CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mrs. Jordan — 3141

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Curtis — 3142

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3144

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3145

On section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3146

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3147

On a point of order.

Mr. Phillips — 3149

On the amendment to section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3150

Division on amendment to section 3 — 3151

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Smith — 3151

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3151

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3153

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 3153

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. McClelland — 3160

On section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 3161

Amendment to section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 3162

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3162

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3163

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, committee stage on bills.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 3.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned debate for dinner I was trying to point out to the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) why there is such concern regarding his intentions in bringing in this bill, the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. Many believe in the principle of the bill, but are deeply concerned about what his real intent is, particularly as it is defined in section 3, which we are debating.

I pointed out to him how his own actions since being in office and his actions in this debate are only enhancing the concerns which he tries to deny. I reviewed the problems that there have been with the board of directors of ICBC when the Premier tried to suggest that the board of the new savings and trust corporation would be, in fact, free of political influence and that it would have the power to define its own goals, be precise in its actions and not be subject in any way to the government. Those are the same principles that he defined for the board of ICBC, and it is now common knowledge that ICBC virtually cannot function more than two or three days without reporting to the Premier and to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and it has now been admitted in public that the rates were set on a political basis. That's the Premier's corporation and if he wants to do it at the expense of the public of British Columbia, it is a point that he must answer for. But the concern is that the credit unions do not wish to be subjected to this type of control and erosion of their independence and thus their strength. We have seen this in other actions of this government, particularly this afternoon and last evening in the debate. Surely those actions of the Premier in giving himself personal advantage in this Legislature and then denying Members the same right must be just one more log in the cord of concern that surrounds his intention in the ultimate in this bill.

I recall one time in a debate in this House involving the Pacific Northern Fish Co — operative when this Member and other Members pleaded for the right of the native people to lease to purchase their own fishing boats. This very same Minister who now is trying to cover up some of his actions told the Member for North Okanagan that they did not understand co -operatives and they did not understand co-operatism and, in fact, those belonging to the co-operative wished to pool their money, they did not wish to own their own boats, it was not in the spirit of co-operatives, and on and on. But in the next session he brought in an amendment which, in fact, gave those people, and rightly so, the right to lease to purchase their own boats. I cite this, Mr. Chairman, as just another example of whether either this Premier really doesn't know what he's doing when he brings in his various forms of legislation, or, in fact, his margin of truth and his yardage of truth in these areas is somewhat long and he feels that he can hoodwink the public and feels that he can involve them in his design rather than the design of their own people.

The credit union movement in British Columbia is strong today because it is independent and because it has had its objective and its strength rooted at the local level. It is run by the local people on a co-operative basis and they are the ones who make the decisions. That's why it is strong. It has kept within the law and it has met with various governments to request various changes of legislation which would add to its ability to serve the public and its members and its strength in the province. But will that independence be there in light of the fact that the Premier will not make clear a commitment that he has no intention of controlling the credit unions he has no intention of reaching out to their clientele? There are many ways to destroy an association. You don't always have to destroy its physical plant. In business you can just take the customers and establish your own business on the basis of those customers.

Mr. Chairman, there is much more to debate in this section and there is much more to debate in this bill, but for the moment I would just pose the question to the Minister of Finance and ask him what studies have been done upon the basis that he projects the ability of the moneys allotted to carry out the intention as outlined in section 3. He makes reference to the Alberta treasury branches and I would just ask him, in replying to my questions, to define where his percentages lie because in the Alberta treasury branch their portfolio on loans is made up in the commercial and industrial loans of 57.68 per cent of their portfolio; agricultural loans, 25.45 per cent; housing and home improvement loans, 3.34 per cent; personal loans, 5.91 per cent; and municipal loans, 7.62 per cent.

I would ask the Minister of Finance to please outline from the studies that he has had done, which undoubtedly he has, and which will ensure a potential

[ Page 3142 ]

beginning investment portfolio, how his projections will compare with these of the Alberta Treasury branch.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, does the Premier wish to comment at this point?

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: No, he is not listening, and that is unfortunate in view of the importance of this bill.

It seems that concern with respect to credit unions is at the heart of the debate which has taken place in second reading and now is developing in committee stage on Bill 86 to establish the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia. It is concern for their strength in the province — their strength today, their strength in the future — and any possible threats which may well develop from this bill as the result of poor draftsmanship or perhaps just not adding something which would ensure the protection which I believe a number of the Members of this House should be built in.

This, I think, is quite relevant to the comments I will be making in a moment, Mr. Chairman, for your information. I note that in Bill 82 — that is the Credit Unions Act which is now making its way through the House — we have section 18(2) which appears on page 10 of the bill:

"Subject to subsection (3), a credit union may not operate and may not locate or relocate an office except with the approval of the superintendent" — I digress, Mr. Chairman, that is the superintendent of credit unions — "and the approval of the superintendent is required for the operation, location, and relocation of each office."

Then subsection (3) goes on to say:

"Subject to subsection (1) and the regulations, where the superintendent has designated the common bond of the credit union as being

(a) based on a community or geographic area, and

(b) satisfactorily defined, he may order that his approval under subsection (2) relating to the operation, location, or relocation of an office and to the operation of each office is not required and may permit" — it is permissive, he may permit — "the credit union to operate, locate and relocate offices within the community or geographic area described in the common bond as the directors of the credit union may determine."

Then subsection (6) of the same section of this bill:

"The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe conditions upon which a credit union may be permitted to operate, locate, or relocate an office."

So it deals quite fundamentally with the physical location, the placement, of credit union offices or branches, if you will, in British Columbia, again, under the bill which is moving through this House, Bill 82.

What we seek from the Premier and Minister of Finance, I think, can be provided very easily. In examining the matter today, I cannot see how it would in any way at all impair what he and his government propose to do in setting up the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia. But at the same time, the mechanism which I am about to suggest would clear away a considerable amount of the doubt and concern which exists in the minds of credit union people in British Columbia concerning this bill. It can be done very easily. It can be done most easily.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to section (3), and I will pass it to you in a moment. It reads:

"...by adding the following after section (3), and to be numbered 3(A): notwithstanding anything in this Act, no office of the company shall be opened or maintained within a 15 — mile radius of a credit union branch without the approval of the affected credit union, which approval shall be in the form of a resolution approving of the establishment of the said office of the company, and which said resolution must be passed at a general meeting of the credit union, attended by a majority of its members."

I so move, Mr. Chairman. A simple amendment which I think the Premier would recognize as clearing away the doubt which has developed during this debate.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I point out to you that the amendment, in my opinion, is out of order simply because, on the basis of a decision this afternoon, it would alter impact of the bill. The credit union movement....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you let me finish, please?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you let me finish?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Finance has the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the point is

[ Page 3143 ]

that the credit union movement has not even picked up an option or decided to become a partner or not. If they decide not to, that would put us completely out of business. It negates the impact of the bill, and I suggest to you that it is out of order on the basis of standing orders.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): In response to the Premier's remarks, I would suggest that this amendment gives full protection to the credit unions. If the bill as presented is favourable to the credit union movement as the Premier says, then he won't have...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: ...any fear that the credit union movement will pass a resolution not allowing the savings and trust organization to put up a branch within 15 miles of them. This would mean....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I was making is that this amendment is not the same as the amendment the Premier had you rule out of order this afternoon — the one you had to search for — because this in no way will make it impossible for the Savings and Trust to operate. In fact, this will give the guarantees to the credit union movement and allow this Savings and Trust Corp. to serve the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a far different amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Hon. Premier, before I make any final decision — I've made a tentative one.... However, before I state my decision, I will consult with counsel. We've asked them to come in. They'll be in shortly.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: This afternoon the Premier said it was customary, and I think the Speaker said, to allow the mover to debate an amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, You wanted me to get stabbed. You destroyed that argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: And he wouldn't accept my premise this afternoon that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: ...that was allowing special privilege to certain Members. So if the Premier isn't going to allow....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please. I have to deal with another matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the expression that the Premier is a dictator and a liar, which I heard him say.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

I think this is contrary to standing order 40(2) which forbids offensive language against any other Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't look so serious, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw. I mean, it's all right for the Premier to call people liars in the Province of British Columbia, but I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

I just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw without any comment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I did withdraw. I mean, it's all right to call Mr. Foulkes and Mr. Bonner liars, but I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw. Will you be seated? Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did withdraw. Do you want me to get down on my hands and knees?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking on a point of order, I believe.

MR. BENNETT: The point was: I am asking for a ruling on whether these motions, as suggested by the Premier in his great defence this afternoon, allowed for people to speak to amendments when you are going to rule them out of order. Or is it only he who

[ Page 3144 ]

is allowed to speak and then he rules it out of order to disallow any other Member in this House to have the right to speak?

MR. PHILLIPS: Dictator!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is familiar with the rules, that where a point of order is....

MR. BENNETT: I am just asking for a ruling on that point.

MRS. JORDAN: It changes every day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

MR. BENNETT: I'm asking for a ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: On good days they're lenient; on bad days they're tough.

Interjections.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I wonder if you could read the amendment. I'm sorry I didn't catch it the first time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be an amendment to section 3 by adding a new section 3(a) as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no office of the company shall be opened or maintained within a 15-mile radius of a credit union branch without the approval of the affected credit union, which approval shall be in the form of a resolution approving of the establishment of the said office of the company in which said resolution must be passed at a general meeting of the credit union, attended by a majority of its members."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's reasonable.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Minister of Finance that this amendment is out of order...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...on the grounds that it is contrary to the principle of the bill as approved in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The ruling has now been made. The only alternative now is to appeal the ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you mean there is no point of order? Do you mean you don't even get a discussion on a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I am really disappointed in the Premier tonight in not accepting what was attempted to be a constructive...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: ...what was attempted to be a constructive...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CURTIS: ...and very straightforward assist.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: We've had lip service paid to the credit unions in this debate and yet a resolution such as this is not being accepted. I don't take issue with you, Mr. Chairman, but I take issue with the Premier and Minister of Finance. You are ruling it out of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: I challenge your ruling.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on Bill 86 and considering section 3, an amendment was moved by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). Upon examining

[ Page 3145 ]

the amendment, I determined that the amendment was out of order on the grounds that it was contrary to the principle of the bill. My ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained. All those who support the ruling of the Chair, say "aye."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary, if any, "no."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.

MR. BENNETT: The noes have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you positive? Would you stake your seat on that?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you stake your seat? Are you being political, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. I was challenged this afternoon, and I looked around and found that I was incorrect.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

MR. BENNETT: On a point of clarification, this afternoon the Speaker gave a dissertation at length when I questioned whether amendments that were eventually ruled out of order should be spoken to, and if they were spoken to and then ruled out whether perhaps a disadvantage had been placed on other Members of the House. The Speaker, in his explanation to the House, said quite often to amendments the mover and some other speaker may be allowed to speak. I would point out that in this amendment the mover was not allowed to speak; nor was any debate allowed. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if there's a double standard for the Premier to put out his propaganda and none for the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: No. I think the basic problem here is that you may have forgotten what I said on another question, and that is that the Chairman has no choice when the point of order is raised but to deal with it whenever it is raised. Whether it's raised immediately, or later on, he must deal with it, and that is a standard he must apply in any case. So that is the rule, and I think I've made that clear.

Interjections.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): There was some confusion in that last vote, and I saw the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) rise when the vote was called. I don't know if he voted twice....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm sure it couldn't have been a mistake on his part. I know he's infallible, 100 per cent correct at all times, not likely to make a mistake, so I'm quite confused, Mr. Member, by this action.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're confused! You've always been confused and you always will be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. May I hear from the First Member for Vancouver....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's despicable. He's attacking the Clerks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! May I hear from the First Member for Vancouver, Point Grey?

[ Page 3146 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk had a very sharp eye, unlike the Member who just stood up. He correctly recorded my vote.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd just like some guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, concerning the apparent manner in which the Chairman quite often rules on matters of procedure in the House. He seems to be, if I might suggest, a little trigger happy and trying to shoot everyone out of the saddle very quickly. It would seem to me that when a matter is posed — an amendment to a motion or to a bill or to a section of a bill — that it's incumbent upon the person who occupies the chair at that particular time to listen to points of order before he makes his ruling. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Chairman makes up his mind very, very quickly and will not even listen to points of order raised by Members on both sides of the House before he rules. Then, of course, it means that those of us have no other alternative to bring anything before the House except to challenge that ruling.

It would seem to me that if we're going to conduct the business of the House and listen to arguments about the suggestion as to whether an amendment is proper or in order, then at least he should have the courtesy to listen to points of order when they're raised and not be too quick and too hasty in moving to a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: I know the Hon. Member is aware that standing order 9, which applies to the Chairmen as well as to the Speaker, says that the Chairman shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House, without debate.

Now many times Speakers and Chairmen have decided matters of order without debate. I think the useful thing is to contribute to a point of order in terms of a precedent or a book of authority that deals with the question and not merely state a more or less placatory wish as to what you would like the ruling to be. It's really a question of citing an authority that deals with the question, and I believe the question, for example, that has been raised twice now, deals with whether an amendment would, in effect, take away from the declared principle that was agreed upon by this House. That was the problem, I believe.

MR. BENNETT: On the point of order. The two amendments, although great protectors for the credit unions, were similar in nature, and there was a vote preceding which didn't threaten the possibility of the intent of second reading at all. It would only be if the credit unions felt threatened, so, in fact, it's not the same as the amendment this afternoon. I point out that the Chairman, without due deliberation, handed down the same ruling as this afternoon, placing in the same category this amendment which was, although similar in its concern for protecting the rights of the credit unions, totally different in its application and how it would affect this bill. It would only affect this bill if the government didn't mean what it said and chose to use the bill to threaten the credit unions.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with that because that's a matter that was before the Chairman in committee...

MR. BENNETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: ...and that's when the matter has to be threshed out between the Chair and the House.

All I urge upon you is that before a decision is made, if you have a useful contribution in terms of some citation that deals with the question, by all means the time to raise it is before a decision is made. I'll certainly discuss that with the Chairman.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 3.

MR. McGEER: Earlier today, the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) drew the attention of the House to the concerns of the Minister of Finance of Canada (Hon. Mr. Turner) regarding the constitutional validity of the bill which we are discussing tonight.

It is an extremely serious point because, as you well know, banking is the exclusive preserve of the federal government. The Premier was asked very pointed questions by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and he gave no answers to those questions, either because he was unaware of what the answers should be or because he knew the answers and was unwilling to express them. We don't want to be in the position in this House of passing legislation which is contrary to the rights of this provincial Legislature. If we believe in Canada, as the Premier has so steadfastly claimed, then we would not wish to encroach on the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, nor to challenge the monetary or fiscal powers of our national government.

The fact that you, Sir, with the support of the government, found out of order an amendment by the official opposition which would in effect have prevented this Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia from competing with the credit unions, and therefore having to work through the credit unions and within their constitutional ability to perform financial functions, leads me to believe that the government has no intention of restricting itself to that kind of activity, but instead wishes to extend itself into the area of banking per se.

[ Page 3147 ]

The unfortunate part of this whole situation is that the bill itself specifically excludes itself from the jurisdictional confines imposed by a number of other Acts, including the Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Insurance Act, and all other Acts that apply to banks, trust companies, credit unions, co-operatives, insurance companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he could indicate which part of the section he is speaking to.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically to section 3, pointing out to you that the powers given under section 3 quite clearly encroach upon the powers of a bank and therefore come in conflict with the Bank Act of Canada. Indeed, the brochure put out in connection with this bill that I drew attention to in second reading clearly indicated that it was the intention of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia to directly compete with banks. The Premier made that clear in his speech in support of the bill.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is a little wonder that the Finance Minister of Canada, in raising questions about this Act, is probably prepared to challenge it on constitutional grounds. In order to avoid such a confrontation, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), that we add to section 3 another subsection, (h), which reads as follows:

"The purpose and intent of the Legislature is to confine the provisions of this Act within the competency of the Legislature, and all the provisions thereof shall be construed so as to give effect to this purpose and intent."

Mr. Chairman, by adding this subsection to section 3, we clearly prevent ourselves from encroaching on federal jurisdiction, and automatically the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia would be prevented from challenging the federal government. We would be spared the embarrassment of passing legislation that was ultra vires and the expense of a trial and the embarrassment of attempting to challenge the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, for your benefit may I refer you to Chapter 111 of our statutes, section 22(l), which has an identical provision with respect to the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act?

This was a provision that this House approved last year so that there would be no prospect in the Natural Products Marketing Act of our encroaching on federal jurisdiction, so there is excellent precedent this House for a clause of this kind. Therefore it is certainly within the competency of the Legislature to pass such a section. We have done it only last year. We did it for purposes that I submit are identical to the purposes we need to have tonight; namely, to be certain that we do not encroach on federal jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read the motion. It's section 3, new subsection (h):

"The purpose and intent of the Legislature is to confine the provisions of this Act within the competence of the Legislature, and all the provisions thereof shall be construed so as to give effect to this purpose and intent."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would like to point out to the Member section 9 of this bill which covers the limitations that he's seeking. It's redundant.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it doesn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's my opinion, Mr. Member. The advice we have legally is that section 9 covers exactly what this Member is seeking and therefore the government rejects the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, speaking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Are you speaking on the point that the Premier made?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read section 9.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not saying it's out of order. I am just saying we won't accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey wishes to speak in what capacity? To the amendment or to a point of order?

MR. McGEER: I am not speaking to a point of order. I am speaking to the motion.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We're in committee. We can speak as often to a motion as we wish. The Premier indicated that the government was going to reject....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed to speak to the amendment?

MR. McGEER: That's exactly what I was doing, Mr. Chairman. I got up to indicate, Mr. Chairman, the reasons why....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey continues I would

[ Page 3148 ]

appreciate it if the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would withdraw his attack on the Chair. There is a proper procedure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out for the edification of Members that if they do wish to attack the Chair, there is a proper procedure and the Chair would appreciate it if it were done in that manner.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, section 9 simply states that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the company to do certain things, and they specifically name banking, but, Mr. Chairman, what subsection (h) does, which is entirely different, is to restrict the activities of this company to those things which are within the competence of the Legislature. Therefore it automatically excludes those things which might be interpreted as incompetent by another jurisdiction. I'm not saying that the two specifics mentioned in section 9 aren't appropriate to exclude; I am merely saying that it is not a comprehensive subsection. Therefore the Premier's objection is fatuous and should be rejected. If we wish to be constitutional, then we put in the clause which ensures that we be constitutional, as the government itself did with regard to the B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act.

I'm not inventing opposition language here; I'm merely presenting government language to meet a situation that the government obviously has to meet. The Finance Minister of Canada has implied that he will challenge the legality of this legislation, and so he should do. When the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked the Premier a number of specific questions — had he received consultative advice from the federal government, had he received consultative advice from other provinces? — he didn't answer those questions. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the reason why he did not answer those questions is because he hadn't. He can go ahead and take all the signals he likes from the back row there, but that's not going to save the Province of British Columbia from a court case. It's not going to keep this legislation intra vires for British Columbia. There's a clause there that will make it intra vires, Mr. Chairman, and I would submit to the Premier that the wisest thing that he could do is to accept this opposition amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being out of order, I'll quote section 9 because the Member has referred to it:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the company to issue a note payable to bearer, or a promissory note intended to be circulated as money or as the note of the bank, or to engage in the business of banking or insurance."

Nothing could be more clear than that. If the federal government wants to take us to court on legislation like that, it would be straight political interference, Mr. Member. I know John Turner better than that. He would not do that kind of thing. So your whole amendment is redundant. In clearer language than you have in your amendment, the bill is protected under the federal legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Premier that the amendment is not redundant. Section 9 purports to exempt the intent of this legislation from the banking head of the BNA Act. But I suggest to the Premier that there are other ways than banking that a statute of this kind can be ultra vires. What the language proposed by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) does is ensure that this statute is so construed that if some part of it is in conflict with any federal jurisdiction, then that is ruled out of order and the rest of it doesn't therefore fall to the ground; it remains in full force and effect. That's important, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise this Legislature runs the danger of passing an Act which will be destroyed because of a technicality and because the Premier didn't agree to insert this kind of clause — a clause which has been hallowed by his own Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and statute writer and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in the Act that the Hon. Member for Point Grey pointed out.

It's a very easy thing to accept, Mr. Chairman. The Premier need only nod his head or whatever he might do to indicate his grace and favour on this particular amendment. It will cost him nothing. What does it say? It says that the B.C. Legislature won't go beyond its powers and that this bill shouldn't be construed that it's going beyond its powers.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, section 9 doesn't do that because there are other ways you can be ultra vires than those ways referred to in section 9, Mr. Premier. Therefore it seems to me that this is an extraordinarily wise amendment, one which this Legislature and the government should accept in order that they won't be embarrassed later on by hastily drafted, ill- conceived legislation.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused. It seems to me that the independent Members in this House and the Liberal Members voted against this bill in second reading — they were against the bill in principle. Now they're putting forward the argument that if we accept the amendment, it will save the bill that they

[ Page 3149 ]

don't want in in the first place. (Laughter.) So it seems to me that there may be a little politics here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: We just don't want the Hon. Minister of Highways to be dreadfully embarrassed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River on a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been in the House for several years now. I've witnessed advisers to cabinet Minister being on the floor of the Legislature, but during the last few weeks I am getting increasingly disturbed by advisers to cabinet Ministers who seem to be alluding to political prejudice on the floor of the Legislature. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the adviser to the Premier who has sat and never showed any political prejudice on the floor of this Legislature. But during the last two weeks I witnessed it during the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), where advisers to him were being definitely politically biased. I have witnessed it here this afternoon and again this evening where civil servants, who are to be servants to the Crown, are definitely showing political bias on the floor of this Legislature. I think it's a trend that should cease and desist immediately because they are supposed to be non-political and non-biased. I have witnessed time and time again this afternoon and this evening where civil servants sitting on the floor of this Legislature are showing definite political bias, laughing this afternoon while the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was speaking — showing definite political bias!

Mr. Chairman, I think we're setting a precedent which we should stop right immediately. If civil servants want to sit on the floor of this Legislature, they should definitely show no political bias!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry that I did not interrupt the Hon. Member sooner. However, I would point out that the conduct of senior civil servants, either on the floor or anywhere else, really should be dealt with by a substantive motion. It must not be canvassed in this manner on the floor of the House where they are unable to defend themselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not asking them to defend themselves, Mr. Chairman, I'm bringing this up as a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I've witnessed this in this House and I am bringing it to your attention.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I order all civil servants never to smile in this House again. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: You can get smart all you want but...!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Never smile again, sinners. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that Premier's executive assistant...!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: The new regime seems to show political bias!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because they smile at you? How can you blame them? How can you blame them for smiling at you?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to return to some element of dignity and decorum so that we can proceed with the debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 3150 ]

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: On that point of order, now that it has been raised, I have to say something on your comment that the proper remedy is by substantive motion. I would suggest to you, Sir, that if any person on the floor of this House is offending the privileges of this House, I care not whether it be a Member or civil servant or anyone offending the privileges of this House, the proper remedy is by the usual rules of this House, not by substantive motion. There is no question about that whatsoever.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, but I'm not going to let that ruling pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano that you cannot canvass the conduct of any senior civil servant in this matter in the normal course of debate but, rather, the matter should be raised as a matter of privilege.

I would point out that we are in committee.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that the proper manner would be to move a motion that the committee rise and report progress and then report the matter immediately to the House, rather than deal with it in committee in this way.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly I agree, that if such a thing is offending an Hon. Member, he certainly should take recourse, but it should be done in the proper procedure. That is all that is necessary.

MR. GIBSON: I have no wish to take that kind of time. I just wish to say that there is no person on the floor of this House who is not subject to the rule and dignity of this House, and that includes civil servants. I want that clearly understood.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Member's stating that is his opinion in terms of remedying the matter does not include support of the Member for South Peace River's position.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you sure have allowed a certain amount of leeway in discussing this amendment by allowing the Premier to quote from section 9. While we have not yet arrived at section 9, we can deal with that when we get there. Since latitude has already been given, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of the House to section 41, which states — and I would like the Members to listen to this, Mr. Chairman; it is rather a key point: "The following Acts or provisions of Acts do not apply to the company...the Company Clauses Act; the Trust Companies Act; and part X of the Insurance Act." You see, it is not going to be an insurance according to section 9, but the Insurance Act is not allowed to apply.

Then it also says: "The company is exempted from the provisions of the following Acts to the extent that a bank, a trust or loan company under the Trust Companies Act," is exempt. So in section 41 it is given the privileges of a bank as far as exemptions from a number of key financial Acts is concerned.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is clearly begin given the privileges of a bank under section 41, which of course shoots the Premier's argument with respect to section 9 completely full of holes and makes it essential for us to introduce into the bill.... I would submit that section 3 is the appropriate one to do this since it outlines the objectives and purposes the sorts of things which I believe properly demand that the Minister of Finance — whether he be the Premier's good pal John Turner, or any other individual in Canada — would be obliged to challenge by reason of his office as Finance Minister of Canada.

You see, Mr. Chairman, it isn't good enough for us to pass legislation that is ultra vires of our Legislature because the Premier is a good pal of the national Minister of Finance. We don't pass Acts and give provinces powers on the basis of personal friendships between the Minister of a federal Crown and the Minister of a provincial Crown. We do it on the basis of clear-cut jurisdiction as defined under the BNA Act. Section 3 apparently encroaches on the BNA Act. Certainly I would interpret it so were I a federal Minister, and I think it entirely proper that the Minister of Finance of Canada has challenged this particular legislation.

But there's a very easy route out which is to accept the amendment, clearly worded and with ample precedent, from this provincial Legislature and, indeed, from the NDP government, and, presumably, given by legislative draftsmen who aren't here on the floor of the House this evening, but were responsible for drafting that B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. The Premier can say that he's got excellent counsel, and while I don't support what the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said, I'm certain that as the Premier was giving his arguments — I don't believe in ventriloquism, necessarily — but I thought I saw lips moving in the back there.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier really needs to very carefully consult his legal advisers, particularly the ones who were responsible for

[ Page 3151 ]

drafting that B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. That Act hasn't been challenged by federal officials; nobody has said that Act was ultra vires. Yet they're saying that about the B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. So what more appropriate time to play it safe, from a legislative point of view, than right now? We're heading for trouble if we pass this bill.

Of course the Liberal Members oppose this Act. We oppose it because it's not within the jurisdiction of the provincial Legislature. And we'll oppose this section.

However, we're giving the government a way out. It's not political, or partisan, as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) suggests. He's got a very suspicious mind. This is an act of generosity, Mr. Chairman. What we're trying to do is to bail the government out; we're going to make the bill look a little better. And here the government is spurning this gesture, and doing it in a most contemptuous fashion by suggesting that it was motivated out of political partisanship. Mr. Chairman, I say shame on the Minister of Highways. Shame on him for thinking so ill of a constructive and loyal opposition — loyal not just to this legislature, but loyal to Canada.

I'm very hurt about it, Mr. Chairman, but I'm also disappointed that the Premier hasn't yet seen fit to accept the wisdom of this very simple amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 24

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that I exempt completely a senior civil servant whom I have a great deal of respect for — Mr. Bryson, Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to exempt him completely. I don't want any misunderstanding about his decorum on the floor of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a political hack!

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you and your political act!

MR. SMITH: On section 3, I want to move an amendment to the motion you have just put to the committee, asking shall section 3 pass, by adding the following words after the word "pass": "provided the Minister files with the central credit union an affidavit stating that no branch of the company shall be opened or maintained in a location within a 15-mile radius of an existing credit union."

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: As an amendment to the motion that you just put to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must rule the amendment out of order on the grounds that it is unintelligible. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any amendment must be an amendment to section 3. If this is appended to section 3, it is unintelligible.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if you have trouble deciphering what has been said by the amendment, would you hand it back to me and I will read it to you again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have consulted counsel and I have made my ruling. My ruling can be challenged, but the ruling is made.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a point of order on some other matter under section 3?

MR. SMITH: I would hope so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing now with

[ Page 3152 ]

section 3.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps I could clarify for the benefit of the Chair the intent of the suggested amendment. As I recall the events, Mr. Chairman, you put a question to the committee. The question was: shall section 3 pass? — which is in itself a motion being put to the committee. I moved an amendment to that motion put by yourself. The amendment is the addition of certain words after the word "pass" — that the following words be added: "provided that the Minister files with the Central Credit Union an affidavit stating that no branch of the company shall be opened or maintained in a location within a 15-mile radius of an existing credit union." I suggest to the Hon....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is one person on the floor now with a point of order. I will wait until he is finished. The Member for North Peace River may continue.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I suggested to you, Mr. Chairman, that when you put the question, it is a motion: "Shall section 3 pass?" I moved an amendment to that motion. I think it should be perfectly understandable to you as Chairman of committee. I suggest that the reason you gave for saying it was out of order is certainly an affront to the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: I would ask you to reconsider that suggestion.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. To rule something out because it is unintelligible in this House is absolute nonsense. We have been passing unintelligible legislation for years. We have the precedent. Take the Frustrated Contracts Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Will the Hon. Member speak to section 3?

MR. McGEER: The Deputy Attorney-General every session used to give us unintelligible Acts. We always passed them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, three bills that nobody can understand....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. There is only....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the Chair has been somewhat lenient in this respect, the fact is that a ruling has been made. The proper procedure now is to challenge the ruling or proceed on to a discussion of section 3.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. By way of comment on the Hon. Member for North Peace River, I would just point out that the Chair is not making a motion; the Chair is simply using the pro forma method for getting a section approved by the committee. This does not constitute a motion in the formal sense. It is, rather, a pro forma way of having the section approved. Any amendment must be to the section itself.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

Does the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano wish to cast more darkness — I mean light — on this subject?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to. I think if you will consult May in the 18th edition, page 369 and the pages following...

MR. PHILLIPS: Quit giving the Chair orders, Mr. Premier.

MR. GIBSON: ...will you find there a general category of events entitled "Questions from the Chair." Unquestionably one of the questions from the Chair is the question as they put it in the British House, and here it is on page 526, that a clause "stand part of a bill." That is in effect the same thing as our motion asking: "Shall section so-and-so pass?" Under standing order 55 of our standing orders, which is a marginally noted amendment, it says: "When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend it," and so on.

This is a question which is under debate, the question of "shall clause so-and-so pass?" That is the question, strictly speaking, that we are debating. The Hon. Member for North Peace River moved an amendment to the question under debate. Sir, I think that perhaps you might wish to consult a little bit further with counsel in order that we should not be stumbling into bad parliamentary law.

[ Page 3153 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair wishes to reiterate that it did give consideration of the matter, did consult counsel, did make a ruling, and the ruling stands. We will go on with section 3; otherwise....

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Look, we cannot go on debating something on which the Chair has ruled!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't get huffy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, what are you going to do now? Run to the Speaker?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, look, an interrogation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While in committee stage on Bill 86....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Some Members want to hear the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on Bill 86, on section 3, the Hon. Member for North Peace River sought to amend my words: "shall section 3 pass?" I ruled that this was not possible and that it was out of order. My ruling was challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

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

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 3.

MR. GIBSON: When we were debating this section before the dinner hour, I asked the Premier a number of questions which were not answered in his reply. His reply consisted mostly of the letter from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He didn't answer two very important questions. The first was on subsection (g).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We can't hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have the mike a little louder, please, at the back?

MR. GIBSON: The first was on subsection (g): what percentage of government funds, now held in banks, will be held in this new institution? The Premier's general answer to the kinds of questions that I was posing at that time was that these things were matters for the board of directors to decide. This is not for the board of directors to decide; this is a matter of government policy. It's a matter of the policy of the Minister of Finance with respect to this new fledgling financial institution.

I would ask him to tell this House what percentage of government funds would be deposited in this institution. A simple question important to the health of the institution.

The other question that he didn't answer is: what percentage of the bank's loans will be below market loans? The Premier didn't give an answer to that, but I can give him a little bit of an answer. I asked the library if they could provide the last year's report of the Royal Bank of Canada, which they did. On total assets of about $21 billion, they made profits of about $57 million which is about one — quarter of 1 per cent of assets. I'd like to be more precise on that, Mr. Chairman, but I've just lost the particular reference here. Here we are: profit, $56 million on $21,669,000,000 worth of assets. It's about one-quarter of 1 per cent.

If this bank is, on the average, lending out money at about 10 per cent and they are making profits at one-quarter of 1 per cent — let's just say it's going to be a break-even proposition — not a money-losing proposition — I would suggest to the Premier that he could afford to make low-cost loans on about maybe

[ Page 3154 ]

5 per cent, depending on the amount of subsidy he wanted to do, of course. But if he wanted to have them at about half-price, I'd guess not more than 5 per cent. So there's a little bit of arithmetic for him, which the Premier should have been able to do instead of just waving his arms around. I'd like to know if that sort of order of magnitude is what he has in mind.

The Premier's not in the House right now, but I can stand up, I guess, and repeat the things until he gets back. Or maybe somebody else would like the pleasure of talking to the House without the Premier in the House.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe you'd like to declare a recess, Mr. Chairman, or alternately I could....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member just takes his seat, we'll just pause for a moment till the Premier returns.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It appears that the Hon. Members wish the debate to continue without a pause. Would the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano continue?

MR. GIBSON: I see the Premier's back. I was going to start reading from the report of the Royal Bank of Canada for the edification of the House until the Premier got back. But now that he's back I'll just have to....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, even I cannot stop nature's call.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Premier, so I'll just repeat the question.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I just went through a little arithmetic as to what percentage of low-cost loans this bank could afford to make. I'd just like you to check my arithmetic since you don't seem to have any of your own. I pointed out that the Royal Bank of Canada, according to their annual report, made a profit of about one-quarter of 1 per cent of their assets last year. If that kind of figure obtained on the loans of your new Savings and Trust Corp., it seems to me that you could afford to subsidize at half-price about 5 per cent of your loans — more or less. One loan out of 20.

This is an important figure to the people of British Columbia because there are a lot of people looking forward to getting those loans. I'd like to know if that's about right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we are getting the facts.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in the first spring session of this House, when the riding for which that previous Member speaks was more capably represented by Mr. Brousson, he made a very good speech in this House. There were others who were not here at that time — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). Then there are others who, perhaps, have forgotten.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has obviously forgotten what he said about the opposition party so it might bear repeating because if he can't remember what he used to say about the Social Credit Party, then he might have forgotten this very fine speech that was made about mortgages and about what high-interest mortgages exist in this province, and have existed in this province.

He made a speech about a number of people who fell victim to a mortgage concern that largely centred around Columbia Street in New Westminster, but through other agencies as well. He started off by relating the story of a couple who came to see him. They had a house worth $25,000 at that time. They'd been out of the country for a while. They came back. They needed money desperately. They went to a company that's known by its slogan "never borrow money needlessly" and they borrowed some money. They arranged for a loan of $6,000, and with the legal costs of an extra $200, in effect, we might say that the proceeds of the loan were $6,200. This was to be a second mortgage. Then the bonus, as it's called, charged by that particular company was $1,700, which is 27 per cent of the proceeds. Then the interest rate was to be 17 per cent, the payments were to be made at $118 a month, and buried away in the fine print near the end there was a clause which said that the entire balance still owing was to be due in five years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope the Member's going to relate this to section 3.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This Member has been talking about where the low-interest loans are going to come from. I'm going to show this Member that the type of loans that people in this province are having to pay through the finance companies, the banks and some of the trust companies will not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relate the remarks to section 3.

[ Page 3155 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The aims and objectives under section 3, Mr. Chairman, outline the duties of this institution, and it is to serve people who cannot get this type of financing, the people who are victim to usury, and the victim to whom the Member for North Vancouver — Capilano at that time addressed this very impassioned speech which showed that after paying for five years, this particular individual would have been owing $7,300. He had only received $6,200.

In my riding I have a few of those people who have fallen victim to this type of thing. It's a lot more prevalent in Vancouver.

If that Member showed more interest for this type of person than he does for preserving the private interests of foreign mining companies that have sweetheart smelter agreements and which rip off and avoid income tax in this country, and pay their income taxes in the United States.... If that's where his compassion lies, if he would go and consult with the former Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, he would know that if we could bring interest rates down to a true 15 per cent for these people, that would be a cheap rate of interest compared with what they have to pay. These people are paying 30 and 40 per cent. We want to bring an end to that.

MR. GIBSON: I think the kindest thing to do to the Minister of Housing is to ignore him, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask the Premier, again...

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, you want to ignore that, don't you.

MR. GIBSON: ...how many people of British Columbia are going to be eligible for low-cost loans? What fraction of the loans of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia is going to be below market loans? It's a very simple question.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They'll all be lower than that.

MR. GIBSON: It's the big political peg that he's hanging this bill on. He's leading people all over British Columbia to think that they're going to get 6 per cent money tomorrow. I want him to stand up in this House and say how many people are genuinely going to be helped this way, and to what extent it's just bait with no substance behind it. Give us numbers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the policy of the board of directors. It is impossible, absolutely impossible to be specific on that matter at this point, Mr. Member, and you know it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if it's impossible to be specific on that number, I ask the Premier if he is going to, in all his speeches about this bank from now on, preface the statement by saying: "It's impossible to be specific, but some people are going to get that." Will the Premier do that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you read the newspaper account of my statements related to that very question, I did say that, Mr. Member. And if you had been in the House and listened attentively, you would have found that I related my comments on second reading to the experience of the credit union movement.

I appreciate your attempts at getting answers, but you're already opposed to this bill. You're already opposed to it, so I don't know what further purpose is served by attempting to discredit the very nature of the bill by questions that obviously can't be answered in terms of determining the board's policy once the agency is set up.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I listened most attentively to the Premier's remarks on second reading of this bill, both opening and closing. That's why I voted against it. We didn't get any answers. The people of British Columbia are being misled by that government into believing that there's going to be a lot of low-cost money floating around, and that's going to cause a lot of heartbreak unless you're prepared to make some guarantees to the people of this province.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. Before the dinner hour I raised a few questions to the Minister of Finance. He's been unwilling to answer the questions that I raised. One question I raised was relative to the concern expressed....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: There's that phony Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) making facetious remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am speaking on section 3, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is hard of hearing. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) expressed some real concern this afternoon relative to the government's lack of concern with the local autonomy of the credit union movement in this province. He asked whether it was the government's intention to destroy local autonomy of the credit union movement in this

[ Page 3156 ]

province.

Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd stop smiling at me when I am being serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't help myself, I'm sorry.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's the Chairman being biased.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: There's the Chairman being biased. It's most unfortunate that's taking place, and it's only in the last three years that I have noted that kind of a trend in the Chairman's chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are free to smile in British Columbia since we got elected.

MR. CHABOT: Well, yes, they're free to make love, too, according to you. Nevertheless there's been great concern expressed with the government's motivation in the objects and purposes of section 3 of this bill. We've never had a clear definition from the Premier as to whether he intends to compete against the credit union movement in this province by the implementation of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia Act. And that's all we ask. All we ask is that the Premier clearly state once and for all that he has no intention whatsoever to compete, to destroy, to take over the customers, to compete for the customers which the credit union movement presently enjoys; that's all we're asking.

The Premier has stood in this House and suggested that he is a great supporter of the credit union movement. There is concern out there in British Columbia tonight, and there has been ever since this bill has been introduced, that the government is out to take over and control the credit union movement in this province. I think the Premier of this province has a responsibility to state emphatically once and for all that he will not compete or destroy the concept of the credit union movement in this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests t and Water Resources): Humbug!

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources can sit back there and say "Humbug." He's a great one to sit back there with snide remarks, but I'll tell you that he doesn't have the snide remarks when he's toe to toe with somebody debating his estimates. Oh, he's all mellow and he's all rational when it comes to his estimates because you can debate with him then, face to face. He hasn't got the guts to stand up under those circumstances. That's the kind of Minister we have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I was going to say he's gutless, but I am not going to say it because one Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are supposed to be dealing with section 3 of this bill.

MR. McGEER: Don't say he's weak-kneed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I was going to say he's gutless. But I don't dare call him gutless, because if I did I am able to be ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This bill has nothing to do with that Minister.

MR. CHABOT: I am liable to be thrown out of the Legislature. And that's never happened in the 12 years I have had the honour to represent the people in Columbia River.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's one of your good points, Jim.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. It's probably come close. I have never been expelled yet, and I pride myself on that kind of an achievement.

MR. McGEER: You never use unparliamentary words like "weak-kneed."

MR. CHABOT: No, that's unparliamentary and I wouldn't use them. But, really, when one looks at his bill, if the Premier really believes some of the statements and policy directions he has enunciated in the introduction of this bill last Friday — that he sincerely believes that he wants to help the middle and low-income people, the farmers, fishermen and the small businessmen — why doesn't he allocate a certain specific amount of dollars to the credit union movement and allow them to disperse it to those people he suggests are so desperately in need of financial assistance in this province? He can disperse it and he can make it available to this organization in the province with certain stipulated guidelines. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that?

Or is there a genuine desire, or a perverse desire, on the part of the government to usurp the present structure of the credit union movement in this province? It appears that way because we have no clear statement from the Premier in relation to the serious questions, the serious concerns expressed by

[ Page 3157 ]

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) this afternoon. It's unfortunate that the Minister of Finance is unwilling to reply to those concerns expressed this afternoon.

I have no intention of repeating anything I have said before but I am forced....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Praise the Lord!

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is unconcerned about the plight of the credit union movement in this province and he says: "Praise the Lord." That's what he says.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to attack him for saying that?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm going to attack him for the facetious way in which he said it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you deal with section 3?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I am trying to. I wish I wouldn't have any interruptions from that spineless Minister of Lands, Forests....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Member for Columbia River to withdraw the unparliamentary statement he made.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you haven't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: You haven't been in the Legislature very long....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've asked you to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: If a Member in this House feels that a statement offends him....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. I

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't use language that is unparliamentary and that attacks an individual Member of this House. I ask the Member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I ask the Member for Columbia River to withdraw his unparliamentary statement.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the Premier, and if the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is unwilling to stand up and ask for withdrawal, then, under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative, on the basis of your ruling, your arbitrary ruling, but to withdraw. I withdraw on the basis of your arbitrary ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You cannot make any attacks on the Chair, no matter who is here, and you cannot suggest that I am making an arbitrary ruling. Now you withdraw that statement without qualification.

MR. CHABOT: You know it's an arbitrary ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You withdraw that without qualification!

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're offended....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: On section 3, Mr. Chairman, the point I was making this afternoon, which the Premier has been unwilling to respond to, is the fact that we already have two vehicles in the Province of British Columbia which make available funds to people of low income, to people in middle income. We also have a vehicle which makes funds available to the small businessmen in the province. section 3(f) suggests that it's going to make funds available to people of low income, middle income, farmers, fishermen and small businesses.

Already the Housing Minister during his estimates bragged about the kind of low-interest mortgages that were available through his department. Is there going to be competition on this legislation against the availability of funds which are available for low-interest mortgages from the Department of Housing? That's never been clearly defined by the Minister of Finance in the introduction of this bill.

The next question is the B.C. Development Corp., which the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has bragged about very vociferously as a great tool for the establishment of industry and the creation of jobs, at low interest, attractive interest

[ Page 3158 ]

rates, to promote the projection and the growth of jobs in the Province of British Columbia. Is the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia going to compete against the kind of legislation which is available under the Department of Economic Development? This is a serious question, and I think it's worthy of a response, whether there is a serious conflict between government departments. Is there going to be serious competition? Are dollars going to be available on a different basis through the Savings and Trust Corp. than they are through the B.C. Development Corp. and the Department of Housing? Are the guidelines going to be similar? Are the interest rates going to be comparable? I think these are genuine, serious, in- depth questions to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to which we have had no response. We have a right to know, if we pass an Act doing away with the Department of Housing — because the Department of Housing has the responsibility, according to the Act, to provide low-interest mortgages — whether there's any justification for the bureaucracy of the B.C. Development Corp., which, according to the Minister when he presented his first report in manuscript form today...whether there is going to be a conflict here or whether interest rates are going to be comparable. Also, I want to know what the justification is for the presentation of this legislation, which appears to duplicate what is already taking place in two government departments.

These are some of the questions. I'll have other questions as time unfolds to put to the Minister. I'm sure that he has made notes of what I've already asked him, and he's most anxious to stand up in this House and to answer the very simple and straightforward and concerned questions that I've put to him straight.

MR. McGEER: Section 3, which we're debating, says that the objects and purposes of the company are to provide a full range of financial facilities and services, and to provide competition in the financial markets, and to encourage the citizens and institutions of the province to deposit their funds. This is (a), (b), and (c). These are all functions of a bank.

Of course, I am disappointed that the Premier rejected an amendment that would make it clear that by this section we are not attempting to compete with the jurisdiction of the banks in Canada. It seems to be unfortunate that the rejection of that amendment implies that the Legislature is intending to compete. I think it unfortunate that in rejecting the amendment it should be obvious to the Minister of Finance of Canada exactly what the intent of the Premier happens to be. He does say, of course, that he intends to make love to the credit unions, but I am not at all sure who is the bride and who is the groom in this arrangement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some love affair.

Mr. McGEER: I am concerned, however, about a point that was raised back in 1964, 11 years ago, when the Legislature last attempted to get into the banking business. This was not by challenging the right of the federal government to bank, but merely creating a provincial bank which would then be under federal jurisdiction. That was, it seems to me, a more constitutional attempt, although the federal government did not permit it and restricted ownership to 10 per cent. Of course, this Act says that the provincial Legislature will hold 90 per cent. It is quite clear that this is not an attempt to stay within the constitution, as was our previous attempt to form a bank 1 years ago.

At that time, the then-Leader of the Official Opposition (Hon. Mr. Strachan) spoke against the appointment of government friends to the board of directors. "Strachan Sceptical of Bank," says the headline. He said:

"I am afraid it will just be another board of directors to which the government can appoint its friends and defeated cabinet Ministers to be operated primarily to bring benefit to the few."

Namely, of course, the friends of the government who get appointed to the board of directors and the implied preference that would go to their friends in the obtainment of funds. I think that was a legitimate concern.

While I consider myself a friend of Eric Kierans, I know as well that he is a friend of the NDP because the NDP has assiduously sought this Canadian as the national leader for their party. When you seek someone as a national leader, you would surely consider him to be a friend.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Now here the first man to be appointed to see that the objects and purposes of the company are followed out turns out to be a close friend of the NDP, the very thing that the then-Leader of the Official Opposition and now-Minister of the Crown said was wrong in establishing a bank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that this would be more appropriately discussed under section 15. So if you will just pause for a moment, we can put the other sections through and then you can deal with section 15.

MR. McGEER: Yes, well, I certainly intend to raise this again. But once more I ask the Premier: is it

[ Page 3159 ]

wise to go ahead with the section as presently worded when it is pretty clear that the objects and purposes of it are the same objects and purposes of any bank?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your interpretation is incorrect. That is all I can say to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance's silence in relation to the requests by the official opposition that he give some kind of guaranteed assurance for the protection of the credit union movement in this province is very revealing. It is even more revealing when you read the sections (b) and (c) in this bill: "to provide competition in the financial markets with a view to reduction of the rates, " et cetera, but the key to that is the competition. There is no doubt in anyone's mind now, particularly since the Minister of Finance refuses to make any clarification, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the purpose of that section is to allow the government — in fact, to insist — that the government with its new trust company go into active competition with the credit unions of British Columbia.

Section (c), Mr. Chairman, insists that the trust corporation encourage the citizens and institutions of the province to deposit their funds to support further economic and social development of the province. Well, how far does encouragement go? I think that the vice president of the Imperial Bank of Commerce got the message. He knows how much they are going to be encouraged. That is why he sent that conciliatory letter to the Premier...

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...just to hedge his bets and protect his flanks.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on. They might withdraw their losses.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that bank doesn't encourage....

MR. PHILLIPS: They might withdraw their losses. You know, ICBC....

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. That's right. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how much encouragement is going to be offered to the depositors and customers of the credit union movement to switch over to the Barrett bank.

I think that that's a pretty insidious section. If the Premier had given us any indication that he would have accepted some of the amendments — and I don't want to reflect on the vote, Mr. Chairman — but if we had had any indication that even the essence of the amendment would be acceptable to the government.... But, no, the government, but its very silence, makes sure that the people of British Columbia have been given a message that the credit union movement is in danger of takeover by the provincial government — the takeover of the customers and the takeover of the business.

You know, a couple of weeks ago, in fact two or three times this year, I've had the opportunity to attend official openings of new credit unions in my constituency, and one thing that the Premier said was correct. It was that this party has supported the credit union movement in the past. I certainly support them and intend to do so in the future.

Credit unions really have brought financial institutions closer to the people and closer to the communities. They have forced, in many instances, the chartered banks that the Premier is so upset about to come into the community as well as to provide more down-to-earth services for the people in those communities.

Now, Mr. Chairman, instead of offering all of the encouragement and support that we possibly can for that movement, we find that this government wants to force the credit unions to be subservient to a government bureaucracy and, perhaps even worse, Mr. Chairman, to be moved out of the business because of that government bureaucracy — and to a large degree an unnecessary bureaucracy, as has been pointed out by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the government by its very action could erode it if the credit union movement doesn't go along with the terms of the government's investment conditions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Buy or else!

MR. McCLELLAND: Break or take. Buy or else. That's right. The government moves in and makes sure that the government is the only game in town. It's a break-and-take tactic.

We saw what happened with ICBC, Mr. Chairman. First of all get rid of the agents — break and take; the private adjusters' businesses — break and take; now the body shops — break and take. Do you think for one moment that this government will have any conscience about doing the same kind of thing with the credit unions, Mr. Chairman? Not a chance. And the Minister of Finance by his silence has indicated once again that that is the case.

If the credit union doesn't submit to the government's threats or the threats of the trust company, then the government moves in and takes over again.

[ Page 3160 ]

I don't see why that Minister of Finance and the government are afraid to play fair, to give the kind of assurances that are necessary so that the people out there, the people in the credit union movement, can be assured that this government has no intention of taking their business over, regardless, Mr. Chairman, of whether they decide to invest in the trust company or not.

If for some reason or other a credit union decides it doesn't want to go in for the 10 per cent, or 8 per cent or 6 per cent or whatever, then that credit union should be allowed to continue its business nevertheless and to keep its customers and not be faced by the threats of this government.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance wants to be trusted, why doesn't he show that he can be trusted? So far he hasn't done that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment to this section. It is not what I would like to see in this bill. I'd like to see something much stronger, but we've been frustrated at every attempt by the Chairman to bring in the kind of amendment that would guarantee once and for all to the credit union members of this province that their savings are safe, that their interest in the credit unions is safe, and that the credit union will be allowed to expand and enjoy the freedom of entertaining its own financial business in the communities in which it serves, and to meet the local community needs that they pioneered.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 86, The Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act to amend as follows section 3 by adding a subsection: "(h) to encourage the continuation of credit union offices."

Mr. Chairman, if that one is out of order, and if the government refuses to accept that amendment, then the writing is really on the wall.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you find the amendment in order, we will certainly accept it. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You know very well I'm serious.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can't concentrate while the Hon. Members....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to be quiet while we are contemplating this amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. BENNETT: In speaking to the amendment, I'm glad that the Chairman finally is accepting some amendments, because earlier amendments that would give guarantees to the credit union movement were cast aside, perhaps by direction....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: I'm certainly glad that at least we have....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe that the Hon. Member is attacking the Chair. Therefore I would withdraw any imputation that the Chair is biased.

MR. BENNETT: No, no, no. Oh, yes, I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the appropriate method of dealing with the Chair, as with the other Members of the House or with anything in the House, is that it should be done by a proper method of procedure, not by smear tactics. I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to refrain.

MR. BENNETT: So I am glad at last we're at least allowed an amendment that would give some indication to the credit union movement within the framework of the bill that indeed there is a commitment to encourage the credit union movement and perhaps allow it to prosper and grow. It's unfortunate that it was unacceptable, that we couldn't give them the guarantees that we tried to do earlier with amendments that would guarantee that this B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. would not erode their position in these communities, erode their position in which these people banded together to provide financial services. At least we have an intent and a commitment through this amendment that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has introduced that it would be very hard for any government to go against. Any government that then, after supporting this amendment, established branches that destroyed that credit union, would have a hard time living with their conscience and with their votes. I'm glad that the Chair has accepted the amendment; I hope the House will accept it as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, tonight we have witnessed in my opinion some of the most irresponsible waste of time that I have ever seen in this House since I have been a Member. If it was the NDP....

Interjections.

[ Page 3161 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have given the courtesy of silence while the Members are speaking; I expect the same in return.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we had been in opposition and behaved the way that that group has behaved tonight we would have been castigated in every editorial page of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: The kind of behaviour, the kind of inane comment, personal insults, slurs and smears that have been hurled for the last two and a half hours are an incredible performance from the opposition that is obviously undecided as to whether or not in principle they support this move.

We accept this amendment and we say through this amendment that yes, we encourage the trade union movement as the pioneers of the CCF encouraged their development right from the initial stages of 1930.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the first credit union movement chapter was opened in this province, it was opened in Powell River. The first credit union office — the first credit union organization — that opened had on its board as a founding member the present Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He's been a citizen of this province all those years and fought for the credit union movement all those years. Then after all of that to have heard that kind of debate that we've been subject to in this House tonight makes one almost turn on the basis of serving the public through being an MLA.

I have never been so disgusted or shocked at the asinine behaviour of a group that has no commitment to serve this House other than to hate in hysteria against a government that's trying to get something done in this province for the ordinary people of this province.

I have sat here for two and a half hours silently hoping that some sense of decency and responsibility would shine through that adolescent behaviour that we've been witnessing for these two and a half hours. If that is the best that you can offer while we're trying to build a better society in this province, then I hope you hang your head in shame, Mr. Member — and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — over the behaviour, the withdrawals, the attacks on the Chair, abusing this House, all boiling down to trying to find some political ground to hang their hat on. If you're against this bill, vote against the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Lies! Lies! Lies!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Lies! Lies! Lies!

HON. MR. BARRETT: But if you are in favour, support the bill. You can smear all you want, Mr. Member. You can shout all you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the words that he imputed to the Hon. Premier. I would then ask the Hon. Premier to speak more directly to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance. I would ask him to speak more directly to the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In accepting this amendment, we restate what I have said all along in this bill.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You said it in your opening speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said it in my opening speech. I listed every single thing that this government has done for the credit union movement that was rejected by the former administration when they were in government. Our record is clear. No words, no rhetoric, no smears, no personal attack will change that record. I'm proud of it, and I'm proud of this legislation.

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: I listened with interest to the comments of the Premier. This afternoon the Premier

[ Page 3162 ]

criticized us for working for the small people of this province, working for the credit union movement. We are sick and tired of listening to the political ploys of the Premier when he will not really come out and state — and he still hasn't stated for the record — exactly what his position is with regard to all of the clauses stated in section 3 of this Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill. Just vote against it.

MR. PHILLIPS: He hasn't told us how he's going to help the credit union movement, the movement he has spoken of in glowing terms in this House. Not once in this House has he said that he is with the credit union movement, that he will protect it, that he feels it's doing a good job and that he's not going to go into competition with it.

It's fine for the Premier to get up, but all his hysterical movements and his paranoia of politics doesn't really jar the opposition who are working to maintain that great movement that has been built up over the years in British Columbia, built up by the co-operation of common, ordinary people making their deposits, making their loans at one of the finest financial institutions in the Province of British Columbia. Not once has the Premier said that he is not going to go into direct competition to that movement. It is for that reason we have given him the opportunity to say, to state clearly in Hansard, to accept the amendments which we have put into section 3. We have given him opportunity after opportunity to voice in this Legislature his desire to maintain the credit union movement which has been built up by small people, the people he says he wants to assist.

The Premier has one other great opportunity. Through this bill, through the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia, the Premier has the opportunity to go to the international money markets to obtain money and to assist the credit unions to obtain that money which they need to assist the small people of British Columbia. This is one of the greatest problems: they need a pool of long-term money which they cannot obtain on the international market due to the fact that they do not come under the Banking Act of British Columbia.

This government, through this bill, has the opportunity to go into the international market, which they have done — they've gone to Boston; they've gone to other countries in the world. They've obtained long-term money, and they have the opportunity to do that again to the benefit of the credit unions in British Columbia.

If this is not the prime purpose of this bill, then we have to believe, once again, that the Premier and Minister of Finance is really not desirous of helping the credit unions of British Columbia by providing that much-needed capital to the needy people of British Columbia. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment: by adding subsection (i) to section 3: to provide long-term capital to the central credit union for the purpose of effecting a reduction of the rates of interest on mortgages available to the citizens of the province through credit union offices.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that motion is clearly out of order as it deals with a separate financial institution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The credit unions haven't said they are going to join this institution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, stop playing politics.

MR. BENNETT: There's no impost on the Crown.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are just obstructing. All night it has been obstruction.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole purpose of this bill is for you to go out and provide the money....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: They told you that's what they needed. If you don't accept this amendment, you are clearly evading your responsibility.

MR. BENNETT: That's what the credit unions have asked for.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what the credit unions have asked for and that's what they need — long-term financing. We'll go out and we'll tell the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the amendment: I must regretfully rule it out of order because such an amendment as this must be brought in by message of His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, and cannot be introduced by a private Member. Therefore it is out of order.

MR. BENNETT: I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on consideration of Bill 86, section 3, an amendment was moved by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). I ruled it out of order on the grounds that such an amendment must

[ Page 3163 ]

be brought in by message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor. My ruling was challenged by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 12

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

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, does the House wish to continue or adjourn?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Adjourn.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is the Whips' agreement — to adjourn?

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.