1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 4, Number 21
[ Page 2751 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
R. Kasper: I would like to introduce someone who is both a friend of mine and a friend of working people in British Columbia, in particular those wanting to learn a trade. In the gallery today is Mr. Charlie Farish, business manager for the Bricklayers, Masons and Terrazzo Workers of British Columbia, of which I am a proud member. Would the House please make him welcome.
J. Beattie: I am very pleased to welcome to the gallery today the executive assistant to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Bill Barlee. Heather Kelliher is a resident of Osoyoos and has worked for Mr. Barlee for the last four years. She was also quite responsible for me running for the nomination which got me elected, so I hope the House won't hold her responsible for that and will welcome her to the House nonetheless.
D. Streifel: I would like to introduce to the House today students and teachers from Cherry Hill Elementary School in the constituency of Mission-Kent. They are touring the precincts this day, and I bid the House make them welcome.
R. Kasper: Contrary to some beliefs out there, I did have a real job before I came here, and I also have more than one friend. I would like to welcome Carole Leslie and her daughter Ainslie. Carole has been a very strong, active supporter of mine in my constituency. Will the House please make them welcome.
F. Garden: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House the Hon. David Zirnhelt's executive assistant today. He's from the wonderful Cariboo and he's in the gallery somewhere: Mr. Rick Barnes.
TEACHING PROFESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, this bill deals with critical issues of public safety and the safety of children in our school system. This legislation amends various sections of the Teaching Profession Act. It provides the College of Teachers of B.C. with jurisdiction over the certification, conduct and competence of former members of the college who hold teaching certificates, including persons holding a letter of permission issued by the college. These amendments are intended to help to ensure that persons who have been found to be morally unfit or professionally incompetent are not permitted to continue to teach at our schools. As a government we are committed to ensuring that children in British Columbia are provided with a safe and healthy environment in which to learn and grow.
Bill 74 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.
AIR AMBULANCE CONTRACTS
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to see that the cabinet has finally found a way to get gender equity established, and it is to simply reduce their ranks. Today I was actually going to ask a question on the government's threat to terminate the KAON project, but seeing as the ranks are somewhat thin, I'll move my question to the Minister of Government Services.
My question to the Minister of Government Services is to ask if she will confirm that three air ambulance contracts have been awarded to Carson Air: one for Prince George, one for Kamloops and one for Kelowna. Can she confirm that adequate inspection has been done on Carson Air's bases in Kamloops and Kelowna?
Hon. L. Boone: I know that some contracts have been given out. I will have to take this question on notice and get the exact information. The opposition leader is asking for precise information, and I really don't have that with me at this time.
G. Wilson: I have a new question to the minister. Will the minister confirm that the previous contractor to provide air service for Kamloops and Kelowna continues to provide the service two months after a contract was let to Carson Air, because Carson Air does not have the basis to provide the contract that they have been awarded?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question on notice as well.
G. Wilson: I have a new, general question to the minister, which I'm sure she will be able to answer. It is with respect to the requirement for an audit to be done on all contracts that are let for air ambulance service. Will the minister explain to the House the requirement for an audit prior to the assignment of a contract, and to what extent those audits are carried out prior to the contract being granted?
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I can give you some general comments with regard to that. The government, before any contract is given out, does a thorough search and investigation of all the airlines that receive contracts. As for the extent of that and how it takes place, I will get that information and provide it for you later.
NDP CAMPAIGN FUNDING
L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm that it is illegal to issue provincial tax-deductible receipts for donations to a provincial political party for
[ Page 2752 ]
the express purpose of redirecting that money to a municipal political party that is not allowed to issue provincial tax-deductible receipts for donations made directly to it?
G. Farrell-Collins: Take the question on notice.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good idea. I'll take the question on notice.
L. Hanson: I have a new question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General should know, and probably does, that the 1988 Surrey Civic Electors elected a slate of candidates that included the current mayor of Surrey, Bob Bose; Bruce Ralston, a sitting councillor; Marvin Shaffer, a recent provincial government appointee; and the current Minister of Women's Equality. Two days ago I referred to a receipt book that appeared to suggest that political donations were being funnelled through the NDP to the Surrey Civic Electors for the purpose of making a provincial tax-deductible political donation to that municipal party in contravention of the law. Will the Attorney General investigate this issue to ensure that no laws were broken?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
L. Hanson: That is a commitment we appreciate.
I have a letter in my possession from Mayor Bob Bose of Surrey on behalf of the SCE, which included the current Minister of Women's Equality as a member of that slate. The letter solicits donations and includes the following words....
The Speaker: Order! Hon. member, the Chair is carefully following the preamble, and while the Chair allowed the previous question, I will remind the hon. member to state his question to the Attorney General with a minimum of preamble and with caution concerning the rules about preambles to questions.
[2:15]
L. Hanson: Thank you for that advice, hon. Speaker. The words in the letter said: "Remember, this donation is tax-receiptable if made out to the NDP, and you get a tax credit of 75 percent for the first $100 donated...and 50 percent for the next $400...." Clearly this is designed to circumvent income tax rules.
The Speaker: Hon. member, would you please state your question directly to the member?
L. Hanson: Will the Attorney General agree to instruct the RCMP to investigate this matter, based on the information I have sent today to the Deputy Attorney General?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will agree to have a look at the material and talk to my deputy about it.
RESOURCE COMPENSATION BILL
W. Hurd: I too have a question for the Attorney General, and I hope my colleagues on this side will not give him any more advice.
Hon. Speaker, the opposition appreciates that the Attorney General has taken the wise counsel of this side of the House and has decided to kill Bill 32 on the order paper. But beyond the important role played by the opposition, perhaps the Attorney General would welcome this opportunity to explain why the government gave this bill first and second reading and is now letting it die on the order paper.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the great tradition of W.A.C. Bennett, we took a second look.
W. Hurd: We were sort of hoping on this side of the House for a better first look.
Does this mean that cases being heard on resource compensation issues that were being held in abeyance in the courts are now free to proceed? Can he advise us if the Schwindt commission will be guided by those court decisions?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, to my knowledge, no cases have been held in abeyance. In fact, a particular case that was in progress prior to the introduction of Bill 32 has been continuing in front of the Expropriation Compensation Board. That case has continued during the course of time since Bill 32 was introduced and may still be continuing. I'm not sure of the current status. So no cases have been impacted.
The legislation had a clause in it which stated that it would take effect on the day of introduction and first reading. But, of course, that wouldn't take effect until after the bill had been passed and proclaimed. Therefore the bill has had no impact in the past few weeks and will not have any impact in the months and years to come.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Can the Attorney General confirm that the real reason his government killed this bill is that it learned that it was unlikely to survive a challenge under a court interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.
REVIEW OF GAMING REGULATIONS
V. Anderson: My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm that the public gaming branch is intending to increase both the number of gaming tables and the hours of operation at B.C.'s 14 casinos?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The direct answer to the question as posed is no. Earlier this year the Gaming Commission did in fact indicate that upon application in a certain number of areas, there would be consider-
[ Page 2753 ]
ation given to increasing the number of tables, but the number of additional tables granted was not to exceed the total number in the province that had originally been set in place. The province does now not have as many tables operating as were allowed originally. This initiative took place, as I think I said to the House yesterday, prior to the review that's being conducted by the Minister of Government Services and myself. At this stage, we do not intend to see any additional tables or hours in place pending this review.
V. Anderson: Again to the Attorney General. While in opposition, the NDP questioned and opposed the expansion of gambling in the province. In fact, the Minister of Labour indicated that his party was taking a stand to stop casino gambling before it made any further impact in this province. Could the Attorney General inform this House why it seems that the position of his party has changed to prompt the Attorney General to consider expanding the gambling business in this province, rather than reducing it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thought I answered that question yesterday in response to the leader of the third party. If it wasn't clear, I'll say again that there is no intention to expand gambling in British Columbia while this review is in place. Following that review we will decide what the limits are to gambling in this province. At this time there will be no expansion.
I know the member's personal view on this issue, and I have a great deal of sympathy for his personal perspective on the issue of gambling. It's a troublesome issue, and with the changes in technology that are occurring now in that field, we have to be very concerned about proliferation that the public may not wish to see happen.
ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. About six weeks ago the Premier was asked whether he would agree to make public the resumés of all applicants to any public position filled by OIC, to ensure the system is indeed fair and open to all qualified British Columbians. Since the minister has suggested that appointments to boards and commissions should be open to all qualified applicants on a non-partisan basis, will the minister responsible for managing these appointments today agree to make public, on demand, the names and resumés of all applicants for OIC appointments?
Hon. L. Boone: We discussed this just recently, with regard to the applications. Taking into consideration the need to protect the privacy of individuals, I believe you'll find that the current act on the books now -- we intend to try to live up to the spirit of that act -- implies that it would be people who had been appointed, but not applicants. So we will not be making known all those applicants. We do have a number of them coming in on a daily basis who wish to put their applications with the government for consideration on boards and commissions. But for those people who are appointed, we will make public the information that is in keeping with the new FOI legislation.
CHARITABLE STATUS OF NDP
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. [Applause.]
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that's because I'm still alive.
My question is to the Attorney General. We have on record the recent comments of "Father" Dave Stupich of Nanaimo that there's no difference between the charitable status of the Catholic Church and the NDP. Perhaps the Attorney General, as the minister responsible for bingo, could tell us what the policy of the NDP government is with regard to the charitable status of the NDP?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has difficulty tying that question in with the responsibility of the Attorney General, and I would ask the hon. member to state a new question that does come within the bounds of the responsibility of the Attorney General.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will do that. I thought the Attorney General was responsible for the Gaming Commission, and that's the reason I asked that question of the Attorney General.
I'll ask a different question. As the Attorney General of this province, in the event that the RCMP investigation may find that there was money transferred from the....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The question is coming.
Will the....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
G. Farrell-Collins: In the event that the findings are that money was transferred from a charity to the New Democratic Party, will the Attorney General commit to introduce into this House a bill that would require, in such cases, that the money be repaid to the charities who first deserved it?
The Speaker: Hon. member, that's a hypothetical question. I will again invite the hon. member to ask a question within the rules of order. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I will ask a very simple and straightforward question of the Attorney General, in the hope that he will answer it. Could the Attorney General inform the House whether or not political parties fall under the definition of religious or charitable organizations as laid out in section 207 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with bingo operations?
[ Page 2754 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice.
W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition to the House.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, this petition relates to a request to the House that the members ban the spraying of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides in Pitt Meadows.
L. Hanson: I ask leave to table a document that I referred to in my question to the Attorney General earlier today.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Understanding the rule that points of order with regard to question period should be brought up after question period, I would ask some clarification from the Speaker, and perhaps the Clerk of the House if necessary, as to whether or not the Gaming Commission of this province falls under the responsibilities of the Attorney General. If it does, are questions regarding the Gaming Commission to the Attorney General not in order?
B. Jones: Point of order. On many occasions in this House we have had rulings by the Chair that seem to be in a continual perpetuation of challenges to the Chair. I think we see the member doing that at this moment. It's not a point of order. What he's doing is challenging the Chair, which is inappropriate in this House.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I do regret, hon. member, that that was not a point of order, but I'll take your comments into consideration.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 64.
MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, is finally ready for debate in this House, and I'm delighted that we're able to proceed today with that.
The government has made clear its commitment to strengthening the act that is now on the books. Conflict-of-interest rules that are strong and fair are essential to ensure that the conduct of government is open and honest, and is seen to be so by British Columbians. The amendments contained in this bill will strengthen the act, and by so doing will meet the rightful expectations of British Columbians that members of cabinet and of the Legislative Assembly adhere to the highest standards of ethics. By clarifying conflict-of-interest requirements, the amendments will also assist present and future members to avoid inadvertently coming into conflict. Our objective, hon. Speaker, is to have conflict-of-interest rules in British Columbia which are second to none in terms of rigour and fairness. The amendments in this bill are merely the first step towards that objective.
[2:30]
The bill broadens the definition of conflict of interest so that it applies not only to the making of a decision but also to any exercise of powers and performance of official duties and functions generally. This change is in recognition of the possibility that a conflict of interest can occur prior to the actual taking of a decision, and that the appropriate focus for the definition is the discharge of public duties and responsibilities in general.
Another important addition to the act contained in these amendments is the inclusion of a definition of "apparent conflict of interest." This is defined in terms of a reasonable perception which a reasonably well informed person could properly have that a member's ability to carry out official powers, duties or functions must have been affected by that member's private interests. Inclusion of that definition is important in recognition of the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
In addition to the other specific requirements imposed in the act, this bill also contains a new section which will clarify the obligations of members by explicitly prohibiting them from exercising their official powers, duties and functions where they have a conflict of interest or where there may be an apparent conflict of interest. This bill also increases from 12 months to 24 months the period during which former members of the executive council or persons on whose behalf they have made representations are prohibited from receiving contracts or benefits from the provincial government.
In addition, former members of the executive council and former parliamentary secretaries are permanently prohibited from making representations to the government respecting any specific ongoing transactions involving the government in which they were directly involved. That prohibition applies whenever such a representation would result in anything other than a general benefit. Further prohibitions on the activities of executive council members and parliamentary secretaries outside their public duties are added by amendments making it an unqualified prohibition to hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization, political party or Crown corporation. The provision permitting the holding of an office or directorship in a Crown corporation is an addition to the list of permitted activities.
The amendments also augment the procedures for dealing with conflict situations in the following ways. The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly or the secretary of a cabinet committee meeting records the disclosure of a conflict, its general nature and the withdrawal of the member from the meeting. The Clerk or secretary, as the case may be, then files the information with the conflict-of-interest commissioner. The commission is to
[ Page 2755 ]
keep all such filed information and make it available for public inspection. In the case of a cabinet committee meeting, the filing requirement is that the conflict information is to be filed as soon as practicable after the relevant decision has been made public. This is necessary to protect appropriate cabinet confidentiality.
Where a member of the executive council has a conflict or an apparent conflict of interest, that member is required to refrain from attempting to influence the matter and, at any subsequent meeting involving the matter, must disclose the general nature of the private interest and withdraw without voting or participating. In such a case, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint another member of the executive council to act in the place of the withdrawn member.
The amendments also provide that, while the failure of a member to comply with the procedure for dealing with the conflict does not in itself invalidate any affected contract or financial transaction, the transaction is voidable by the Crown up to two years after the decision. It would not, however, be voidable against any person or organization who acted in good faith and without actual notice of the member's failure to comply. This section is designed to protect both the interests of the Crown and the interests of innocent persons and organizations.
Another new provision allows any person affected by financial gain realized through a violation of the act to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order of restitution against the person who realized the financial gain. The government or a Crown agency is also empowered to seek such restitution.
Existing provisions with respect to the required filing of disclosure statements are also amended to require continuous disclosure by members within 30 days of any material change in assets, liabilities and financial interests of the member, his or her spouse and minor children, and private corporations controlled by any of them.
The provisions dealing with the commissioner are also strengthened. A member of the public who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention may request that the commissioner give an opinion on the matter. Under the act at present, only members of this assembly may make such application. In addition, this Legislative Assembly may by resolution request the commissioner to give an opinion on the compliance by a member of the Legislature, just as at present the executive council is able to do with respect to members of the executive council. The amendments repeal the present prohibition of discussion or inquiry by this Legislative Assembly where a matter has been referred to the commissioner.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Finally, the provision respecting penalties will now include the new section prohibiting conflicts or apparent conflicts as contraventions of the act. It will also be a contravention to refuse to file a disclosure statement within the time required, or to fail to comply with a recommendation of the commissioner.
I believe these amendments will strengthen and improve the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and express the Legislature's commitment in this important area of public life. In addition to these amendments, the government proposes to undertake a process by which conflict-of-interest issues can be considered more generally, including possible application to others in public service in addition to members of this assembly.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to also speak to Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992. I'd like to note for the benefit of members of the House that this is an important bill, which affects all of us as members in our responsibilities.
I'm concerned about the process by which the bill has come to the House. We've talked a lot about process, especially as we head towards what we believe may be the conclusion of this sitting of the Legislature. Many bills are coming through very quickly.
This is an important bill. We had first reading and introduction of this bill yesterday in this House, and here we are today debating it in second reading. We are having our major debate on the principle of this bill one day after receiving the bill. I think there's a concern about that that has to be expressed, because this is an important bill. It deserves a look; it deserves scrutiny by members of this House; and it also deserves study by the general public as well. I'm concerned that the speed -- the haste, I might say -- with which this bill is being brought before us does not allow for that kind of exposure and study. That's a general concern that I think must be raised. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Attorney General deals with that concern, because it's an important enough bill that it should take time, because good legislation does take time, as has been noted in previous debates in this session.
The principle of this bill is very important. In fact, the whole issue of conflict of interest strikes to the very heart of the public's faith in their elected representatives. That's an issue that affects all of us as elected representatives, and it affects the future of parliamentary democracy.
When we're talking about conflict of interest, we're not only talking about conflict of interest in its most narrow, legalistic definition. We're talking in a very broad sense about faith in our institutions. We're talking about the relevance of debate in this chamber. We're talking about the efficacy of the debate in this chamber. We're talking about the way politicians behave. All of that is addressed in part by the statute that this bill is seeking to amend. It's a statute that was brought in by the previous government. It's not a bad statute, quite frankly, but having said that, there is always room for improvement. I think this bill seeks to improve, broaden and strengthen it in a general direction that I think we can be supportive of.
But I think we have to address a few particular concerns in this second reading debate because of the general concern in our country and province right now about politicians -- elected representatives. It's a concern that's reflected very broadly through the news media and literature. I would refer to a current best-seller, a book entitled A Capital Scandal, written by
[ Page 2756 ]
two well-known authors, Robert Fife and John Warren, which looks at politics, patronage and pay-offs in our national Parliament. The fact that it's a current best-seller in Canada says something, I think. The book talks about the crisis of confidence in elected representatives. In the beginning chapter of their book, the two authors, Fife and Warren refer to what they call the "crisis of confidence." They suggest: "What Canada needs is a hefty dose of political integrity." That's a quote from the book.
That's what the last election that brought us all here as members of this House was all about. The historic election of October 17 that gave birth to this new parliament was all about integrity and honesty in politics. By far that was the number one issue. I think all members will agree on that. The reason we had such a significant change and turnover in this province -- why we have a new government and a new opposition and why a previous government was rejected in a massive way by the voters -- was that there were concerns about integrity, honesty and conflict of interest, which I think this bill speaks to. We have to recognize that there is a tremendous significance as a result, and that's another reason this bill deserves some very serious scrutiny. It's an important matter, and it's why we're all here.
This issue has been addressed by a number of commentators throughout the country, and I would like to refer to just one of them. Bill C-43 was brought in in our national Parliament very recently, and it is an act dealing with the subject of conflict of interest in terms of federal legislators. There has been very good and broad-ranging debate on that bill. I'd like to refer to some comments by one particular member in committee stage on that bill. The member is Mr. Paul Martin from the Quebec riding of LaSalle-�mard, who is quoted in the federal Hansard. I'd like to read a brief quote into the record, because I think it strikes to the heart of the subject matter here, the underlying principle of this bill. Mr. Martin said:
"Increasingly, the public is losing faith in the credibility of the political process. Increasingly, the capacity of political parties to attract candidates from a variety of backgrounds is being undermined. The problem is that the more diverse the background of the candidate, the greater the possibility of conflict of interest. Now, this is true for people from business obviously. But it is also true of people from most walks of life, from the cultural communities to the professions and from agriculture to labor unions. The dilemma that arises is how to satisfy the legitimate demands of the public in terms of conflict of interest legislation, on the one hand, with the need to recruit candidates with the different backgrounds required to contribute to the nation's good, on the other."
I think that in his comments in the House of Commons, Mr. Martin sums up very neatly the challenge that we have with conflict-of-interest legislation. On the one hand we want to ensure that elected representatives strive to achieve the highest level of behaviour, with no conflicts in the execution of their public duties and responsibilities, but at the same time we do not want to discourage the very best and brightest in our province from considering public life as a career option and thereby making a contribution to the province as elected representatives. That's the challenge: achieving that balance. It's not a difficult one. It's only difficult if we strive to bring in legislation that is constraining in some way and that will produce disincentives to the best and brightest of our citizens who could make a contribution to public life but might be scared away by legislation or regulations that are too restrictive. That's the context in which I'd like to raise a couple of concerns about this bill.
The bill affects only British Columbia. While there are national concerns, in British Columbia in particular we have a record that unfortunately is not enviable. We have a record in terms of our very recent past in dealing with conflicts of interest and with the behaviour of elected representatives, including of course a well-known former Premier. That unfortunately casts a shadow over the province and confirms the requirement, in my view, for this kind of legislation, the act that this bill was seeking to amend.
The conflict-of-interest commissioner of our Legislative Assembly recently appeared before the Canadian parliamentary committee in Ottawa, and he had some very good news, some very positive words, for our national legislators. He said: "We're on the road to recovery in British Columbia, which is one jurisdiction of the country where there was perhaps some room for improvement." Now that's a typically modest statement from our commissioner, but I think he's suggesting a direction that we all hope we're heading in: that we are, in fact, on the road to recovery in British Columbia. I believe that one reason we are on the road to recovery is the legislation that exists, which this bill was seeking to amend. That was a step in the right direction.
[2:45]
The commissioner I refer to, of course, is Mr. Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes also recently made a speech here in Victoria to the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia. Many members of this House attended the luncheon where he made those remarks, which were entitled "A Most Honourable Profession." In that address Mr. Hughes quoted someone else; he quoted Mr. Roy Bonisteel, who was writing in the United Church Observer. The quote is quite interesting, because it reflects on the essence of what being a politician is all about. Roy Bonisteel said:
"Being a politician is likely the most unpopular profession in our country these days. Public opinion polls show them to be only a few notches above cat burglars in garnering our trust and respect. To serve our country in the political arena should be one of life's finer pursuits; instead, for idealistic Canadians it has become a one-way street to ridicule, disillusionment and shattered dreams."
We have to ask ourselves what has gone wrong, when perhaps only a generation ago to be an elected representative was a most honourable profession. I think Roy Bonisteel sums it up quite neatly when he says that today elected representatives are often held in disrepute. What has gone wrong? How has it come to that in one generation, which is all that it has taken? Mr. Hughes, in his speech here in Victoria, suggested that one of the answers lies in the use of position to create privilege for themselves. The bestowing of consequen-
[ Page 2757 ]
tial benefits on themselves and the taking advantage of the public purse has led to politicians falling into such disrepute.
Very sadly, this has happened; very rarely, it has happened. Mr. Hughes, our commissioner of conflict of interest, has hit the nail right on the head in his remarks. He suggested that we are on the road to recovery here in British Columbia, but that it's going to take some effort to put the honour back into the term "honourable member." I think that's what we all seek to do. That's why we have all come here. That's what the election of last October was all about. We've all come here to try to restore the integrity that should naturally fall on elected representatives in our society.
How does that fit into the context of these amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act? What are we doing in this bill? Are we going in the right direction by broadening the definition, which the Attorney General referred to in his second-reading comments? There are some significant changes in this bill. Three of them, I think, are of greatest concern, of greatest interest.
The broadening of the definition of conflict of interest, which also includes an apparent conflict, which the hon. Attorney General referred to in his remarks.... We have some concerns about the definition of an apparent conflict. The definition in the act is in very legalistic language, and it certainly is open to interpretation. I agree with the Attorney General when he says that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, but the definition of what is in fact an apparent conflict is definitely going to be the cause of further discussion when we get this bill to committee stage. I think it's important to be precise in our definition of that term.
The bill also changes the requirement for financial disclosure, which is the essence of conflict-of-interest legislation. Instead of having annual financial disclosure, there is now provision for ongoing financial disclosure whenever a material change occurs in an elected representative's life. That's a positive move. I see no problem with that. In fact, I think that's a positive move in the right direction. If we're going to have disclosure, it should be full disclosure, and there is no reason why it could not be on an ongoing basis. That's the essence of our legislation.
The third major change -- the one that perhaps causes the greatest concern -- is the permitting of members of the public to request a conflict-of-interest inquiry under this bill. This bill would amend the act so that not only could Members of the Legislative Assembly bring forward concerns and complaints under this bill, but members of the general public could as well. We will want to question the hon. Attorney General when we get to committee stage on this section in particular.
I hope it's not being legalistic, but it's important to point out that there are potential problems with conflict in carrying out official duties while not trying to further private interests. It would be interesting to get some examples of what the hon. Attorney General thinks might be potential conflicts between carrying out official duties and not furthering private interests, because those are broad categories of definition. It would be interesting to know what kind of precedents are referred to, or what kinds of examples might be contemplated.
The only concern about the public coming forward with complaints -- which I think may be a very good move, because if a member of the general public has a concern about a potential conflict of an elected representative, they should have the opportunity to come forward to the commissioner of conflict of interest with that complaint -- is that we would want to ensure that this was not going to lead to witch-hunts by special interest groups, by people who were planning mischief, or vexatious complaints that might be coming forward. We would want to make sure that there was a safeguard to protect against that. Of course, I believe that the safeguard may lie with the commissioner of conflict of interest, who would vet any of the complaints that came forward. Has the hon. Attorney General given any consideration as to whether or not that is going to be practicable, and whether there is any concern that the commissioner's office is going to have to be staffed much differently than it is today to deal with complaints coming forward, whether or not there will be a significant volume of such complaints?
Members of the public, under this bill, would be able to request an inquiry, but the public must have confidence that their complaints will be acted on and that this will hold members to higher standards ultimately. If that can be achieved, I think it can be supported. But we have some concerns which I'd like to flag. I think it's important that they be addressed. There are other concerns that we have, but I know that we can address most of those during the committee stage. I think the bill has some general principles which are worthy of support. I've flagged the need for more study on this, because I really think that we're moving very quickly on an important bill here.
I'd like to note in this second reading debate two other sections of the bill which I think are significant. Under this bill the act would be amended to allow the appointment of an acting minister. In the event that a minister of the Crown became the subject of a complaint, an acting minister could be appointed. I would raise the question as to whether or not that amendment is necessary, because I would note that even during this session we've had a precedent. When the hon. Minister of Finance came under a cloud of concern because of involvement with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in his own constituency office, he was replaced by the hon. Minister of Government Services. So we have a precedent already in the session where that has happened, because of the whole affair relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. So I wonder whether or not the amendment is actually required under the act, although it might be a good idea to enshrine this in the statute. It's interesting to note we have a precedent without the amendment even being called for.
There's another section of this bill that is interesting as well, which allows for special assignments of the commissioner, whereby the commissioner of conflict of interest can take on, at his discretion, special assign-
[ Page 2758 ]
ments. Again, I wonder whether or not this needs to be codified in legislation. Although I'm heartened to see it there, I wonder if it's necessary, because, even during this session, again relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, the commissioner of conflict of interest, Mr. Ted Hughes, has taken on a special assignment at the request of all parties of this House to look into past practices relating to the use of constituency allowances by members of this House. Again, dealing with that precedent relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, the commissioner has intervened -- taken on a special assignment. Whether or not it's necessary to codify that ability in legislation is an interesting point, but the fact that the commissioner is already able to do that is, I think, heartening, and the fact that it exists under current law..... Whether it's necessary or not we'll discuss in the committee stage.
The bill is an important one. Conflict of interest is an issue of great concern in British Columbia. We have all come here as newly elected representatives -- most of us rookie elected representatives -- in the hope that we can restore some integrity, some honour, some honesty to the profession. We consider ourselves to be honourable members. We want to put the honour back into the term "honourable," and as a result, we're willing to suspend any skepticism or disbelief we have about the intentions with respect to some of the concerns I've flagged in this bill.
I look forward to the debate on this important piece of legislation, and in particular to the closing remarks of the hon. Attorney General. I hope we don't rush headlong into the committee stage of this bill, where a Committee of the Whole House considers this legislation. I really think we need some exposure time on this legislation, whereby not only members of the House but members of the general public would be able to comment on it. With those few words, I am pleased to take my seat.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of these amendments. It's always important for us to look at ways to strengthen and improve legislation, and sometimes there are demonstrations of the need to strengthen and improve legislation. It may well be that this piece of legislation is one of those.
I think it's worthwhile recognizing that the conflict-of-interest legislation was originally brought in in the last session of the Legislature, and it was important in the role it played in the events as they unfolded. I suspect, however, that the legislation as it is proposed to be amended by this particular act still leaves some areas that may warrant further attention to conflict of interest. I note in the brief time I've had to look through the legislation that, while the legislation seeks to lengthen the time in which a cabinet minister would be prohibited from lobbying government, doing business with government or accepting contracts from government, there is no attention paid to MLAs who might retire and immediately go to work for government.
The first example that comes to mind, obviously, is Bob Williams, who, on the eve of what appeared to be the election of his party after almost 20 years in opposition, decides not to run again; he's too busy. His business interests demand that he not run again. At least, that's what he told the press when he announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. But we see him back almost immediately in a very serious senior position, in which he probably has a great deal more influence than he might enjoy as a cabinet minister.
Again on the eve of what would appear to be an opportunity to be re-elected and to be on the government side for the first time, we see Gordon Hanson decide not to run again in order to pursue private interests. In fact, it turns out he finds himself with two jobs with government and one for his wife.
So if we're going to look at conflict of interest, let's look at all the potential conflicts. Let's deal with the conflicts that we have seen in more than just the recent history. Let's look at the most recent history and decide whether or not some conflicts appear there, and whether or not this would be an appropriate time to deal not only with some of the things that developed on the past government's side, but with some of the actions of the current government in its transition from opposition to government. I think these questions are equally worthy of attention as the conduct of cabinet.
I share the concern of the opposition House Leader about the speed with which this legislation was introduced. Yesterday a bill is tabled; today, in the midst of trying to work our way through the implications of the bill, we find ourselves debating second reading. So the comments we make in second reading are superficial. We do that hoping that there will be a breather, a time lag, between second reading and committee stage.
In the minister's opening remarks, there was no comment about the role that our conflict-of-interest commissioner played in drafting this new legislation. I don't know whether there was any. We all recognize that he has done a commendable job as conflict-of-interest commissioner in the number of years that he has served this Legislature. I hope he looked at and made comment on these amendments that were brought forward.
A final thought I have is that, as with any piece of legislation, we seem to be striking a balance. We are tightening up, if you like, or extending the restrictions on members to attempt to ensure that they do not abuse their office. That's a commendable undertaking and one that I would support with all members of the House. But again we must recognize that as we do that, we place constraints on members, and, perhaps more importantly, we place constraints that may well discourage people from seeking office.
[3:00]
Over the years this House has been served well by members with a wide diversity of backgrounds and experiences that they gained before they came to the Legislature. People who have come from business and entrepreneurial backgrounds have served this Legislature well. They come with a sense of business realities. I would be happier to see a Legislature made up solely of business people than I would be to see.... Well, not quite. I exaggerate. A Legislature made up of social workers and teachers, if that were the sole makeup, might be even less beneficial to the people of British
[ Page 2759 ]
Columbia than a government made up solely of business people.
My point is that there needs to be a diversity of backgrounds in the members who serve in this House. One of the significant groups of people who have served this House well are business people and entrepreneurial people. They, by their backgrounds, tend to have interests that are affected by conflict-of-interest legislation. Even before the act was amended, they found themselves being forced to divulge information to a degree that some members found objectionable. When we introduced the act, some members of my party felt that the legislation was too restrictive. Some of the members whose spouses maintained their own separate business interests and wealth objected strenuously. Because their spouse decided to come and run for office, they had to declare all of their assets. Every time we impose restrictions on someone, we affect not only that person but those who are associated with them.
In our zeal to amend conflict-of-interest legislation to make sure that there is no opportunity for abuse, we must also ensure that we make the notion of seeking office an attractive one for honourable people, for people who want to serve this province, for people who have skills that they could contribute to this province; that we make this occupation -- this opportunity to serve -- available to the broadest range of people possible. So it is the balance that we have to achieve. Quite frankly, I haven't been able to study this bill in depth to know whether or not we're going further along the lines that we had already started with the first legislation.
I join the House Leader for the third party in hoping that it will be a few days or a few weeks before we have an opportunity to debate this legislation in third reading.
L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Krog: With great pleasure I introduce in the gallery today Ms. K. Wolski from the Parksville Christian School, accompanied by approximately 20 grade 5 and 6 students and some parents assisting. I'd ask the House to make them welcome, please.
H. De Jong: I just want to speak briefly to this bill. I recognize very well that the government really had no choice but to boost conflict-of-interest legislation. However, it does provide some concerns. I think we have to look back at who is being elected in a community. Oftentimes the people who are being elected to office -- whether it's provincial, municipal or any level of government -- have been the movers and shakers in the community. They've belonged to the service clubs, the chamber of commerce and to many organizations that made the community.
I realize that this bill does not necessarily limit the ability of one to serve if one speaks in favour of a charitable organization, as is mentioned in the bill. However, for instance, if a person belongs to the chamber of commerce, and the chamber of commerce is making an application for a lottery grant to build a certain facility which is in the general public's interest in a community, it appears to me that that could be considered a conflict of interest if a member of that area really fought for the particular sum of money to come to that community. Indirectly, either the members or the community in which they live -- where their friends and relatives are, who are all close to the person who's elected -- may be benefiting from this. Is that a conflict? I don't see it as a conflict.
However, I've had discussions on this matter with the commissioner over the past year: where, for instance, a sum of money was provided for a particular service within an industry -- I'll try to be as precise as I can without naming the specifics of it -- and where people who are very close to me, having been involved with that industry, would be benefiting because it would be available to that particular industry. It was suggested that whenever such a thing came up, the minister in charge could not, for one thing, sign the OIC. He would have to get another minister to make the requisition, but he shouldn't even speak on it. That in itself, I think, has some detrimental effects on the ability to represent the community and the people, because quite often people are put into a ministerial position where they have some knowledge of a particular item. Certainly that was my experience at the local level: you put people where they are most knowledgeable.
Taking that into consideration in the discussions we have had.... I think this bill alludes to it, that yes, if a minister is to make a provision -- be it the Minister of Social Services to increase the grants or the moneys available to those who are less fortunate -- and the minister has a number of people in his constituency, or very close relatives, who may be benefitting, the minister cannot make that requisition himself, and neither can he speak on it. That's where I see the real difficulties coming in. If we take this conflict-of-interest legislation to its full extent as it is written in this bill, then matters such as the homeowner grant -- which has normally been by approved by a bill in the House because it's a bill that comes from the Minister of Finance -- and many other increases of funding will have to come through the House rather than be assigned by a minister, even though the ministry's budget is approved in total.
Take the salaries and benefits that apply to the members of this House. We may have a commissioner or someone put in charge of working this all out, or an internal committee of non-elected people or whoever finally comes up with what the MLAs and the ministers should earn and the benefits they're entitled to. By voting for the vote that is to run this Legislature, we would all be found in conflict-of-interest. It would appear to me that I agree with the conflict of interest legislation and with strengthening it. At the same time, I think that the honesty and the credibility of the individual is ultimately going to be the determining factor of the success of any government in Canada -- whether local, provincial or federal.
We can have all the legislation on the books, which makes it more difficult and cumbersome on people who
[ Page 2760 ]
run for office. I'm particularly thinking of the two-year delay after the person serves. It's quite possible that the government on that side of the House is going to be a one-term government. What about the two years that you would have to wait after being tossed out? Political moods do change, and they can change very fast. We saw that the last time.
In conclusion, perhaps we can delve into some of the details during third reading. I would certainly hope, as the others have expressed, that some time be given so that we can study this thing more thoroughly. At the same time, I'm generally in favour of good conflict legislation. But in the end, the results are up to the individuals serving.
M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and make a few brief comments on a bill that has been eagerly awaited by members of the public. I know that during the last election it was a considerable topic of discussion: the need for improved conflict-of-interest regulations.
I think the reason that we have this bill is an indication of where we are today. Whether we like it or not, the public holds us to higher standards in terms of conduct both inside and outside the House, how we do our dealings here and, in particular, our private financial dealings.
I think they have to have confidence in us, and I think there are two ways in which they see that confidence. One is, as the member alluded to, the personal integrity of each member, and the other is the integrity of the act that we're governed by. This act is by far the most comprehensive, toughest act in the country. It says to the public: "We heard your concerns during the election campaign. We've heard your concerns over the last few years, and we're addressing them. We're addressing things such as personal interest, financial interest, personal obligations and the ability for ministers, after they leave, to then turn around in another role and lobby the very government they just left."
In my own riding, there was a very controversial piece of land, and it was noted -- not without some concern -- that a Minister of Agriculture, who had previously been charged with the protection of agricultural land, was now lobbying for this parcel of land to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve. You have to understand -- and I have full sympathy -- when the public asks: "What's going on here?" Here's a case of someone who, not six months before, was saying this land could not be taken out of the agricultural land reserve, that it was not suitable for golf courses and was an important piece of farmland in the province, and who was now saying: "Well, maybe it's a good place for a racetrack; maybe it's a good place for a golf course." That's not right.
This act addresses things like that, and I think it's very important. Concern has been expressed over the two-year period. I think a two-year period is ideal, because it shouldn't be seen that people get into politics, then they get out of politics and go into something else.
[3:15]
I think it's very important that we send the right signals to the public. This act addresses that. It sets a standard which we have to abide by, and that's what the public wants. It's about restoring confidence and faith. If we accomplish that this session, I think we have gone a long way toward restoring, as the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said, honour to this profession. I think it is an honourable profession, and I am very proud to be here in this House. That's why I have no problem with supporting this act. I think it's probably one of the most important and fundamentally right things that we do in this session and in this term.
C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this subject, because it's one that has affected me personally and will affect many members in the House in future -- and has in the past. Like other members who have spoken before me, I too believe this is a very important piece of legislation.
I will summarize some of the points that have been made by other members on subjects that need to be addressed within this act. Members have mentioned that the MLAs who are presently sitting could be affected within two or three years, when they leave this House. They will not be able to have anything to do with this House for the following two years. The implications of that could be very serious for some members.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: Members, including the one vocalizing presently, said that this is probably the most important piece of legislation that has come before the House today, and as a consequence it deserves our very serious consideration. I agree with him. Some members have mentioned that there are constraints on a member's business background; as a consequence, some people on both sides of the House will have reservations about running again. In fact, in the future we will be putting constraints on people who might want to run for public office. The province will be the loser should those people choose not to run because the constraints we've placed on them are too strong.
There are definite implications in this amendment to the conflict-of-interest act toward a spouse's estate. All of us, hopefully, enjoy that blissful state and feel that the implications which fall upon us and our spouses should be seriously considered. There's a delicate balance here that is required between the duty that some of us feel towards the public and the need to serve and fulfil our obligations to the businesses we've built up over our lives, and to our families who will inherit them from us.
A member mentioned that there are cases where charitable organizations are going to be affected by decisions that are made within this House should you be elected. I personally had to resign from two charities, and in September will resign from a third. I flatter myself by saying that those charities do not benefit from my resigning, but, in fact, it's detrimental to those charities as I think I was doing a fair job; I raised a great deal of money for some of them. But I couldn't be a
[ Page 2761 ]
member of this House in all integrity and also be a member of those organizations.
The member who spoke last mentioned that the public eagerly awaited this legislation. I agree with him; they did. They deserve the very best possible legislation they can get. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that these amendments are the legislation that is needed. I am sure that in my conversation with the government bureaucracy over the past seven or eight months, many of them have mentioned that the act brought in in July 1991 was brought in with some haste. It didn't get total consideration. A year later we have to make amendments; that is proof of the fact that it didn't have sufficient discussion.
I think every member who spoke has brought up the fact that 24 hours ago we didn't have this legislation in front of us, and the only opportunity that the members on this side and probably most members of the government back benches have had to consider this legislation is the 24 hours since introduction yesterday. As a consequence, while I agree we need the legislation and I agree we need the amendments, I think we need some more consideration.
Consequently it is my intention to introduce an amendment, which reads as follows: with reference to Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, that all the words after "that" be deleted and that "that" be followed by: "Bill 64 be not now read a second time but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills."
On the amendment.
C. Tanner: I should tell members of the House that it was my intention coming into this debate to vote against this legislation, and that's not an easy thing to do. I think that with the persuasion of my caucus friends, the suggestion I am making now would satisfy my problem and perhaps other unmentioned problems for some other members, and move this into the committee which is specifically for the purpose of discussing it further and calling witnesses. I think one of the witnesses we might very quickly call would be the conflict-of-interest commissioner himself.
The member who spoke before me made a very strong point about the public expecting better of us and of all their elected members in all areas. I think this is a great occasion for the public to have input into what they want to see in this sort of legislation. This is an opportunity to take it there.
My remarks from here on in are a result of having been involved in politics and having observed politicians for about 25 years. My observation, generally speaking, has been that the vast majority of them, while they might have a fairly heavy-duty ego, are honest. In fact, I would say 98 percent of all politicians I have run into are honest, hard-working and well-meaning, and the other 2 percent make it difficult for the rest of the world. If you can get over the ego part, they're quite reasonable people.
It would be very much easier not to address this issue and just to lie down, roll over and play dead, and let the members of the government side say that this is a good piece of legislation. The issue of conflict of interest is important to the public, and there is a presumption on the government benches that because they have brought forward this legislation -- which they boosted throughout the election and which they are boasting about now and have done since -- we should leave it alone and not debate it. I'm afraid I can't let it go quite that easily.
Some parts of this bill, in my view, are window-dressing. It has been said before, and it will be proved subsequent to this, that the passage of this legislation into committee, should it go through without this amendment.... Honesty cannot be legislated. Nothing will impel an honest person to be dishonest, but nothing will impede a dishonest person from being a cheat or satisfy their hunger for gain and benefit by a dishonest act. At the same time, the appearance of dishonesty is an accusation that is easily made and difficult to undo, and unjust innuendo can damage the reputation of a person of integrity very easily.
The conflict-of-interest commissioner did not accept my legal interpretation of the Constitution Act or that of my legal counsel. The reason I mention this is the reference made by a previous member to Mr. Paul Martin, the Member for LaSalle in the federal House. He laid before the committee his total personal portfolio -- which is extensive -- and outlined piece by piece how the public could interpret the fact that he could be interpreted, if he was other than a man of honour, as being dishonest and as having a conflict of interest. He made a case which was very clear. He is a man who had the integrity to write in full to the Clerk of his House about his total earnings, wealth and interests, and lay it before the House without being asked and without legislation. He is the sort of man who said: "This can be interpreted as being a conflict of interest."
I'd like to give you an example of what happened to me. As I said, the conflict-of-interest commissioner did not accept my or my legal counsel's interpretation of what we read in the Constitution Act as to whether or not I had a conflict of interest. My legal advice was that I didn't have; the conflict-of-interest commissioner's legal opinion was that I did have. I felt it important enough to divest myself of that potential conflict of interest, and he advised me to dispose of my shares in the business that I've built up over 28 years, to my wife.
Here we have a peculiar set of circumstances. The members on the other side like to talk about win-win circumstances or win-win situations. I'll tell you about a lose-lose situation. I've given all my shares to my wife, and the assumption is that I then have no interest. Well, of course, I keep half.... What's the expression? I share my wife's bed and my wife's hearth, and we talk as any husband and wife do. To think that the public is protected from my interest, because she's got my shares, is ridiculous. So from the government's point of view, that's a lose situation. If, on the other hand, three years from now my wife and I have a falling-out -- I understand the odds for that happening after three years in this Legislature are apparently quite good -- I would be in the lose situation. My wife would have all my shares of my business, and I would have no
[ Page 2762 ]
recourse. So there's a double lose situation. The House is not protected by my turning my shares over; I'm not protected if my wife and I have a falling-out. I should mention to the House that I've been married 33 years, and God forbid that it should happen. But it could. I don't think that I as a member should have been put in that position.
The conflict of interest that I had, Mr. Speaker, was ridiculous. I was supposedly receiving income from the provincial government through a lottery machine, which one of my businesses owns, a company that I had over a 30 percent interest in. I have absolutely no control over that lottery machine, the customers coming in to it or the money they spend. However, there is some income to my business through that lottery machine, and the conflict-of-interest commissioner said: "It would be wiser if you unloaded yourself of that burden." I didn't think it was a burden, but he did.
Mr. Speaker, if my basic premise is correct, that an honest person won't cheat, and a cheat cannot be controlled by legislation, then the conflict-of-interest legislation is better served by giving more power, not less, to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Let him use his discretion, and after consultation with the member and disclosure, let the conflict-of-interest commissioner make an arbitrary decision in writing that this member is free of conflict. That is the way it has been suggested in the bill under federal discretion, right now. If the conflict-of-interest commissioner is not satisfied, then let him so inform the House. The members, the public and the commissioner are all keeping an eye on him, and the conflict-of-interest commissioner is able to make a decision and advise the House that the member has a conflict.
As the act now stands, a member makes a disclosure, and the commissioner accepts his statement and can point out a potential conflict. But he cannot make a final decision. The final decision has to be made when a complaint is laid by some member of the House. I appreciate that these amendments have been broadened, but the fact of the matter is that the conflict-of-interest commissioner cannot tell you that you have a conflict; he can only advise that you might have one. I think that's unfair.
[3:30]
The commissioner's decision will be made prior to the complaint and will in effect give the member a clean bill of health, so to speak. The member can then take his place in the Legislature. I appreciate that the members of the cabinet and the executive committee are, and should be, subject to more stringent conditions in this matter, but the ordinary members of the Legislature, particularly on the back benches and the opposition side, should not have to jeopardize their family businesses and their life's work merely to satisfy the appearance of honesty. This is in the same view that people seeking election are required, before exposing themselves to penalty, to give private information for their business for the dubious privilege of being a candidate. This requirement under the Financial Disclosure Act is again unnecessary and should be examined in committee.
I'd like to ask the members of this House to place this bill before a standing committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for further input. I request all members on both sides of the House to support the amendment.
F. Gingell: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the amendment. Conflict-of-interest legislation is always motherhood. It is something that we all support.
An Hon. Member: Parenthood.
F. Gingell: Parenthood.
It is sometimes difficult to try to bring a sense of rational and thoughtful discussion to it when we in this House are dealing only with our feelings towards this and what we perceive to be the public perception, both of politicians and conflicts of interest. I think that it would be well worthwhile for this House to move this piece of legislation to this committee, as proposed by this amendment, to ensure that public input really can be brought to bear.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
I also had a similar problem with respect to my being elected to this House, and was required to dissociate completely from all office and responsibility in a corporation that I was involved in creating and had been with since its birth -- speaking of parenthood. It really is a pity if people are discouraged from running for public office purely and simply because they have accumulated business interests over their career.
I think there are some other issues that need to be looked at. The previous speaker mentioned the question of having to move the shares of his corporation or his business to his spouse. My understanding of the law is that if he and his spouse were to come to a marital parting of the ways, she is going to get half of what's his anyway, and if the shares are in her hands, he's going to get half of what is hers. Clearly, moving the shares from person A to the spouse of person A doesn't accomplish anything. For good planning, move the shares to your children. That will keep your spouse's sticky fingers away from them. Your children are with you forever. You have to have a sense of trust that the children aren't going to take off with them to Las Vegas.
All these things concern apparent and perceived conflicts. We worry about how the public sees what is happening, rather than ensuring that we create an act which ensures that real conflicts don't take place. It is up to us in our own actions, in the things we do for our own reputations, to ensure when we're dealing with legislation that we behave in a manner where there can be no perceived conflict and no real conflict of interest. If there is no real conflict of interest, that really should be the end of the subject. The fact that the vision in some other person's mind is cause for the conflict-of-interest commissioner to start an investigation really seems to me to not be appropriate.
The member from the third party who talked about the question of non-profit organizations brings up another interesting and important point that really
[ Page 2763 ]
should be thought through. There is nothing in the act, as I understand it, that clearly determines what a private interest is. We all think of these things in financial terms, but that's not the only area that we should be concerned about. There are actions we can take that improve our status within the community, our position, the way we are recognized and all kinds of things that may very well affect one's re-election. With actions that people take to improve their chances of re-election, not actions taken for the purpose of doing the right thing for all of the people of British Columbia, but things done only for the purpose of getting the support of some particular interest group for the purposes of re-election -- surely there's a conflict there. There is a whole series of matters that need to be looked at.
There is also in Bill 64 discussion about the need to disclose a material change, but no definition of what a material change is. I really do think that needs to be clearly understood. Something that I think is immaterial, someone else may well have the perception that it is material purely and simply because of the value. What is material in your own mind is something you build up feelings and understandings about that are related to relevance, percentage or, I would use the word, material. If it isn't material, it isn't material to me, but it may very well be perceived as being material to somebody else because in their life that transaction would be a material matter.
We do not need to rush this. People have spoken about it being a terribly important piece of legislation. One member even said it was the most important piece of legislation. I would disagree strongly with that. I think that the budget, the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992, which we will be dealing with shortly, are much more important pieces of legislation. This needs to be dealt with sensibly, slowly and with careful thought, because we should do it once, do it well and put it to bed. We shouldn't produce an amended act and have to reopen it in one or two years when we see that there are problems. I would ask members of the House to support the amendment so that more due and diligent consideration can be given to this matter.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm so used to using the term "hon. Speaker" that I will continue to use that, and I welcome your good graces. It's good to see you up there.
The reason I'm rising to support the amendment put forward by my colleague is that the thrust of the bill is obviously in a direction that is widely supported, as the previous speaker mentioned. It could even be termed a motherhood bill of some sort -- motherhood because people want to have confidence in their elected representatives, their politicians. As I believe a couple of members have already mentioned, there has been a stigma attached to politicians, and it is about time to change that. We all recognize that. We hope that by taking certain kinds of initiatives, the stigma that has been attached to politicians will change.
What has been particularly noticeable in the political culture of British Columbia is that if any politicians across this country have been somewhat stigmatized and have developed a negative image, it is certainly here. We all hope that will change. Of course, there are certain kinds of actions and moves that we can take to change that image of politicians, especially in this province. We must be more sensitive that it has to change. I think, for the large part, the initiatives taken by widening the conflict of interest in this legislation is the direction to go, but my colleague from Saanich has pointed out very neatly that there are problems in ironing out the details in widening the legislation. It would be most beneficial to all members of the House in terms of improving image that the public have confidence that here is a sound piece of members' conflict-of-interest legislation.
I have a couple of particular problems myself when I take a look at the act. We will look at these, obviously, if we get to committee stage, particularly at section 10: "A member of the public who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of this act...."
[3:45]
I want to elaborate on this a little bit. As the Attorney General knows, I'm sure, from some of the correspondence he has received.... I have certainly received a lot of correspondence from people making inquiries into the conduct of members. Sometimes it's members of that government or members of this side, though I must confess I have not received a letter requesting an investigation of any of my colleagues from the Liberal Party. To be quite honest with you, it's not because we're virtuous. Some members of the public may still, somewhere down the line, request such an investigation. What I'm suggesting -- and I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of some of the correspondence -- is that certain individuals sometimes make certain kinds of comments and allegations in which they feel that there must be a conflict of interest. This term "conflict of interest" is used very widely now, and I think to a certain extent the term has now become so maligned that it includes, at least in the public mind, so many aspects of political behaviour that sometimes the strict definition does not apply.
But as I'm sure the Attorney General knows, there have been submissions and requests. Actually, I can think of a couple I have received that the Attorney General may not know of, but the fact is that such requests are made. Some of these requests by the public are entirely warranted. I can think of a few that were entirely warranted. When a member of the public has "reasonable and probable grounds" -- to use the term from the legislation -- I take a look at the letter and say: "So and so is saying something's not quite right with, let's say, Transportation. I didn't think of that. Why don't we investigate it a little bit further?" And sometimes it's further clarified, and we find that there isn't really a problem at all.
As a matter of fact, I believe my colleague from North Saanich has made the point that 98 percent of
[ Page 2764 ]
politicians are honest. Maybe he's right. I'll lower the figure to 95 percent, based on Whitey Herzog's theory of human behaviour. I won't elaborate on that, because some of it is vulgar, his being a baseball manager and all that. Nonetheless, the conduct of politicians is admirable. The conduct of people in public life is admirable. But there are those who are not. Therefore we do want to encourage members of the public -- I can think of a few members of the public who have some legitimate concerns about particular members -- to come forth, with more than just a brown envelope, and explain if they see a problem with a particular politician.
On the other hand, the wording in the legislation that is before us and that speaks to the amendment that the member is raising.... Terms such as a member of the public who has -- and it's not that they must have -- reasonable and probable grounds.... This is pretty loose. It's not all that certain that we're not opening up a tremendous flood of all kinds of requests that will end up actually bogging down at least one part of the Attorney General's ministry. We really do not want that. We really do not want to see something that is unnecessary.
There is another aspect of the legislation -- since I'm on my feet -- that I would really like to bring to our attention. It addresses the problems addressed by my colleague earlier that perhaps there is a bit too much haste. We do need just a little bit more time to re-examine this legislation, rather than just introduce it yesterday, deal with second reading today, committee tomorrow and off it goes. I don't know if that rapidity is wise. This is not the first time that we've raised this problem.
Another aspect of it that I find interesting is in section 1, the reference to "spouse." I understand the attempt to broaden the definition of spouse. One thing....
An Hon. Member: You're not speaking to the amendment.
A. Warnke: I am speaking to the amendment, because it is addressing this particular problem that the member raised.
It is one thing to broaden the definition, but I'm wondering if the term and the terms of reference in this particular section are even appropriate. This addresses the whole question of rapidity. Things are done too fast. I would really like to see clarification prior to the committee stage. I think it belongs in the context of the principle of the bill. There needs to be some sort of clarification of terms when it is applied to the community. As I read it right now, I'm not altogether convinced that we have not incorporated something in this bill that discriminates against a certain part of the population that operates as a family and is comprised of a spouse. I could see how it benefits a person who has a significant other in their family. That disturbs me a little bit.
The amendment that the hon. member has introduced is a very wise and prudent one and one we ought to accept.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
V. Anderson: Speaking on the amendment, I again would prefer that this bill should go back for further study. I am pleased that the hon. minister had agreed earlier that he's not averse to doing an open second thought.
Not only is it a motherhood bill, but it's a fatherhood bill. Although we agree on the general principle behind the bill, one of the concerns that I think the bill is trying to meet is to say to the public that we are open. It may say to the public that we are open in a far broader sense than the bill intends. As I understand, what many of the public are concerned about when they're asking for recall and the opportunity to recall is not primarily in the area of finances, but it's primarily in the area of other concerns and special interest, one-issue groups. For instance, people in a community who may be on one side or the other of the abortion issue may wish to have their member recalled because he or she consistently votes against their particular interest and concern.
When we talk about the apparent conflict of interest, it has usually been thought about in financial terms. It has already been raised by my colleague that many people in the community are not thinking of interest primarily in financial terms, and that conflict of interest is going against the wishes of the voter who elected them. So it takes on a social meaning, and I think that social meaning needs to be clarified, particularly when the bill has extended it beyond personal interest to apparent conflict of interest. That word "apparent" opens up a whole new set of expectations and uncertainties in the community that I'm sure will lead to a whole flood of applications to be considered which were not contemplated.
People should be challenged if there is apparent conflict of interest, but what I have often seen happen is that when the application is made to have this apparent conflict of interest made to the Legislature or to the commissioner, a copy of that -- in a more informal way perhaps -- is sent to the press, and it becomes a headline in the press. Even if the commissioner should say afterwards that this person is completely innocent, that headline in the press has already tainted them, and no matter what the commissioner says, that taint will never be undone.
So I think we need to put into the bill, if we want it really dealt with fairly to everybody concerned, is if an application is made, that application has an embargo on it. It cannot be used in the press until it has been dealt with and fairly adjudicated. We have already had too many people tried in the press, and this will continue in a far greater way, with this kind of expectation, than we have ever seen before. We need to be aware that in the minds of many people in the community, if somebody has been involved in a special interest group, in environment or capital punishment or whatever it is, -- and they have indeed campaigned on that to become a member of the Legislature, this will be taken by the public -- although legally we might challenge that view -- to indicate that they should not be pushing their particular point of view here in the House. This has implications for almost any issue: aboriginal issues, non-profit organizations, many of the societies that
[ Page 2765 ]
people belong to. I think that wherever a person has a membership in a society or an organization -- not a financial interest, but a membership -- it might be taken by the public to mean that if a benefit is given to that society or to that organization here in this House, that member should abstain from the opportunity to put that privilege forward.
This will, hon. Speaker, be particularly difficult for the members of the government and for the cabinet. Even if they're judged innocent by the commissioner, they will be judged out there by the "apparent" conflict-of-interest. That word opens a whole new door and a whole new discussion in the mind of the public. I think we need to be aware of it, so I urge that this go back for further study so that these clarifications can be made before the doors are opened so wide that we cannot control them.
J. Tyabji: I'll keep my comments brief. I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment, as my colleagues have done. The select standing committees, in my view, are the perfect vehicle for the critical discussion that must take place with a conflict-of-interest bill like this one. I think we all recognize that we definitely need new conflict-of-interest legislation. However, what's happened is that the conflict-of-interest legislation is now at the point where a lot of people are afraid to run for office, because they're afraid that there might be the perception that they're in some kind of conflict -- especially, as the previous member mentioned, people who are involved in societies or who have direct linkages to certain groups. They might feel that they cannot run for office, because it could be perceived that they would be in a conflict.
[4:00]
There are so many things that we need to discuss with regard to this concept and with regard to the idea of the potential for excess access of the public to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I think there's a lot of discussion that needs to be done there. Perhaps the conflict-of-interest commissioner would need some more power.
I'd really like to strongly urge all members of the House to send this to the standing committee so that we can thoroughly go over all the concepts in the bill and then bring it forward again as something that we can all feel comfortable with and that we can take some time over. If we do refer it to a committee, we'll allow for a lot more public debate outside of this House, just by making it a more high-profile bill.
A. Cowie: I'll be very brief, because I know the Attorney General wants to get on with this. I was not going to speak, but I have personally been accused of a conflict-of-interest over being a parks board commissioner, where there was clearly no conflict. I've been completely cleared with the conflict commissioner, yet it continues for political reasons. I think that if section 10 were passed as it is, it would still continue for political reasons. So I encourage you to at least look at that section thoroughly -- that the public would report, or at least go to the commissioner and get an interpretation -- before proceeding further, rather than dealing with it openly in public, or other members dealing with it. Once it has been dealt with in the press, the member really has no way of defending himself or herself.
On the issue of section 8....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I must remind you that we're on the amendment, not on the sections of the act.
A. Cowie: Regarding the amendment and why I think the amendment should be supported.... Thank you, hon. Speaker for reminding me. When one deals with material change, one has to think about what that means. We must have a clear definition. If it means 500 shares of some penny stock, I don't consider that material change, but the conflict-of-interest commissioner does. Or at least he recommends that it be brought forward. I doubt if it's necessary, if someone buys or sells some penny stock, that it be brought to the conflict-of-interest commissioner every 30 days; maybe half-yearly or yearly would be good enough. I think those kinds of interpretations have to be clear. I will leave it at that, because the other members have spoken very well on the subject.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I just want to speak to the amendment briefly. I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands has made a very good case for the amendment that he has moved. We have heard a number of members speak to that amendment. I know that the hon. Attorney General is preparing to close debate on this very important bill. For the record, I'd like to indicate that the spirit of the amendment is not a dilatory motion. It's a substantive amendment that is intended to improve the bill.
We have the opportunity to be leaders in the nation in this area when it comes to elected public servants, so that we can return the notion of honourable members to their proper, customary and preeminent station in our society. I know one other member may wish to speak to the amendment briefly before we go on with it.
I hope the hon. Attorney General will address the concerns that have been mentioned by a number of members in the House today. The amendment has been made in very good faith as a gesture toward improving the bill. Perhaps we could activate one of our select standing committees over the summer so that members can deal with this matter, bring it back in the fall and pass it. I don't think there's any hurry to bring in the best legislation that will make us in British Columbia leaders in this area. With those words, I speak in favour of the amendment.
F. Garden: I seek permission to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: In the gallery is a group of grade 6 and 7 students from Clinton in the riding of the member for Cariboo South. They're accompanied by their teacher Linda Madden and four adults: Shelly Bolster, Ingrid
[ Page 2766 ]
Pearson, Harley Tenale and Frank Thompson. Would the House make them welcome, please.
C. Serwa: I rise to speak in support of the amendment, because it's a member's conflict-of-interest amendment act. In order for the act to work, it obviously has to have the support and interest of all of the members incorporated into the legislation. It is not simply a government bill. It certainly affects all the members in this Legislative Assembly, and it's going to serve as a model for conflict-of-interest legislation that will impact all levels of government and probably all public bodies in the province of British Columbia -- and rightfully so. From the government of this province I expect nothing less than the highest possible standard of excellence. I expect that same high standard of excellence from all the legislators in this assembly.
I have concerns with respect to this particular act. I happen to be one who really believes very strongly -- and am of a party that also believes very strongly -- in the conflict-of-interest legislation. I have to remind the hon. member for Burnaby North that, in fact, the Premier set guidelines and we brought in conflict-of-interest legislation in 1990. They were effective guidelines, I might add. But the legislation is simply guidelines with teeth. There is no question, hon. Speaker.... Oh, let the raucous crowd carry on.
The Speaker: I call the House to order so that the hon. member can continue in debate.
C. Serwa: I believe that the amendments are necessary. I believe that this will be a living, growing document of legislation and that we will continue to see amendments with respect to the act. Nevertheless, I again stand and speak in support of the amendment put forward by the official opposition, because I believe it's in the best interests of government and this Legislature to develop the best possible legislation. I said that earlier.
One of the things that has transpired is that the executive branch of government has usurped some of the powers of the legislators. I believe that the Legislative Assembly should at least have some access to some of those powers we had formerly. I believe that all legislators, be they on the government back bench, have an opportunity for input into some very critical and important legislation. There is no question that the only commodity we as legislators have to operate with is the faith, trust and confidence of those who elected us to this Legislature. I know that the cynicism out there against politics and politicians is due in part to conflict and apparent conflict.
It is a pleasure to have risen and spoken in support of the amendment. I intend to rise and speak, if necessary, if the amendment is defeated.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll speak just briefly on the amendment and then, following this position, we can hopefully move on to finish second reading debate itself. I should advise members that we will go directly after this to the CORE legislation, rather than to what was on the list. Mr. Stephen Owen is here and has to leave by 4:45, and I'm hoping he'll be here for the whole debate. This is just to give people a sense of the urgency of time.
It was my intention earlier to proceed to committee stage tomorrow. I think there is enough good evidence that that would be a mistake. It would be my intention to move to committee stage not tomorrow but next week to give members an opportunity to reflect on the legislation, to deal with it over the weekend and perhaps to consult with others about the wording. The problem with accepting the motion, hon. Speaker, is that by doing this we would, in effect, delay implementation of these amendments for a year. The committee would work perhaps over the summer or the fall, and when the Legislature returns next spring it would then deal with the report of the committee. Frankly, I don't think British Columbians want this province to continue for another year without an appropriate act in place on this subject. I think it's important that we get on with it next week. I'm prepared to listen carefully to submissions prior to the debate in committee, and if members have some good amendments that would prove useful, I'd be very happy to see if we can incorporate them.
Members should take some comfort from the fact that Mr. Ted Hughes has been intimately involved in assisting us to develop this legislation. His advice and counsel have been sought from the beginning, right through to the final version of this legislation, and that should give most members who know Mr. Hughes some comfort.
With that, hon. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support me in rejecting this amendment.
[4:15]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 18 | ||
|
Farrell-Collins |
Tyabji |
Reid |
|
Wilson |
Mitchell |
Cowie |
|
Gingell |
Warnke |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
De Jong |
Dalton |
Anderson |
K. Jones |
Chisholm |
Jarvis |
Hurd |
Tanner |
| NAYS -- 28 | ||
|
Boone |
Jackson |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Lali |
|
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
|
Blencoe |
Barnes |
Pullinger |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Hammell |
Farnworth |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
Hartley |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Krog |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
| Brewin | ||
C. Serwa: The Attorney General must feel like the Maytag salesman, sitting there in the executive branch of the cabinet. He has been all alone this afternoon, and I know that he must be a little bit lonely. It is very interesting that the same scenario that unfolds at the
[ Page 2767 ]
moment with the executive branch of government occurred when we were in government. There was a quiet revolution that took place on the part of caucus at that time, indicating that if the ministers were going to have a short work week, then it was only fair that caucus members have a short work week. I imagine a quiet revolution will probably be underway in the ranks of the private members along the government side.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: I can hear that it's happening.
I'm very pleased to fundamentally support the philosophy and principles of Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, because, as I said earlier, it's quite in line and in keeping with initiatives that the former administration put forward, first as the Premier's guidelines, and secondly, in 1990, as legislation.
I am really disappointed with the failure of the amendment and the reluctance of the government side to move it forward to committee, because I think that if there ever was a valid opportunity to strive to get the best possible support for very important legislation that affects all of the legislators in this assembly, this was that opportunity. When we look at the requirement and the statement for open and honest government, it seems that the government will have second thoughts about their reluctance.
I know that these series of amendments certainly took high priority with the promises of the government. I have no difficulty with the quality of the promise and the integrity of the Attorney General. I have a lot more difficulty, however, with the current government and the maintenance of their election promises. Nevertheless, the reality is that the bill is before us.
A great deal of discussion has taken place in debate this afternoon on the philosophy and principles of this bill, and rightfully so. I lament again that this important piece of legislation comes in at a late date in the life of this session of the Legislature, and that the time commitments do not permit the length and quality of debate. I certainly would have liked to have heard a great deal more on this particular debate from the government private members, who should have an opportunity to voice their opinions. After all, I reinforce the fact that it is the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act.
There are a number of areas that we will cover in debate when it comes to the Committee of the Whole. I'll have a lot of comments to make at that point in time. My concern is not so much in what the act says; it's what the act doesn't say. Whether the members of this Legislature are aware of it or not, it makes it increasingly difficult for some members of the public in this province to strive for election into the Legislature. The reason is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the requirements. Entrepreneurs are involved in different business endeavours and interests. That doesn't necessarily imply that there's any diminishment in the quality of commitment to the Legislature. It doesn't deny that they will be objective in striving to work for the best interests of all British Columbians. I think that's what we're all here for, not to work for special-interest or single-interest groups. All of our efforts have to be mindful of a responsibility to all the electors in British Columbia, and that is obviously a very diverse and wide group with a wide range of interests and concerns.
This particular legislation, however, leaves out a number of specific areas of concern, some of which I might bring out. We are talking of conflict of interest; we are talking of personal benefit. It appears to me to be a conflict if a member retains a seat in some other level of government and is sitting in the House. I don't think the legislation addresses that.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: The hon. member says that it does, but I have my doubts that there are members in this House who have retained positions on regional districts, as aldermen or....
An Hon. Member: Councillors.
C. Serwa: Formerly aldermen; now as councillors with the new legislation. Thank you very much for the prompting from my friends across the way.
Certainly that appears to be a definite conflict, in my perspective. All members must be mindful of that. It is a conflict.
When I was elected to the Legislature, I resigned from about half a dozen positions.
D. Lovick: Happy days.
C. Serwa: Happy days -- that's what the members says. But it was imperative to me that there was no possible perception of a conflict, whether it be with the parks board, the Small Bore Rifle Association, KEREDA -- Kelowna Economic Recovery and Employment Development Association -- a variety of elements whereby I could have utilized my role to influence government members and the executive branch. I felt that it was important that we not do that, but that we focus specifically as legislators responsible to our constituents and as members of government in the broad sense and members of the Legislature to be mindful, as I say, that our responsibility is to all British Columbians.
What about groups? How do we define "groups?" Where does that conflict...? Obviously if I came in here representing an industry, I would be in direct conflict, in my perception. Under this legislation, as a private member I'm probably not in direct conflict, and maybe my opportunity to influence the executive branch in that field is not as effective as it formerly was. I don't think that is right. But I also don't think that it's right or appropriate that union representatives continue to put forward those specific influences that will benefit their colleagues and themselves when they are out of the Legislature.
Our time here is finite, and we will return to the other world outside the Legislature. I know there are direct benefits that are accrued in that particular
[ Page 2768 ]
situation. So I have some difficulty when either the members here or former members of government are looking after the interests of perhaps one of the large unions -- B.C. Government Employees' Union, for example -- as one of their interests. That to me is a dreadful conflict, and certainly the perception and the reality of that dreadful conflict is out there. I don't know that the apparent conflict controls that, because they're one of a large group. Nevertheless, it's not as different to a member representing an industry, and that's what my concern is.
I suggest that the legislation would have been improved if it had taken the broad range of concerns of all the members of the Legislature into consideration. The legislation has been structured, and I give the Attorney General and the drafters of this legislation.... I think an honest and genuine attempt has been made with the amendments to keep it as open as possible, but there is a bias in this particular piece of legislation, and that bias has crept in because of the influence of some of those special interest groups, or single-interest groups, that the members on the government side of the House tend to represent.
That bias will come out and restrict, reduce the opportunity for a broad cross-section of people of British Columbia to seek office in the provincial Legislature. That gives me a great deal of concern, hon. Speaker. I know that it gives you a great deal of concern as well, because if we're to serve the public, the people of British Columbia, we must be mindful of that responsibility, not only to provide that service but to ensure that all members of this very diverse society have the opportunity to seek election.
I recognize that several sections in there were incorporated as a former member of this Legislature was reluctant to comply with the former conflict-of-interest act. While I'm not going to make any judgment on that, I'm just saying that what has transpired is that even with our government, we are starting to make it so complex and so difficult to comply that perhaps we're not going to get the quality individuals with that broad-based perspective that makes the decisions of this Legislature credible. They have to be credible in the minds of the public. So faith, trust and confidence are imperative to the success of the actions and the activities of this Legislature. Credibility and integrity are paramount requirements. There can be no compromise. I am certainly an advocate of the spirit, the philosophy and the principles of this legislation.
If I had my druthers, I would have welcomed the opportunity to be a participant in the formulation of this legislation, and having that opportunity -- and I respect my colleagues on the government side -- to communicate directly and to voice our specific concerns so that all members were aware of the requirement for the specific initiatives. I believe that all members are in accord with the concept of the principles. We could have discussed it and ensured that it was broad and open, and yet covered everything equitably and fairly.
[4:30]
I suspect with reluctance that my suggestion that bias had somehow now crept into the conflict of interest amendments is real, and that the refusal to run to committee only adds to my specific concern. Again, that's not to cast any negative thoughts or ideas with respect to the commitment of the Attorney General, because if I respected only one member in that government, I would continue to respect our Attorney General. He deserves that type of respect.
As for the commissioner, I don't think we could have found a man more competent to fill the role. Ted Hughes has earned a justifiably excellent reputation for his knowledge of law. As a former deputy minister for the Attorney General he earned a very good reputation. He has maintained that reputation of integrity, honesty and fairness in spite of enormous pressures -- many of them political pressures imposed on him. So I have no difficulty with the commissioner or with the nobleness of his intent.
However, I do have some difficulty with the legislation that has been put forward at this time and the reluctance of government to open it up so that the standing committee of this Legislature can look at it and perhaps enhance it and certainly enhance its credibility.
Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this important act.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the fact that the amendment didn't go through, and I've got to tell the minister that I'm disappointed. It would have been an opportunity to discuss two other acts which need to be looked at in the same light -- the Constitution Act and the Election Act, both of which relate to conflict of interest and have a bearing on the conflict of interest act. I'm disappointed that there wasn't one individual on that side of the House who could stand up and speak differently than directed by the Attorney General's office.
The Attorney General has had a busy season. He's got another five or six bills on the order paper. He couldn't possibly have given this bill the amount of time and intelligence that were needed to be applied to it. Madam Speaker, I think they've made a mistake. I think they should have let the public have an opportunity to voice their point of view in front of the committee, and I personally will have to vote against the bill.
The Speaker: The Attorney General rises to close debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all I need to say that I think a number of very good points have been made in the debate this afternoon, and I don't reject at all the concerns expressed by members opposite. I intend, between now and next week, to review very carefully what has been said on a number of issues. I'm confident at this stage that we can proceed to committee stage next week and end up with a good product. I would like to do that, as I said earlier in my comments on the proposed amendment.
I think in the final analysis what we need here is legislation that has public confidence and the confidence of all members of the House. That's a very important goal. I hope that by taking some days over the weekend to have a look at this -- all of us -- we can
[ Page 2769 ]
in fact achieve a bill next week which becomes an act very soon.
I was attracted to the idea of spending some further time reviewing the issue, and if I thought the House was going to sit for another month, I would have had no problem with the suggestion that was made. I am very troubled, however, by delaying for a year, or for the most part of a year, the implementation of what I think is really very important legislation -- legislation that we committed to bring in at this session. We are going to embark on a process to deal with legislation that extends the coverage of conflict to public servants, to the public sector, including municipal councils and school boards; in the process of doing that, I think there could be continuing discussion about the efficacy of the legislation. If next year we need to make amendments to it, then I certainly would be open to that.
Next week's debate in committee can perhaps make some refinements, and then we'll have a year to live with the legislation to see how it works. At the end of that, I think members will feel comfortable about the legislation. I think it strikes the balance that some members have referred to. We don't want to scare people off from running, particularly people who have assets of various kinds, who may feel that this kind of disclosure requirement is too difficult for them. Frankly, what scares off people who have lots of assets isn't the conflict-of-interest legislation; it's the fact that you don't get paid very much when you come here. However, I recognize the concern.
In discussing this with Mr. Hughes, I'm absolutely comfortable that the procedures that will be followed to enforce the legislation will be such that no one should have any fear that their position will be compromised. There are things we give up when we come to public life. The public expects us to have a higher standard, to behave differently in respect of our private interests. The public is increasingly demanding a degree of honour that is tough sometimes to keep up to, but I think those demands are correct. We have to find ways of ensuring that both our standards and the perceptions of our standards are exemplary and of the highest magnitude.
This is a tough bill; I make no apologies about that. If it's maybe too tough, as is being suggested by opposition members, then I'm prepared to look at those questions in the next few days before we go to committee stage. I've chosen not to respond directly to each of the individual issues that have been raised. Most can be dealt with far better in a back-and-forth exchange at committee stage. I've made notes of all the substantive issues raised by members of the opposition, and I will make sure they're covered in the committee stage debate.
With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, it being 4:40, I would prefer to leave the CORE legislation until tomorrow so that Mr. Stephen Owen could be present while we debate it, if that's agreeable. I sent a note to find out whether he'd be available, but I haven't got the answer yet.
J. Tyabji: I won't be here tomorrow.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: You won't be here tomorrow.
Fair enough, I'll call committee on Bill 56.
COMMISSIONER ON RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT ACT
The House in committee on Bill 56; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, the opposition has had a recommendation with regard to this section. Wherein as it reads the commissioner is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and reports to the executive council, the opposition would have preferred that the commissioner be an officer of the House and therefore report to the House. The reason the opposition felt extremely strongly about this is that -- very much in the same way that the ombudsman and the conflict-of-interest commissioner are officers of the House -- we feel that in developing something like a provincewide land use strategy for British Columbia, it's very important for the entire House to be there for the receipt of the report or recommendation, on the understanding that obviously the executive council is the final architect, if you will, of the legislation that would follow from the report or recommendation.
However, the opposition felt extremely strongly that in order for the commissioner to function independent of the executive council, the entire House should be aware of the report or recommendation as it is made, so that later on, when the commissioner goes to the executive council for any kind of negotiations with regard to legislation based on the report or recommendation, the rest of the House would also be aware of the nature of the negotiations. Therefore when the final bills were drafted and presented to the House, we would be able to debate those bills based on our previous knowledge from the presentation by the officer of the House to the House. I would like to hear the Attorney General's comments with regard to how he feels about it being to the executive council rather than to the House. We really feel that that would be a much better way of dealing with this, particularly because it's not legislation; it's the report or recommendation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the suggestions made by the opposition critic. I think it's important for members to know, or to understand, that Mr.
[ Page 2770 ]
Owen's responsibility in his job is to deal with policy and policy advice to the executive council. The ombudsman and the auditor general deal with administrative questions, not policy questions. The ombudsman and auditor general, and soon the freedom-of-information commissioner are agents of the House. The commissioner on resources and environment is, in a different sense, an agent of the executive council, is employed by the executive council. The commissioner reports to the executive council on policy issues. In other sections of the bill, the commissioner has the authority to make his commentary public; if the commissioner does so, all members of the House will have received that commentary. Because of that essential difference between policy and administration, it is our view that it would be inappropriate to have the commissioner be an officer of the House. In fact, in that sense he's an employee of the executive council.
[4:45]
J. Tyabji: I don't want to belabour this point. When you start talking about the commissioner being an employee of the executive council, I think that would then undermine the independence -- although you do allow for public accounting later on in the bill, which we'll get to. I think that the administrative and policy distinctions, although they're important.... Generally, as for the House, we have the select standing committees for dealing with policy issues. What I would put to the Attorney General is that in this case we have policy issues of such magnitude and far-reaching consequence that there is no one select standing committee that you could refer the commissioner to. Therefore the House would basically be the Committee of the Whole, in effect, bringing together all the members of the House to hear the report of the commissioner.
It seems to me, too, based on the mandate given to the commissioner, that because it is an overall land use strategy that's being developed and because we're looking at various resource uses, recreational uses and wildlife uses of the land, and the environmental parameters that surround those uses, these are things that we all have to take part in putting together. Just as in a discussion I had yesterday with another person.... When we were dealing with the constitution, we saw a very constructive process developed in the House, which unfortunately the House doesn't really have an avenue for. We did it during the estimates debate. If the estimates debate weren't on, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to do that. Yet I think it was recognized by all three parties that everybody had some extremely constructive input that they could offer to that process, which pushes the process further along.
As far as the work of the commissioner goes, I know that when the reports and recommendations are ready, the opposition would love to have the ability to hear them prior to their going to the executive council, so that we could have input and contribute at that stage of the process. We all know that the executive council has the final decision, but we also know that each of us in the House brings different perspectives and talents to the table. It's with that in mind that the opposition feels very strongly that each elected member of this House should have an ability to hear that report or recommendation when it's brought forward, rather than its going straight to the executive council. We feel very strongly about that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Once again, to read subsection 3(2), "if the commissioner considers that the public interest will be best served by making a report to the public," the commissioner can and will. Therefore all members will have access to such a report. Let's remember that what the commission is doing is working to help the executive council, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Environment and other ministers to develop policy. Many of the recommendations that will come forward will end up being reviewed by the various ministries, by cabinet committees, by cabinet itself and then, following that kind of process, being enacted into public policy. It's not so much that a lot of what's being done is in the way of reports. Much of what might be done can be done in an ongoing way, almost daily, without benefit of a formal report.
It seems to us.... First of all, we recognize the need to not have the commissioner report to one minister, because of the need to have an interdisciplinary approach to this and to not tag the commissioner with one particular ministry's identification. So we chose this rather unique idea of reporting to the executive council, because it's an ongoing policy-making issue. We recognize, however, that if the commissioner were to be seen by the public to be independent and free to make recommendations to government independent of government, there needs to be some independence built into the procedure. We've done that by a fixed term of office. We've done that by the section I've just referred to in terms of making public any reports if he chooses to. It just doesn't make sense from a policy-making perspective to have what is a daily, ongoing policy-making process report to the House, when in fact it may be that the House wouldn't be sitting for some months in a given year. We'd be getting on with making decisions about resource use planning in this province.
J. Tyabji: With regard to section 3(2), I will certainly talk to that when we get there. But going back to the point that the Attorney General was making about the fact that it is an ongoing policy-driving exercise, we recognize that. However, although we have the orders-in-council and the bills, I think the Attorney General will agree that the process that serves the public better by far is with bills and the exercise in the House where we have debate on bills. The unfortunate thing with regard to how we bring things about is that if we get the reports to the executive council -- when the opposition deals with it, it is either at the same time that the general public receives it, where there is very little avenue for debate, except whatever we might be allowed through the media -- when it comes to the House in the form of a bill through the executive council, it's in finished form. As the Attorney General realizes, there's very little one can do with a bill in finished form. It does present some difficulties, even in terms of perception, if the opposition has some extremely constructive input. Once a bill is drafted,
[ Page 2771 ]
there's very little that can be done except perhaps to let the bill die on the order paper and then allow some input through a select standing committee to then redraft the bill, which, I would put to the Attorney General, is actually a longer process.
I don't think you need to respond any further on this point, but I think you understand where we're coming from and that we would have preferred a process where we could have had input prior to it's getting to the legislation point.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I should take the member's suggestion that I don't have to respond further, but I do want to, because I think there's a misunderstanding.
Very little of what would come from the work of this commission would result in legislation. If land use decisions are made, they're made under the rubric of existing legislation, whether it's the Forest Act, the Environment and Land Use Act, the Land Act or whatever else. Those are administrative decisions, some of which will have to be effected by executive council, some of which can properly be effected by ministerial decision. There may be situations where -- I can't conceive of them off the top of my head -- there would be a suggestion for a legislative framework. Under this legislation the commissioner must, if it's in the public interest, report to the public. If that were to be a result of his work, then the public would be aware of that through the public reporting.
What members really need to understand about this is that this is not a process that leads necessarily to legislation. This is a process that leads to involving the public in land use decision-making and trying to give public confidence in the decisions that government ends up making. These are, in the final analysis, executive council decisions that will be implemented, and almost without exception they will not come to the Legislature for direct debate, other than later through the estimates of the particular ministers.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to welcome Mr. Owen to the Legislature. He represents a standard of excellence that all of us in this Legislature can only aspire to attain. Your presence illuminates and invigorates this chamber, Mr. Owen.
The litmus test for section 2: perhaps the Attorney General would indicate to me, if he weren't a member of the executive branch and if it weren't Mr. Owen being appointed to this commissioner's role, whether he would be as comfortable with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council making the appointment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What was the question? If the person wasn't Mr. Owen, would I be as comfortable? That's a difficult question. I've got to be careful about this. It's hard to imagine being any more comfortable than I am with the fact that Mr. Owen has agreed to take this position. I can't imagine anyone in this province or, for that matter, anywhere in the world who could have accepted this responsibility with such a high degree of public support and comfort on the part of the executive council and all members of the House, I'm sure.
But that wasn't quite the question. The question was: would section 2 be appropriate if a lesser person took this appointment? I believe so. It's a unique idea and a unique procedure, and it will work only if the commission is seen to be fair and independent. Because of the way society works, that is very much dependent on the individual. If we had appointed someone else, I'm not sure it would have mattered what the legislation said. If that person didn't have public confidence, then the process wouldn't work whatever the words were here.
C. Serwa: This is perhaps the last question on this, but I see the commissioner and the Commission on Resources and Environment as an incredibly important position and an important act. Certainly in British Columbia today the demands are there. I congratulate Mr. Owen for the willingness to stick his head in the meat grinder, because I think it's going to be an enormous challenge. The office of the ombudsman was a challenge, but never to the point that the commissioner's job will be. It's a very complex, controversial area. There are certainly no simple solutions to complex challenges and problems. I guess that the diversity of perspective and the diversity of region will impact on the commissioner's role.
It takes a very confident, professional individual to fulfil the role of commissioner. I understand that, and I know that the Attorney General understands it. My concern is that the role is so important that the commissioner obviously has to have the support and credibility exchanged between all members of the Legislature. If it were not for Mr. Owen as commissioner, with his impeccable credentials, I would have some specific concern. That concern comes in because of the tendency of governments -- and it's evidenced by this government as well as previous ones; we're all probably similar in that fashion -- to align themselves with someone who shares similar opinions, similar biases, perhaps, but lacks the true objectivity of a commissioner like Mr. Owen.
My concern is if, in the period of a year or perhaps two years, Mr. Owen's objectivity is too much of a challenge to the current executive council, perhaps he will move on and someone else will come in who lacks objectivity. I guess that's the only point that I am trying to make. For the commissioner's job to be successful, he must be -- and be perceived to be -- very objective, and have the ability with those inherent senses of honesty and fairness. Certainly experience and reputation are incredibly important, because in this very controversial public arena that you will be in, it must be a reality.
My concern there is that the commissioner's role must always have an individual of Mr. Owen's competence and reputation. Failing that, the critical decisions on resources and the environment will not be made objectively. They will be made with a political bias for political reasons of the moment, perhaps with a lack of concentration of vision on the long-term future of British Columbia.
Perhaps the Attorney General could elaborate on my concerns, and maybe provide me with a little bit of comfort there.
[5:00]
[ Page 2772 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the final analysis, the decisions are made by the executive council, are the responsibility of the executive council and in that sense are political, inasmuch as every decision that's ever made in society is political. Whoever the commissioner is, the responsibility for the decisions will belong to the government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this process would not work, we wouldn't have the public's confidence in the process of trying to bring people together and trying to involve community and native peoples in reaching consensus -- we wouldn't be able to do that -- if we didn't have an individual who had everyone's support and respect.
If, for some silly reason some years down the road, we were to appoint someone who didn't have that respect, this whole process would fall apart and would be of no value in any event. But in the final analysis, however the decisions get processed and referred to executive council, these are political decisions made by a political body -- which is the cabinet of the day.
J. Tyabji: Further to the exchange that was just going on, I think we should be on record, at least, as the official opposition, that in this section as in the rest of the bill, if we didn't have someone of Mr. Owen's calibre and integrity, there would be a lot more objections. We do recognize that it is the reputation of the individual who's been identified for this position, and that has driven the writing of the bill that has caused us some problem. We're not sure if it's a legitimate process to draft a bill based on an individual, because the bill will still be standing even after the individual may not be in that position. So we would like to be on record as having said that that does cause us some concern. However, we do recognize that the individual who has been chosen is very suited to the legislation that we're discussing.
W. Hurd: As I didn't have the opportunity to participate in this debate on second reading.... I realize that the issue of the reporting schedule of the commissioner has been canvassed in second reading somewhat.
I wanted to make the point that there are two functions of the Legislature. One is for the executive council to make decisions, and the other is for the Legislature to speak as one voice on important issues of the day. It was my interpretation that the function of this commission would be to forge a consensus on environment and land use decisions -- to create a conceptual model for the resolution of these disputes.
I believe that this consensus would be better reflected if it came to this House from the voice of a legislative committee. I refer specifically to the consensus that was forged in the case of the constitution in this House. Certainly the constitution was a matter of importance to all British Columbians. I believe also that the dispute mechanism that we adopt to resolve these bitter and at times acrimonious land use disputes should also reflect that kind of consensus in this House. I realize that the issue of the reporting schedule of the commissioner or who he reports to has been canvassed at length, but I would like to speak again to the wisdom of having an all-party committee of the Legislature speak as one voice in fully endorsing and adopting the conceptual model that the commissioner might bring forward to the people of the province.
Although I respect the fact that in the final analysis the executive council will make the decisions on land use and environment, whether they be in the Forests ministry or the Environment ministry.... If we are indeed dealing with a conceptual model, a framework for dispute resolution, then I would argue that that voice would be given to that type of framework in a far stronger manner if it had the support of every member of this House through a legislative committee.
The Chair: Hon. member, are you referring to section 2?
W. Hurd: Yes, I am.
The Chair: It's very difficult to make the connection.
W. Hurd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was referring specifically to section 2(1). If the Chair is losing track of the argument, I apologize.
Having made those points, I will take my seat.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try once more. I'd like the member to read the commissioner's mandate carefully and think about what the commissioner and his staff will be doing. In reading this, try to envision how these public policy decisions will be affected by the Legislature as opposed to people out there in their communities, Forest Service employees, the Minister of Forests or whoever else. I think there is a misconception about what's being done.
This commissioner is not going to seek consensus about a new model which will then be processed through this House in the way of a bill. The commissioner is going out to work with people to see if we can develop consensus in the community on various conflicts and to provide advice to the executive council about decisions that are being made on an ongoing and daily basis. Members have got themselves off track in terms of what the purpose of this legislation is.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Tyabji: As the minister has alluded already, under section 3(2) you talk about a clause that is the crux of the bill. I think it is very daring on the part of the executive council to allow the commissioner the ability to make the report public. I appreciate that, and I think it's very important.
The only thing I'd like to flag, as I mentioned in the previous section, is that the official opposition would like to be on record as saying that if it weren't for the individual who had been appointed, we would have great difficulty with this section. It has been too soon after what we witnessed in the previous administration
[ Page 2773 ]
in terms of egos driving agendas -- and there is a potential here.
With the way it is worded there is a potential for the commissioner to go to a remote part of the province and announce his or her vision of how the public interest would be served on a land-use and related resource or environmental issue. To that extent we have a problem. Because the mechanism for public reporting is not laid out, it does allow.... Let's imagine for a minute that we don't have this wonderful commissioner, and that we have somebody else; maybe it's even a nightmarish administration, if we can even imagine that for a second. Let us say that there is someone appointed who has their own personal agenda and would like to go to some part of the province and publicly report a policy. It doesn't say "in written form"; it doesn't say "through the precincts"; it doesn't say, for example, "through the ministry." It says: "...in the manner the commissioner considers most appropriate."
It does seem to me that we can imagine a mining issue in a remote part of the province....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
J. Tyabji: If I could ask some of the hon. members, who probably haven't even read the bill, if they're having some objection to what I'm saying.... This is quite critical.
We can imagine a mine in part of the province that could have a serious environmental impact, and we could have a different administration and a different commissioner, and we could have that mine that could have, let's say, a watershed impact. If the commissioner were to go against the executive council making.... It says: "...if the public interest will be best served." Perhaps the commissioner will assume that the public interest will be best served by allowing the mine to go ahead; he therefore goes to that sector of the province and makes an announcement in the manner the commissioner considers most appropriate -- let's say to the local news media.
Then the wire service comes, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is approached and asked: "Your commissioner has just announced that the mine should go ahead, and that it is in the best interest of the public. What do you have to say?" We know how politics play in this province. I'm just flagging that, because this is one that I know is the crux of the bill, on the basis of the commissioner who has been appointed. But we have to recognize that long after this commissioner has done his job and long after this administration has passed on, this bill is going to be on the books, and we will all have to deal with it in the manner in which it is written here.
Originally I had submitted an amendment to this section that I didn't want to spend too much time of the House on as I didn't think there was hope of seeing it pass. I know that this is a section that is critical to the commissioner who has been appointed. Therefore it wouldn't see amendment. I do think that we have to recognize that the way it is written here allows for that. It does allow for the discretion of the commissioner, and it could impact very seriously on any kind of environmental or industry issue. I think that there should be some consideration there that it could be regulated after the bill is passed into an act. It could be regulated in a manner that would allow simultaneous advising of the related minister of whatever report is going to be made publicly, so that at least the minister knows at the same time so that it's not something that comes through a wire service and is reported after the fact. I would advise the Attorney General to put that into a regulation. That is basically all that needs to be said about section 3.
C. Serwa: It's particularly useful, I think, that the public know the basis for the decisions that the executive branch will be making. Land use decisions are very important. Obviously we are confronted with the fact that there are sometimes simply competing interests. Often the interests are conflicting interests. Whether we're looking at the lands required for the expansion to meet the commitment of your government; whether we're looking at aboriginal interests, forestry, mining, ranching, the primary resource industries for British Columbia; whether we're looking at fish and wildlife interests, habitat, wilderness, tourism, there are a number of interests that have to be attended to in the ultimate recommendations that the commissioner will be making to the executive branch -- to cabinet.
It seems to me, certainly with respect to the freedom-of-information legislation that we're looking at moving through this House, that it is imperative that the fundamental foundation of the rationale for the decisions of cabinet be made available or accessible to the public as soon as possible -- not after a prolonged period of time -- to show the substance behind the decision, and I heartily concur. I think that everyone understands that those decisions will not be easy.
Those decisions may have a political bias, but the reality is that the economy and the quality of life in the province are going to be directly impacted by the decisions that are made. The substance behind those decisions, the rationale for those decisions, should be made available to the public as soon as possible. Does the Attorney General envision the release of that information immediately after cabinet has appraised it, or withholding the specific information and the recommendations and all of the criteria that go into the report? Will he be making them public as rapidly as possible?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As far as this section of this bill goes, the commissioner will have the opportunity to make whatever public commentary he chooses to make. As far as the effect of the freedom-of-information bill is concerned, that's not up for debate right now. We can get at that in the committee stage of that bill next week. Section 3(2) clearly allows the commissioner to make decisions independently if he feels it's in the public interest to release whatever report he wants. The other legislation will require that documents which lead to a decision will be made available -- not the cabinet
[ Page 2774 ]
documents themselves, but the supporting documents. I think we're going to be in an age of so much public information that we may overload the public with too much of it.
[5:15]
C. Serwa: I guess the only point I was trying to make in a relatively simple fashion, which I know the Attorney General understands completely, is that there is greater quiet confidence in the perceived independence of the commissioner in this case, certainly in the office of the ombudsman, than in a report issued by government. It seems imperative because we're all affected. We're all affected by decisions that the commissioner considers important enough to make the information available to the public as well. They're all participants; they're all stakeholders in the affairs of the province.
They also must be aware that the decisions are not going to be easy and there will be a great deal of controversy. But like the concept of the Round Table, once the substance gets out there, they can look at it and be well aware of the rationale that was utilized in formulating it, and then support it. It is imperative to support the decisions that were made. I recognize the latitude that section 3 gives to the commissioner. All I can ask is that the commissioner be mindful of the value of releasing that information publicly to give the quiet confidence that the appropriate information has been given and the appropriate decisions have been made.
J. Tyabji: I would like to canvass the Attorney General for some kind of feedback on my comments with regard to some regulation that would allow for simultaneous advising of the related minister in the event of some kind of public notice.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't imagine a situation where the commissioner would go off to Pouce Coupe to announce support for a particular initiative without having taken into account that he might want to get the support of the minister and the executive council for that particular recommendation, which he might not get if he sandbags the minister and the executive council. I can't imagine that kind of situation happening.
Clearly this whole process is only going to work if there's public confidence, and if there's confidence between the public and the commissioner and between the commissioner and the government. I didn't respond before because I just couldn't imagine how that suggestion could have any currency. Maybe it's late in the day and I'm thick and don't understand the point. You might want to try it again.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to get clarification of subsection (2)(b): "community-based participatory processes." Could you give us some idea as to the definition of that and how we would see that in concrete terms?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: An example of that might be a local resource management board of some kind that has representatives of the public who are connected with the issue at hand: workers who are involved in that particular industry; members of government in the appropriate ministries. In a particular area, on a particular issue or range of issues, that public body would try to come to some kind of consensus about how to affect decisions in that community. That's the kind of idea that would be a possibility. There may well be other initiatives that the commission may choose to develop in concert with the community.
J. Tyabji: The official opposition would like to make note of the allowance for the participation of aboriginal peoples; and further, that the work of the commissioner does not prejudice the ongoing work. We appreciate those clauses and obviously very much support that approach to the work.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I have a proposed amendment to section 5 which I distributed earlier to the critics for both opposition parties. I haven't had an opportunity to distribute this to the entire House, and for that reason I think I should read it. Before I do, though, I just want to give credit to the member for Okanagan East, who earlier -- I guess yesterday; I've lost track of time, as one day runs into another around here -- gave me a number of suggested amendments which we looked at seriously. The wording on section 5 that the hon. member proposed was run through legislative counsel. They had a slightly different version that would, we think, accomplish the same effect. The effect of it would be to delete section 5 and replace it with:
"If the commissioner believes that a person or group will be significantly and directly affected by a land use issue or related resource or environmental issue under consideration by the commissioner, the commissioner shall inform that person or group and give that person or group an opportunity to make representations to the commissioner on the issue before the development of the recommendation or report."
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to speak to the significant change that occurs with this amendment in terms of the timing of the approach of the commissioner to the people who would be significantly and directly affected by the recommendation or report or by the issues under discussion. It changes the focus slightly in terms of timing. Rather than the person or group being contacted at the point where the recommendation or report were more or less in final terms, if they're going to be significantly or directly affected by a land use issue or an issue under consideration, it really does allow for a much better process. It's very encouraging that the government is taking this initiative and that in the development of the recommendation or report they will
[ Page 2775 ]
then seek input from people who will be affected. I think the bill is improved with this.
Amendment approved.
On section 5 as amended.
A. Cowie: Just briefly, I'd like to say that I've gone over this bill, we've been briefed properly and I support the bill. I do have a couple of questions, though, and one is on timing. I believe it's probably best addressed under 5 as a whole, but I'll say 5(a), dealing with economics. Undoubtedly we're going to be dealing with some large regions of the province -- I understand something like 12 large regions, and then they'll be broken down into subregions.
The Chair: Hon. member, did you say you were speaking under section 5(a)?
A. Cowie: Sorry, it's section 4(5)(a).
The Chair: Unfortunately, hon. member, we just passed section 4.
A. Cowie: So we've passed the commissioner's mandate, have we?
The Chair: That's correct, hon. member -- regrettably.
A. Cowie: Unfortunately, in my opinion.
Section 5 as amended approved.
On section 6.
C. Serwa: I have a couple of questions relating to sections 6(3) and 6(5). Does the Attorney General contemplate that the information will be given under oath to the commissioner, or will it simply be a presentation made to the commissioner?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It would not be under oath as a matter of course, but the opportunity for it to be under oath is there, if there was some particular purpose or need.
C. Serwa: I have a bit of concern here with the quality of the information that the commissioner is going to take. It obviously is true that if it is quality information, then the commissioner has the substance with which to make the appropriate decisions. In the types of decisions that the commissioner will be challenged in making, there is a great deal of emotionalism and emotional bias involved. That encourages the making of statements which are loaded with that bias. In many cases, there will be distortions and inaccuracies, and I think factual untruths will occur as well. When I look at the importance of the land use decisions that will be made, there is some question in my mind whether there shouldn't be some sort of incumbent responsibility on those presenting information to the commissioner that it is well researched, factual and truthful.
I notice in section 6(5) that "evidence given by a person in a hearing before the commissioner is inadmissible insofar as the laws of the province apply...." That really means that if there is simply a lack in the quality of information.... It could be libellous -- it could almost be anything. There is nothing that encourages the submission of quality information to the commissioner. Perhaps the Attorney General would comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, we don't even have those kinds of rules in this House. People are allowed to say what they believe to be true, and then the next speaker will get up and say what he or she believes to be true. They may be totally opposite, and they may be totally wrong in both cases.
People are free to say what they believe in these hearings. If things are said that are perhaps slanderous, then there's a civil remedy. If there are other issues which may end up in the court, there are legal procedures available. We want very much in this process for people to be free and easy, to feel comfortable, to come forward, to express their views. Oftentimes they will simply be opinions, but if they are the opinions of an individual, they're important even if they are "wrong." We think that keeping this informal, allowing for people to come in this way, is important.
I may not fully understand the member's concerns, but I think from having heard the member here on other issues over the years -- and earlier today, in fact, on the issue of PCBs -- the member has a concern that often people relay facts that aren't facts and would like somehow to stop that from happening. Well, we're never going to stop that from happening in a free society, nor should we try to. What we should try to do is to be sure that people become educated about the issues, that they learn and they listen -- or that they listen and then they learn. Hopefully we can reduce the amount of misinformation that flows out there, but in no way should we design this process to prevent people from saying what they think.
C. Serwa: It is certainly not my intention to strive to develop criteria that would tend to muzzle individuals or inhibit them from making submissions. That's not my intent at all. My intent is to ensure that there is a sense of responsibility imposed on the individuals making the submissions. I can understand the bias of coming in and emphasizing certain aspects that individuals consider desirable in their evaluation of the competing interests, but I have difficulty with section 6(5) indicating that information that may be libellous or slanderous is not admissible. My understanding of that subsection is that it eliminates the need for that responsibility and eliminates the opportunity for any subsequent action on that individual, if I read it correctly. Perhaps the minister will confirm or deny my suspicion?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it would be useful for the member to read section 6 in conjunction with
[ Page 2776 ]
section 13. Section 13 is the offence section, which indicates that an offence is committed if a person impedes the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under this act. That simply means that if you deliberately mislead the commissioner by presenting information designed to mislead, then a offence is committed under this act.
[5:30]
A. Cowie: I'd just like a little clarification on the word "hearings." Over the last 15 years I have had experience participating in many public hearings. The process, believe me, doesn't work. I could give you many examples, but I won't bore you. What we need is some innovative process of communicating with special interest groups, the government and the population as a whole. Would the minister give me just a little idea of how these hearings are going to be conducted so that they're not manipulated, but so there's a truly open process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, much of the discussion with the public will not be by way of hearing. It will be by way of discussion and participation, which you would not describe as a hearing. In certain and specific cases on a particular issue where a hearing was required, it would be a quasi-judicial hearing. I think I would agree with the member in his opening comment that clearly the formality of specific hearings would not be the most useful way to conduct the entire exercise. This would be on a limited number of issues or on a particular set of issues that may require a quasi-judicial process. But for the most part, the commissioner will be conducting his discussions with the public in an informal, participatory way and not through a hearing process.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
C. Serwa: Section 9(1) says that cabinet can establish terms and conditions of the commissioner's employment. Does that mean that cabinet can change the conditions and terms in midstream, shorten the appointment or change the conditions of the commissioner? Is that the intent of that type of flexibility? We have terms and conditions basically spelled out, and then we have the fact that cabinet can establish terms and conditions. That gives perhaps too much flexibility in the legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That section doesn't override the five-year appointment. So if by "terms" he means the term of appointment, it does not include that. This has to do with salary, benefits and remuneration.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
A. Cowie: On staffing.... This is clearly an enormous task if one wants to envision it being done in any depth at all. It's my understanding that in this province we do not have a complete inventory of forest resources, environmental resources, animal resources or whatever. Clearly we don't have a lot to go on in that area. I visited Nigeria some years ago. They've got a better inventory done by Canadian firms than we have here. It's very interesting. It's paid for by the United Nations. Clearly we've got a large task before us, and we have only a five-year mandate at the present time.
There are many resource towns that rely on a decision on whether or not they're going to be able to continue to operate within a sustained yield in that area, or if they will have to move to some other location in the province. This is nothing new; forest towns have moved for a hundred years. It's going to happen. We know there's going to be large changes in the forest industry, as well as in the mining industry. I just wonder if the minister could give us his opinion as to whether the commissioner really has enough resources to do this job properly within a reasonable time-frame, so that we don't interfere with business in this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members need to understand that the resources of the commissioner are in fact the resources of the government. Employees of the Forest Service, of Environment, Lands and Parks and of other ministries will be at the commissioner's service, in a sense. This is not designed to provide for the commissioner a staff that will be able to do the whole job. The work of inventory is going to have to be done by people who work in government, not people who work for the commissioner. The design is, very deliberately, to have a small staff. It's to act in a coordinating way, using the resources of government to assist.
A. Cowie: Thank you for that answer. Clearly the commissioner has an excellent staff -- small and excellent. I approve of it's staying small, and I approve of using as many government services as possible. But I understand that the Forests ministry simply does not have the inventory of forest resources, for example. Are there going to be sufficient funds within those ministries to carry out these resources in these particular times?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I think the honest answer to that is that there are never enough resources to do all the work we need to do. We are determined, however -- it was a campaign commitment that we made, and it's a deliberate policy of the government -- to try to do the work that we need to do, and inventory is clearly a major part of that. It's a priority for us. It's not going to be done overnight; it's an expensive exercise. But it needs to be done, to ensure that this process works well and that this province has the best land use decisions it can have.
J. Tyabji: In these two sections, 10(1) and 10(2), it says: "A deputy commissioner and other employees necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the commissioner may be appointed...." And then: "The commissioner may engage or retain specialists or consultants that the commissioner considers neces-
[ Page 2777 ]
sary...and may determine their remuneration." I wonder about this. Then it goes on: "...the Public Service Act does not apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists or consultants." We haven't talked at all about a budget for the Commission on Resources and Environment, and within this, obviously, there is no limit. Are there existing regulations that outline that? If so, are they in the public domain, and can we have them?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The budget was in the estimates book, but I'll remind members of the budget: it's $4 million even. I can, if you want, give you all the STOBs. The major items in the budget are salaries for a commissioner and 18 staff members -- that's $1 million -- and there is $1.3 million-plus for consultants, facilitators and mediators. Those are people, as the member notes, who would not be covered by the Public Service Act, because they are contractors who would be retained to assist for particular purposes.
J. Tyabji: The question that follows, then, is: in the event that the commissioner's needs for consultants, specialist staff, etc., exceeded that $4 million, would that be an allowable...? At that stage, what is the process, what is the limit, and how are the priorities determined?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We expect the commissioner to live within the budget he's been allocated. He would have to go to the Treasury Board for any additional funding. We think this budget is sufficient, the commissioner thinks it's sufficient, and there's no intention to overspend it.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
J. Tyabji: As the Attorney General is aware, the official opposition had some concerns with regard to the delegation of duties, specifically in section 11(1), where it talks about "...may delegate...powers or duties, except the power to delegate...to make a recommendation or report." Then we also thought that there are some powers under section 6 with regard to the hearings that we're not comfortable with, in terms of delegating to someone else. In effect, what you're doing is more or less creating another commissioner -- it's just a subcommissioner. Seeing as the commissioner is meant to be independent of the executive council, at that point it does allow an incredible amount of power if the commissioner can delegate the ability to hear the sworn testimony, to take things in confidence -- all the powers that are more or less outlined under section 6. We'd like to flag that; it's a serious concern. We do think that the commissioner, as an appointment of the executive council and also as independent from the executive council, should not then also have the ability to more or less create more commissioners.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ability to deputize or delegate is simply on the gathering-of-information side. You can conceive of a situation where there may be several hearings or discussions going on in different parts of the province at the same time. The important distinction here is that while the delegation is for gathering information, it is not for reporting. The reporting is done strictly by the commissioner and cannot be delegated. It's simply a way of assisting in the gathering of information.
J. Tyabji: Is there any review process by an elected member of any of the staff appointments or delegations of the commissioner?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is there any review by elected politicians of the commissioner's decision to appoint a certain person to have the powers to gather information? No. The commissioner is independent. The commissioner does not have to ask our approval for decisions he makes.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
J. Tyabji: I'd just like to commend the Attorney General on this section. Obviously this is a very critical section, and we look forward to the reports that will be made to the Legislative Assembly.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the Attorney General can explain why there's a difference in wording between section 13, where it refers to "an employee...of the corporation" and that the employee is liable to be charged with an offence, and section 8, where there is a reference to no action or damages because of anything done or omitted in good faith by the commissioner and his staff. There is a substantial difference, where the employees of a corporation are to be held legally liable for their actions and the employees of the commissioner -- as well as the commissioner -- are not to be held responsible for their actions. Why the difference?
[5:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 8 deals with an inadvertent or accidental mistake, whereas section 13 deals with a deliberate offence, where someone has deliberately gone out and (a) impeded the exercise of power, or (b) refused to comply with an order. I'm not sure that I'm making myself clear on this. Section 8 is really to deal with inadvertence, not offences. Section 13 is to deal with direct and clear offences, which are specified.
C. Serwa: I'm not aware of a particular circumstance where section 13 could be utilized. I guess I have some concern with the individual in a corporation. If there is something that the corporation directs an individual to do, I just wonder whether the individual should be charged. I can heartily agree that, for
[ Page 2778 ]
example, the chairman of the corporation, who directed it, should certainly have that charge. But an employee of the corporation is virtually defenceless, other than carrying out instructions. I am not aware of the types of circumstances envisioned here. It seems to me that the corporation or the chairman of the corporation should be held liable, and rightfully so, but I don't know about the employee who is not aware. Perhaps the minister could respond.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The employee who deliberately acquiesces to the offence would have to have a direct intent to do so. It is not that he is simply following orders and doesn't realize that he is committing an offence; he's been given information by his employer that he doesn't understand to be part of an effort to deceive or impede. If he is simply doing this unwittingly or unknowingly, then there wouldn't be an offence, because there's no intent. However, if he is part of a decision on the part of the corporation to go in there and impede or refuse, as is outlined, then he or she could be committing an offence. I don't know whether that explains it, but it's not designed to get at employees who are used in an unwitting or unknowing way. But if they're part of a deliberate effort to impede or to refuse to comply, then they could well be found to be committing an offence.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 56, Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 56, Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 21, hon. Speaker.
ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN
JUDGMENTS ACT
The House in committee on Bill 21; E. Barnes in the chair. On section 1.
A. Warnke: Perhaps what I'll do on section 1 is make a quick comment, and perhaps the Attorney General will respond accordingly.
Section 1 determines the scope of the bill. The judgment must be Canadian but from outside the province of British Columbia; however, the bill does not indicate whether or not the judgment must be final. Therefore, would this then include claims which provincial statutes permit to be enforced as judgments although they have been the subject of formal litigation in a court? It's this question of final orders and whether they exercise a judicial function that perhaps the Attorney General could comment on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I fully understood the question asked by the member. Actually, it was a little difficult to hear, too; I think we need to turn up the volume. Will you ask the question again?
A. Warnke: Basically, I want some clarification, because there are judgments within the scope of this bill that are Canadian but outside the province of British Columbia. The bill does not indicate whether or not the judgment must be final.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, it's a final judgment.
C. Serwa: On section 1(b), what is required to get the stamp of approval and acceptance on a judgment by a tribunal -- or perhaps in Quebec, utilizing French civil law? I'm a lay person in this. I'm not familiar with what is required to get superior court approval so that the Canadian judgment will be accepted under this act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If a money judgment was rendered by a quasi-judicial body -- a tribunal, a board -- and was certified as being a judgment of that quasi-judicial board, then it would be recognized.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
A. Warnke: Just a couple of clarifications, in particular 2(1)(b). There has been some reference that the amount of money must be $10,000 or less, the amount permitted under the Small Claims Act. Could the Attorney General comment on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the present time there is no intention of actually proclaiming this section unless there's some abuse of small claims enforcement. It's there in case there's an abuse. We trust there won't be, and there won't be a need for that section.
A. Warnke: I guess I do have an answer for this as well. Nonetheless, it has been interesting that there have been some people who have made some comments with regard to 2(1)(c): "...for maintenance or support, including an order enforceable under Part 4.1 of the Family Relations Act." Perhaps the Attorney General
[ Page 2779 ]
could give some clarification as to why the orders for maintenance are excluded. I think that will help a lot.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The family maintenance law, the Family Relations Act, has a scheme for enforcement with it, which is separate and can be more complicated. The orders can be more varied. They're not simple money judgments which have to be enforced. They can have an impact over several provinces, and they can have varying orders contained within them. As a result, there is a regime established to deal with family relations enforcement. The provisions of this act are not needed there because there is already a scheme, and this act is designed to cover, as we said before, the money judgments.
C. Serwa: Perhaps I should have asked this question earlier, but I can ask it under section 2. Is parallel legislation to this being put forward in all provinces and territories in Canada?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This was proposed last August by the Uniform Law Conference. I think we're the first in the country on this issue. Ontario is now considering the same legislation. It's my understanding that all other jurisdictions are looking at the question. Whether they proceed or not is up to them, obviously. But it was a proposal, and we're delighted to be the first in the country on this issue -- I think I can say that with some certainty.
C. Serwa: I hear the Attorney General's delight at being among the first. My concern is that if it's not reciprocated by all the provinces and territories, then it's really not fair to citizens of this province. The same opportunities that are available to all other citizens in Canada should in fact be reciprocated. I would encourage you to ensure that that commitment is made by all the other provinces and territories.
In our discussions earlier, did I understand you to say that section 2 will not be proclaimed, or was that a portion of section 2?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's section 2(1)(b) that we're looking at not proclaiming unless there is some abuse in the system. It's not the whole of section 2; it's just 2(1)(b).
To go back to the other issue, our expectation is that all other jurisdictions will proceed on this, but obviously, in the final analysis, it is up to their legislatures.
[6:00]
C. Serwa: If section 2(1)(b) is not proclaimed, then monetary judgments under $10,000 will be looked at and handled unless they become unduly burdensome. Is that the intent of not proclaiming that section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: With regard to the procedure for registering a judgment, one critique I've come across is that perhaps it's not detailed specifically. In this particular section, is there going to be a situation where the minister will be relying on some other provision, other than what is here, because it's not detailed specifically?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Court Rules Act will, and does, govern the court procedures. This is a very simple matter. You pay your fee and register your judgment; it's as simple as that. If there are any other issues beyond that, then the court rules procedures and legislation would apply.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
A. Warnke: I just want a very quick response on the perceived flaws. In particular, section 6(2) stipulates that perceived flaws are not grounds for staying or limiting the enforcement of a judgment. Perhaps on section 6(2) one could argue that the proper course of a judgment debtor who alleges a judgment is flawed.... I want some sort of clarification or comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the principle is that the rules that apply in the court of jurisdiction or in the board or tribunal of jurisdiction are the rules that would apply, and you wouldn't be able to come here to British Columbia and use our rules to try to subvert a decision that may have been made using different rules or procedures in that jurisdiction. So that's the major principle.
However, if the B.C. court decides that there is a significant flaw and that the original court or board or tribunal needs to review the issue, a stay can be entered, and it can be referred back for that purpose.
C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could give me an example of what the evidence would be. In 6(b) it says: "...the judgment debtor has brought or intends to bring, in the province or territory where the judgment was made, a proceeding to set aside, vary or obtain other relief in respect of the judgment...." That is all in reference to the power to stay or limit enforcement. What type of evidence of that intent is necessary to stay enforcement of the judgment? What assurance is there that it is substantive of intent other than indefinitely postponing any enforcement of judgment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A judgment debtor would have to clearly demonstrate that there was fraud or some denial of natural justice in the process. Let me just read a section from my notes, which may be easier than trying to summarize them.
The proper course for a judgment debtor who alleges that the original judgment was flawed in any of these ways is to seek relief in the place where the original judgment was made, either through an appeal or an application to the court or tribunal which made the
[ Page 2780 ]
judgment. This act therefore expressly abrogates the common-law rules. In common law, a local court may decline to enforce a foreign judgment where it believes the foreign judgment is flawed by lack of jurisdiction or the process is defective -- for example, fraud or lack of natural justice -- or that it would have come to a different view of the merits of the case.
So we are essentially saying that the debtor would have to go back to the original court for relief by way of appeal or application for review of the decision.
C. Serwa: What evidence is required on the part of the Attorney General that would indicate that the judgment debtor has taken the necessary steps? Will there be court documents required to provide evidence?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Attorney General wouldn't make the decision; the court would make the decision on the balance of probabilities.
C. Serwa: In (1)(d) of the section I note that: "...the judgment is contrary to public policy in British Columbia." Perhaps the minister can give me an example or an illustration of the necessity for that particular clause.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A good example of that would be the enforcement of a gambling debt.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much for that illustration; I appreciate it. Does the minister envision any difficulty with French civil law in Quebec? Are there any marked differences between British civil law and French civil law in the case of judgments?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, because the decision of the court of jurisdiction or the board of jurisdiction is complete. We don't look to see whether or not they follow our rules or our code. In fact, all we're doing here is enforcing a judgment that may have been made elsewhere, even though that judgment might not have been made in our jurisdiction, given the same set of evidence.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
A. Warnke: I'm interpreting this particular section as protecting individuals from any fraudulent registration. As I'm going through it, I would appreciate it if the Attorney General could make some comment to reinforce that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There could be a longer explanation for this, but I'm simply going to say that what we're trying to do here is deal with claims that have been filed that were fraudulent or there was some negligence involved. We simply want to ensure that there is this right to sue for compensation if that kind of activity, as described, occurs.
C. Serwa: My curiosity is awakened by the fact that the Attorney General indicated that basically the courts would be making the decision and providing the necessary documents. But then if we read section 7: "A person against whom enforcement proceedings are brought in British Columbia on a judgment or order that has been registered under this Act may, in a court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover compensation for reasonably foreseeable loss or damage...." That particular section indicates that the judgment or order did not qualify for registration under this act. I fail to understand, if the courts are involved in that aspect of it, why the individual who brought forward that judgment has the opportunity of losing court proceedings or being sued. It really doesn't make much sense. I thought it was more or less cut and dried, and all of a sudden something else enters into it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A person might file a judgment in the court, having paid his fee. The court doesn't do anything with that, other than have it on the record so it's enforceable. Let's say an enforcement activity occurs as a result of it having been filed, but it turns out that the person who filed it did so knowing that it wasn't eligible for filing, that it was a judgment that should not have been filed. The person who is, in a sense, the victim of that filing can then sue the filer for damages, in effect, if I've understood this correctly -- given my long years at the court on these issues.
C. Serwa: I cannot understand the lack of responsibility on the part of court to make the necessary check to assure itself of the legitimacy of the claim before finally accepting it for filing. Doesn't the court have responsibility?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The damages here would be for improper registration. I think that's the issue. We're not expecting the courts to employ countless people to determine whether each filing is in fact legitimate. The process would simply be -- and I'll say it again -- that the judgment would be filed and then be able to be enforced. If it was enforced on an individual who felt that the enforcement was invalid, that the judgment had some flaws in it or was arrived at improperly, they then would have the opportunity to do a couple of things. One is to go back to the original court for remedy there; secondly, they can sue for compensation -- in other words, to recover the proceeds of the enforcement which had been enforced inappropriately.
[6:15]
C. Serwa: I can certainly understand and accept that, although I have a great deal of difficulty. If the court doesn't ratify the legitimacy of the claim immediately, then the actions of the court are such that the collection on the judgment will continue. The suing for a wrongful claim may take a year or many years to be resolved in our court system, at a great expense to that individual. I think it's wrong to have that type of an expense and that time requirement imposed on the individual when the court really must.... If we're
[ Page 2781 ]
accepting this and deciding that it's a good thing, then why should that individual be faced with a great deal more in the way of financial obligation to the court system and to lawyers, when the judgment didn't have any substance and should not have been accepted for registration? Surely that is an imposition that lacks fairness.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand, I think, the member's concerns. First of all, there shouldn't be very many of these situations that would arise under section 7. The design or the intent of the law is to ensure that those many people in this transient society who in fact are escaping from an enforcement order elsewhere will in fact have it enforced. To expect that the court would try to determine on every filing whether or not it's legitimate would be an immense undertaking to deal with a very small number, in proportion, of these filings which may not be proper.
I take the point and understand it, that there may be some unfairness on that side of it that the member is pointing out, but it would be far greater unfairness on the whole system to do it any other way.
C. Serwa: I think it's one of the principles of British justice -- I heard it said once, and I assume it's true -- that it's better that a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man be hanged. I would think it applies here. I really have some concern with this particular area, in that I see it.... For a nuisance cause a judgment is accepted by the province of British Columbia for collection and put forward. I see it as punitive in the case of a debtor where an unsubstantiated judgment is in fact placed. While I appreciate the Attorney General's position, it seems to me that in this day and age, with electronic communication the way it is, it cannot be terribly difficult to check on the legitimacy of the claim for judgment under this act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This gives the same right to individuals who are subject to this enforcement of out-of-province judgments as people here have who are subject to enforcement of British Columbia judgments. If an out-of-province judgment did not qualify for registration, then the rights that are provided for in 7 are available to the person who had the judgment applied against them. The same situation applies here in British Columbia. If a British Columbia decision is registered but didn't qualify for some reason, then the person can sue under British Columbia law. What we're doing here is providing the same opportunity for redress in the event of an unqualified -- if that's the right word -- registration as you would have if the decision were made in British Columbia. It gives the same rights across the board for judgments, wherever they're made.
C. Serwa: It's very interesting, and it should probably only happen in British Columbia, that three lay people, none of them with any experience as lawyers or in the judicial system, are arguing a fairly important legal bill. It's a very interesting situation. I asked my question, frankly, because of ignorance of the proceedings of courts, and I just visualize this as taking a long span of time and being somewhat difficult for the debtor. The Attorney General indicates that it will not, and we'll accept that comment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's quite appropriate that several non-lawyers.... I think the hon. opposition critic has a law degree, if he's not been actively practising in recent years. I think it's appropriate that at least the third-party critic and I represent over 3.2 million British Columbians. The lawyers represent only 6,000.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
A. Warnke: On this particular section, I guess what I'm again seeking is some sort of clarification, in particular.... Well, we might as well do both of them. Section 12(1)(a) says: "...the time for enforcement has expired in the reciprocating state." I'd like the Attorney General to clarify just what is meant by "...the enforcement has expired," because I rather strongly suspect there is a variance as to when the enforcement has expired -- or maybe I'm not altogether clear on that. I seek some clarification on that.
Maybe while we're on this section, it's also appropriate to ask to what extent we have really attempted to develop some sort of comprehensive system of reciprocal relations with other jurisdictions. Finally... Well, I'll just leave it there. If the Attorney General could comment on those, then I have another question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are apparently 13 reciprocating states -- give or take. It's not many, but there are always efforts to add to that number.
As far as the first question goes, if I understood it, with the part that says, "...the time for enforcement has expired in the reciprocating state," we want to be sure that the judgment being enforced is the judgment of the other jurisdiction. If the rules there are different, if the time limits are different, then our limits don't apply; our rules don't apply. The rules where the judgment was made apply. We're not trying to impose our system on people from another jurisdiction. We are simply trying to provide an enforcement mechanism.
A. Warnke: Indeed, that is a clarification. I think some of the confusion is as to what extent a certain decision, if it's not recognized somewhere.... How would we recognize it, and so forth? The response by the Attorney General really does help to clarify that.
Just a minor point with regard to 12(1)(b), where it says: "...10 years have expired after the date the judgment...." The earlier section 31(1)(b) says six years. It's just a minor point. I note that it's extended from six years, and I'm just wondering why the change from six to ten years.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We want to get some consistency between the Court Order Enforcement Act and this act, and ten years is the provision. It's an
[ Page 2782 ]
arbitrary number, clearly. Ten is chosen to be consistent. Clearly it could be any number of years. That seems a reasonable period of time. If, after ten years, someone still hasn't made application to have a judgment enforced, then they're essentially out of time.
C. Serwa: It was my understanding that the Statute of Limitations prevented one from going beyond seven years. How is it that we can go ten years in this particular case? Did we change the section of the Statute of Limitations to enable this? How was that accomplished?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just before I read some words which may help, I want to remind members that section 5 has the ten-year provision in this act that we're debating. That's where the consistency issue is. Section 12 updates the reciprocal-enforcement-of-court-order provisions in the Court Order Enforcement Act in order to bring it into conformity with -- the act we're debating. It will now provide that where judgment has been obtained in a court in a state which is a reciprocating jurisdiction -- and there's a list of those reciprocating jurisdictions at the end of the Court Order Enforcement Act in the statutes -- the judgment creditor may apply to have the judgment registered in the B.C. Supreme Court as long as ten years have not expired since the date the judgment became enforceable in that reciprocating jurisdiction.
This is a change from the six years provided for in the old section 31. It also provides that the time for enforcement must not have expired in the reciprocating jurisdiction. Hence this section, 31(1), of the Court Order Enforcement Act is now consistent with section 5 of this act dealing with the time limit for registration and enforcement.
Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
[6:30]
Bill 21, Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 37.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 37; M. Lord in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
A. Warnke: Again it has been brought to my attention that perhaps what we need to get clarified here is the significance of the change in section 6, if the Attorney General could comment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is designed, essentially, to allow police officers who hold the rank of corporal or higher to be automatically permitted to be commissioners for taking affidavits. What happens now is that as Attorney General I have to sign countless authorizations for police officers who hold the rank of corporal to become commissioners for taking affidavits.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
C. Serwa: I have a few questions on this particular section. I'm confident the Attorney General will not need technical assistance for my questions, because they're going to be purely political. That's the field of the Attorney General's forte. This section adds the definition of a vice-chair to the Expropriation Act. The political concern is that the position has already been created. An individual by the name of Jeanne Harvey, a Victoria lawyer who once served in John Brewin's firm, is the vice-chair at a very substantial remuneration -- as a matter of fact, equal to the chair's remuneration. Once this position has been created, it is a brand-new position. With the expansion of the vice-chair role.... When Jeanne Harvey does become chair -- that is the intent -- is the government then going to appoint another vice-chair, or is this once only?
It's an unusual exercise to do this. Normally we do not have vice-chairs with the equivalent authority that can subvert the chair's authority -- equivalent in both power and in monetary returns. Perhaps the Attorney General could illuminate me on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The work of the Expropriation Board is such that it was widely agreed by those involved that there should be a position of vice-chair. I want to explain a little bit about the alleged politics here and the reference to Jean Harvey and the law office in which she articled. That was the extent of it. I understand she did article with John Brewin's firm.
If we were to judge lawyers' politics or capabilities by identifying them with the firm they articled with, there would be a lot of red faces around the province and a lot of curious....
C. Serwa: There aren't that many NDP law firms.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That was true in the old days.
To be serious, we have a couple of issues here. One is the need in a transition period, which we're facing with the expiration of the current chair of the Expropriation Board -- who, I should say, has no political connections whatsoever.... The current chair of the Expropriation Board, Mr. Jack Heinrich, is a fine, upstanding public
[ Page 2783 ]
citizen who has no connections, to my knowledge, with any political party anymore. In a transition year we want to be sure that, on the day the new chair begins, all of the cases still in progress do not have to start again with the new chair in order to have some continuity and some overlap in the period of transition. That's one issue for the need to appoint, as we did, an individual who clearly -- I think it's obvious....
It is our intent to have that individual take over as chair when Mr. Heinrich's term expires in August. There will then be the opportunity to appoint a vice-chair. I don't think I'm at liberty today to tell members who that person is. I can assure the House and the member in particular that he knows the individual. Most members of this House who have been here for some years know the individual, and I think all members will be pleased and in fact delighted by the appointment to the position that we will create when we pass this amendment.
C. Serwa: It's always a pleasure to hear what I suspect may be the name of an individual who formerly practised law in Kelowna as a potential member. I may be wrong in my guesstimate, but I'll look forward to that announcement.
The position of the vice-chair. Again, I think the Attorney General understands that this is unusual. I have listened to his explanations for the transitional period, but it is still very unusual to appoint a vice-chair and to ensure that the remuneration of the vice-chair's position is equivalent to that of the chair's. In the normal order of things, whether it's in a corporate bureaucracy or a government bureaucracy, we have an established and necessary pecking order, if you wish -- a necessary order of responsibility. In this particular case, rather than a transition process.... It seems difficult to accept the normal structure of a vice-chair on that basis. I'm certain that the next vice-chair will fall into the normal, established structure. This is an unusual occurrence. Will it occur with the next vice-chair, or will it not? Will there be a separation of the monetary return and the responsibility?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. Let's remember that the Expropriation Compensation Board is at least quasi-judicial. We have the situation where the head is called the chair; I hope it's not called the chairman. Nonetheless, it's like on the Supreme Court. All the Supreme Court justices get paid the same amount. What we'll have here is that instead of having one full-time person at the Expropriation Compensation Board, we'll have two -- two judges, as it were. They'll be treated equally, although one will have the title chair and one will have the title vice-chair. I don't see it as an issue.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
C. Serwa: I guess I have a greater opportunity under section 9 to indicate that in my understanding of the Expropriation Act.... Who is in charge, then? How will the decisions be made if two individuals have the same power? It appears to me that the authority given to the vice-chair clearly undercuts the authority of the chair in this case. Would the minister respond?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member wouldn't ask this question about the fact that at the moment we have 81 Supreme Court justices, and which one's judgment is going to apply. Whoever sits on the hearing, in this case, will have their judgment apply. If it's two or more, then whatever number of people who comprise the panel will make a majority decision. So we have situations where.... Well, let me just back up and explain to the member how it works at present. At present, the only way the board can operate is either by having the chair act as a single panelist, as it were, or if there's a tribunal. The chair is unable to appoint one of the other members of the expropriation board, who are not necessarily on salary but on a per diem, to hear a particular case. This would allow the chair and the vice-chair to conduct separate hearings at the same time, each on their own, without having to convene for the second hearing a tribunal of three. That's what that's about. If they were on the same hearing -- it would be an unusual hearing, no doubt, if they were hearing the same one -- they would then clearly have other members of the board with them, comprising a panel. Then the majority decision would be the decision.
C. Serwa: I understand the Attorney General's explanation, hon. Chair, but in the Supreme Court judicial system we have a number of judges, but we have one chief judge. We do have a hierarchy there. In this particular case, you clearly define a chair and a vice-chair, and if I were to accept your explanation, then perhaps you would have to say co-chair or perhaps create some other title. But the generally accepted interpretation of chair and vice-chair is that obviously the chair has predominance in authority over the vice-chair. I suppose that's what I find confusing, although I understand that you've said that the chair or the vice-chair will have equal authority to sit individually on a hearing, for example. That's the difficulty I have, perhaps with the definition of chair and vice-chair.
[6:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Each of the individuals will have the same power and authority to conduct hearings. The chair will have the administrative responsibilities for the operation of the expropriation board. So they're not co-chairs in that sense, but they're equal in the sense of being able to hear and make judgments.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
A. Warnke: It's just a matter of clarification now, because there was some initial confusion....
The Chair: Excuse me. The minister.
[ Page 2784 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but I have an amendment on this section, and it makes sense to deal with it through the amendment.
I move the amendments to section 11(c) and 11(d) standing in my name on the orders of the day.
[SECTION 11(c), by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following:
(c) in subsection (5) by striking out "The chairman, members of the board and inquiry officers" and substituting "The chair, vice chair, other members of the board, inquiry officers and a person acting under subsection (7)" and by adding "and serve in accordance with other terms and conditions" after "for their services", and
SECTION 11(d), in the proposed subsection (7) by deleting "whose appointment is otherwise terminated may, after the resignation or ceasing to hold office, at the request of the minister," and substituting "whose term on the board expires may, after the resignation or expiry of the term,".]
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The proposed section 52(7) allows a former board member to give judgment in a hearing or continue to hear a matter on which he or she was sitting while a member. These amendments clarify that the board is independent and that it is not contemplated that board members would be dismissed prior to expiry of their term. I think that's a self-evident amendment, but if it isn't, we can discuss it.
Amendment approved.
On section 11 as amended.
C. Serwa: Does the amendment 11(d) mean that the board members will not be terminated by cabinet and that they will be able to serve their full terms? Does 11(d) allow them to serve their full terms, or will they in fact be subject to termination for one reason or another?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think there are two things here. One is that there's no contemplation to terminate before end of term. The term is a fixed term, and members will be allowed to continue to the end of that term. But we wanted also to be able to extend the term so that if a hearing had been conducted during the term but the judgment was to be later, we could give authority to that. That's what the amendment accomplishes.
Section 11 as amended approved.
Sections 12 and 13 approved.
On section 14.
A. Warnke: I suppose we could actually deal with sections 14, 15, and 16, but particularly I want to deal with section 14.
I'm sure the Attorney General is aware that earlier this year there was an incident in which a court ruled that there was an inconsistency in terms of the traffic violation tickets being handed out. There was an incongruity between, essentially, the printing on one ticket handed to the violator on the one hand, and then what was submitted to the police on the other.
Actually, I gather this was not the first incident. As a matter of fact, this had occurred last year, and there was some discussion as to how to address this particular problem. Once again, we had the incident earlier in the year where, in fact, the courts did rule in one particular case. Incidentally, I believe that the case in question was in Kamloops, or around there.
When we take a look at section 14 and the changes of clarifying the provision dealing with the payment of fines on violation tickets and so forth, could the Attorney General take the opportunity to comment on the case? I suspect these sections are dealing with a particular case. Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that. In particular, I wonder if there is any attempt to use changes in the Offence Act -- any amendments -- to apply retroactively to those cases that have occurred in the past.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no to retroactivity.
The two recent cases, in fact, which prompted this were Yakubowich in Kamloops and Solomon in Surrey. If my memory is correct, there was another one in Kelowna as well. There were three. There was Walker in Kelowna as well.
We need to make the Offence Act read in a way that doesn't encourage judges to find technical reasons to let people escape paying their debt to society. We decided not to appeal the wording in the Offence Act that the judges found to be inadequate; we decided to amend the legislation instead. We have done that. We're really only dealing with section 14 at the moment. That's simply to get around the potential of judges saying that the ticket wasn't printed in the appropriate fashion, or the part of the ticket that ends up in court wasn't the right piece and all that kind of stuff. I think the public is offended when people escape penalty because of legal niceties. We're trying to write the law in a way that will -- if I'm allowed to say this -- judge-proof the law.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
A. Warnke: When I rose on Section 14, it was to deal with this question of whether it would be applied retroactively. The Attorney General has made a definitive statement here.
I just want to pursue some of the background, which certainly is more relevant to section 15. It would seem to me that sections 6(a) and (b) have covered every possible anomaly that might occur. This was a problem that was flagged by a number of people late last year and again this year. Something had to be done with it, along the lines of what the Attorney General is suggesting. I'm just wondering about the way it is worded here. I suspect it is to cover every anomaly that would occur in case some problem with this anomaly of printing up tickets occurs again. Is that the general idea?
[ Page 2785 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The best way of answering this question is to say to the member that he's right.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.
C. Serwa: Point of order. The members in this corner of the House are well aware that one who is not sitting in his own chair in this assembly must remain silent. There is clearly an abuse of that.
The Chair: The member has finally made a perfect point of order.
Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 37, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 37, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 38.
LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee in Bill 38; M. Lord in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: When this particular bill was debated in second reading, if my memory serves me right, there was certainly some unanimity on this. It's a fairly straightforward bill. Nonetheless section 1, being the only major section, does invite some response in terms of victims' rights. One point that was mentioned in second reading -- or perhaps I mentioned it -- was that this goes a long way toward promoting victims' rights, especially those who where sexually abused as minors.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
On the other hand, it is important to have some further clarification on that just to make it absolutely clear to everyone. How can we more precisely move in the direction of ensuring that some persons are not being charged unjustly or that no accusation is made whereby it's quite unfair to that individual? What is the procedure for that? What needs to be elaborated here is the procedure involved in examining such cases when an action is mentioned. We are obviously out to protect victims' rights, but at the same time I suppose we have to balance that with the rights of those who are being charged. "Charged" is the wrong word. But if there is an accusation against that person, what is the process involved, and what guarantee is there to make sure that an individual is not being accused unjustly?
[7:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill does not deal with that issue at all. What the bill does is simply ensure that individuals cannot use the time-limit provision of the Limitation Act as a defence, which was often the case. Members will recall that there was a judgment earlier this year. Justice Hall, in a particular case, ruled that the two-year limitation should not apply. But it has often been used as a defence, and sometimes successfully.
What we wanted to do with this bill was not only remove the limitation period as a possible defence but also signal loudly and clearly to British Columbians that we find sexual abuse intolerable, and we will make sure that the force of law is available to people, through their civil remedies, to seek redress at any time in their life when they feel able, emotionally or for whatever other reason, to proceed.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 38, Limitation Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Committee on Bill 44.
The House in committee on Bill 44; D. Streifel in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: I believe the Attorney General was alerted to this in my opening remarks when I spoke on the bill at second reading. Essentially one point that was raised is that section 3 was seen in some ways as a critical component to make the whole act work and a concern that the revision as described here may provide an artificial check on the powers conducted by the
[ Page 2786 ]
bureaucracy. I would appreciate very much if the Attorney General could respond to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When statute revisions have occurred before, the last one being completed in '79, the revisions were then referred to a legislative committee to theoretically have them checked to be sure they were correct and then authorized, as it were, through the legislative committee process to give authority to the actual revisions. That provision is provided here in section 3. The revision must be given to the Clerk to be referred to a select standing committee to give force and effect to the revisions.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 6, in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "Legislature" wherever it appears and substituting "Legislative Assembly".]
Amendment approved.
Section 6 as amended approved.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
A. Warnke: As I'm looking through my notes here, I believe this is a reference to injecting plain language. Perhaps I'll just leave it at that. Is that correct?
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
On section 10.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 10, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "Legislature" wherever it appears and substituting "Legislative Assembly".]
Amendment approved.
Section 10 as amended approved.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 44, Statute Revision Act, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 44, Statute Revision Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 45.
STATUTE REVISION
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 45, D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: I realize it's late and what not, but I can't resist to....
An Hon. Member: Oh, resist.
A. Warnke: Yes, I'll resist. What the heck.
"Lis pendens" was exclusively targeted here, and I'm just curious. I'm sure there's a very good reason. Actually, the substitution of "certificate of pending litigation" is certainly appropriate, and it does help clean it up. But just out of curiosity, why only this one? Perhaps I've even a mischievous question: are some other Latin terms going to be targeted in the future?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are, in fact, other Latin terms in the Land Title Act which have passed into English and become generally accepted but are still obscure to those of us with limited vocabulary -- such as "caveat." We are at the present time looking for plainer words to replace words such as that. We haven't found one yet.
Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
A. Warnke: I have a comment with regard to the rationale for omitting an oath. I think there is some mention about that. Perhaps the Attorney General could make a quick comment. What was it replacing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 14 provides that the paper that defines the oath will come out of the legislation and be re-enacted by regulation.... I should back up here. I listen to myself talk, and I can't understand what I just said, so how can anybody else? What we're trying to do with legislation generally is to remove from statutes all references to forms and documents that more properly should be in the regulation, so that every time you want to modernize it or change it, you don't have to come back to the Legisla-
[ Page 2787 ]
ture. That's what this does in respect of oaths under the Land Surveyors Act.
K. Jones: I want to inquire with regard to the makeup of the board. I understand that the surveyor general is a member of that board, which seems to be a rather conflicting situation.
[7:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not really in order. The amendment doesn't deal with that question. We're simply talking about the form of the oath. If the member has that question, I can't answer it, because it's not in order -- that's one reason. I also can't answer because I don't know. If the member wants to write me a letter, I'll reply to him in writing and tell him the answer.
Sections 14 to 29 inclusive approved.
Schedules 1 and 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 45, Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 58.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992
The House in committee on Bill 58; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: Just a quick question here, an elaboration. Considering that the sentencing remission is a sensitive area with the public these days, I think it would be beneficial if the Attorney General could elaborate as to what constitutes civil contempt so as to make clear the argument for eligibility for shorter sentences. There seems to be some ambiguity as to what that's about. In second reading of Bill 58 the Attorney General did make some comments on that, and actually I quite agree.
There seems to be some sort of an anomaly between someone being convicted for civil contempt, on the one hand, and yet not being eligible for remission, on the other. I would appreciate it if the Attorney General could comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The history of this is that incarceration for civil contempt has been relatively rare. It appears to be something that may unfortunately become more common as breach of injunctions and other protest and blockade issues take place.
The anomaly in the legislation has been that if you are sentenced to jail for criminal contempt, you can in fact earn remission. You can get out sooner than your nominal sentence. But if you go to jail for civil contempt you've got to stay there the full length of the sentence that the judge imposes, which is really an anomaly. We want to ensure that all prisoners are treated equally.
C. Serwa: I had expressed some concern in second reading with this portion of the statutes amendments. The minister mentioned criminal contempt and civil contempt. How are those charges handled at the present time with respect to sentences generally by the courts? While it's a noble effort to parallel the type of structure to shorten the term, it's my assessment that civil contempt charges have had very lenient, if any, sentences imposed on them.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it's a pretty rare occurrence to have a sentence on civil contempt. Most often there's a suspended sentence or a fine. When it occurs, generally the courts do not impose long sentences. I think it's true in general about contempt: whether it's civil or criminal, the courts are not inclined to send you away forever for that kind of infraction.
I'm not sure this is the time to get into a long philosophical discussion about the purpose of sentence and the appropriateness of jails. But the member the other day in second reading was suggesting his concern about the seriousness of civil contempt and wishing that there would be an appropriate penalty for this. If I heard him correctly, he was concerned that the persons sentenced for civil contempt may not serve long enough to suit the member's feelings on the issue. This amendment simply doesn't accomplish anything more than making the system equal in respect of all sentences. Persons jailed for civil contempt are eligible for the same earned remission as anyone else, and that's only fair. The member's question really has to be dealt with by way of the length of the original sentence, not by the correctional aspect of it, which this is.
C. Serwa: The reason for my concern with civil contempt is probably indicated by the number of issues where generally the public feels very well informed. They have certain rights and strong feelings on an issue. That unfortunately appears to be escalating. I used the words "leading to a form of anarchy," and I have a great deal of concern. Quite a number of years ago there was a situation where a group of strikers in Kapuskasing, Ontario, I think, were armed, and they killed a policeman. At that time there were not even criminal charges. A few days ago in Eastern Canada, at another strike situation, there was a substantial amount of destruction of company property. It seems that in cases where a large group of individuals is concerned, perhaps my concern is more related to the action of the court.
But in the case of civil contempt, if there is a court injunction and it's broken, I appreciate the necessity to parallel it. I suppose it's a philosophical concern of
[ Page 2788 ]
where we're going with that case, rather than the specific section. That's the point I'm trying to make -- not the lack of the parallel attention.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: This particular section establishes a check on the decisions made by a disciplinary panel. However, there's no indication as to who will make up the disciplinary panel -- internal or external individuals, or political or citizen, and so forth. As far as that goes, the intent of this amendment is good, but the amendment does not indicate any information about the review process. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General could elaborate on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment is to allow, by statute, the authority to review a decision of the panels. The panels have already been in place. This simply, in a sense, corrects a failure of the law to provide statutory authority to review those panel decisions.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
A. Warnke: Section 4 validates the two sets of regulations. I would like to ask if amendments are to be made to this regulation, since it was introduced in 1977? When will the amendments, if any, be introduced?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. What this section does is validate the regulations that have been in place. It might have been argued that the regulations, since those two dates, have not had force of law. We want to make sure they have had force of law, and we are doing these amendments to accomplish that. The member asks when they will be introduced. I'm not sure I follow that.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: Regarding the Escheat Act, there are a number of questions I'd like to raise with the Attorney General. Who has the right of ownership of a revived corporation after two years? Is it the Crown that sells the property, or can the revived corporation fight the Crown to have their property returned? Does this become a matter between the current owner and the revived owner? We'd like to see some of these questions clarified.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only thing this bill does is cut the work of cabinet in half. I'm being facetious when I say that. Every week in cabinet the executive council is required to approve escheats, as we call them. This permits the Supreme Court to make that order; it's as simple as that. It doesn't deal with the questions that the member is starting to raise.
Sections 5 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
A. Warnke: I have just a quick question on section 12. Prior to the amendment, there was no stipulation that a fee be charged. Therefore the amendment does not include a schedule, which might indicate the fee to be paid. Also, what we're looking for is how much this will cost.
[7:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The process for determining the fee is that cabinet will set the fee on the recommendation of the Minister of Environment. The principle is that it's to recover costs. There are costs associated with this process, and it's our view that we should be able to recover those costs.
Sections 12 and 13 approved.
On section 13.1.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[Section 13.1, by adding the following section:
13.1 Section 172 is amended by adding the following subsection:
(7) The registrar may establish, keep and maintain the register, books and indices required for the purpose of this Act by any means, whether chemical, electronic, mechanical or otherwise.]
Section 13.1 approved.
On section 14.
A. Warnke: We're dealing with licences here, where the issuing of a licence is prohibited as amended, I believe, in a later section by adding the provision that licences shall not be renewed or transferred if a fine has not been paid. The licence that this pertains to is a business liquor licence. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could make a comment on licences not being renewed if fines have not been paid. There's some concern here, as we discussed, I think, the other day. When applied to a business, fines are sometimes even seen as just part of business expenses, since licences are sometimes suspended and so forth. I just want a comment from the Attorney General with regard to the non-renewal of licences.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment simply says that if an establishment has been fined and it has not paid its fine, they will not have their licence renewed until that fine is paid; nor will they be allowed to transfer the licence until that fine is paid. It's simply an enforcement mechanism.
K. Jones: Does this also mean that if there is an appeal of the suspension, that appeal process can delay
[ Page 2789 ]
the imposition of this? You're saying that if there is a suspension and they don't pay their fine, that also impacts on the.... Do they get an exemption when they appeal the suspension and then put off the fine, or does the fine get imposed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try this. If I get it wrong, somebody will tell me. If an establishment has a fine and then, let's say, their renewal date comes up shortly thereafter but they have appealed, everything is held in abeyance until the appeal process is complete. If they're successful in the appeal, then there's no problem; if they're unsuccessful, then they have to pay the fine. If they don't pay the fine, then the licence won't be renewed at that point.
K. Jones: We're very concerned about the practices of some licence-holders in the past, whereby they have had a suspension imposed upon them and they have continued to use the appeal process to put it off until a convenient time. In other words, they've taken it out of a peak time such as the summer months, for instance, and appealed it ultimately to the point where they ended up having it at Christmastime, when there was absolutely no customer demand. They were able to take advantage of this opportunity at no loss to their business.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is an issue the member raised during estimates. It's a concern, and unquestionably what the member described happens. The solution for us is to find a way to speed up the appeals. I understand the point being made.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
A. Warnke: Under sections 20(1) and (2), when the licence may be cancelled and so forth, it strengthens the authority of the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch. However, the manager should proceed through all avenues available to the business owner prior to revoking or suspending that licence, or, for that matter, imposing the fine.
I certainly concur with the remarks of the Attorney General when we were discussing section 14. But as we are talking about section 15, it would also be a good idea for him to elaborate on that to ensure that this is not overly heavy-handed and that the procedure is there. I suppose there must be the reassurance to the public as well that all avenues would still be available for businesses or clients who find themselves suspended and that they will have some sort of recourse.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Either it's getting late or I'm thick. I didn't understand or I didn't hear the question -- one or the other. There's no implication by that that it wasn't a perfectly well-framed question that was clear to every other member of the House. It was just me who didn't get it.
What we've done in this section is added a couple of other components to the penalty section, in effect. Previously all that could be done was to impose conditions on a licence or, in effect, suspend it. We now have an opportunity to issue a warning, and we also have an opportunity to impose fines. The problem before was that you couldn't really have an effective enforcement mechanism without closing down the establishment and jeopardizing people's jobs and the owner's income. Now we are able to impose an appropriate penalty rather than choosing between an ineffective one or total closure, which is often too much of a penalty. This gives us more flexibility, and we think it will give the branch more ability to enforce the regulations that are in place.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the answers given by the Attorney General. We'll still move section by section while we're doing it. In my remarks the other day, I expressed a view that I obtained that perhaps this was another way of raising revenue. I think I mentioned the other day that I don't necessarily share that view. I'm sure this isn't, but there is the view that the way the fine is being imposed may be seen cynically as a revenue-raiser. I would not mind at all if the Attorney General would want to make a quick comment on that.
I do have some other considerations about the fines here. I'll just put them in the form of simple questions. Will the opportunity to appeal a fine clog up the appeal procedure? Is that one problem that you see? Also, the parameters of the fine, large or small, are not very clear. What are the parameters? I suppose that's the best way to express it. What is the range of the fines involved? Is that being covered here? It's not precise in these sections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is actually still discussing the previous section, but we'll let that pass. Section 16 permits an appeal if a fine is levied. The industry wants the fines, because the fines are better, from their perspective, than closures. Closures are always going to be appealed. Fines will probably be appealed less often. That remains to be seen, but that's a safe prediction.
On the revenue question, this is not a revenue matter at all. In fact, I hope no revenue comes to the Crown as a result of this legislation, because I expect that everybody will live within the rules. There will be no need to fine anybody.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
K. Jones: I'm concerned about the wording in section 17(2), which states: "No person shall drive...exercise control over the operation of a motor vehicle, whether or not it is in motion." Subsection (3)(c)(i) says: "...does not apply in any case where the motor vehicle is a motor home and the liquor is kept in a cabinet away from the driver's area." I'm particularly concerned
[ Page 2790 ]
about the situation where you have a motor home, and the vehicle is parked in a safe, proper location, off the road or even on the side of the road. The people there are not going to be permitted to have a drink in their motor vehicle. Do you have some way that we could modify this to make that possible?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We think we've covered that situation. I'll just leave the wording on the table for a second and describe what I think the member is talking about. If individuals are in their motor home having a drink and no one is behind the wheel driving, obviously.... I will look at the words in subsection (2): "...or otherwise exercise control over the operation of a motor vehicle, whether or not it is in motion." If people are in the motor home sitting around the table, or have the captain's chairs reversed and are using those to sit in to have a social drink, that wouldn't be exercising control over the motor vehicle, as we believe this would be interpreted.
We're very careful in this legislation. Originally the legislation said that you couldn't consume alcohol in a car. That didn't work legally, because you could never get proof of who was caught in the act of actually consuming. So we've gone to this regime where we will have it illegal to have an opened bottle. Then we recognized that there are going to be all kinds of situations where there are open bottles in vehicles -- you're coming back from a picnic with half a bottle of wine, or whatever. So we've designed this so that you can carry it in the trunk. But if you have a hatchback, a station wagon or a vehicle that doesn't have a separate compartment, it then has to be stored separately.
In the case of a motor home, the wording is such that if the motor home is being driven or if a person is in the driver's seat, able to drive, there will be no drinking in the motor home. That's the way the law applies. But if the motor home is parked, the keys aren't in the ignition, the captain's chair is flipped around or not occupied, then it can be treated just as if it's a home, and people can have a drink. When they stop drinking and decide to drive away, all the liquor has to be locked away in the cabinet.
[7:45]
K. Jones: That may be possible with a new motor home or maybe in one of the larger motor homes. But in a situation like mine, where I've got a camperized van with a fixed seat, and I need to turn the ignition on to get the heater to heat my unit without having to turn the propane on, I'm going to be in violation of this. I won't be able to sit there if I've got a few guests. I won't be able to have a drink in that particular situation. There are lots of people like that. I'm just using this as an example.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to make a terrible admission: no law is perfect. It would be impossible to craft legislation that would describe in precise detail every conceivable situation. But in the one you're describing, it seems to me that if you want to have a drink in your camperized van, I'd be very careful not to sit in the driver's seat with the key on so that you can be warm while you're having that drink. You need to sit in another part of the van. However, having said that, I'm sure that the police are going to use discretion when they interpret this legislation. As the member knows, it's designed primarily to deal with situations like the one in Penticton last B.C. Day weekend, the one at the White Rock Sea Festival, and ones in other communities also. They were the result of....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, that's right. We'll have a law that will allow the police to deal with what we think is the flagrant violation of common sense and the law in this province. We're just making sure that we're giving the police all the tools they need to deal with the kind of incidents we had in those communities.
This law is not designed to harass individuals who are in a situation you described, but I think people would be wise -- I need to say this -- not to have a drink sitting behind the wheel in a car or a van that has the ignition turned on. It's just not wise. It may be that you'll have to find some other way of dealing with your thirst.
V. Anderson: I must admit that I'm very much in favour of the legislation, but I'm also hoping that there will be a fair bit of publicity to go with this particular section. I think it would be unfortunate if people -- young people and old people alike -- are caught in this situation without being advised well ahead of time. Because of all that we have grown accustomed to, I think that unless they are well advised it makes them angry at the law. They will then attempt to break it more, so I would just hope there would be good publicity to go with this.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree with the member's comments about the need to publicize it so that people are well aware of it. The problem we have, the communications experts will tell you, is that it takes at least a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar campaign to get a point across, because you have to use television and whatever else. I'm not sure we have the resources in this province to spend that kind of money on this issue or many others that are important.
However, I will say to the member that we did issue a press release. It got some coverage in the news media when we announced it. We will, on proclamation, try to make public as widely as we can the fact that this will be the new law.
V. Anderson: I'd like to suggest there may be some channels already available that you could use -- like educating through the schools and a variety of areas where a lot of the people who are affected could get this message fairly quickly. It would be a good double message for them to have -- using channels that we already have.
K. Jones: I'd like to just revisit this motor home situation. I think this act is going to be discriminatory to the people who have motor homes, particularly those
[ Page 2791 ]
who may not have a brand-new motor home or who don't have the space. The smaller units, fixed units, maybe even older units or current units are without a swivel seat. You're discriminating against those people versus the others. I think you could bring in wording that would actually suit the situation. I fully agree with what we're trying to do, but right now the way this is worded is discriminating against a certain group of people who happen to be legitimately using their motor homes. They would unknowingly be breaking the law if it's down this way. They would not know that they were breaking the law. They would be practising what they have done in the past. I think you must take this back and make an amendment to it -- not put it through the way it is. You can't bring in an act that is going to discriminate to this extent against a segment of our population for no just reason.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I'm determined to have this enacted. It's a recommendation of the Snowdnn report. It's a strong desire of the....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The wording may be problematic. Any wording we obtain in this kind of issue is going to problematic. I don't want us to have wording that creates the kind of exemption that the member talks about and then have case after case thrown out of court as a result of not having effective legislation. That's what would happen if we try to equivocate on the issue of sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with the ignition on and drinking. If that discriminates against a certain class of people who have your situation, then my answer is that I'm sorry, but I don't know of a legislative remedy for that problem. If we can come up with one, and if the member's caucus wants to work on it and provide suggestions to us for wording that works, then I'll certainly be happy to look at it.
Section 17 approved.
On section 18.
A. Warnke: Section 18 is an interesting amendment, as I see it. I want some clarification from the Attorney General on this one. It's interesting, in that the amendment is made to a bill introduced by the Minister of Government Services on June 5 of this year. How can an amendment be made to a bill that is not a statute? Why not just have an amendment to Bill 54? I'd appreciate it if the Attorney General could clarify that for me.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was doing what ministers often do when they're being advised: listening to two people at the same time and hearing neither. The member for Peace River South will remember what that's like.
Section 22 of this bill brings in pensions for masters, which was part of an agreement when the masters' program was....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's consequential.
A. Warnke: On a point of order, actually we're addressing section 18, hon. Chair.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: But section 18 is here as a result of 22. If we're going to do what's accomplished in section 22, which we'll get to in a few minutes, we need the Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act to add the Supreme Court to that act. If you're going to ask me why, I'm not going to be able to tell you.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the remarks. Looking at it from that perspective, I can now understand where the Attorney General is coming from on that. That's fine.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
A. Warnke: It's just a very minor thing, but I am curious. How come 82 is being substituted for 81?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we've done is allow the federal Justice minister to appoint another Supreme Court justice in British Columbia. The reason for that is that cabinet earlier appointed Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal to head the review into policing issues in B.C., and he will not be available to the bench for about a year and a half. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asked, and we agreed, to raise the complement to 82, so that he would not lose any bodies in the court.
A. Warnke: To clarify, this particular section, then, is to address a special situation. It is not really a forerunner of just gradually expanding the number of appointments?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it isn't, though I must say there are always requests for additional numbers, and we've resisted those. I think the court could make an argument that they could use more than this, and they would have liked to have had more than this, but we didn't have the fiscal resources to provide it. But I did think it was important to add one if we were taking one away.
Sections 19 and 20 approved.
On section 21.
A. Warnke: To be fair, I believe it was one of the members from the third party who raised the question the other day that I'd still like to raise today on section 21. I believe the question was posed to the Attorney General in second reading. The Attorney General did address it. It is to provide for the term of office to end at age 70. I believe the Attorney General suggested that this is an arbitrary figure. I think this does deserve just a little bit, because I'm sure the Attorney General appreciates that there are a number of people in society
[ Page 2792 ]
who may take a different view of this. It's a contentious issue. It's a delightful contentious issue, in that it does reflect as well that the population is aging; we are living healthier and longer and so forth. But it does raise the question: why not at the age of 75? I pick 75 for another reason: we have a number of Senators in our Parliament of Canada who are retired at a compulsory age of 75. Why not that age as opposed to 70?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We could spend the rest of the evening and more talking about arbitrary age. These are arbitrary choices. I think society is evolving toward a situation where it may eventually do away with fixed retirement ages. I know that's the desire of many people, but there are considerable problems in doing that. As a result, various courts have been reluctant to do away with a fixed age. I don't think it's useful tonight to have a philosophical discussion about the principle. In this case, we've simply mirrored the Provincial Court rules which have been in place and which are not now being amended.
[8:00]
A. Warnke: Actually, I would agree with the Attorney General. It does not really suit our purposes here to have this debate, but I think it is important nonetheless to raise it, simply because of -- as the member pointed out the other day -- how individuals are actually quite with it and not senile and all the rest of it at age 75. They can make a tremendous contribution at age 75 and -- who knows? -- in a few years, much beyond that. I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks.
K. Jones: This question here really brings into focus whether we can discriminate on the basis of age. In bills that we've passed in the last few days, we had actual discrimination factors, and one of those mentioned was age. Here you're establishing discrimination on the basis of age. I think that this is in violation of the Canada Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it would probably not go through a test of law, anyway. I was wondering why we should continue with this. I would urge you to remove that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is that if we had not put an age in here, the Provincial Court judges would have said: "Why us and not the masters?" Then we would have had to deal with opening the Provincial Court judges' legislation. Under the Charter, decisions appear to support mandatory retirement. That's been the nature of decisions on that issue. Under human rights legislation, whether or not this would be reviewable by a human rights panel.... Perhaps it could be raised there. That would have to come from one of the people directly concerned. I've heard no concern from the 13 masters who are employed.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, isn't it?
An Hon. Member: Are you saying that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I just heard somebody say that once.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.
On section 27.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious about the retroactivity dates. In sections 3 and 4 there seems to be retroactivity of about 15 years. I'm assuming there's some logical reason for that, and I hope the Attorney can enlighten me and other readers of the bill.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We dealt with that earlier in the section referred to here. The issue is regulations under the Corrections Act that have been in place since those two dates. There's now some question as to whether the regulations enacted in those years are actually legal, because they haven't had statutory authority. So we're providing, by retroactive fixing, the legal authority for those regulations.
Section 27 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 58, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, hon. Speaker, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 58, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I could, I'll just take a minute to help members about the rest of the evening's business. I haven't been out of here since 2:30, and I would like to leave for just a few minutes.
What we've planned is to go to Bills 53, 48 and 28, the municipal affairs bills; then to Bill 68, the GAIN amendment act; and then to 43. Bill 43 will be the last bill we do this evening, and I'll get back for that.
With that, hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 53.
[ Page 2793 ]
VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 53; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Cowie: I would recommend that all sections pass. This is a good bill. It's a housekeeping bill. But I want it noted that I will not be voting on any section where it could even possibly be conceived that I may possibly have a conflict of interest. I'll be leaving the room.
Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 53, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 48.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT
ACT (No. 2), 1992
The House in committee on Bill 48; M. Farnworth in the chair.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 48, Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call committee on Bill 28.
MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 28; M. Farnworth in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 28, Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I call second reading of Bill 68.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME
FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 68, the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992, which proposes certain amendments to the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act and minor consequential amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.
This bill proposes an amendment to section 1 of the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act. Section 1 is the interpretation section. Under this section, the terms "income assistance" and "social services" are defined. Bill 68 will broaden the definition of income assistance by including education, training and employment programs, day care and homemaker services.
Currently these programs and services are defined as social services. The outcome of several judicial reviews in recent years has held the view that any benefit which is fundamentally financial in nature should be defined as a reform of income assistance. The social services to be defined as income assistance are those in which money is being paid to, or on behalf of, a client, and therefore may be placed into the general category of income assistance.
This will make the law consistent with judicial opinion, and provide more open access to the tribunal process for persons receiving income assistance. In placing these programs and services into the income assistance category, this amendment will remove them from social services category. This change will allow disputes over these services to be appealed to a tribunal. Clients who feel unjustly dealt with are currently barred from a formal appeal process and are only able to pursue the matter through a more limited administrative review.
[8:15]
The second amendment adds a new section which establishes an income assistance advisory council. Changing the income support system in British Columbia to meet the needs of the next decade will require a comprehensive strategy that effectively involves a wider community in planning and decision-making. The keys to successful reform will be education, consultation and participation. The Income Assistance
[ Page 2794 ]
Advisory Council will play an important role in this endeavour. In addition to establishing a council of 12 to 15 members, this section makes provisions for appointments for representation of regional agencies and income assistance clients, and for remuneration of members.
The third series of amendments is addressed to part 2 of the GAIN Act. Three changes are effected by these amendments. First, the automatic subrogation of maintenance rights by the Crown, and the mandatory requirement that income assistance recipients cooperate with the Crown in its conduct of maintenance action as a condition of receiving income assistance is removed. Income assistance recipients will now be given a choice in the conduct of maintenance actions.
Second, the amendments clarify the Crown's authority where in the course of the provision of maintenance services by the family maintenance program, the client ceases receiving assistance. At the client's request, the family maintenance program will continue to provide services. The family maintenance program provides information, support and legal assistance in the form of legal counsel to clients, most of whom are single parents.
Third, these amendments will effect the repeal of the unproclaimed sections 19.6 and 19.7. As a consequence of the repeal of these sections, the reference to Crown reimbursement in section 19.2(1) is deleted. Section 19.6 requires a debtor spouse who has defaulted in making maintenance payments to an income assistance recipient to make all future payments to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. The repeal of sections 19.6 and 19.7 will remove provisions which, had they been proclaimed, would have shifted the debt from the spouse required to pay the maintenance to the spouse entitled to receive it. Section 19.7 describes the method of determining the amount, if any, owed by the recipient to the Crown. This requirement of reimbursement would have remained in effect even after the recipient ceased to receive income assistance, until the Crown was reimbursed in full.
The net effect of sections 19.6 and 19.7, if they had been proclaimed, would have been to create a debt owed by an income assistance recipient to the Crown. This debt would have arisen from a payment default over which the income assistance recipient had no control. This would have inappropriately shifted the financial responsibility by characterizing the recipient as the debtor, when in fact the maintenance defaulter is the true debtor.
V. Anderson: I wish to commend the minister for the changes that have been brought forward in the bill. We would again reflect, of course, that the haste with which these come forward is always a concern. Being tabled yesterday and coming forward today is a concern, and we reflect that. However, we would also reflect and appreciate the briefing that we were able to have today from the minister's staff. That helped us to understand and appreciate some of the details that we might not have clearly understood before.
The thrust of this bill is certainly to take off some of the pressure from those receiving assistance through the GAIN undertakings. It is not only to take off some of the financial pressure but also, we trust, to make it easier for them to deal with the ministry in these programs.
The items that they have now included, which can go to tribunal, are very important and move into a more open process than was previously available. Many of these were concerns that people had in the past, but they were not able to appeal. This will be helpful, as I understand that the ministry is moving forward not only to the limited amendments in this act but to review parts of other acts as well -- in fact, probably in due course to revise the whole social assistance program. We appreciate the opening up of these appeal processes, so that others may take advantage of them.
With regard to the Income Assistance Advisory Council, probably what this does is raise the status of this ministry to an equal status with the other ministries which have had advisory councils for some time. This was kind of an orphan ministry which didn't have that classy council that it could rely on. While it has some possibility of improving communication with the community at large, which certainly has been necessary, it also has the possibility of narrowing the vision of those people who bring the communication to the council. So the proof of that will be in the future as it develops.
We noticed in the press release regarding this council that they listed at least 17 different parts of the community which need to be represented in the 15 members. I would understand that, of course, that listing would not be complete or full. They will have difficulty relating to all the types of representation they wish to have. I would urge the minister, in developing the council, to also indicate to the community at large what other methods of communication will be open.
People have felt in the past that they tried to communicate with this ministry, but they were not heard and often not responded to. I'm not necessarily speaking of the last few months, but over the last number of years. Of course, with the new minister coming in, it does take time for those communication channels to open. There is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of suspicion that needs to be dealt with as these new programs come on stream. That council will be watched very closely by the community to see how representative it is and how open the council members themselves are to receiving representations or information, not only from the constituencies or groups that they might represent but particularly from the constituency and groups which will not, by the very nature of the limitation of the number on the council, have direct representation on the council itself. That's a concern that we have. We will have to look to the future to see how it operates, and judge it in that regard.
We would also commend the changes that have been taken in this act with regard to the family maintenance program. They are also a move in the right direction, because they are giving freedom and choice. It's the freedom and choice that's available that is most important. One of the concerns we would have in this regard as well is communication. One of the difficulties, because of the current climate in which many people who deal with the ministry have found themselves, is to
[ Page 2795 ]
be able to communicate the new programs in a way that they can see the strength of them and to use them positively.
The programs give them options and choices, but one of the dangers will be that they will not fully understand the positive nature of the options and choices that are available to them. The ministry, I trust, will make these options available in some clear form so that people can understand them. We even discussed with the ministry staff today that no doubt there would be a fill-out form where they would say yes, we would like option A, option B or option C. That's such a simple thing on the top of that form: having the various options clearly listed. Not in another pamphlet, but there with the reply form as well. It's that very important simple communication that makes the program effective. Without that communication the ongoing misunderstanding may continue to take place.
One of the misunderstandings, for instance, out there for some time is that.... the areas that have been repealed by this act have been properly repealed, because contrary to public opinion, they had not been brought into effect. The very fact that they were in the act was regarded by many as a sledgehammer over their heads, as a force or a weight that could always be brought against them if they didn't behave properly. I'm using some of the feelings and terms that the people out there have felt as they have tried to deal with this ministry under the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves when they come to the ministry in the first place.
This communication is very important. These changes will help to alleviate them; they will not solve all of them. But they are at least a move in the right direction. We affirm the ministry, and we'll support them in this undertaking.
J. Weisgerber: Given the fact that the bill was only tabled yesterday and the fact that our critic is unavoidably away today, we'll forgo any comment on the bill until we get to committee stage. We'll take the opportunity then to debate the various sections of the bill.
The Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the opposition critic for his kind remarks and take the opportunity to elaborate slightly on a couple of points. I couldn't agree more with you that our task will be one of communication. I have to emphasize that that is a very strong priority of mine personally. With such a large decentralized ministry, it will be crucial in our ability to serve the community and to serve families in this province, as well as to support the people who work for this ministry in doing their jobs.
The member appropriately identified the areas of the bill by using words like "the provision of choice" and "opening up the system." Those are exactly the goals that are driving the policy development in this ministry. Recognizing that this ministry provides support for people during very difficult times in their lives, we want to ensure that we aren't part of making those times more difficult, but that we are instead expediting their recovery to healthy involvement in and with the community.
We are looking for opportunities with the changes that we're bringing about here, as well as the provision of an advisory council to ensure that the community is involved in that process. It will be a very big task. Quite frankly, I think that we're up to it and that we've made an excellent start in both opening up the system and providing more choice and support. We'll now have an opportunity to be more inclusive as we move this major piece of legislation into the nineties.
Finally, I want to comment to the third party that we look forward to the opportunity of dealing with any concerns that they may have. I note that there was representation from the third party present during the briefing. That information has been forwarded to the critic, I'm sure. With that, I'll end my comments.
I move second reading of Bill 68.
Motion approved.
Bill 68, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[8:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee of Bill 43.
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY
AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 43; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I collect my papers, not my thoughts, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 1 as amended approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: Just a very quick comment here. I hope I've got the right bill. This concerns confidentiality. The confidentiality inclusions are broad and vague, and it is unclear as to how and what information may not be disclosed? Further, the amendment indicates the information and records shall not be disclosed unless disclosure is necessary in the administration of the act and is required in a court proceeding. The act does not
[ Page 2796 ]
define what conditions are necessary. Therefore there's a view that this broad and vague definition could be subject to some form of abuse. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could just comment on that section.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Helen Pedneault, who's the director of the branch, took us at our word that we would have time for me to go and have a bite. I quickly decided I didn't have time, but she did. She's gone. So I'm going to try and do this the best I can until she comes back. Members will understand that I'm not as thoroughly familiar with this as she is.
Section 3 seems to simply broaden the requirement of confidentiality, which we think should meet the concerns that have been expressed recently by people in this industry.
I'm not sure what concern is being expressed. I'm not clear what the member's question is. Maybe he was doing what some of us often do here, which is buying time to collect our thoughts. So while I've bought the member some time by this answer, he may wish to tell me if I haven't answered his question. We've simply ensured that there is greater confidentiality.
A. Warnke: No, I was just making the comment. Actually, it's not so much a question as a response. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll just try to summarize it very quickly. The confidentiality inclusions have been described as broad and vague. That has been one problem. It's just a comment on that. It's not really clear as to how or what information may or may not be disclosed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll read my notes and see if this helps. If it doesn't, I'll try and make something up. It's important to ensure confidentiality as appropriate but also to permit disclosure in some circumstances. The current provision does not permit disclosure of any information except where necessary in the administration of the act or in court proceedings. This has proven to be overly restrictive in many situations, including, for example, advising whether or not a particular business is licensed.
A. Warnke: That would be quite all right. I'll buy just a few more seconds so that the person is in place. I'll rephrase my question.
The Chair: You are under surveillance.
A. Warnke: Yes, let us hope the whole nation is watching this.
Essentially, this particular section, section 3, is looking at repealing section 24 and substituting the following.... I will not go through the following. It has to do with confidentiality. It is being repealed and a variation substituted.. Essentially, the confidentiality inclusions that are put forward in this section may be seen as broad and vague, as I mentioned before. It's broad and vague in the context that it is not altogether clear as to how or what information may or may not be disclosed and so forth. As I mentioned earlier, the amendment further indicates that the information or the records shall not be disclosed unless "the disclosure is necessary in the administration of this Act." Perhaps this is the key: the act does not define under what conditions it is so-called necessary. If we focus on 24(a), it's not clear that this bill defines under what conditions it may be deemed necessary. I'm just commenting on the broad and vague definition here. There was certainly a concern expressed to me that this could be subject to some form of abuse. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think it's clear that the test is that the disclosure is necessary to achieve the mandate of the act, which is the regulation of the security industry. If the information was for some other purpose, it couldn't be released. For example, the ministry would not release the list of names to somebody who was looking for a list of names of people involved in that particular industry. That would not be something that would be released. The obvious purpose for that is that if an investigator is working undercover, you're not going to release that information -- at least you wouldn't expect that you should.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: Again, this is similar, insofar as there is a mention of records or things -- the small but significant clause "record or thing" -- and it indicates what may be seized. I wonder how "things" are defined. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I asked the question differently: what are things? Examples are handcuffs, badges, mace, truncheons, and other things of that order.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 43, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave now.
Leave granted.
Bill 43, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 2797 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, before moving adjournment, I'd like to tell members what we're doing tomorrow, since I haven't had an opportunity today to do that properly. After members' statements we will start with committee stage of the GAIN legislation, which we did second reading of tonight. We will then do committee on PPSA. That sounds like Personal Property Security...
F. Gingell: ...Amendment Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Thank you, hon. critic. I don't have the number....
F. Gingell: It's 57.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Thank you. I know where to turn for help now.
Thirdly, we will do second reading of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, which was introduced earlier this week. That may enable us to finish early tomorrow. It would be my intention to have the House adjourn by 12:30 tomorrow in any event. With that, hon. Speaker, if there's no other business, I move the House do now adjourn.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada