[ Page 2265 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15).

Committee and report stage — 2265

Division on third reading — 2265

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2265

Mr. Gibson — 2266

Auditor General Act (Bill 45) Committee stage.

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2266

Mr. Gibson — 2267

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2267

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Skelly — 2267

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2268

Mr. Skelly — 2268

Mr. Gibson — 2268

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2268

Mr. Skelly — 2268

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 2268

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

On section 9.

Mr. Barnes — 2269

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

Amendment to section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 2269

Mr. Skelly — 2270

Mr. Lauk — 2270

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2270

Mr. Gibson — 2270

On section 14.

Mr. Gibson — 2271

On section 19.

Mr. Barnes — 2271

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2271

Mr. Lauk — 2271

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 2272

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

Report stage — 2272

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 2273

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2274

Mr. King — 2275

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2276

Mr. Wallace — 2276

Mr. Gibson — 2276

Mr. King — 2277

Mr. Wallace — 2278

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2278

Mr. King — 2278

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2279

Division on section 1 as amended — 2280

On section 2.

Mr. Barnes — 2280

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2281

On section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 2281

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2282

Mr. Lauk — 2282

Mr. King — 2282

Mr. Gibson — 2282

Mr. Barnes — 2282

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2283

Mr. Lauk — 2283

Mr. King — 2283

Mr. Barnes — 2284

Mr. Lauk — 2284

Amendment to section 5.

Mr. Lauk — 2284

Division on amendment to section 5 — 2284

On section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 2285

Mr. Gibson — 2285

Mr. King — 2286

Mr. Barber — 2287

Appendix — 2288

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this evening in the gallery we are privileged to have Alderman and Mrs. Goult and a group of Girl Guides from the Oak Bay constituency. I would like to tell the House that the Guides, in their guiding programme this year, have been studying parliamentary procedure, and are here this evening to view the House and the democratic process. I would ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Art Currie, city manager from the great city of Kitimat.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 53.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, a few observations on the Municipal Amendment Act, 1976.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill. The minister is not here. We dealt with the Minister of Highways who doubled...or was acting Minister of Municipal Affairs this afternoon on another bill.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is as follows: we got no answers this afternoon and we don't think it's fair to the Minister of Municipal Affairs or to the opposition to have a bill of this significance put forward in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not a point of order. If the hon. member wishes to adjourn the debate when the bill is called, following the remarks by the hon. minister who is carrying the bill, he has that prerogative available to him.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there are several amendments here to the Municipal Act. First of all, it would grant voting rights to property owners who cannot qualify as residents of the municipality but who are otherwise qualified as 19 years of age and Canadian citizens or other British subjects. The bill would also extend the right of personal corporations owning property within the municipality to vote via an agent where the owners of such personal corporations are not otherwise entitled to vote. It also should be noted that a person can only be an agent for one corporation.

Another amendment will allow a person whose name is not on the list of electors, whether by mistake or failure to register, to vote on polling day upon completion and signing of the appropriate form.

[ Page 2266 ]

In order to expedite municipal housing and other development undertakings by municipalities, amendments are made to clarify a municipality's right to invest in shares and foreign corporations, and to provide express authority for a municipality to acquire land by agreement for sale or mortgage.

To facilitate the adoption of community plans, land-use contracts, zoning bylaws, regional plans and regional district zoning bylaws — to acquire plurality to adopt or amend such bylaws — are changed from two-thirds of all the members of a council, whether they are present or not, to two-thirds of the members present.

Another group of amendments is designed to bring the accounting and auditing provisions of the Act into line with current professional terminology and practice — into the computer age, in other words.

The provisions governing the interest charged on taxes in arrears and delinquent are amended from the present statutory 8 per cent to permit the council to fix the rate up to a maximum of 12 per cent. The present 8 per cent rate is well below current interest rates, which has resulted in many businesses deferring payment of their taxes in order to take advantage of the low interest rate.

The remaining amendments are of a technical or housekeeping nature.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I think this House could have learned a good deal more about this bill simply by reading the explanatory notes than we just heard from the acting minister on this bill. I think it's really quite a disgrace that the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's on the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Order what?

MR. SPEAKER: Speak to the second reading of the bill, if you don't mind.

MR. LAUK: That is exactly what he was doing.

MR. GIBSON: That's exactly what I was doing, Mr. Speaker. I was giving a certain amount of comment on the opening remarks of the minister concerned, the acting minister. I was suggesting to you, Sir, and to this chamber that the performance is entirely inadequate and that we are entitled to have the minister responsible for a bill here when it's being introduced.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You say that to every minister.

MR. GIBSON: Most of the ministers are here, Mr. Minister. The minister responsible for this bill is not here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your record is not so good.

MR. GIBSON: I've been wanting to ask him a number of questions on this rather important bill. I've been wanting to ask him, for example, why the replotting sections of the Municipal Act, which are important to a number of my constituents, aren't included in this bill. I've been wanting to ask him questions about the voting powers of corporations and other consequential matters in this bill. He is not here; I think it is wrong, and therefore, Sir, I move the adjournment of this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to add "until the next sitting after today"?

MR. GIBSON: I'd be glad to add any time that's agreeable to the members of this House. I move the adjournment of the debate on this bill to the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the business of the House, because earlier in the day the same opportunity was given, in the minister's absence, to the opposition and they refused the House Leader's invitation to put over the discussion of a previous bill in order to have the minister present, so we assumed it would follow on this bill.

Committee on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, I would just like to indicate to the House Leader, Mr. Speaker, that while the opposition is willing to cooperate, it certainly depends on the nature of the bill that's before the House. Where it's one that is not controversial, of course we're willing to extend that kind of consideration to the government. This is a very important one, however.

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to

[ Page 2267 ]

section 3 standing in my name on page 9 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a little explanation from the minister. This is a section I am concerned about in the sense that it would appear that even with the amendment it would be possible that the auditor-general could be appointed for a fairly indefinite term. In the exact language of the amendment, the auditor-general shall be appointed "until the end of the period of suspension of the auditor-general or until an auditor-general is appointed under section 2, as the case may be." What I'm puzzled about, Mr. Speaker, is what happens in the case that the auditor-general is not suspended, but rather resigns. There is therefore no end to the period of suspension, which is automatic, but rather a term uncertain.

We are then faced with the case where the cabinet — the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — could appoint an auditor-general for the balance of the term, or perhaps for an even longer period than that. Without examining the legislation with a lawyer I couldn't be certain of that, but let's say that an auditor-general resigns after the first two years of his period. I would think under the terms of this legislation that the cabinet could appoint an acting auditor-general for at least the next four years.

This is the sort of thing I had hoped, by the language of an amendment that I had submitted to the Minister of Finance, to avoid. We're obviously not moving it now because there is another amendment on the floor, but I was looking for language something like the following: "An acting auditor-general to be appointed for a term not to exceed six months, during which time a permanent appointment should be made in accordance with the provisions of section 2." That kind of language, it seemed to me, was what would achieve what I think the government wants in this case.

I would ask the minister if he could explain how this situation would be resolved without that possibility of the indefinite term of the acting auditor-general.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge the suggestions made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), which we have given much consideration. The amendment to section 3 on page 9 is really an effort to clarify the situation of the reappointment of the auditor-general under the original circumstances of section 2, which I think was part of your thinking as well, but at the same time to not restrict the time period in which they might be required as a committee to consider and to recommend. After all, the Legislative Assembly would reappoint an auditor-general on the unanimous recommendation, as provided originally. This simply clarifies the original wording of that section 3, to clarify the fact that the auditor-general, if he is suspended or leaves, is reappointed under the same circumstances as provided in section 2.

I think it is pretty well clarified the way it is, but at the same time it does not restrict the time period in which such a committee might have to function. They might be able to provide a person in a month, and yet they might take 12 months. You never know.

MR. GIBSON: If I might just follow this up, we might be able to solve it on the floor here. Might I have the assurance, then, of the Minister of Finance that the machinery which is contemplated in section 2, namely the special legislative committee, would be set into motion immediately upon the necessity of appointing an acting auditor-general? Could the minister put that on the record?

RON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would certainly be the intention to put the machinery into motion the minute that a clear-cut case of suspension or incapacity occurred. It would have to arrive at a definite point of that kind, but certainly that would be the intention.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet while section 2 flew by, and I was wondering if leave of the House could be granted to go back to section 2 just for a few moments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My most humble apologies, Hon. Member.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

On section 2.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on behalf of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the amendment standing in his name on the order paper, if that is possible, or to move it myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, there is no provision under the standing orders whereby you can move in place of the hon. member for Oak Bay. However, you may wish to make it your own amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I would so move, Mr. Chairman, and with your indulgence will have the motion

[ Page 2268 ]

written out in a few seconds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps while someone is assisting you you may wish to speak to the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I think that the Minister of Finance, when the bill was in discussion in second reading, gave his assurance that the special committee mentioned under section 2 would be representative of all parties in the House. That was the assurance he gave. But we, as opposition, would like to have the assurance written into the bill, and I think this is an amendment that the government would be prepared to accept.

I believe it's in the Manitoba legislation that all parties are represented in the special committee of their Legislature that is struck to select the auditor-general. I would hope that the government would accept this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further debate on the amendment?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I didn't hear you earlier. Has the member taken his place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're just waiting. If we could just delay proceedings for just a moment. We're waiting for a copy of the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: While we are looking for a copy of the amendment, I might say that I think it might be better to leave the specific words out, in my opinion. We've indicated earlier that it would certainly be the intention to appoint an all-party committee. But there might be a circumstance arising where a member chose not to serve or something of this nature. I think that this offers more flexibility, to not have that close a definition — as long as it is a committee of the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I believe the Manitoba legislation does have wording similar to that proposed in this amendment that says the special all-party committee shall recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is a much better section in the Act than the Manitoba Act, of course, but I think that the flexibility is still available. There's no obligation on any member of any party to serve on a special committee. So the flexibility will still be there. The members of the different parties can serve at their option. But I think there should be some provision in this section that there will be all-party representation on the special committee. I'd hope that the government would accept it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, seeking to assist the minister with his reservation, I wonder if this amendment might be suitable if it contained words to the effect of "an all-party committee unless any party elected not to serve" — words to that general effect. Would that solve the government's problem in this regard? Because it does seem to me important that there should be statutory recognition of the principle that the government has accepted, and I appreciate that very much that they have accepted it.

This government, however, will not be the government forever, and one day there may be a time when it should be bound by statutes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: A long time, mind you, but not forever.

With every respect, Mr. Chairman, and after adequate consideration, I really would prefer if we left the clause as it's now drawn to provide the flexibility, as I say, with the knowledge that it is certainly the intention to have an all-party committee to make this an independent choice of a special committee.

But I think to be restrictive — that kind of definition might be something you could regret.

MR. SKELLY: While we are pleased with the assurance of the Minister of Finance, I think that it really should be spelled out in the legislation. After all, as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano says, one party isn't in government forever, and the assurances which are handed out by this minister may not be valid should some other party become the government in this House. I think that the wording "special all-party committee" is much preferable to the wording that we have there now.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little concerned with some of the wording of section 7, and it is perhaps just a grammatical misunderstanding. The word "and" is in there on a basis which I think is conjunctive rather than disjunctive. If you'll look at line 4 you'll note that the auditor-general is asked to report whether it is "in accordance with the stated accounting policies and...on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year." Now it may well be, Mr. Chairman, that the stated accounting policies may have been changed since the previous year and quite properly so. In that case, the auditor-general would find himself in a quandary.

Interjection.

[ Page 2269 ]

MR. GIBSON: Line 4, the "and" on line 4. Section 7, yes, 2(b), line 4. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister.

If I can explain that.... Let's imagine that the stated auditing policies of the government changed during a particular year. The auditor-general would find that it was on the basis of those stated accounting policies. But he could not, at the same time, find "and" — and the "and" requires him to do the same thing at the same time — that it's "on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year" because, by definition, it would have changed. As I say, perhaps it's just a little grammatical concern, but the amendment that I had suggested to the minister was to add after the word "and" the words "as to whether they" — in other words, disjoining the two requirements rather than conjoining them.

It seems to me that that's a useful minor amendment consonant with the dignity of the English language, and I would so move. And now I have to write it out, Mr. Chairman. I'll just be one very quick moment — I had it written out in a letter. I'm sorry.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That explains it: line 11, after "and" add the words "as to whether they" — "they" referring to the statement.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain what a trivial matter would be? It states that the auditor-general shall not be required to report matters to the Legislative Assembly which he may consider to be trivial or immaterial or insignificant. Just as a matter of clarification, I was wondering if this means that he has the ability to refuse to report, should that be requested, if he doesn't feel....

HON. MR. WOLFE: An example that just comes off the top of the head would be if a package of gum were missing from the tuck shop; he would not then be obligated to report specifically on that, I presume.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): De minimis non curat lex.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WOLFE: He just left, eh? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARNES: I just wanted some assurance that this doesn't mean that he has the authority to refuse.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, but he is not obligated to comment on trivial matters.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 10 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. GIBSON: On section 13: the auditor-general, overall, has been discussed as a servant of this Legislature, and in particular he will be working with the public accounts committee. It seems to me it would be useful if this legislation made it possible — though clearly not mandatory — for the auditor-general to respond to particular requests of the public accounts committee.

In order that the government not feel too nervous about this, I would remind them that they have a majority on that committee, as on every other committee. But it is possible that in the course of their work the public accounts committee would discover that there were matters they would wish the auditor-general to investigate, either during the currency of that particular round of hearings or in time for the committee's work the following year. It seems to me it should be possible, and enabled in this statute, for the auditor-general to respond positively in that regard. Accordingly, I would move that after the word "council" at line 2 of the section, the words "or by the public accounts committee" should be added.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you'll be lucky twice.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not looking for luck; I'm

[ Page 2270 ]

looking for truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. It reads after "council" in second line: "or by the public accounts committee."

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Minister of Finance and the government would listen to the arguments of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . It seems to be an excellent idea. Although a lot of material that is brought to the public accounts committee by government members is trivial and can probably be rejected by the auditor-general, there are some things brought before that committee that require some expert advice. I think that it would be an excellent idea to incorporate this amendment into the bill. This is a power which they have in the United States; the committees set up in the congress of the United States have access to the comptroller-general, as they call him down there, or to the general accounting office. It is of assistance to those committees to have the expert advice of the comptroller-general of the United States or the general accounting office when they are considering the matters under their purview.

Also, one advantage that American members of congress have is that individual members of congress have access to the general accounting office staff and to the comptroller-general. They are able to write and refer matters to the comptroller-general, and he is empowered to look into matters referred to him by individual members of congress. I think this is an excellent amendment and one that the government and the Minister of Finance should consider and adopt.

MR. LAUK: Just before the minister accepts the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add one or two....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I know you are a very receptive gentleman, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I have one suggestion.... Well, I'll mention that privately to you.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) is one that is based not only on the desire of the opposition to have a voice and to scrutinize the activities of the scrutinizer, the auditor-general, but it fulfils a basic concept of British parliamentary practice.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says you can do it anyway. I suppose so, but the point is this: sometimes — and I know the Attorney-General may not accept this as a fact — all the members of the public accounts committee don't agree. Sometimes there is disagreement. Sometimes it may be impossible to call before that committee various individuals who should be called unless it is in the statute itself. Part of the concept of British parliamentary practice...well, constitutional law in British parliamentary system states parliament is supreme. You can never make a law that is above parliament and that cannot be changed by parliament. You can never create a position held by an individual that will be considered above the law or above parliament or the Legislature; you can never do that.

This amendment, as I understand it, proposed by the Liberal leader, makes that sacrosanct concept law. It puts it into the statute. It protects the right of this Legislature, under any circumstances, to call before the public accounts committee the auditor-general, cross-examine him and bring out evidence that would be of benefit to the democratic process in this province. The opposition fully supports this amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the implications of this amendment, this section reads: "The auditor-general may undertake special assignments at the request of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but he is under no obligation to carry out any such requested assignment if, in his opinion, it would interfere with his primary responsibilities." This is simply, as I see it, emphasizing the fact that he has a prime responsibility and he is not obligated. He is independent to do whatever he wishes to do. So as I see it, he has the power to look into anything that he wants to if he so chooses. I don't think we really need to direct him here — whether he gets direction from the public accounts committee or not.

MR. GIBSON: It wouldn't do any harm then either.

HON.MR. WOLFE: So I think that it's embracing enough to describe it in this manner because the intent of that section is to make it non-obligatory for him to act on an assignment given to him if he feels that it is going to interfere, in his own opinion, with his primary responsibilities.

MR. GIBSON: If I could just add a word of explanation of the amendment to the minister, I agree that even after the amendment the language of the section would clearly make it non-obligatory for the auditor-general to take an assignment from the public accounts committee, exactly as from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. What it would make clear, however, is that the public accounts committee

[ Page 2271 ]

would have the authority to make that kind of suggestion, which the auditor-general could then accept or not.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is saying they can make that suggestion anyway, so in that case we might as well put it in the law. Nobody loses anything, and perhaps the public accounts committee gains something. It seems to me something that should be acceptable.

Amendment negatived.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the indulgence of the committee to ask a quick question on section 14....

Leave granted.

On section 14.

MR. GIBSON: It notes here that the auditor-general shall require every person to take oaths required by any given department that they are investigating. Could the minister give us an assurance that the taking of these oaths won't in any way hamper the reporting of financial or other matters that the auditor-general should be covering out of those particular sections — in other words that the swearing as to secrecy won't impede the staff of the auditor-general from reporting things they ought to?

Section 14 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, I'm not sure that section 13 was actually passed after the amendment was defeated.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there is another point for clarification. I'm not all that familiar with the procedures respecting the appointment of auditors to do fairly delicate work, and I'm just wondering if the authority to appoint the auditor should be vested in the hands of the Treasury Board, who audit the books of the auditor-general.

I'm sorry, it's section 18. I'm one step ahead of myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 17.

MR. BARNES: I think that's going to pass, so I'll rise again on section 18.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. BARNES: Just for clarification, is this the very best that we can do? The office of the auditor-general will be audited by an auditor appointed by the Treasury Board. Could that be a conflict at some time? Because of the limited view which the Treasury Board may or may not have from time to time, I'm just wondering if that appointment should not be up to the Legislature to remove any doubts of conflict of interest, Mr. Minister.

Wait a minute. What's going on here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're speaking to 19.

MR. BARNES: Yes, that's right, it's 19. Well, we may as well deal with it. (Laughter.) I won't repeat the question. You know what it is now.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, section 19 says the Treasury Board shall appoint an auditor to audit the accounts of the office of the auditor-general annually. Are you agreeing with that proposal, Mr. Member?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inquire as to the judgment of giving that power to the Treasury Board, when perhaps it might best be placed in the hands of the Legislature. I'd like to hear your comments on that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would only say, in answer to that, that I think it really would function more efficiently in this way.

MR. LAUK: I would accept that from the Minister of Finance if we didn't have three editions of the budget speech and the Clarkson Gordon debacle and everything else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: (Sings) La de da, da da diddle de da. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Hidden challenge, Mr. Chairman. You've heard of Gerald McBoing-Boing? Now we've

[ Page 2272 ]

got Evan McBoing-Boing. Great sounds.

Dealing with section 19, I think it's not sufficient to say that you think it will be more efficient. The idea of the operation of an auditor-general is to be completely at arm's length from the government so that his activities could not be brought under pressure of the cabinet at any time, either indirectly or directly. This could be indirectly, by the appointment of auditors by the cabinet.

Surely it's simple enough to bring in a motion at the beginning or the end of each session, or whenever required in a session. The government could introduce a motion for the approval of the Legislature to appoint auditors, so that motion could be properly debated in case there was any question.

It seems to me that under normal circumstances it would seldom be in question, but, for goodness' sake, it would show your respect for the Legislature in perusing that kind of a situation. I think my colleague, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) put forward a very important suggestion. He is trying to protect the integrity of this Legislature, and to protect the integrity of the auditor-general, who should be above and beyond any kind of pressure, indirectly or directly, from the government.

HON. MR WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the clause does indicate full satisfaction to the House, because his report — that he finds everything to be correct, and so on — is lodged with the Speaker, who presents it to the Legislative Assembly.

If the member were to be assured that no auditing firm with the initials CG would be included in the appointment, would that be satisfactory?

MR. LAUK: CG? Are you attacking Clarkson Gordon?

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, contrary to most of the legislation we're looking at this session, which appropriates funds until March 21, 1977, this section goes to 1978. I ask the minister why that extra year was included here.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, as I recall, it was strictly to give ample latitude in his appointment to the committee's function. If you were to say, "the money required for the purposes of this Act shall, until March 31, 1977...." it might be unnecessarily restrictive and require a decision at an early date on the amount required for the budget of that year. I think this is what we are really talking about. Until March, 1978, under this clause, we are not required to specifically indicate in the budget the amount for his office. Until that time it is to be paid out of general revenue.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this perhaps increases the independence of the auditor-general. I'm not sure. I presume the government controls the disbursements made during that period, but given the statement of the minister that this gives due latitude for the actions of the special committee to be appointed, will he assure us that that special committee will be appointed and commence its work without delay after royal assent to this bill?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I indicated in an earlier debate that we would plan to strike the committee and give it its assignment without delay at all.

MR. GIBSON: If necessary then, Mr. Chairman, would the committee work through the summer, for instance, and not necessarily be delayed until the fall sitting of the House for its constitution and labours?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Auditor General Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, there is an oral amendment to section 1. I would ask that we delete the letter "b" in the third line in section 1. In other words, the third line will read "to section 3(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act."

[ Page 2273 ]

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Section 1 deals specifically with federal guidelines and refers to the Act of the federal government — the Anti-Inflation Act. I just wish to repeat my puzzlement in relation to the government's position before the supreme court. Here in section 1 we're being asked to recognize definitions which relate to legislation which this government is challenging before the supreme court. I fully understand, Mr. Chairman, that the decision has not been made as to whether Canada is facing a national emergency. The interesting fact I've uncovered is that the federal bill does not contain a preamble to the effect that: "Whereas a state of emergency exists, the following federal legislation shall apply...."

I understand that in all previous cases where the federal government has introduced legislation based on the concept of an emergency existing, that that preamble has always included in the federal legislation, which places it beyond judgment in the supreme court. In other words, if federal legislation includes such a preamble that in the judgment of parliament an emergency exists, there is no avenue to the supreme court, such as some of the provinces have taken in this case. Now the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shakes his head furiously, and that's something he does quite often in this House. In fact, he shakes more than his head sometimes.

But be that as it may, I'm speaking from some research and from some legal advice that I've obtained. I hope that the Minister of Consumer Services, who's a legal man in his own right, will get up and say his piece if he feels that is not a valid point that I'm putting forward.

But in debating this section, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the opposition — or at least this party that I represent — should express its request for some clarification of what's going on in this anti-inflation business. We've got the government of this province asking the opposition to be responsible and support the battle against inflation. That seems a very reasonable request. Further on in section 2 we're asked to cooperate with Canada, namely the federal government, which brought in a federal anti-inflation Act on which this province is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada questioning its validity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's got to be a pretty confusing situation to the members of this House, let alone the electorate of Canada who must be wondering just exactly how split the personality of the provincial government can be when on the one hand, within its own Legislature, it is asking for a responsible approach by all members of the House in seeking to support the government of British Columbia in the battle against inflation, which involves cooperation with the federal government, and at the same time the Deputy Attorney-General of this province is representing the province and questioning the actual constitutional validity of the very bill we're supposed to support.

Now I suspect there may be some very convoluted legal explanation to this dilemma, and I'll be delighted to hear it. But I'm not the only one who feels very puzzled at this ambivalent approach by the provincial government — on the one hand voicing support for the federal effort and asking the opposition members of this Legislature to give their approval for that support, and, on the other hand, we're off in Ottawa this very week expressing reasons through the vehicle of our Deputy Attorney-General as to why the constitutional validity of the federal Act should be questioned. This seems to turn very clearly, Mr. Chairman, on whether or not it can be established that a national emergency exists.

In a technical respect, I've already stated that it's my information that the federal bill does not contain a preamble asserting parliament's judgment that a national emergency does exist and that the omission of that preamble from the federal legislation may well have been an oversight or it may well have been an oversight or it may well have been intentional by the federal government, inasmuch as the federal government is quite keen and happy to have this matter taken before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I read as recently as in press reports tonight that this is considered to be the most important constitutional issue that's been raised before the Supreme Court of Canada in the last 50 years, because the federal anti-inflation Act mentioned in section 1 of this bill opens up potential avenues of very extensive intervention by the federal government into areas of jurisdiction which traditionally are areas of jurisdiction for the provinces.

So I can well see the dilemma that this provincial government of British Columbia finds itself in, particularly when the greatest area of provincial-federal conflict at the present time in this country is over the question of resource management. If, in fact, this federal bill is adjudged by the supreme court to be constitutional and to give the federal government the right to intervene in the setting of prices in what has hitherto been a provincial jurisdiction, then I suppose the government of this province is very concerned as to what the next intrusion of the federal government might be into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Probably their next intrusion could well be in the area of taxation of resources, which already it has done in an indirect fashion by disallowing the cost of royalties to mining companies as a tax-deductible expense.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, in debating the impact

[ Page 2274 ]

and content of section 1, this House would be most remiss if it were simply to gloss over the section, either because of its brevity or because usually in a bill section 1 is dealing with definitions or interpretations. Since section 1 in this case very clearly relates to the federal anti-inflation Act, with which we are asked to cooperate, when, at the same time, this government is clearly expressing, by its representation before the Supreme Court of Canada, its doubt about whether that very Act is constitutional, it seems to promote a very bizarre kind of debate or should promote a debate in this House which is not likely to occur, judging by the numbers of members who are not even present.

The other aspect of the federal bill, Mr. Chairman, which I think the House should be aware of, is the precedents that have been set and adjudged in former cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. Without going into the various details of all these cases, it is my opinion, from reading a considerable amount, that within the terms of inflation it is more than likely that the supreme court will not agree that a state of national emergency exists in Canada at the present time, based on economic factors which are the basis on which this decision will be arrived at.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance has looked ahead and then noticed that three of the ministers are keep in caucus at the moment. So I would like to have the honour of the Minister of Finance's undivided attention.

I would like to, in light of the kind of questions I've posed.... I'm not asking the minister to be Solomon tonight. I'm just asking him to practical. If the Supreme Court of Canada decides that in fact the federal Anti-Inflation Act is unconstitutional, does this not place the present bill that we are debating in a completely impossible light, and therefore would it not make a great deal of sense to adjourn debate on this bill at the present time until at least we do know what the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is in relation to the validity of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, which this bill clearly describes as being the one that we should cooperate with provincially?

Now I am not trying to be smart-alecky on this. I'm simply asking a layman's question. It seems to me that there is considerable doubt as to the validity of the federal Act, which is very clearly defined in section 1 as being the underpinning for the provincial legislation.

Now supposing we find next week or the week after that the Supreme Court of Canada declared the federal Act unconstitutional. It obviously leaves this provincial bill very much in question or subject to some very basic review and rewriting. Would it not make a great deal more sense if we suspended discussion of this bill until such time, as we know the supreme court decision?

I'm not, Mr. Chairman, trying to be obstructive.

I'm simply looking at the situation and wondering how we can, with any kind of credibility and impact, intelligently debate this bill when in fact a decision of such crucial importance as that to be rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada is in the offing.

Now I understand that the supreme court often delays decisions because of a great deal of consideration of the evidence placed before it, but I would assume that in the case of the anti-inflation bill we are not likely to be kept waiting a very long period of time before knowing the decision. I agree also, Mr. Chairman, that that's an opinion of mine; but again it would be rather contradictory if the whole essence of the hearing before the supreme court is to determine whether a state of emergency exists. It shouldn't take the Supreme Court of Canada forever and a day to come to that kind of decision one way or the other. However, I've no intention of greatly delaying discussion on section 1, Mr. Chairman, but I would very much welcome the minister's response to some of the difficult questions I raised.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to one of the questions that the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised. I would like to mention both to the hon. member and to all members of the House that since this matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada, it is sub judice.

MR. GIBSON: No!

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hearing is not completed, and I think that the discussion here should be one of considerable delicacy. I am afraid, my friend from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), that if you don't agree with me in that concept, there are a few concepts of the practice of law that you fail to understand.

I would like to reiterate the position of the province upon entering this case. This was mentioned to the House back in April — I've forgotten the precise date. I said to the House that we are entering the case on the basis of support to the federal position, but on the very clear understanding that evidence must be led as to the exceptional conditions that prevail and that without such proof the government of Canada cannot encroach upon that which is historically provincially constitutional jurisdiction.

Now it's certainly incumbent, Mr. Member, upon the Supreme Court of Canada, in the argument of the province of British Columbia, to find that a situation of emergency existed, according to the evidence before it. And at the present time that hearing is not completed. It is, of course, the function of the court to determine whether or not that evidence is before it. When the argument was concluded for the

[ Page 2275 ]

Province of British Columbia, the question was put to counsel representing the province as to whether or not that onus had been met. The response was: no it had not. And that was the opinion of counsel then.

Now many things may happen before the termination of this case. The province certainly has its attitude to inflation — which has been articulated in this House at great length, both by the Premier of the province, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and by other members, and I think it is clearly on the record.

I just wish to mention this one point to the hon. member, to reiterate to him what the position of the province was, is and continues to be; it is not altered in the slightest. The Province of British Columbia has, at this point in time in the law suit, concluded that there has been an insufficiency of evidence, but that is an opinion of counsel for the province, and the province. The determination, of course, will have to be that of the Supreme Court of Canada.

With every respect to the members, and my apologies to my good friend, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), if I sounded a little harsh.... He knows me pretty well, and I didn't mean to be that way at all. But since the matter is in front of the court, since the hearing is going on, I think, in fairness to the Supreme Court of Canada, it would be most appreciated if all of the members would bear that in mind and treat the matter with a degree of delicacy.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's remarks, and I certainly do not intend to say anything regarding the validity or lack of validity, in terms of the federal government's right to conclude that an emergent situation does exist in the nation, and which justifies their intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction. It's absolutely clear that it is an incursion into provincial jurisdiction — that which is normally provincial jurisdiction — collective bargaining, for instance, the realm of industrial relations, price-setting on commodities. It is impossible to draw any other conclusion but that the province's position before the supreme court is a position which opposes the conclusion that the necessary kind of nation emergency exists ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, no! On the evidence that has been led, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been a news report last night indicating that the position put forward by the Deputy Attorney-General from the province of British Columbia impaired the federal government's case to justify the federal anti-inflation bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no!

MR. KING: Now that was the report, and if I understand our Attorney-General right, when he was commenting he indicated that the counsel for the province responded, when asked, that the onus of the federal government to justify an emergent nature has not been met.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insufficient evidence.

MR. KING: Now there are a number of ways that the jurisdiction of a province, or of the federal government for that matter, might transcend the normal constitutional balance, as I understand that. One is the test of an emergency nature which would allow the federal government to act in areas that are normally within the constitutional realm of the province. Conversely, there's another avenue, and that is, if they support the anti-inflation programme, to delegate to the federal government the authority to apply, in this case, their bill to the provincial domain.

I think there's yet another way, and that is for the two jurisdictions to pass identical legislation, which validates the federal approach. So what the provincial government is saying is: "Yes, we agree with the anti-inflation programme per se, but we question the jurisdictional right under the emergent power section — the peace, order and good government section of the BNA Act — to apply in the current instance."

HON. MR. GARDOM: As long as there's a sufficiency of evidence.

MR. KING: Well, the conclusion must be — the conclusion, I think, is inevitable — that that body of evidence is not there in satisfactory substance for the province.

Otherwise, it seems absolutely unthinkable that the Attorney-General's department would be represented before the supreme court taking a position questioning the federal government's lack of jurisdiction in this case. I don't want to belabour the matter, but I agree with the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I just want to say this further: if the federal supreme court finds that there is insufficient evidence to justify and to satisfy the peace, order and good government section of the BNA Act, the conclusion then is that the federal legislation is ultra vires the provinces. Isn't that right? I believe so, and that would sustain the position, as I understand it, that is being taken by the provincial Attorney-General's department.

So I wonder how we can proceed with a bill which is solely predicated upon the passage, the constitutional authority and the legal jurisdiction of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, because section 1 of Bill 16, which is before the committee now, clearly hinges on the validity and the legality of the

[ Page 2276 ]

Anti-Inflation Act of Canada. It seems curious to me that we are hinging a piece of legislation to an Act of the federal parliament which we are opposing on the grounds that it is ultra vires the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada to apply it to the provinces on the basis of the evidence that is available to satisfy the section of the BNA Act dealing with peace, order and good government.

Again, you know, I'm a layman too, and I would certainly appreciate some greater clarification than the Attorney-General was prepared to provide, because it seems to me irresponsible to hinge a statute in this province upon a federal statute that may be struck down by the federal court as being ultra vires when that decision may be made with the active assistance and the active participation of the Attorney-General's department of British Columbia.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, I can understand very well why there is confusion in the minds of many members of the House on this particular point, because it is not an easy point to understand, even for those of us who are at least trained in the law. The question that the Leader of the Opposition raises, I think, indicates that he does not quite understand the position that British Columbia has taken from the beginning. The position British Columbia took from the very beginning was one of support for the federal government, so long as they proved that a national emergency did exist.

Now Mr. Vickers, when asked by one of the judges yesterday whether or not he, as counsel in the case, considered that the federal government had proved that point, said no, he did not. Now he could do no less than say that, if that, indeed, was his opinion. The onus of proof, at all times, rests with the federal government. Mr. Vickers only offered as his opinion that the federal government had not met that onus.

The position of British Columbia remains the same. We support the federal legislation provided they, as is their onus to do, prove that there was an emergency giving rise to the legislation in question. So I think it quite clear that British Columbia's position has been steadfast throughout.

Now if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one or two comments on the remarks made by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), particularly concerning the preamble. I'm sure that my colleagues at the bar will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a preamble does not make an emergency, and the lack of it does not deny one. It doesn't matter one way or the other. It may be helpful, insofar as self-serving evidence is concerned, to say in the preamble to a statute that an emergency does exist, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. There can be an emergency without that having been so stated, and there may not be an emergency even though it has been stated. I recognize that unfortunately I came in late in the member's remarks, but I hope that that clarifies that particular position.

Now I also think, Mr. Chairman, with respect, that the member for Oak Bay is mistaken on one other particular point: it's not just the question of an emergency that the federal government raises. As I understand it, there are other constitutional issues that they raise. They say, among other things, that inflation has diminished the value of the dollar and that therefore it falls within banking, trade and commerce — other things that fall within the federal preserve. So it is, with respect, an oversimplification, Mr. Chairman, to say that it is just the question of peace, order and good government. It is an extremely complicated matter. It is one, of course, that the Supreme Court of Canada is adjudicating upon now. It is not one that is easy for us to debate, because of those matters.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the comments of the Minister of Consumer Services, and also the comment of the Attorney-General that we should not get into the details of the issue since it is before the court.

All I was trying to point out in my remarks, whether they were fully accurate or not, was that there is the real possibility, in the light of evidence presented, that in the judgment of the Supreme Court, within the terms of the BNA Act, a national emergency does not exist. I only wish to repeat one more time that if that should prove to be the case — and since we are going to be sitting in this House presumably for some weeks yet — does it not make a lot of sense to consider adjourning debate on this particular bill, since in fact it would be a great embarrassment to this provincial government, I assume, if, in fact, the federal legislation is not vindicated before the supreme court?

None of us in this House knows tonight which way that will go, but by waiting a week or two or three, having been in discussion on this issue for several weeks and the fact that it is only going to be in force for one year, expiring at either the end of March or April next year, it just seems to me that it would make a great deal of sense for the government to adjourn the debate at this point in time until we can determine the decision of the supreme court.

MR. GIBSON: I'm a little concerned about the position that the government seems to be enunciating here. They obviously support the constitutionality of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, because we are engaged in debate upon a bill which has that as a condition precedent.

HON. MR. MAIR: If there is an emergency.

[ Page 2277 ]

MR. GIBSON: I just want to get on to that, Mr. Minister. If the government doesn't support the Anti-Inflation Act, just in general terms, I think someone ought to say so. But the general concept that we have had here is that it's been a good thing to try and bring inflation under control in Canada.

Now there are two ways in which this Act can be constitutional. One way is if it is found to be within the general ambit of the authority of the Government of Canada, whether peace, order and good government in general conditions, or money and banking or whatever it may be. The other is if it is found to be an emergency situation. It would seem to me from the argument of the government that it would be far preferable if the court were to make its findings on the grounds that an emergency situation exists. In that context, it seems to me — and I will not comment on any of the argumentation we've made before the court — that it would be helpful to the general case of British Columbia for the Government of British Columbia to take the position that emergency does indeed exist rather than calling that into question. I have no wish to go any further on that, but I would render that piece of advice.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I depart from my friend, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), on that approach. As I indicated earlier, I appreciate the government's intention to support the thrust and the objectives of the federal anti-inflation programme. However, it does seem to me that there's more than one way to achieve support of that programme, and I think the province of Quebec has chosen a different route from most of the other provinces.

As I indicated earlier, it is possible to delegate jurisdiction to another government for specific purposes, for narrowly confined purposes and for specific time limits. That's one way — the delegation of authority. The other way would be through identical legislation. Instead of that, we are hanging our support for the federal programme on the basis of a bill whose fate resides in an action before the Supreme Court of Canada at the moment, and which we don't understand what the outcome will be. So it seems to me that it's an irresponsible thing to proceed with a legislative statute through this House which could become ultra vires along with the federal statute that it relies upon for its authority.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, you know, we have a serious challenge here in an action that is already before the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the Attorney-General of British Columbia's counsel has stated that the onus of proof has not yet been satisfied by the federal government.

Now I know your objective is not to fight the anti-inflation programme, and I understand that the concern for precedent here is very real. I understand that the offshore natural resources, for instance, could be a matter affected by a precedent set granting federal jurisdiction into what is normally the provincial realm. So it's a problem. But it seems to me that rather than chance the legality of our statute on a rather shaky proposition that is now before the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the constitutionality of the federal statute, we would be better off to delegate authority to the federal government for the sphere of the inflation programme embraced in their federal bill. That can be done, I understand, subject to correction by my legal friends, but I believe that in constitutional law that is one of the methods utilized in terms of delegating jurisdictional authority.

So I have to say that it seems to me an irresponsible thing. And I wonder about the implications of proceeding with this bill that is before the House now and utilizing the authority contained in this bill to roll back wages, for instance, or to set prices, only to find subsequently down the road that the whole legal foundation upon which this bill hinges has been removed and subject ourselves and the government and the Attorney-General of this province to possible action from people in the private sector and, indeed, in the public sector for unauthorized interference with their rights. This seems to me a possibility.

Section 1 ties the authority for this whole bill upon the passage and the constitutionality of the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada. If that bill is struck down as being unconstitutional, ultra vires the federal Parliament, then it seems to me no authority would reside in the provincial government to exercise any of the authority contained in our provincial bill. If those kinds of incursions were made into the realm of collective bargaining and the realm of price-setting — if the provincial government does indeed decide to exercise those powers — without legal authority, I don't know what the implications are. They would seem to me to be very, very serious ones. I don't think you can correct that kind of authority by retroactive legislation in the future.

I think that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has taken a very constructive and reasonable approach. I think that it is incumbent upon the government to either hold this bill in abeyance pending the outcome of the federal litigation or to take a more positive stance in terms of delegating the authority to the federal government and in that way preventing a legal precedent which might militate against the interests of British Columbia in protecting our sovereignty over the natural resources, the offshore resources and so on of this province.

[ Page 2278 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the minister apparently isn't being at all influenced by what I think are constructive suggestions. I hate to have to make a third pitch on this issue, but I feel that we have nothing to lose by delaying deliberation on this bill by one or two or three weeks or whatever.

The agreement, as I say, even if it were in effect, expires at the end of March, 1977, and we are already into June, 1976. It seems to me, from reading deliberations on collective bargaining at the present time, that while there is no legal force to some of the decisions that are being made, the essential principle of an 8 to 12 per cent guideline is being followed or certainly being used as a very persuasive argument in many situations where collective bargaining is going on.

I agree that that doesn't give these instances the force which they would have if this were law and if the federal Anti-Inflation Act were clearly declared constitutional. I just feel that in the light of these uncertainties and the time frame we are talking about and the fact that this has been either the intention of this government or the clear purpose of this government by tabling the bill in the first place, we would stand to lose very little if we delay the bill and yet gain a great deal if, in fact, the federal bill is proved to be constitutional. This bill, when passed, is then retroactive anyway in its effects, as I understand it. So I see very little that we have to lose by delaying it. I think we gain a great deal of respect and credibility in debating a bill at a later date if it hinges on the established validity of the federal bill.

I have no wish to intrude upon the rules of the House, but-later on in this bill section 5 is another section which very clearly allows this government to sign and write agreements with the federal government, based on the federal Act. So much of the underlying theme of the provincial bill is based on our cooperation and agreement with the federal government in its federal Act, which as I have said all too often is being disputed as to its constitutionality.

I feel strongly enough on the logic of my argument, Mr. Chairman, that I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

On section 1 as amended.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, just with a view to the comments being raised by the member for Oak Bay, I would like to say that we have been considering this matter for some months now — five and a half months. I think with one exception every other province in Canada has entered into an agreement to participate in this programme. We are about the last.

As you know, it is necessary to provide legal support for any agreement we enter into with the federal government. It is not retroactive so it is necessary for us to have this behind us in order to proceed with any undertaking we want to have with Ottawa and in order to provide the implications of the anti-inflation legislation to the public sector, which is very important to this province.

So I can't foresee why a delay of the kind you suggest would be within the interests of anyone concerned. We don't want to presuppose what might take place with a view to the supreme court action, nor do we realize or know how quickly their decision might come down. But certainly not on the basis of one day's testimony and so on can we really provide any indication as to what the final result of this matter will be.

Suffice to say that this is an important matter with which we must proceed. I suppose if the thing does take a bad course in the future, this will just have to be something we will have to face at that time.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance didn't seem to understand the concern. The concern rests with the legal authority of this government to take unto themselves the authority and the powers purportedly vested in them by this Act. But this Act and its authority is contingent upon the federal Anti-Inflation Act standing the test of an appeal before the federal supreme court. It may or may not stand that test. If it does not, not only is the federal Act struck down as ultra vires — and again I'm not a lawyer — but it seems to me an inevitable conclusion that this statute before the provincial House, tied as it is and conditional upon the authority of the federal Act, becomes ultra vires too.

Now it says: "Federal guidelines means the guidelines established by regulation pursuant to section 3(2)(b) of the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada)" — and that is a precondition for the application of the provincial statute.

Now let's assume that in the interim period before that federal decision of the supreme court is reached the provincial government intrudes into the bargaining in the public sector and rolls back some wage awards that are obtained through the collective-bargaining process. Let's suppose they exercise other powers contained in the bill — which are not a mandatory matter but just generally a power that may or may not be exerted by the provincial government, but in the realm of price levels — and the provincial government rolls back certain price increases only to find out that subsequently, two months or six months down the road, the federal bill is found ultra vires. The provincial bill, as a consequence, is ultra vires too, and there resided in the provincial government no statutory authority to

[ Page 2279 ]

intrude in the manner that they have into the realm of bargaining and the fixing of maximum prices.

It would seem to me that under those circumstances a case for damages would rest with the person or the organization which had been regulated. A case for damages would rest with them, and they might initiate such a case against the Attorney-General, against the government of this province and the minister involved who took unto himself powers to regulate those organizations and those individuals, which he lacked the legal and statutory authority to do.

That is my concern, and I'm sure that is the concern of my friends down the way. If section 1, with its references to the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada, does not make the legality of this statute totally dependent on such an Act existing in the federal realm, then I don't understand the need to mention the federal Act at all. I don't understand that at all, because it seems to me that this bill is completely contingent upon the federal Act existing, and it can only exist if it is found by the federal supreme court to be within the constitutional bounds of the Parliament of Canada.

I think this is a serious matter. It's a matter that could subject the people and the Government of the Province of British Columbia to unnecessary damages which, I'm sure, no one in this House would want to envisage.

I think it is a matter that should be looked at seriously. I suggest that even my legal friends across the way are probably not qualified in terms of assessing the constitutional implications of this statute. I suggest that constitutional law is a narrow and a rather rare realm of expertise within the bar associations of this province and of this nation. But there are those people trained and recognized for their expertise and for their qualifications in terms of constitutional law.

I think that this is one of those times when the government should stand back for a moment and obtain some very hard advice and guidance from someone who is so qualified in constitutional law. I know that we have Professor Bourne at the University of British Columbia, who is a constitutional lawyer and a recognized expert.

It's a very difficult realm in law, I understand, and one that a criminal lawyer or a corporation lawyer is not necessarily any more familiar with than I am as a layman. Surely it behoves the government in these circumstances to stand back at least until they get some good solid constitutional advice which would not only protect the people of the province, but protect and satisfy the opposition regarding our very genuine concern in this matter.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say, first of all, that while constitutional law unquestionably is a very special field of law, I take issue with his characterizing it as a difficult area. I don't think it's difficult. First of all, there aren't that many cases that one must master. It's only difficult because of the uncertainties of it. (Laughter.)

That was perhaps badly put, Mr. Member, but I know that you're seriously concerned with this legislation and I'm trying very seriously to answer you. One of the problems of constitutional law is that you have perhaps 50 or 60 decisions at the outside that you must deal with and try to translate into modern-day terms. You must also translate into modern-day terms that since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has not struck down one piece of federal legislation. It is also an area of law that you can become pretty expert in if you put five and a half months in, as my friend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and myself and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) have done. A crash course can get you pretty expert in it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the members opposite, that one of the things that we must not forget is that the thing before the Supreme Court of Canada right now is the question as to whether or not the federal government can legislate in the private sector. It is not the whole Anti-Inflation Act at all that's being challenged. It's only that particular right.

What we are dealing with here is legislation in the public sector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it is not. That is the whole point, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that this concept is not easy to grasp, but that's not the point at all. The Supreme Court of Canada would certainly, in theory, find against the federal government without in any way affecting legislation that we propose in this House. I agree that if the Supreme Court of Canada does strike down that particular part of the legislation, we will be in a think tank, thinking our way out into the next move, but the fact of the matter is that this legislation does not depend for its efficacy on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision — not at all.

We must bear in mind that we are dealing with two different things. The Supreme Court of Canada is dealing with the private sector; we are dealing with the public sector and keeping it under control — not the private sector.

MR. KING: With respect to wages, but what about prices?

HON. MR. MAIR: That's an entirely different matter, Mr. Member.

[ Page 2280 ]

I think it's also worthy of note that there are only two provinces, as I understand it — perhaps only one — who are opposing the position taken by the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Alberta is very reluctant. Alberta is wondering how it got in the position of opposing it. Really and truly, to sit here tonight in this House and concern ourselves with what the Supreme Court of Canada may or may not do, based on newspaper reports that we have, to me is not the point. The point is: is this good legislation in light of what the situation is as we now know it? I suggest it is good legislation and section 1, obviously, therefore must pass.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 13

Mr. Wallace requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 2.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Premier is in his seat right now. I hope he isn't getting ready to leave because I was just going to ask the Minister of Finance to recapitulate on a question I asked several days ago following a speech by the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch). The member for Burnaby-Willingdon was quoting the Premier on his good intentions and suggesting that after this bill was passed all of the increases that the government had imposed upon the people of British Columbia would be subject to scrutiny by the Anti-Inflation Board.

I would like the minister to reassure the House that this is exactly what will happen and that ICBC, hospital insurance, medical services, ferries and so forth will all be subjected to review by the Anti-Inflation Board once British Columbia becomes a partner. And I'm sure that even though you haven't accepted our advice, Mr. Minister, this bill will be detained at least until its legal status has been clarified.

You must remember that the Premier also stated, when he was speaking some time ago on the need for cooperation with the federal government in its fight against inflation, that this government was not satisfied with its provincial authority to bring in measures to fight inflation, but that it wanted the legal authority to cooperate, along with other provinces in the country, with the federal government in a concerted fight. This was a quote from the Premier as well, that he wanted the legal authority. This, in fact, was some time around mid-April that he was indicating the need for.... "Legal capacity" was the exact quote that he used. "We want the full legal capacity, should it prove necessary in the future to freeze prices for a limited period of time," et cetera.

So I don't see how you can get the legal capacity when the whole question of the Anti-Inflation Board programme is subject to legality in terms of the Constitution Act.

But I'm not raising that. We've had a division on that situation, and obviously the government is bent on proceeding. I would only suggest that if it is prepared to proceed, it will, in good faith, assure the House that every piece of legislation and every regulation that it has introduced to increase prices beyond the 10 to 12 per cent recommended by the Anti-Inflation Board, which we claim that we will be binding ourselves to, will apply. Then we can look forward to a possible rollback, for instance, from a 40 per cent increase in the social services tax back to maybe where it was at 5 per cent, or if you can split pennies, perhaps 5.25 per cent, based on something like volume of purchase and so forth.

But in any event, I think that that's the one thing I would like to emphasize, Mr. Minister: you did state — and so did the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) in quoting the Premier — you stood in this House several days ago and said that it is government policy to subject all increases that have been brought in during the interim period, until this bill is passed and receives royal assent, to the Anti-Inflation Board.

I think that if the government will subject itself to the same regulations that it expects all the rest of the people of the province of British Columbia to subject themselves to in terms of price controls and wages, in that way you will show in good faith, that indeed the bill does have a possibility of working. But unless that's your very first act — to apply to the Anti-Inflation Board requesting that ICBC, ferry rates and other increases that you've imposed upon the people of British Columbia, be subjected to a review

[ Page 2281 ]

— then I think it will be a poor start, and not very many people will be very enthusiastic or, in fact, all that confident that you are sincere.

Needless to say, there was some talk about cursory agreements between the Premier and others, prior to the period when you had your discussions about joining the federal anti-inflation programme, suggesting that possibly certain of your Acts would be exempt and that you could pretend as though they were going to be reviewed knowing full well that when the time came to apply it wouldn't, in fact, make any difference. It would just be so much of a charade. You would go through the motions knowing full well that the Anti-Inflation Board would not make a judgment contrary to one which you had previously arranged.

Now that's open to your comment. You can refute that, but I'm suggesting that you may say, "Yes, we're going to be subjected to the Anti-Inflation Board and all of the prices and programmes that we've introduced will be reviewed," but I'm just wondering if it will happen. If it does, I will be the first one to stand in this House and say: "Well, I withdraw those remarks, Mr. Minister. I can see that this is truly a sincere effort on the part of the Government of British Columbia." I have no defence if you subject every one of these increases that you've made on the people of British Columbia to the Anti-Inflation Board for review and recommendations as to what the proper increases should be.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I can only say in answer to that that he is entering into the area of the nature of an agreement that we might sign with Ottawa. At this stage I don't think we could commit ourselves to the outcome of those negotiations, because there are many things that could crop up before we finalize the matter with them. Suffice to say that it is a matter of what is included in that agreement or what is not included in the agreement, and that what we're talking about is public sector compensation and pricing.

As you mention, the Premier has made different statements with regard to our intentions in this matter and that if proper review procedures can be established to review the matters that you are talking about, these are going to be included in our proposal with them.

I might say that any agreement that any province has signed with Ottawa on the anti-inflation programme has nothing to do with taxes or tax increases or matters within the government sphere where tax increases are concerned. So your continual reference to those matters I don't think are a part of the anti-inflation programme.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that section 5, certainly in paragraph (a), relates very clearly to entering into agreements with Canada respecting the application of the Anti-Inflation Act and the manner and extent to which the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada or the federal guidelines shall apply to the price of commodities or services. So once again section 5 very clearly points out how closely dependent this bill is upon the contents of the federal bill.

In paragraph (b), I just would wish to ask a question. The section states that "the minister may, on behalf of the government and with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, enter into agreements" — subsection (b) — "with Canada, or any other province or state." I was just fascinated to know what interpretation we should place in relation to the use of the word "state." I thought that Canada consisted of 10 provinces, and I'm just wondering what the use of the word "state" in that sentence refers to. Are we referring to any one of the 51 of the states to the south of our border...

MR. GIBSON: A state of mind!

MR. WALLACE: ...or is it a state relating to some other jurisdiction that I am unaware of — municipalities or regional boards? I'm just very puzzled with the insertion of the word "state" as an entity with which the province of British Columbia might enter into an agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little constitutional invention.

MR. WALLACE: I just wanted to be sure that we would get an answer, and the minister has said that he will respond, but I did not wish to lose my place in debate until I know what the meaning of the word "state" is in that sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have to worry about losing your place, Hon. Member. You can rise as many times as you wish in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we are to debate this bill.... It's a very important bill, and I'm really disappointed that there seems to be a rather casual approach to many of the points that we are raising. We are not here playing games, and we are not trying to be obstructive. We want to have some answers to what I think are reasonable questions, and the word "state" in that subsection (b), coming after the use of the words "or any province...." I can understand that the government might enter into agreements with other provinces, but what is the

[ Page 2282 ]

meaning of the "province or state"? This is not a country that consists of states.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Here we go!

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, with respect, Mr. Chairman, that the agreements with another state anticipated is not an anti-inflation agreement, but I think we should look further: exchanging information, statistics, that sort of thing. So the contemplation there is that the government may very well want to enter into an agreement with another state, whether it be another country, another state of another union, for the purposes of enhancing the bill and any agreement that's entered into thereunder, not entering into another anti-inflation agreement with such a state.

I think that if you read the whole section, you will see that the intent is rather broader than the member puts forward: "carrying out any of his powers and duties under this Act, or for exchanging information or statistics, or for any other joint action."

MR. LAUK: Well, I couldn't let that pass. I recognize that the hon. lawyer for Kamloops, which is well known as being a centre for Canadian constitutional learning....

Interjections

MR. LAUK: You know, I think the Minister of Consumer Services would be correct if the section did not say: "as the minister considers necessary or advisable for the purposes of carrying out any" — any — "of his powers and duties under this Act." And when you see "or for any other joint action" related to "any of his powers...under the Act," you've got a section that is extremely broad. If it didn't say "any of his powers, " then the phrase "for any other joint action" would have to follow the justum generis rule, but it doesn't in that case.

What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that we not pass this section but that we move on to the next section until the Minister of Finance can bring in an amendment. Because what he is suggesting here is that the right-wing coalition is desirous of forming a political or commercial union with the United States. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I repeat: I am not a lawyer, and I hesitate to get into the line of fire between my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair). But since the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) seems reluctant to answer, I have the temerity to join in, particularly in light of the legal opinion which the Minister of Consumer Services gave.

I was not aware that statutory authority was required, under this Act or any other, to allow the government to embark on the exchange of information and/or statistics with any other state. Quite frankly, I hope that is the case, because it would be reassuring, Mr. Chairman, in light of the discussions that have been taking place the past number of days and weeks between the Prime Minister of British Columbia and Governors of Washington, Alaska and other particular states. It would be reassuring to know that he lacks the authority to arrive at any trade-offs, as he says, or agreements, and indeed lacks the authority to involve himself or the province in the exchange of information and statistics without specific statutory authority. Certainly that is the implication in what the Minister of Consumer Services just indicated to the House.

I think we have to conclude, as the first member for Vancouver Centre has pointed out, that the clause specifically extends the authority held under this statute by the authorized minister. Under those circumstances I think the section is ill-conceived and ill-thought-out. I suggest and endorse the proposition that the government withdraw this section, and possibly consider an adjournment on this whole bill until they get their act together and get the language cleaned up in this bill.

It is obviously drafted in questionable legal terms; it's obviously a rather sloppy initiative by the government to come to grips with the problem that is a real one in the province and in the nation. It leaves very many serious questions unanswered. It leaves the implications of broad and unnecessary powers being extended to the minister, and which have nothing to do, necessarily, with the problem of inflation in the nation. I am sure the government doesn't want unnecessary powers; we in the opposition would not want to grant unnecessary powers to the government.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that probably the use of this word "state" is just a little constitutional imperialism, which is good fun. I would just ask the minister, however, if it would be the proposal of the provincial government, in the event it does enter into an agreement with any state under the authority of this Act, which presumably would be a foreign state, to keep the Secretary of State for External Affairs posted. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Posted where? (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Siam.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: The minister seems to bring out an inconsistency in the implications of section 5(a) when

[ Page 2283 ]

he makes reference to compensation of employees of the provincial public sector being subject to agreement between the province and the federal government. At the same time he states that there may be some factors that have to be dealt with in a different manner respecting the increases that the government, through the Legislative Assembly and the cabinet, has initiated.

What I am saying is that the government really is complete, is a whole, and the public sector is part of the government, just as the Crown corporations are part of the government; the Legislative Assembly and those members within the Legislative Assembly are part of the government. But I am wondering why the minister is making these distinctions.

He is suggesting that the public sector — I think he means employees by that....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: If the employees are subject to the Anti-Inflation Board regulations — which is fair enough if you are going into an agreement — there should be no question, in my view, about the inclusion of any other acts on the part of the government that it assumes responsibility for, including its own salary, Everything should be 100 per cent. You have pointed this one out and you haven't mentioned the other things that I have mentioned, like ICBC. You said that the social services tax should be excluded. I will accept that because of technical reasons, although I question the need to exclude anything at a time of restraint and a need to be consistent so there is no doubt as to your concern. I hope that you will explain why the public service was included and none of these other things were expressly included in the legislation.

Now you pointed out that the reviews would be open for all of the measures that the government has brought in, but you have taken the initiative to include the public sector. I just wonder if there are other parts of the government that you could have included. Why only the public sector specifically?

The minister is writing notes on what I said. I think he wants to answer if you give him a chance. I don't want to deprive him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to check?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just wanted to comment on this word "state" once again. It is, in fact, strictly in there to cover for the potentiality of exchange of information and statistics.

MR. LAUK: The second member for Vancouver (Mr. Barnes) should be answered. The general theme is still here that the government — and it's reiterated in section 5(a) — is content to raise rates and taxes and other costs to the public. When they feel a little bit shy in dealing with their own public service, as far as restraint is concerned they want to foist that off onto the anti-inflationary programme and the federal government. That's the theme of the question that's being asked. You're not fooling anybody. You've got a fantastic majority in the House and you're trampling over rights every day.

As far as section 5(b) is concerned, I'm not content that it should be passed off frivolously. I'm sorry that we added too much humour to it. The addition of "or state," read with the phrase "any of his [the minister's] powers and duties under this Act," does not confine it to the mere exchange of information on statistics. So if that's what your intention is, eliminate "or state" or at least define that when you're dealing with the state the agreement will be for the exchanging of information and statistics. Otherwise you're asking the Legislature to grant broad powers. Quite frankly, we're not sure what this government is going to do in agreements with the United States or any other foreign states.

I don't know why you're so amused about that. This is a very broad, power-giving section. I think you should withdraw the section and redraft it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to section 5(a) again which I think, when read carefully, substantiates precisely the proposition which the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself were trying to put forward with respect to section 1 of this bill. The provisions of section 5(a) grant that: "The minister may, on behalf of the government and with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council, enter into agreements with Canada respecting the application of the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada), the regulations and federal guidelines in the province, and the manner and extent to which the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada), the regulations, or the federal guidelines shall apply to the prices of commodities or services and the compensation of employees in the provincial public sector...."

Again, as in section 1, which was denied by the government, which was denied by the Attorney-General, the whole premise on which this bill is put forward is that we have a federal Act that is upheld in the federal supreme court and which sets guidelines and regulations which will be endorsed, accepted and applied in the province.

If the federal Act is found ultra vires in the supreme court, then this whole bill, I submit, becomes ultra vires also in terms of any provincial jurisdiction to enter into the public sector with regulation of commodities, services, salaries, and so on.

I think it's scandalous that the government is going

[ Page 2284 ]

ahead with a bill like this which is on such a shaky foundation, which in this section specifically predicates and makes this statute dependent upon the legality of other federal Anti-Inflation Act, which is admittedly questionable, and, further, which contains in section 5(b) the kind of broad, sweeping, awesome, unnecessary powers that have been outlined and identified by my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

It's true that the Social Credit Party when in opposition constantly screamed about unnecessary powers being taken unto the government of the day, and here they are, Mr. Chairman, going further in this statute and others that have been under debate in this chamber today, taking unto themselves the most unlimited and broad powers that I have ever witnessed in this province. I think it's unjustified, I think it's unnecessary, and if I were the back bench members of that administration I'd be concerned, and I'd be supporting the proposition that the minister take this bill back, accept an adjournment on it, reconsider some of the language — clean it up so that there's some assurance that the government is not vesting in themselves unlimited and unbridled powers and authority which are not at all necessary to accomplish their intention in terms of trying to dull the fires of inflation.

I think there are some very dangerous concepts embraced in this bill that should be rethought. I appeal to the Minister of Finance to adjourn debate and, rethink this bill and call it again at some point in the future.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to remind the minister that I feel that he completely ignored me. I've been very calm this evening. I haven't in any way tried to get him or anyone else excited but I'm expecting cooperation so that we can move on to some other matters. He hasn't stated why he feels that the public service should expressly be included in the bill when other matters are being excluded. I just would like to know why the public service was expressly included. Was there some reason to make sure that there was no danger of them escaping?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I don't know. We would assume that everybody would be included. The fact that it's included makes me wonder why, when you didn't really need to.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Are you speaking for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Well, I guess you're going to have a cabinet shuffle, but you'd better be careful — you might get shuffled sideways.

Would you like to answer, Mr. Minister?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that our suggestion is not being met with any degree of seriousness by the Minister of Finance....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: There seems to be a great deal of frivolity. Shall we have the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: I think that paragraph (b) of section 5 is of such import that we should vote on an amendment. I move an amendment to section 5(b), line 1, by deleting the words "or state."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 23

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I just give a reminder to each member. This is information that you all have; however it's just perhaps something you don't think of. During the time of the reading of the division list, I think we should extend the courtesies of the House to the Clerk who is reading that list for us to be sure that there is no error. As a result, I think we should adopt a policy of absolutely no talking at all during that time. It was that way at one time and I'm sure we can make it again.

[ Page 2285 ]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this section gives an incredibly wide authority to the provincial government in implementing the provisions of this Act. Section 6(2)(a), for example, talks about the regulations defining terms such as price, commodities, services and any other word or expression used in the regulations. Section 6(2)(b) gives authority to establish the maximum price that may be charged for the supply of a commodity or service. I'm quite concerned about some of the public reaction to this kind of legislation, particularly the comments of groups and societies such as the Canadian Labour Congress which sees this kind of bill as the end to collective bargaining, or at least it renders collective bargaining meaningless.

While I personally believe that these groups are overreacting when they talk in terms of using the legislation to justify a general strike, nevertheless it is some evidence of concern with which many important groups — unions and groups of employees — view this kind of legislation. It would really serve no purpose if, in attempting to deal on a temporary basis, as this bill does, with the inflationary problems, all it succeeded in doing was causing widespread havoc throughout the employee section of the province and the country. So I think the government has been unreasonable in giving itself this kind of power under the regulations of section 6.

I'm not really reassured by subsection 3, for example, which mentions that any regulation terminates 60 days after the commencement of the next ensuing sitting of the House. We have no assurance that there will continue to be two sessions of this Legislature each year, and the regulation brought into effect soon after the House rises could be in effect for a very long time. And that kind of power, added to the powers existing under subsection 6(2), leads me to believe that many unions in this province and across Canada, faced with this kind of legislation, have every right to be deeply concerned.

The fact that in the early months of the anti-inflation measures by the federal government there has been an uneven application of the measures, and that all the emphasis seems to have been on wages and very little on prices — that fact of life, coupled with the kind of power that the provincial government wants under section 6, I think, is excessive, unreasonable and certainly raises the question as to just how very much this government, despite its espousing of limiting the powers of government, in fact, seems very much to be going in the opposite direction, and, as with bills we've already discussed today, seems to be bringing in the kind of power which it criticized the former socialist government for seeking in its programme of legislation.

I just find the example of section 6 here, together with some of the other examples that have been quoted in debate earlier on today, to be really a frightening contradiction of so much of what this government stood for when it went to the voters and successfully received their majority support last December.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment as to whether the apparent intent of sections such as subsection 2(a) which I quoted a moment ago, where the regulations can interpret the definition of any other word or expression used in the regulations...if it means what it appears to mean. I can't remember in the years that I've been in the House ever encountering a bill which goes out of its way to express the fact that the regulations can provide the bill with total authority to define any word or expression used in the regulations. This seems to me to mean that the government is going to the nth degree to give itself total power which cannot be argued against, or within which no other interpretation can be considered.

It seems to me that in most bills certainly there is a section which describes definitions of words subsequently used in the bill. But to go to this extent and say that it has the power to define any other word or expression used in the regulations, to me means two things: that the government expects to be challenged, as indeed I'm sure it will in the course of applying this legislation, and is predetermining its own position by giving the government authority to interpret the definition of any single word used in the regulations.

If that is the case, then, indeed, even this bill could have been simplified by just putting all this total power into one single paragraph. It's very frightening that there seems to be no appeal mechanism whatever in this section, or in the bill for that matter, under which any group or employee or union or otherwise which feels itself to be unfairly penalized by the application of the regulations of section 6 can seek redress.

So these are two of the questions I hope the minister might answer: why is there this extensive application to be given the power to define the meaning of every single word; Secondly, was it a purposeful decision by the minister not to provide any kind of appeal mechanism against the application of the regulations under section 6?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this section 6 is an absolutely horrendous section. It was my prime reason for voting against this bill on second reading.

All of the words that we use in this House from time to time on this kind of legislation pale into insignificance when you look at the powers conferred

[ Page 2286 ]

by this section. We talk about blank-cheque legislation, arbitrary legislation and all the rest; this is all of that and more. King John didn't have these powers before the barons gathered to impose Magna Carta on him. Diocletian, the Roman emperor, tried to take these kinds of powers and they didn't work. He had them, but it was back in the days of the Roman empire — in the dying, decadent days — that we saw this kind of legislation imposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: This section, Mr. Chairman, would allow that government over there — and I wouldn't trust it with any government, but I sure wouldn't with that government — to fix any wage...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GIBSON: ...to override any contract or agreement within the civil law of this province and to fix any price above or below cost. Mr. Chairman, this action could go on for months without debate if the Legislature happened not to be then sitting, and then, when the Legislature finally got around to debating it, that crushing government majority would simply override the protests of the opposition and they would carry on unimpeded.

Mr. Chairman, this is a complete betrayal of the mandate that the government received from the people of this province on December 11. That's not why you were elected — to pass this kind of legislation. I want to tell you — those of you who were sitting in this House before December 11 — if the last government had tried this, you would have been up on your feet yelling "Communism!" You would have gone around the province saying that.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): That's right.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: This is a complete taking of power unto the state and unto the executive council that can go on for months before there is any appeal to the Legislature, and at that point your majority will still make it stick. This is taking the right to enter into the private lives and contracts and agreements of any citizen in this province, and do it arbitrarily and do it by cabinet order. You Social Credit backbenchers remember that, because you aren't going to have any influence over it when the day comes...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: ...through you, Mr. Chairman. There won't be any hearing. There is no provision for that here, and there is not provision for appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an absolutely disgusting section and I call upon every thinking member of this House and every member of this House who values his liberty and the liberty of people around this province, to vote against it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is first on his feet. Do you...?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I defer to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief on this. I certainly agree with the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in terms of the very, very unusual powers that this section of the bill grants to cabinet discretion. It is a valid comment to reflect on the reaction from those members on the government side to some of the bills introduced by the previous government containing authority that really did, in fact, pale into insignificance when weighed against the kind of powers and the kind of authority taken unto the government, unto the cabinet, in section 6 of this bill. It is true there would have been hysterical cries of "Communist!" and so on.

It's a bit of a shame that these people have such a short memory. You know, there is more than one kind of dictatorship. We on this side neither subscribe to communist dictatorships nor do we subscribe to fascist dictatorships. We remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that excesses and abuse of power can and have been exercised in defence of any dogma, and it's usually at the expense of the freedom and the rights of individual people in any state. We certainly repudiate that. Never have I seen the kind of powers taken unto a government administration as are contained in this section of the bill, with the exception of certain initiatives by the federal government in cases that they deemed to be emergencies, some of which became highly debatable in light of the scrutiny of history.

The other thing that I object to in this section, and I want to deal with it just briefly, Mr. Chairman, is again the inequity. The whole thrust of this section is mainly directed toward granting the right toward the government to regulate prices of commodities and so on. I find it objectionable that unusual powers are granted in a completely discretionary way while conversely, in the federal act, which will regulate the wages of working people both in the public and the private sector if this bill becomes law, there is a precise formula, a precise level, a precise maximum laid down in the legislation which defines and

[ Page 2287 ]

outlines the permissible guidelines.

On the price side, Mr. Chairman, we find nothing more than a discretionary authority. Quite frankly, I neither trust this government to be serious in their attempt to be even-handed in terms of regulating prices as they are arbitrarily limiting wages, nor do I trust their good judgment with the unusual powers they are taking to themselves in this bill. But I cannot help reiterating and re-emphasizing that the suggestion of regulation of prices, which is essential if there is to be any vestige of even-handedness in terms of a campaign against inflation, should be spelled out precisely in this bill.

If they were spelled out precisely, I suggest that the vague and unusual powers and authority that are granted carte blanche would be more restricted. They would be precisely narrowed down to the authority to specific limitations. Rather than that, as I say, they are carte blanche.

I think if we were to look at the history of this coalition government, if we were to look at their contracts and their relationships and the sources of their campaign funds, I must state, Mr. Chairman, that I have no confidence that there is a sincere desire here to intrude or interfere in any way with the prices and the profits and the profiteering of corporations in this province. Indeed the contrary seems to be true.

We had the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland) today indicating that legislation is coming which is going to provide additional relief from taxation and royalties to the mining industry. Is that the price the mining industry is going to pay to fight inflation? Is that the sacrifice that they're going to receive, by contrast to the regulation, the curtailment, of negotiated wage increases which workers in the private sector and the public sector have worked to win, have gone through the collective bargaining process and negotiated in good faith, only to be intruded upon by government and have that private contract rendered ineffective and rolled back?

It is not even-handed legislation, Mr. Chairman. It's frightening legislation. It's obviously inequitable and I oppose this legislation in the strongest possible terms.

MR. BARBER: I'll be very brief. I very much share the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and by the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) regarding the endangerment of civil liberties represented by section 6.

In a constitutional democracy, definitions matter a very great deal. They are the foundation and the instrument of the law. Definitions must be precise to protect and to preserve the liberties that we believe are valid and valuable assets in a constitutional democracy.

Subsection (a) makes it very clear that this coalition has no respect whatever for that principle, that this coalition is permitted by this legislation — should it pass — to define, in any way it likes, any term it chooses to define. I think that's a dreadful piece of any legislation, no matter which government should bring it in.

In any constitutional democracy definitions must be clear, they must be precise, and they must be accountable to the lawmakers who pass our legislation. Here you are asking for permission to define, after the fact and after this legislation comes into place, any term, any word or expression used in the regulation. To quote from it.... I think that is dreadful, Mr. Chairman. This government should never have had the nerve to do it.

Subsection (d) is even worse. Subsection (d) requires a person to provide "such information and access to his records as the minister or a person designated by him may require." Mr. Chairman, this is iron-curtain legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: This is iron-curtain legislation.

What are we going to see here? Are we going to find the secret police, whom the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) discovered and whom the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has denied exist, breaking down the doors of businesses at midnight? Are we going to find these secret police kicking down the doors, seizing the records and documents of honest businessmen...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. We just have a few minutes until 11. Let's restrain ourselves.

The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is iron-curtain legislation precisely because in subsection (a) we see this coalition giving to itself the unconstitutional authority to define anything it wishes in the Act ...

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:.... . secondly, allowing in subsection (d) unlimited access to the homes and business premises of any person in the province in order to seize any records they wish, day or night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes?

MR. BARBER: I have to agree with the other

[ Page 2288 ]

comments, Mr. Chairman. If the New Democratic Party had brought in such legislation there would be the hysterical cries of hyenas the length and breadth of British Columbia, saying what a dreadful thing this was. When we do it we hear nothing but the laughter. This is iron-curtain legislation. It has no place in a constitutional democracy.

This coalition should be required to provide definitions. This coalition should be required to provide the right of appeal. This coalition has no right whatever to allow the agents of the Crown to go anytime, day or night, into anyone's home or business and seize it. It has no right at all doing that, Mr. Chairman.

This section is absolutely offensive to anyone in a constitutional democracy and to anyone who believes that one's home and one's business should be free from the kind of encroachment and intimidation and open access to any agent of the state that the minister may declare should have such access. It is offensive, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Listen to these guys!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's listen to the member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: If they've even read the bill it's clear they don't understand it.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Are you finished?

No government has the right to produce legislation which in its own terms permits it to determine all the other terms after the legislation has been passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: That is grossly undemocratic. You have no right to bring it in. No democracy should permit any agent of the state this kind of access, day or night, to the homes and business premises of its citizens. This is iron-curtain legislation. You should never have brought it in. Never!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress, further reports that divisions did occur in committee and asks leave to have them recorded in the Journals of the House, and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following amendment is referred to on page 2267:

45 The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 45) intituled Auidtor General Act, to amend as follows:

Section 3, subsection (1), line 1: By adding "general" after "auditor".

Section 3, line 9: By deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

"(3) Where the auditor general is suspended or removed from office or the office of auditor general becomes vacant, the Lieutenant-Governor shall, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, appoint an acting auditor general to hold office until the end of the period of suspension of the auditor general or until an auditor general is appointed under section 2, as the case may be."

The following amendment is referred to on page 2268:

45 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 45 (No. 45) intituled Auditor General Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, subsection (2), line 2: After the word "Special" insert the words "All Party".

[ Page 2289 ]

The following amendments are referred to on page 2269:

Section 8, subsection (2), line 4: By deleting "representation" and substituting "presentation".

Section 10, line 3: By deleting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

"(2) Upon receipt of a report of the auditor general, the Minister of Finance shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible.

"(3) If the Minister of Finance does not lay the report before the Legislative Assembly on the first sitting day following the receipt of the report by him, the auditor general shall transmit the report to the Speaker and the Speaker shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly."