form of tax on the real estate industry. There are several good reasons for that, including efforts in Ontario in the early 1970s. The results of that experience suggest that the home purchaser or the real estate buyer simply ended up having those kinds of approaches tacked onto the price of housing.

Several members raised the question of options, and it's obviously a concern to members on both sides of the House — not options in the traditional and legitimate commercial sense of their use. I think that members on both sides would recognize the valid place that the traditional option has in our commerce today. Some so-called option dealers or dealers in options or independent listing services or no-commission we'll-sell-your-house kinds of operation may be quite well-meaning and legitimate, but clearly there are a number generating a great deal of concern across the province. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) have spoken on this in second reading debate.

For the record, let me review my concern about the matter. First of all, I share their concern that certainly a number of the so-called option dealers are legitimately of concern to government, because they pose a risk to the unsuspecting public. As members opposite know, I think, the first action taken by this ministry was some months ago. It was the most serious action that we can take in response to the problem. That was the initiation of criminal proceedings against the apparent major operator in this field. Because of that, obviously I cannot say too much more, except that I understand that the matter comes to trial within approximately six weeks. It may be, of course, that the results of those proceedings will completely resolve and determine the matter; but if not, it is my intention to look then at the results which flow from or don't flow from the criminal prosecution. Then, to the degree that further steps are necessary, we'll look very carefully at taking them, be it by way of change in policy, change in regulation or, if necessary, change in legislation. It is my personal observation to members that the results of the proceedings may very well determine the matter.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke on the question of time-sharing. If I understood his comments correctly, his concern or worry is that this legislation, in his view, would appear to legitimize — I think that was the word he used — time-sharing. Again, I was not clear as to the policy alternative which the opposition would propose, but I would infer from his comments that to go in the other direction would suggest that the government should have moved to ban time-sharing or time-share offerings in the province. Obviously, we have not moved to ban time-sharing or time-share offerings in this province. A number of members opposite represent constituencies in which time-sharing is or is about to be a very important part of tourism or the economy of those areas. For example, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke probably knows that the concept of time-sharing as we know it today was virtually invented in his constituency at the St. Ives resort. In my view, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Comox (Ms.

[ Page 6346 ]

Sanford) all represent constituencies — and there may well be others — where important time-sharing developments are either taking place or in the wings. They are important in the sense that they will be potential additions to recreation, tourism and local business. For that reason, we reject the suggestion that time-sharing as such should be abolished. We do believe that if it is to continue in this province, its rules should be clearer, more comprehensive and strengthened in terms of consumer and public protection. We believe that the correct route is one which enhances, in terms of consumer protection, the manner in which time-share offerings can be made.

In the age of growing real estate values and inflation I think time-sharing, if properly done, has the potential to make a form of real estate investment a form of vacation much more affordable to working families in British Columbia. In a very broad parallel, if we could look at the manner in which condominiums and strata titles have developed over the last 15 years, after a relatively rocky start, into what is now a reasonably perfected and, in many cases, quite attractive and sophisticated form of real estate offering, it would be my hope that this legislation will help the potential that time-sharing has for that kind of result.

I'm not saying that the book is closed at this stage. We will monitor how time-sharing continues to develop in the province. Members are probably aware that this legislation deals with time-share offerings, whether they consist of time-sharing property in or out of the province. I appreciate the member's concern, and I will be monitoring the success of the new legislation as the year advances.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody had some further comments on flipping and option dealers. I think that I have touched on most of those comments. In closing I would leave this observation for members, on the question of flipping and the effectiveness of this approach. For the first time, commencing in September, we are going to have the ability to collate, analyze and track the data on flipping of all kinds of real estate in the province. I hope members appreciate that this legislation goes far beyond just residences. At estimate time next year I look forward to sharing the data, such as we have, with members. Let us have a good review of the effectiveness of this legislation.

In concluding and moving second reading, I would thank members for their obvious thoughtful concerns. We clearly have a difference as to how effective section 28 is going to be in its new form. I stand to be tested and examined on that next year, as I say. With that, Mr. Speaker, may I move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 23, Real Estate Amendment Act, 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.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to return to the subject of the sealed transcripts and the secret evidence. I wanted to say that in the morning paper we saw that Mr. George Lenko, god bless his soul, has been hired by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Do you know what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said about the conference organized by Mr. George Lenko that led to the phony letter-writing campaign? In one of his candid and lucid moments, which don't occur very often, the Attorney-General said: "Whether criminality exists in any letter or not, the practice evident in these instances discloses, except in justifiable cases where a nom de plume may be used, a cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible attitude involving the use of the medium for the expression of opinion which has become a traditional feature of our newspapers." One and a half years later this government pays that much attention to its own Attorney-General that another minister, a former Liberal colleague of his, hires the person who shouldered the blame and took the responsibility for organizing the infamous Bayshore conference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We're on vote 22.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the words I quoted were the words of the Attorney-General of British Columbia. I'm saying that this Attorney-General has no weight. The one time that he gave a little slap on the wrist to his Socred colleagues for some of the dirty tricks, they paid no attention to it whatsoever — not even his old Liberal colleague. That's the kind of government we have.

MR. KING: How much are they paying George?

MR. MACDONALD: He's just getting $100 a day for 30 days.

MR. KING: Oh, poor George!

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe that's for starters, I don't know. I see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Will you give George a job when the 30 days are up, Mr. Minister of Labour? Trudeau takes care of his own, but he takes care of his own who haven't been caught out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Raymond Rodgers now when we need him?

MR. MACDONALD: I have his letter of resignation.

I would have thought that the Attorney-General would be proud to be not only the chief law officer of the Crown but also the model of ethical government, good legislative practices and public morality. Instead of that, he has a report....

To come back to the ridiculous assertion he made yesterday to the effect that he can't reveal the evidence taken by Prelypchan and Vogel, his deputy, with respect to the Eckardt inquiry to the ombudsman because, he says, it's solicitor-client privilege under section 11 of the act, I've never heard a more ridiculous legal argument in any place — any court, any legislature, anywhere. The section says that the ombudsman can't investigate a decision, recommendation, act or omission "(b) of a person acting as solicitor for an authority...." Now presumably the Attorney-Gen-

[ Page 6347 ]

eral.... Are you the authority? Is that what you're saying? Or is Eckardt the authority? They weren't acting as solicitors for Eckardt. Dan Campbell, who, presumably, gave notes of evidence, or else told them to go and get lost.... We don't know what he said to Norm Prelypchan or to Mr. Vogel, but he wasn't a solicitor. If the Attorney General is claiming protection of that section, presumably that refers to legal advice that he may have received himself. But he spilled the legal advice here in this House. In his report to the House of August 5, 1980, signed by Mr. Vogel, he says: "This is my report." The legal opinion is right here; you've revealed it. If there was a privilege, which there is not — there could be in respect to a solicitor speaking to you about legal advice.... You've revealed it; you've blown it right here. So you have the right to, of course, waive the privilege, and you did, in fact, waive the privilege.

Then that report discusses the evidence that was taken: Miss Tamoto was interviewed and asked what her facts were; she replied and so forth. Do you really think you can play peekaboo, Mr. Attorney-General, and say: "I'm going to reveal the opinion of my solicitor, my deputy minister, here and give that to the House. I'm going to reveal some of the evidence that he has gathered from people, who obviously weren't solicitors — transcripts of evidence taken in the courthouse and other places — but I'm only going to reveal to you what helps the government; the rest of it you shall never see"? Now that's hiding evidence. If you're going to reveal part of the evidence, you reveal it all. There isn't a court or a legislature in the land that would let any Attorney-General or any other minister of the Crown get away with that — just show the stuff that gets this government off the hook. Clean at last! The cleanup man for the Social Credit government. I'll just show you a little tip-off. The ombudsman wasn't very far wrong in his 1980 report to the Legislature, whence he had this to say about the Attorney-General's ministry. He said:

"Since this particular ministry has unique kinds of responsibilities" — so it has — "it was inevitable that, sooner or later, various jurisdictional questions would arise with respect to my investigations. In such situations, I had expected to find in the Attorney General's ministry a recognition of the spirit and intent of the Ombudsman Act" — and he had every right to say that, of all the departments of government, this one would back up his investigations in the spirit and the letter — "reflected in a willingness to find permissible ways of allowing my investigations to proceed out of respect for the interests of complainants, or the public interest generally. Instead, I have often encountered a self-protective, narrow, legalistic approach, and one can almost believe that finding jurisdictional or procedural fine points to block or endlessly delay my investigations presents a more exhilarating challenge than cooperating for the resolution of citizens' difficulties."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: What the ombudsman said there is nothing to what he ought to say about the Attorney-General sitting on vital evidence relating to an investigation that the ombudsman has properly embarked on. To say that that is privileged under that section is an absolutely ridiculous legal argument. If it is, waive it, Mr. Attorney-General. You're the client, eh? You can waive it, if that applies, but obviously it doesn't. You waived it with respect to all of the evidence favourable to the government. Why don't you waive it and let the public see all of the evidence? It's peekaboo, hugger-mugger justice; hide the evidence.

I'm going to sit down for a moment. I suggest that the Attorney-General has a duty, We're asking him, after a spirited debate, to make available the notes of evidence taken in the Vogel commission, which he has refused to show the Legislature. Make them available to the ombudsman in the legitimate investigation he's carrying on, and don't fight him. The Attorney-General isn't like a criminal defence lawyer, saying: "I can defend. I don't have to answer that question. This is not evidence. I can hide this. I can take this technical objection." The Attorney-General of British Columbia is supposed to be cooperating in terms of legitimate investigations under legislation to bring the truth out.

Supposing one of those witnesses who made a statement had disappeared. The ombudsman will never see what he said to the investigator. When Dan Campbell was asked, "Did the Premier know that you had asked Dale Mearns to send a special plane to Victoria to fly over their own political maps so that Eckardt would have them before he made his decision?" supposing Dan Campbell had said, "Get lost," to Mr. Prelypchan and Mr. Vogel. Would that not be something that the ombudsman should know if he's to get to the bottom of this thing? Of course it is.

It's unbelievable to me that the Attorney-General should hide behind this absolutely phony so-called technical objection he's got in section 11, and say the transcripts shall not be made available and the evidence taken shall not be made available. This government passed the legislation, the Ombudsman Act. For heaven's sake, live up to your own legislation. I suppose the ombudsman could lay a charge against the Attorney-General, because there is obviously no privilege, and say: "This man is blocking me in my legitimate investigation." No one wants that to happen, but the powers are there.

We've asked that the whole matter of stealing an election, of fixing electoral boundaries.... It was gerrymandering of the worst kind. It's obvious from what happened that it was. But we've also said — and there is abundant evidence to show it; the Attorney-General half admits it, because he ordered his own investigation — that there may very well have been foul play as well: direct political interference; political considerations overruling public policy in the distribution of electoral boundaries in this province.

We have already asked him to refer it to an independent authority to hold an open hearing so the public will see the evidence. Then if we're wrong, we're wrong, and we'll take our lickings. Instead of that we get shots at us from Eckardt, who says the worms have come out of the woodwork. Presumably he's referring to something we're saying; I don't know. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) agrees with that, because Mr. Eckardt was always their boy. When he made that statement, he was referring to the opposition, of course. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing agrees with that statement by nodding his head — unless he's sleepy, and I don't believe that because it's only 11 o'clock in the morning.

The simple question to the Attorney-General on his estimates is: will you cooperate as you're required to do by law and make available all papers relating to this matter so the ombudsman can do his duty? Whatever the decision is, I

[ Page 6348 ]

would think it would be accepted by the public of British Columbia. But when you say, "No, this you won't see; that you won't see; that I'm hiding; I'll give you a little bit of the evidence, but I won't give you all of it," that is totally unacceptable.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've listened intently to the members opposite in this debate, and particularly to their critic the former Attorney-General of this province. Isn't it typical of those members opposite — the muckraking, the guttersniping and a literal barrage of personal attacks? I suppose that's all we're going to hear from the members opposite in this minister's estimates, because it's all those people over there know.

I want to talk about things which really concern the people of this province — things other than the people's concern for a completely ineffective opposition, an opposition bankrupt of any sound policy. All they do is come in here and muckrake. Personal attacks! Their only resort is to throw dirt and hope that if they throw enough of it, some of it will stick. They don't want to talk about the real concerns. I want to talk about those real concerns. But before doing so I'd like to remind this House of something. The members opposite have delighted in talking about the Eckardt report. They have attempted to have the people of British Columbia believe there is some government wrongdoing in regard to that report. They won't accept the validity of the Attorney-General's investigation. In order to attempt to make that mud stick they have dreamed up a catchy phrase like "Gracie's Finger." Very cute. What they don't want to talk about and what we don't hear anything about in this chamber is a report they commissioned back in 1975, just before they were thrown out of office by the people of this province. It was a report on electoral-boundary reform. Had it not been for the fact that they were turfed out of office, they'd have put it into effect. I'm calling on the Attorney-General to say that possibly we need an investigation into that report.

They talk about gerrymandering and Gracie's Finger. What utter gall! I have that report in my hands — the Norris report — which was commissioned by that administration back in 1975. They talk about "whose boy?" Whose boy was Norris? You say that he wasn't a friend of the NDP?

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, perhaps the hon. member does not know that a person who cannot answer for himself, either in this House or outside of it — particularly a distinguished jurist who served this province for a great many years.... The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing laughs because of his own abysmal ignorance of the career of Mr. Justice Tom Norris.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: All I'm saying is that anybody who is cowardly enough to attack in this chamber a man who is deceased should be made to withdraw his remarks or put up or shut up. If he wants to stand out in the corridor and make those charges let him do so, but he should not hide in here like a coward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, notwithstanding the fact that a member has what he feels to be a legitimate point of order, during the presentation of that point of order it is incumbent upon the member himself to remain in order. The point made by the member bears consideration by the member currently addressing the committee.

MR. KEMPF: They can sure dish it out, but they can't take it, can they? What about Judge Eckardt? What about the things they've said in this House about him? Would they say them out in the corridor?

MR. LAUK: I have.

MR. COCKE: Everything's been said outside.

MR. KEMPF: Hypocrites!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Possibly we could resolve this matter by reminding ourselves that under vote 22 we are discussing the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General, and we are dealing with the estimates presently before us. While reference has been made to the matters regarding the Eckardt commission, members must remind themselves that matters referred to the ombudsman are one thing, but to go back over the actual commission itself into a previous annual period does not fall within the purview of vote 22.

MR. KEMPF: I was saying to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that possibly we need an investigation into the Norris report. The NDP talks about gerrymandering and a Gracie's Finger. I want to show you a finger. Let's talk about a whole arm with a whole hand attached and with all the fingers. They talk about gerrymandering. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) smiles. He knows of the whole arm, with all fingers and hands attached, in the Norris report. He knows what they suggested for the new riding of Columbia–West Kootenay. It's very clear on this map. And the socialists opposite talk about gerrymandering. What utter gall. Gerrymandering indeed! Gracie's Finger indeed! Whose finger is this — whose arm, Mr. Former Attorney-General, is this? What political interference made this possible? They'd have put it into effect, had they not got turfed out in 1975.

They talk about one of the boys. I'm sure that everyone in this House knows that Mr. Norris' wife ran for the NDP in this province. Yes, she was a socialist candidate and ran against the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) in 1979. They talk about friends and political interference. Ask the member for Dewdney; he knows. Who was the counsel for the commission on that report? Who was it, Mr. Former Attorney General? You tell me. It was a fellow by the name of Peter Leask, and as everyone in this chamber knows, he's certainly not a Social Crediter. Gerrymandering indeed! Gracie's Finger indeed!

They think they're as clean as clean can be. I want to tell you they're not, and they talk about fingers and gerrymandering. They figure if they can throw enough mud, they might make some of it stick. Let's hear both sides of the story. Let's tell the whole story. They mentioned the dirty tricks affair this morning. I'd like to talk about that for a while, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, again I must remind members that we are on vote 22, which is the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the minister's office and

[ Page 6349 ]

administrative responsibility thereof. To go back, as the member indicates he's about to, would be out of order. I so rule.

MR. KEMPF: I was going to ask the Attorney-General if there should be an investigation into this dirty trick. The members opposite have talked about letters to the editor. What about the letters to the editor that were written to some of my newspapers in my constituency? Maybe we should have an investigation in regard to this situation. I have a letter in my hand from Mr. Bruce Canary. I'm sure we all know who Mr. Bruce Canary is, and I'm sure the members opposite do anyway. He was just nominated recently as my next opponent in the next election, whenever that is. I have a letter here written by him back in November of 1979. It reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Kempf:

"This letter is to inform you that editorial letters signed by Mr. M. Unruh are written by myself. The reason for this is to keep my personal political views separate from my function as president of the Vanderhoof Environmental Society as requested by the members of that society.

Yours truly."

They talk about writing letters to the editor under phony names. At this time he was secretary of the Omineca NDP Association. He's now a candidate for the socialists over there, and they talk about dirty tricks. They curb the market on dirty tricks.

I don't really want to talk about these things in this minister's estimates. I would like to deal with those things which are of real concern to the people of this province. They're not worried about the muckraking and the guttersniping that goes on in this chamber — or they certainly shouldn't be. But they are seriously concerned about some very serious matters that confront our society today.

I want to know, as do many of the citizens of British Columbia, what we in this chamber are going to do about the virtual holocaust which now exists on our highways. What are we going to do about the wholesale slaughter happening daily out there on the roads and highways of this province? The member for Dewdney said it very well yesterday. I want to know what the minister has in mind regarding that most serious concern to our province. What does he intend to do in order to put a stop to this useless loss of life, particularly among our young people, our teenage citizens? It's a horrendous and useless loss of life and a horrendous loss of property, causing untold mental and emotional hardships to many innocent people, and all of us have to pick up the tab, as well as the pieces — the tab of untold millions of dollars in health costs and increased insurance rates. My first question to the Attorney-General is: what are we going to do about that? It's of real concern to many people of this province.

I would also like to ask the Attorney-General what he has in mind for government direction in tightening up our justice system. In my mind, we have become a jellyfish society. I believe that the citizens of this province are generally fed up with the kid-glove approach to law enforcement, an approach which clearly is not working. For whatever reason, we have become a far too lenient society. From what I have heard and seen out there among the public of this province, the people want a change. They are ready as never before for a harsher approach to those convicted of breaking the law. Vandalism and the flagrant abuse of most of the laws of this province and laws of all kinds — not only in this province, but in this entire country — have reached impossible proportions. We coddle the lawbreaker. The leniency regarding law enforcement and the treatment of lawbreakers when incarcerated virtually lends credence to the breaking of the law. I think this morning's Province and the half-page story in it is a clear indication of what the people of this province and of this entire country are looking for. The news story is headed: "Courts Are Failing To Protect Society. On Judges and Jailers and the Legal Paddycake Along the Way." There's a subheading: "Judges Should Realize They Are Too Permissive." I believe that. I believe this fellow by the name of Glen Dalke, publisher of the Peace River Block Daily newspaper, who says:

"I am sick and tired of hearing of people who have been arrested for one crime or another and released on bail, only to go out and commit yet another offence.

"The penal system was at one time a way to protect society from these criminal types and, when the judiciary followed the old adage of punishment fitting the crime, it worked well; however, our society's permissiveness has now infiltrated this body that was set up to protect us."

There's a great, strong feeling out there for tightening up our justice system. It's about time that we in this province took the lead. We have seen what the federal leadership has done in this area. We have seen what Trudeau has done, supported by the federal NDP and the members over there, the provincial NDP. They're all socialists in the same basket. I wish the member for Vancouver East were here, but I see he has left his chair. I hope he's listening on his speaker.

MR. LAUK: To what?

MR. KEMPF: Listening to what's being said, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. You above all should be listening to this; you, a lawyer in this province, I would suggest you get your paper and read this story.

We know what Trudeau has done in this area. We know what his leadership, supported by the socialist party at all levels, has done in regard to this situation: the abolition of the death penalty, gun control, putting guns in the hands of only the lawbreakers, lenient moral laws of all kinds. We've seen that over the last 11 or 12 years. Yes, we know what the federal Liberals, supported by the federal NDP and this province's official opposition, have done. They have created a jellyfish, no-backbone society in this country, one which particularly the people of this province are fed up with.

We've got to get tougher. We've got to take a strong, positive approach to law enforcement and the treatment of those who have broken the law in British Columbia. That's my second question to the Attorney-General. What are we prepared to do at this time in order to carry out the wishes and will of the people of this province to tighten up our justice system?

MR. KING: We've just heard from Attila, the advocate of the rack. I'm not sure whether we should call him that or the $4,000 maverick, but whichever, I don't think his ramblings contributed greatly. The only two things he said which it occurred to me were deserving of any response were the suggestion that the opposition is involved in some personal thing.... I want to confirm that that's the truth. I want to tell the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and his colleagues why the Eckardt gerrymander was a very personal thing to

[ Page 6350 ]

me indeed. I had my riding abolished as a result of the partisan recommendations of the Eckardt commission. Eckardt was not a judge at the time of his appointment; he was a former judge. He was also a former Social Credit candidate for provincial elections on two occasions, unlike Chief Justice Tom Norris, who had a distinguished career as a jurist and was a known Conservative — no supporter of the NDP. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that unlike the Eckardt thing, where one partisan former Social Credit candidate was appointed.... It eliminated my own riding, which had some 11,000 voters; it preserved the riding of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) with some 6,000 voters; it preserved the constituency of Atlin, which was held at the time by a Social Credit member with about 3,200 voters; it abolished Revelstoke-Slocan, with 10,000 voters; it abolished Burrard, with two NDP members — and that guy has the unmitigated gall to compare the two inquiries into electoral boundary reform.

The other thing, of course, is that we didn't appoint one partisan political supporter, as the Socreds did; we appointed a three-person panel, composed of Chief Justice Norris; Lawrie Wallace, who is an outstanding and long-term public servant and is at this particular time in the private office of the Premier — hardly an NDPer — and a person from the University of British Columbia. It was a credible tribunal to sit and make decisions with respect to electoral boundary reform. Be that as it may, I think it's a bit regrettable — let me put it that way — that that member is prepared to make very uncomplimentary statements about the late Judge Tom Norris. He's not able to defend himself now. It's true that Judge Norris' wife was an NDP candidate — after his death and long after the report came out. Be that as it may, I don't think it behooves any member of the Legislature to call into question the integrity of somebody who is deceased, and somebody who had a very distinguished record, not only on the court benches of the province of British Columbia but on the supreme court too. I think that's regrettable.

I think the irony is that the member then comes on with a ringing cry for better law enforcement. He wants to get tough. He wants to make the justice system work a little better. Well, that's what the debate has been all about. The opposition has been trying to persuade the Attorney-General that there should be one standard of justice in this province for all citizens, not a different standard for Social Credit supporters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Muckraking.

MR. KING: That's called into question when a partisan report like the Eckardt report comes out, when there are serious questions as to the method in which that commission was undertaken, when there was serious question about Danny Campbell's involvement in drawing the electoral boundaries, and when indeed that whole matter has become the subject of an investigation by the Attorney-General himself, which he chooses to keep secret and which is now the subject of further inquiries by the ombudsman of the province of British Columbia. It's not the opposition's fault. It's no use pointing the finger at the opposition benches and saying: "You're muckraking." It's not our fault. We criticized the Eckardt commission when it was set up. We said you shouldn't appoint a partisan friend of yours, because that calls into question....

MR. KEMPF: It's not your fault you're muckraking. Is that what you're saying? You're in the gutter all the time. That's all you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, don't let him bother you. Empty vessels make the most noise. I wouldn't worry about him at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me ask the member for Omineca not to interrupt, please.

MR. KING: Perhaps he was hopeful that he could make a more intelligent contribution from his seat than he made when he was on his feet. Perhaps we have some empathy with that proposition.

The question is whether or not the Eckardt commission was fair and just and whether it was conducted appropriately. We have some reservations about that. Initially, on the basis that former Judge Eckardt was also a partisan Socred, we had reservations about his ability to be impartial when he had that kind of an affiliation with one of the major parties in this province. The other questions that came to light were revealed not by the opposition but by the media, in terms of alleged changes to those boundaries after the commissioner had finished his report, with suggestions and inferences that perhaps the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) had some role in the changes in those boundaries all of which became known as the infamous Gracie's Finger affair. There was another question about Dan Campbell's involvement — the delivery of maps from his office to the commissioner's, a very partisan arrangement.

On the basis of that prima facie case of impropriety, the Attorney-General conducted his own investigation. Now the ombudsman has been asked to investigate and is trying to mount an investigation. What this debate is all about is simply trying to persuade the Attorney-General that he, as the chief law enforcement officer in this province, has an obligation to cooperate with the ombudsman. He has an obligation to see that the evidence is put on the table, because, after all, it was an investigation commissioned at public expense. The taxpayers who paid for that investigation have a right to know. They're mature enough to know. The proposition that this Attorney-General has to sit on that evidence leaves a further inference that there is a coverup here, that there is evidence that the Attorney-General does not want revealed to the public because it would further call into question the impartiality of the whole electoral boundary reform affair. That's what the debate is about.

If the member for Omineca is genuinely concerned about a high standard of justice in this province, he should be on his feet saying to the Attorney-General: "Yes, by all means let us ensure that there is complete public knowledge and complete public access to all of the evidence that was uncovered in that investigation." Otherwise, the inevitable conclusion that the public will draw is that there are indeed two standards of justice in this province — one for the unwashed public and another for Social Credit and their friends. What other conclusion can one draw from the fact that the Attorney-General has stonewalled for over a year now and sat on the results of that investigation? If you have nothing to hide, Mr. Attorney General, then release all of the evidence that was adduced from your investigation into that affair. The ombudsman has

[ Page 6351 ]

a right to know; he was given the right to know under a statute introduced by your own government. To now take the position that you refuse to reveal this evidence — that you refuse to reveal the transcripts that were taken by your representative, Norm Prelypchan, in interrogating these witnesses and in looking at documents — is to indicate, or certainly to imply, that you indeed have something to hide that would be a political embarrassment were it revealed. If that is not the case, I certainly would be very happy to hear it; I would be very happy for the credibility of the law in this province to have you stand in your place, Mr. Attorney-General, and say: "This government has nothing to hide; all of the books, all of the transcripts, all of the records of interrogations are on the table for the ombudsman to freely peruse." What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that, if you want to make sure that the integrity of the law is preserved, that people are satisfied and have respect and confidence in the law, that there is an even-handed application of that law to all British Columbians — whether or not they are friends of the government, whether or not they have friends in high places or whether or not they are some average working persons out in the boondocks of this province? The very integrity of the law itself requires that the Attorney-General of all people be above reproach in protecting the integrity of the law. When we have an unwilling representative in that chair at the moment, who has conducted an investigation at public expense and who has assigned competent staff from his ministry to look at the documents and to interrogate the witnesses, but then comes forward and refuses to reveal those details either to this Legislature or to the ombudsman, then he cannot expect anything but to have cynicism directed at him. He cannot expect anything but to have suspicions raised that there is a reason for him to hide this evidence, to protect the political interests of the government. That's regrettable coming from the chief law enforcement officer of the province. That's the issue here, pure and simple.

Mr. Chairman, we had a case not too many years ago, not in this country but south of the border, where evidence was deliberately smothered and stonewalled. Everyone remembers the 18-minute gap in the tapes of a former President. That left a bad taste in the mouths of voters on both sides of the border. Why give even the faint impression or taint of anything similar here?

I'm not over-exaggerating the thing. I'm not suggesting that the Attorney-General was involved in the kind of serious improprieties that took place south of the border. I'm simply suggesting that it is important for public confidence that all of the data be put on the table. This Legislature deserves that. The people of the province of British Columbia are mature enough to make their own assessments, given the chance. I suggest that the Attorney-General, for the sake of his office, take a similar position and put it on the table and assure the

House that the ombudsman will receive the full support and cooperation of his office in prosecuting his own investigation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think that this matter was canvassed at some length yesterday. But in view of the wild exaggerations and hyperbole in which the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has just engaged, I think it may be appropriate that the position be clearly restated. The ombudsman is embarked on an investigation into the entirety of matters associated with the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform. He has available to him and will have available to him all of the material associated with that royal commission's task, plus the opportunity to interview and use his considerable powers to ascertain from every person who was associated with that royal commission what their roles in the final result might have been.

MR. LAUK: What are you afraid of, Al?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I fear nothing.

It is appropriate that the ombudsman, in the exercise of his responsibility and in dealing with the complaint which is before him, make his own investigation. The review which was made of these matters by officials of the Ministry of Attorney-General a year or so ago did not deal with the matters which are before the ombudsman. There was an allegation which, if substantiated, would likely have led to criminal proceedings. That is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. For that purpose it was my role, with the assistance of my officials, to examine that one narrow aspect of the matter. Examination did not support the allegations, and I so reported to this House. It's quite a different matter from the subject which is before the ombudsman for his consideration. That is a distinction which the ombudsman himself recognizes.

I want to answer, at some length, the appropriate questions which were raised by the member for Omineca. I doubt that the time remaining before adjournment is appropriate. I therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.