[ Page 185 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Remuneration of provincial election workers. Mr. Barnes –– 185

Refit costs of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Barber –– 186

Fraser Valley farm workers. Ms. Sanford –– 186

Giddy Up Go Ltd. licence. Mrs. Dailly –– 186

Ambulance crew shortage. Mr. Cocke –– 186

Central Native Fisherman's Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 187

British Columbia Government News. Mr. Macdonald –– 187

Report on BCBC operations. Mr. Hanson –– 187

Railcar shortage. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 187

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mr. Howard –– 188

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 188

Mr. Stupich –– 190

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 191

Mr. Howard –– 191

Division –– 192

On section 5.

Mr. Cocke –– 192

Mr. Gabelmann –– 192

Mr. Mussallem –– 193

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 194

Mr. Leggatt –– 195

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 195

Mr. Gabelmann –– 195

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 196

Mr. Hall –– 196

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 197

Mr. Hanson –– 197

Mr. Nicolson –– 197

On the amendment to section 5.

Mr. Nicolson –– 198

Mr. Lea –– 198

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 200

Mr. Barrett –– 200

Mr. Smith –– 203

Mr. Hyndman –– 204

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 205

Mr. Cocke –– 205

Mr. Levi –– 206

Mr. Gabelmann –– 206

Presenting reports.

Insurance Corporation of B.C. sixth annual report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 207

B.C. Hydro 1978-79 annual report. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 207

MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, and already welcomed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith), are four students from the elementary school, Margaret Jenkins, in Oak Bay district. They are accompanied by Ms. Anderson. They've been in the building and are now watching our deliberations this afternoon. They are very special students and I am very pleased to have them here today. They are approximately 13 years of age. While they attend elsewhere in greater Victoria, they are resident in Saanich and the Islands. Would the House please welcome them?

MR. HANSON: Would the House please join me and my colleague in Victoria in welcoming grades 8 to 10 from S.J. Willis Junior Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Miss Stevenson.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon is a long-time friend, a once-logger and now rancher, a fellow who is a staunch individual enterpriser, the type of fellow with the type of initiative that is prevalent in the north. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Archie Strimbold, from Burns Lake.

MR. BARNES: I am rising today to welcome a dear friend of some 35 years. I would like the House to join me in doing so. He is a fellow by the name of Ed Zumwalt, and he and his wife are visiting from Portland, Oregon. Back in the 1940s he was instrumental in assisting me in embarking on my illustrious athletic career. I am sure most of you who have been around will recall that Ed was around when it wasn't too popular to assist those fellows from the other side of the street — long before the days of black power, and so forth. Mr. Zumwalt assisted me when I was a teenager, and he said: "Young man, I think you can go somewhere in life." I haven't seen him for some 30 years, but I noticed he was in the hall today, and he came up and he said: "How are you doing, Emery?" And I said: "Who are you?" He said: "I'm Zumwalt." And I said: "Ed!" Just like that. It's amazing how you never forget a good friend. I don't know where he is, but I did arrange for him to be in the galleries. I would like him to stand because, as he can see, his efforts on my behalf were well worth it. Mr. Zumwalt? There he is, right over here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the House to welcome a constituent from Vancouver–Little Mountain in that great city of Vancouver, Alison Narod.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is my honour to introduce the Minister of Lands and Mineral Resources from Fiji, Mr. William J. Clark, who is leading a delegation to look at mineral mining in British Columbia. He has with him Howard Plummer, assistant director of mineral development for Fiji; John Samy, an economist; and Steven Wood, principal planner in Fiji. I would like the House to welcome Hon. William J. Clark, who is sitting behind me; I would ask him to stand and receive your welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask this House to join me in welcoming Miss Michelle LaPointe, a school teacher from School District 57, chaperones Miss Sue LePage and Mrs. Marianne Hall, and an outstanding group of students from Upper Fraser Elementary School.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd ask you to welcome some more visitors from that great South Peace River area. In the Speaker's gallery, representing the Dawson Creek and District Hospital, are Dr. Warren Irvine, surgeon; Dr. Keith Wilson; and Mr. Gene Casavant, the administrator of the hospital. They are here for talks with the Ministry of Health. With them also, but not present in the House today, is Mr. Bert Simmons, a member of the Dawson Creek Hospital board of directors. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like all in the House and those in the galleries to welcome a member from the west end of my riding, Mr. Victor Newman. Vic is a native carver and is having a show at the Emily Carr Art Centre at 207 Government Street, and his display is on the northwest coast carving and prints. Vic is a very talented artist. He has received five awards and has had 16 exhibitions in B.C. Vic is sitting in the Speaker's gallery.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to introduce a distinguished head of a household today. Seated in the members' gallery is Mrs. Harvey Schroeder. I would like, on behalf of the members here, to welcome the Speaker's wife to the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I want all hon. members to know that I rule the roost at my house and my wife rules the rooster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cock-a-doodle-doo.

Oral Questions

REMUNERATION OF
PROVINCIAL ELECTION WORKERS

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Although the federal election was 12 days after the provincial election, district returning officers and poll clerks who worked in the federal election have been remunerated. My constituency office in Vancouver Centre has received about 50 inquiries about payment from DROs and poll clerks who worked in the provincial election.

Will the minister please explain why those who worked in the provincial election have not yet been remunerated?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the hon. member for the question. It is correct. Late last week, I think, a number of members in this House were made aware of what can only be described as an unreasonable delay in the processing and delivery of cheques to those who manned the various polling stations for the provincial election.

I'm sorry that I don't have all the numbers with me at this moment — I did not have notice of the question. But I discussed the problem last week with senior staff and with the chief electoral officer. I'm informed that some cheques may well have been received today. I hope we can learn

[ Page 186 ]

from the situation. It is unreasonable. One recommendation which we are considering — and I have to underline that point — is that, under careful control, a number of cheques with a block amount of money could perhaps be made available to each returning officer for the processing of cheques, double signature, and distribution of those cheques from the returning office very soon after the election.

We are aware of the problem. I certainly hope that we can avoid it in future. I will make every effort to ensure that is done.

MR. BARNES: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister intend to include any of the changes that he has in mind in the revisions to the Elections Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is really not in order.

MR. LEVI: The minister gave a rather elaborate explanation of something that's obviously not taken place. Could he now tell us what it was that did take place? What have we got here? Is it a problem with the issuance of cheques through the Systems Corporation or his own ministry or what? He didn't say that; he just said there was a problem. What is the problem?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I gave as full an answer as I thought I possibly could. There is a problem. It appeared that the transmittal of names, the determining of amounts, the whole system took longer than it should have. I can't identify precisely where in the chain this problem developed, but it is sufficient to say that there is a problem. I'm not happy over the fact that there is a problem. I identified it last week, and we certainly hope to have it cleared away and not to have a repetition of it in the future.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can confirm that while the federal government had their cheques out almost minutes after the election, the provincial government did not do so. It did, however, do so in the past when it was left to clerks. This time, however, it was programmed into a system of computers that didn't kick out the cheques. I wonder if the minister can confirm that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm or deny that this afternoon.

REFIT COSTS OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development in his capacity as minister responsible for B.C. Steamship Company. Has the minister received a report from the management or the board of directors of the B.C. Steamship Company regarding refit costs of the vessel Princess Marguerite?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, as you know, I've just recently taken over the responsibility for the British Columbia Steamship Company. I will be having a directors' meeting in the very near future, at which time we will be reviewing refit costs, where we are going, the whole operation.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary question. It's very nice to know that, but what I asked was: have you received a report from the management or the board regarding refit costs as of today?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I have received no official report. I have discussed it in very broad, general terms with management. I haven't received an official report; but I have asked for one, and I will be receiving it in due course.

MR. BARBER: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether or not he has received information that the proposed refit costs for the Marguerite will amount to some $3 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered that question.

MR. BARBER: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House when he expects to make and announce a decision on the future, if any, of the vessel Princess Marguerite?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

FRASER VALLEY FARM WORKERS

MS. SANFORD: To the Minister of Labour: is the ministry conducting an investigation into the employment and the contracting of farm workers in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is an ongoing inquiry underway with respect to some of the specific problems associated with casual farm labour and labour contractors.

MS. SANFORD: A supplementary question: I wonder if the minister expects to receive a report from that inquiry — and in time for some action to be taken during this session — in order to put a halt to the present exploitation of farm workers in the Fraser Valley.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If exploitation is taking place and the report so shows, I expect that we will be seeing legislation in this session dealing with it.

GIDDY UP GO LTD. LICENCE

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Highways: on June 7 I asked the minister a question with reference to the licence for Giddy Up Go Ltd., which transports race horses, and I've been waiting with bated breath for the answer. I wonder if you have the answer for me now.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just received the information. You wanted to know when the next hearing for Giddy Up Go is going to take place. The hearing will be held on August 21, 1979, and this is at the request of Giddy Up Go.

AMBULANCE CREW SHORTAGE

MR. COCKE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Since he has seen fit to put ambulance and

[ Page 187 ]

emergency services in a high profile, can he explain an estimated shortage of 200 ambulance crew across the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Two hundred shortage as compared to what? I don't understand the question.

MR. COCKE: An example would be the shortage in Mission where recently they had an ambulance call and could find only one attendant. The kinds of things that have occurred strike me that when the estimate was given to me, the estimate was relatively close. What I'm saying is that those people engaged in ambulance operation tell me that they are 200 short. Is the minister not apprised of this? I know he's very concerned about other areas, but I think that this is an emergency.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I suppose when the member stands up and gives me estimated questions, about all I can do is give him estimated answers. I don't know what the 200 is in relation to. I'm not aware of a shortage of 200 people in the ambulance service, Mr. Speaker. We will be discussing that in estimates, as they come up, and I'm sure that we will see that there have not been any reductions in numbers of people, but rather that there have been increases, and those increases will continue.

MR. COCKE: That minister is amazing. He has the same kind of flights of fancy as those people who bang their desks for him.

Mr. Speaker, when he talks about no reductions with an increased population and an increased need, is there or is there not a shortage of ambulance personnel in this province? Yes or no.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just said no.

MR. COCKE: He did not say no.

CENTRAL NATIVE
FISHERMAN'S COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell the House what the current relationship is between the board of directors of the Central cooperative, near Bella Bella, and the Port Simpson cannery?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As far as I am aware, none, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Is the minister aware of any changes between those two cooperatives? In other words, has one cooperative directorship taken over the directorship of the other cooperative recently?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I believe the answer to the member's question is no. The member may be aware that in the herring fishing season, the directors of Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative make an arrangement with the Central Native Fisherman's Cooperative to provide certain management functions during the herring season. But other than that there is no relationship between those two boards of directors that I am aware of.

MR. LEA: I wonder if the minister could look into that. I want to tell the minister that I am only going on some rumours that have been given to me. I would just like the minister to check into it, because I think the rumours are having some effect in the community, and I think it would be better to have them cleared up.

BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question last week about public service health for the publication of the B.C. Government News. Has the minister got the answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I took the question as notice. I will return to this House with information.

MR. MACDONALD: Since I need the information to help me prepare a speech, I am asking the minister why there should be any problem about receiving that very simple information requested.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if I do have the information, I will give it to the member at the earliest possible time, in order that, for once, we can have accuracies in that member's speech.

REPORT ON BCBC OPERATIONS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Provincial Secretary, which I asked some time ago but was cut off through time. I'm asking about the report done by Mr. Bowles on the operation of B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is that report now ready?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question suggests that the report was directed exclusively to British Columbia Buildings Corporation. I am unable to answer a question based on a false premise.

RAILCAR SHORTAGE

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to answer questions given to me in the House last week by the Leader of the Opposition.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Question number one: is B.C. Rail building railcars? The answer is no.

Question number two: is B.C. Rail purchasing railcars? The answer is no. B.C. Rail has negotiated leases on a total of 1,145 cars — 500 boxcars, 285 of which are additions to the fleet and 215 of which are replacements of other equipment, and 645 bulkhead flatcars, 172 of which are additions to the fleet and 473 of which are replacements of short-term leases and shippers' leases. The total addition to the fleet is 477 boxcars, which, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is just one half-year's production in the old plant. B.C. Rail has been able to obtain long-term leases for the cars it requires at a net cost which is far less than if these cars were purchased.

Interjection.

[ Page 188 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they'd all be on welfare if you were still president of the railway.

Question number three: how many cars is B.C. Rail short of on a daily basis? The answer is that B.C. Rail is supplying additional railcars to meet all customer requirements at this time. The recovery from the winter car shortage has been far faster on British Columbia Rail than on the two national railroads.

Question number four: is the minister aware that car shortage can be alleviated by building more cars? The answer is that the car shortage last winter was the result of severe weather conditions which hampered the ability of the United States railroads to return railcars. In the circumstances, the number of cars owned by British Columbia Railway is irrelevant. Had the railway had more equipment, it would simply have meant that more cars would have been caught in the congestion in the United States.

Question number five: has the minister investigated the possibility of producing railcars at Railwest for sale to other railways? The answer is that the economics which made Railwest uncompetitive still exist, namely, high cost of materials, transportation and labour. The production from the plant was marketed at the distress price for a period of 15 months when demand for railcars was at its peak, and yet the railway did not receive a single offer. At the end of that period, B.C. Rail seized the opportunity to upgrade its own heavy repair facilities and is making use of the plant and car shop.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. HOWARD: When the minister wound up or closed off the debate on second reading, he said — and I paraphrase his words now rather than quote them — "This proposal for a 5 percent tax credit against dividends received from corporations in B.C. is also a situation that is in effect in the province of Quebec." I wonder if he could tell the committee what the foundation for that statement was. Has he a communication from the Province of Quebec, or has he looked at the statutes?

HON. MR. WOLFE: This relates to the 5 percent dividend tax proposal in our budget. I was only referring to the fact that it was mentioned in the budget speech of Quebec, which was introduced sometime after our budget speech. I don't know the details of that proposal, but that's where my information comes from.

MR. HOWARD: At the other stage, Mr. Chairman, I argued that this proposal really didn't and would not advance the investment of funds in corporations in B.C., other than those that are already established and/or are paying dividends, because it's a credit against the dividend received and paid by a company. Newly developed companies starting into small business or mining operations or anything of that sort would not be affected one whit by this particular proposal. I argued that if it is worthwhile to provide an incentive to people in British Columbia to invest their funds in equity capital of companies, especially those that are seeking to embark upon new ventures, then this is not the way to go about it.

I was somewhat surprised when the minister mis-stated the relationship between this proposal and the proposal which exists in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec — and I only mention this for comparative purposes — in the budget which was presented to the National Assembly earlier this year did, in fact, put forward a proposal seeking to encourage Quebecers to put money into equity financing and to invest money in new ventures in that province, but not through this mechanism of a dividend tax credit.

The Toronto Globe and Mail for Wednesday, March 28, of this year covers in quite some detail the proposal put to the National Assembly in Quebec City by the government of Quebec on this subject matter of attracting investment capital. I would like to quote just a few references from it to put forward what I think the government here in B.C. should be doing if it is seriously interested in attracting equity capital into new ventures, mining operations and the like in this province.

This is the budget scheme proposed to the National Assembly according to an article in the Globe and Mail by a Wendy Kerr. She says that what Mr. Parizeau is offering Quebecers is a chance to deduct the money they invest in new issues of Quebec companies from their income. His stock savings plan would allow taxpayers to get the same benefits from their stock investment as they now get from contributions to registered retirement savings plans and similar tax-deducibility schemes like that, up to a combined 20 percent of their earned income to a maximum of $15,000. The proposal in Quebec is that the stock must be a new issue put out by a public company with its head office or major Canadian office in Quebec. To make sure that the taxpayers don't buy the shares, get the tax break and then turn around and sell the shares within a short period of time, under the proposal in Quebec the taxpayer has to have the stock in his possession for a two-year period. If he sells it within that period, then he does not get the tax advantage. This is a distinctly different proposition from that which is being put forward by the minister here. I submit that this proposal will attract not one single cent into new companies, into new venture in the province. It will only be a rip-off against the other taxpayers in the province of British Columbia who are not able financially, or inclined, to put their money into shares of corporations and receive dividends.

In looking at the precision of it, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could try to do it in another way and use as an example — a suppositionary example admittedly and based on some assumptions which may not be accurate. Look at, for instance, the Minister of Finance himself. It's public knowledge that his income for tax purposes as a cabinet

[ Page 189 ]

minister is $24,000 a year. It's public knowledge that his income for tax purposes as an MLA is $16,000 a year, and all cabinet ministers are in that category. Assuming that there is no other earned income, his total income in a year would be $40,000. After making deductions that he normally would make for the MLAs' superannuation fund, $2,600 personal deductions for himself and his wife, again assumed to be about $5,000, that would leave him with a taxable income of $32,400.

What I'm trying to do is show how the dividend tax credit system proposed here would affect the Minister of Finance, assuming these things to be correct. His $32,400 of taxable income would be taxed at a combined federal and provincial rate of 46.08 percent, or 46 percent for general reference purposes. Thirty-two percent of that would be federal, and the balance — between 32 percent and 46 percent — would be the provincial portion of the tax. Assume the minister owned 1,000 common shares of B.C. Telephone Co. which paid a dividend of $1.20 a year. His income from those dividends would be $1,200 a year. To include that dividend income in his other income he, by federal law, has to increase it by 50 percent which would be a total amount of $1,800 — that is, 50 percent more than the actual amount of the dividend. If he were to pay his 32 percent federal tax on that $1,800, he would be required to enter $576 as tax payable on the dividends he has earned from B.C. Telephone Co.

Under the federal plan, the minister then would get a 25 percent credit against his tax — 25 percent of the $1,800. He'd get a credit of $450 towards the $576 he'd have to pay in tax, leaving him a net federal tax payable of $126 on $1,200 of income. For the provincial portion of the tax of that $126 I've taken 44 percent, although this year it is proposed to be 45 percent. But I've taken 44 because that was what I thought it was going to be when the income tax was reduced.

So he works out his provincial tax of 44 percent of the federal tax, which is $55. He has a total tax payable of $181 on $1,200 of dividend income. That's 15 percent tax rate he's paying on dividends compared with 46 percent tax rate on his other income — a distinct advantage, a distinct present.

Now we have this proposal. When he comes to work out his provincial tax he now, at the provincial level of taxation, is going to get a 5 percent credit — that's 5 percent of $1,800 — against the amount of his provincial tax, and 5 percent of $1,800 is $90. So he now gets another $90 credit against his tax. Deducting that from $181 he has to pay, we find out he pays $91 of tax on a $1,200 income, which is 7 percent tax rate. And he's taxed at the rate of 7 percent on the $1,200 he gets from dividends, taxed at the rate of 46 percent on the rest of his income. That I consider to be a rip-off because it's a deduction against tax; somebody has got to make up that difference — other taxpayers who are not in that advantageous position.

Let's look at another situation in order to give some further balance to what's happening here. Let's assume an ordinary MLA — I was going to use the reference point of the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) but I decline to do that because the honourable gentleman is in the chair and it might be misinterpreted — has the $16,000 income as an MLA liable to be entered for tax purposes, and no other earned income.

An ordinary MLA would have a pension deduction to the MLAs' pension plan of $1,040. Assume husband and wife deductions of $5,000, roughly speaking, leaving about $10,000 of that income as an MLA as taxable income. Let's assume that MLA has, say, 1,000 shares of B.C. Sugar, which pays a dividend of $2 a share. If I'm incorrect, I'm sure the Chairman will correct me on this, but let us assume 1,000 shares of B.C. Sugar Refineries. At $2 a share, that's $2,000 dividend income from the B.C. Sugar shares. The MLA in question would have to increase by 50 percent that $2,000 income and enter onto the income side of his income tax form the amount of $3,000, by federal law. He would be at that $10,000 level in a tax bracket, federally, of 23 percent, combined federal and provincial of 33 percent, once we add the 44 percent provincial tax on top of that. So his $3,000 grossed-up dividend income from B.C. Sugar shares is taxed at the rate of the federal level of 23 percent. He pays a tax of $690, or is liable to pay a tax of $690 on that.

But he also gets a dividend tax credit at the federal level of 25 percent of that $3,000, which is $750. So he has to pay $690 tax on the dividend income, but gets a credit of $750 towards the $690. He's got an overage of $60, which he applies against the tax payable on his other income. So he not only gets all the dividend income tax-free in this case, but he gets a gift of an additional $60 from the taxpayers of Canada. Now he comes to work out a no-provincial tax on that one, because there's no federal tax.

Now he's going to get, on top of that, according to this proposal, a 5 percent credit, 5 percent of $3,000 credit against the provincial income tax otherwise payable; and that's what clause 4 says. In addition to paying no tax whatever on the dividends, he gets a $60 bonus out of the federal treasury, plus 5 percent of $3,000 bonus from the provincial treasury. So he gets a $150 gift from the taxpayers of British Columbia on top of paying no tax whatever on the income earned from those theoretical 1,000 shares of B.C. Sugar.

That is nothing more than a gift by this government to those who have, and the denial of any opportunity to those who either by inclination, as I said earlier, or by inability to find the funds to do it — those in lower income brackets — as unable to take advantage of this; but it is an advantage to those who can afford to do it. The people who are going to make up the difference, the subsidy, are those in the lower income-tax bracket. The Minister of Finance knows better than anybody else that, if he has got a shortfall of funds over here, he's going to make it up somewhere else. All this is is a gift. It has nothing whatever to do with attracting venture capital into B.C. or attracting so-called risk capital into B.C. It's got nothing whatever to do with enticing people to put their money into new ventures and new businesses. It's a donation and a contribution to those who need it the least, namely, the people who, like the minister and like other MLAs who are in the higher and luxurious income-tax brackets, can well afford, if they so desire, to do that.

I know dozens and dozens of people in northern B.C. who just exist from one paycheque to the next, and many times with gaps between those paycheques. They've got lots of incentive and lots of drive and lots of energy too.

MR. KEMPF: And lots of wages too, at $9 an hour.

[ Page 190 ]

MR. HOWARD: For the benefit of those who are ignorant enough not to be able to know the truth of these matters, the average construction worker in northern B.C. — certainly since this government has been in office — has worked an average of about seven months out of the year and is out of work the rest of the time.

MR. KEMPF: Have you never heard of break-up?

MR. HOWARD: The only break-up that exists here is between the honourable gentleman's ears. If he knew anything at all about construction work he wouldn't make such an asinine statement.

MR. KEMPF: If you knew anything about the north you wouldn't be making that kind of statement either.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, please protect me. I was admonished very severely the other day for intruding upon the rules. I was advised to read certain sections of May, seventeenth edition, which I did. I'd suggest it would behoove the honourable gentlemen opposite, who bleat away like blind sheep about things, to read the same rules — not that I'm giving you a lecture, Mr. Chairman, but it would be most helpful.

When the chips are down, all of the reasons given by the Minister of Finance as to the value of this particular proposition are inaccurate reasons — they do not apply. They are not going to attract investment capital. They will only attract people, who may want to do it in any event, to put their funds in share capital of companies that are already paying dividends. And those that are already paying dividends are not new companies. They are not new mining companies starting out. They are not new small businesses starting out. They're not the new ventures that we need so much to provide employment in the north country and in other parts of the province. It's just a gift to those who have. And on that basis, plus the fact that the minister was so wrong in drawing any comparison between what the Province of Quebec did — as outlined in the Toronto Globe and Mail, from which I read — and what he is proposing, I have no other recourse but to express my opposition to this particular clause.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I said in earlier debate, I appreciate the member's interest in this subject. A great many people probably can't follow the intricacies and infinite detail involved in these percentages. I would remind the member that we also have a companion measure having to do with the establishment of a venture capital corporation in British Columbia, which has as its main objective the encouragement of new, more risk-type ventures in this province. You fault this measure because, in your opinion, it doesn't qualify for that particular reason.

I urge you to read what was said on page 43 in the budget speech. Our entire approach there indicated that we wanted to encourage local control of corporate decisions which affect the British Columbia economy.

"When decisions affecting the province's economy are taken by managements remote from the province, we are not satisfied that the people making those decisions are as knowledgeable about provincial conditions as they would be if they were located in British Columbia. We do not intend to allow British Columbia to become a 'branch plant' economy.

"This government believes in individual ownership. Through tax measures that benefit the individual, such as the dividend tax credit, ownership of our industry by our citizens will be encouraged which will create further opportunities for the individual. This dividend tax credit is intended to benefit the average person who purchases shares."

I don't see that the objectives you are referring to are failing in terms of this particular proposal.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned on several occasions that this is a rip-off at the expense of other taxpayers. You could put it in those terms, but anytime you alter the income tax in any field it affects all of the other taxpayers. You can't provide incentives of one kind or another, which this is, without being subject to that kind of criticism from yourself, I would imagine.

I just wanted to say in addition to that that we have studied very carefully the implications of some of the tax cases to which you refer, and we appreciate the fact that a dividend tax credit can work out in certain circumstances to be more than the tax resulting from the receipt of the dividend. In no case, however, would an individual receive a refund from the government resulting from the application of the dividend tax credit, as it is a credit only to be applied against tax payable. So we're aware that in certain circumstances you can make a case where there is more tax credit than the dividend might have been, but it's only in certain cases.

I'd like to say as well that very few taxpayers will fit into the type of situation we're now referring to. If we were to consider altering the situation to restrict it in this regard, it would considerably complicate the tax return, and there is some question as to whether Revenue Canada would administer it in this way. I think we should further be aware of the fact that their particular tax credit, which you referred to in the grossing up and the 20 percent situation, does not have a restriction of that type either. These present tremendous complications in the tax return.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that we are undertaking to watch this situation carefully. The bill is subject to proclamation, and if in the future it requires amending to adjust for those kinds of things, we'll certainly be looking at it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I expressed some reservations about section 2 of this legislation when we were discussing it in second reading. My concern then was that it was treating the very wealthy the same as it was treating the lowest of the taxpayers; it was a straight 2 point reduction. I'm dealing with the progressive nature of income tax, Mr. Chairman. I'm not really talking about section 2, but simply using it as an example.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 4.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate that. My concern about section 2 was that it did nothing to make income tax more progressive; my concern about section 4 is that it goes in the other direction. It goes in the wrong direction; it makes it more of a tax against the poor than it does against the well off, and for that reason I don't see how we can support it.

[ Page 191 ]

The minister said that this business of getting an additional credit in excess of the tax that will be payable by dividends will apply in only a few cases. Mr. Chairman, we've heard in the publicity given to the BCRIC disbursal that some 60,000 people in the province are shareholders and collect dividends — only 60,000 of all of the taxpayers in the province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, that's not correct.

MR. STUPICH: What was the figure?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Excuse me, yes.

MR. STUPICH: It is correct, then — 60,000 people.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Previously, yes.

MR. STUPICH: The information that I heard on the radio this morning is that 60,000 people have applied for BCRIC shares in addition to the free ones, so to some extent they're the same 60,000. He said the figure may go higher; he didn't have final figures yet. But even if we say that some 100,000 people in the province are going to be shareholders of public companies, then we have to start decreasing that number by those who have head offices outside of B.C., because this particular section applies only to those corporations that have head offices in the provinces. So it's hard to say just how many taxpayers might be benefiting by this legislation, but it's certainly nowhere near a large proportion of the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. So what we're doing to a very small group is saying: "Here, we're going to give you some special benefit. If you invest in corporations like this you're going to be paying less tax than you would otherwise, wherein all the other taxpayers together — the poorest as well as the richest — are going to help make up the shortfall that is going to arise in government revenue, because we want to make this special deal for a few people in our community."

Well, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to make special deals, we should be doing it at the other end of the scale, as I pointed out in second reading. The minister did say in the budget speech that a special deal is being made for some of those people. It's going to benefit some 68,000, I think. None will pay more provincial tax than federal tax. That's the kind of special deal that we'd like to see, and we'd like to see more effort being put into a special deal for the poorest rather than this effort being put into a special deal for those who are well off.

When it comes to estimates — and again I'm not transgressing, I'm simply throwing it in as part of my argument — I intend to ask the minister what evidence he has that an increasing number of people came to B.C. to die because we removed succession duties. Now we're throwing one other thing in to try to get more people to invest in B.C. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that these are pretty desperate measures to try to get something going in the province and they are not really going to do anything for the economy in B.C. I'm against this particular section.

MR. HOWARD: As the minister said, in some circumstances it would prevail that a person would get a credit greater than the amount of the dividends. In fact, there would be an excess there. I wonder if he could tell the committee what research work the Ministry of Finance has done to be able to indicate what is the income level at which that break-even point is reached. In other words, what is the income level in the province, as a result of researches the Department of Finance has done, above which the dividends would start to be taxed? What is the 100 percent break-even point?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have an exact figure, but in examples used in supplying this research the types of cases we're referring to are in the low income side. They are low income taxpayers where you can have the situation that we have just referred to, where the dividend tax credit could exceed the amount of tax payable.

MR. HOWARD: But you don't have any precise figures. And I assume you haven't done any research on the subject matter. What is the level? I would like to know that.

I guess I'm not going to get an answer for that, and they obviously don't know.

Could the minister say what statistical analysis his department has made to determine what amount — total dollar value of tax lost — would occur as a result of this proposal? In other words, you are going to give people a 5 percent dividend tax credit. How much less money is going to come into the coffers of the treasury as a result of that, taking whatever given taxation year you want to take?

HON. MR. WOLFE: On a total basis, the estimated cost of this measure is $3 million. As I said earlier, in the answer to your question, I am indicating that in the various examples we have developed, it is in the low-income side taxpayer where you find this anomaly does take place. So we should alleviate a lot of your concern, I would think.

MR. HOWARD: I suppose that comes to defining what low income is. According to my calculations, and I'd like the minister to correct me if I am mistaken, it will be of advantage to anybody earning taxable income up to approximately $22,000 a year to pay no tax whatever on the dividends, federal or provincial. And above $22,000 they will start paying tax at the very reduced rate of 5, 6, 7, 10 percent, and so on, so that to a maximum position of anything above $99,000 a year a person wouldn't pay any more than 37 or 38 percent of tax, when his total income is in the 60 percent bracket. Does the minister say that is wrong?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It would depend entirely on the mix of income in any individual taxpayer. We would have to spread dozens of cases out here to arrive at a conclusion such as that you just made. It depends on the mix of income that would be developed in any personal taxpayer.

MR. HOWARD: I just put it to you that those are accurate figures which I gave to the minister. Once a person reaches that level of taxable income....

HON. MR. WOLFE: It depends on the mix, Frank.

[ Page 192 ]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 21

Mr. Stupich requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 5.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, in section 5, we're looking at a section that has very interesting connotations, as far as I can see. What we're doing here is saying that we're going to give a retroactive pat on the back to Social Credit supporters across the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: It's true, none the less.

We're saying that the promises made by the candidates, by the official agents, by the campaign managers and campaign workers and Dueck on Broadway, were that if you vote Socred and if you support them financially, and if we can squeeze them in somehow, you're going to get a rebate on your donations to the Social Credit Party.

I think there are a number of criticisms that I can put forward with respect to this section, not the least of which it is that it's Mickey Mouse. It does not come followed or in tandem with any kind of a change in the Provincial Elections Act. There is no control; there's no question in terms of where political donations come from; there's no recording, there's nothing.

When the federal government changed their Act to permit tax relief for donations, it was incorporated in a much larger area which included all those other safeguards.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that anyone on either side of the House, having given careful consideration to this section could, in all honesty, vote for it. It strikes me that even if this were in prospect, even if it were from here on in, it would be something that would have to be debated for some length of time because of the lack of any kind of safeguards. But when it is dated back to April 2, so that it includes a past campaign — that's when you introduced it, knowing full well you were going into an election....

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's why we introduced it. It wasn't backdated.

MR. COCKE: Why didn't you pass it then?

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're all mixed up.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not all mixed up. If that minister had any concern or any real feeling about this House, then they would have put that bill forward at that time, prior to calling the election. You didn't have to call the election on April 6. You could have delayed it a couple of days. No, you held it out as a carrot — a typical Social Credit carrot to all the folks out there. Incidentally, you had trouble finding a lot of folks out there, I noted. But all you have to do is work real hard, donate lots of money, and you're going to get lots of it back. I just feel the whole thing is a mockery of the parliamentary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are you going to vote?

MR. COCKE: I'm going to vote against it, of course. How are you going to vote? Or do you vote in principle, or on principal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps members could extend some courtesy to the member for New Westminster, who has the floor.

MR. COCKE: I'm out of order, Mr. Chairman, for answering that twit. No, I withdraw the "twit."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure you are aware that word is on our unparliamentary list.

MR. COCKE: I suggest what we're reading here is a bill, or at least a section of the Income Tax Act that should be accompanied by a change in the whole electoral process. These things should not be done giving a retroactive effect to the Act that encourages this sort of thing to occur in the future. I really feel all of us should really think about what we're doing here. There is another part that just absolutely defies the imagination, and that is Part V: "Regulations relating to this section may be made retroactive to 12 midnight April 2, 1979, and under enactment shall be deemed to have come into force at that time." So what we're doing here is voting on regulations that we haven't a clue what they might include.

They'll probably be quite wrong, judging from this government's past performance. The whole thing, I think, is a mockery of the parliamentary system, a mockery of the House. It shows again that the Minister of Finance and this government really do not understand the whole process of making laws regarding the future as opposed to making laws regarding the past. They're just bribing the friends of the Socreds. How anybody could have given them money I can't imagine. But I guess there are a few out there in the population who did during the last campaign.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few comments concerning this section of the bill. I believe in principle that the idea of contributions to political parties should be made tax deductible in some manner. I agreed with the federal legislation that was introduced. It was long overdue at that

[ Page 193 ]

level. I think legislation of that sort is long overdue at this level, provincially.

I have two basic concerns with the sections. The first relates to its retroactivity. In the section of this particular bill, should this section pass, the definition of "political parties" is so wide that it would allow any group who had run candidates in this province — perhaps even Independent candidates who contested seats in this past provincial election — theoretically to be eligible for benefit under this section. It was not the law of the land when those people ran; they were not running as candidates in the last general election with the knowledge that they could, in fact, collect and keep records of donations for tax purposes.

This section of the bill is, in my judgment, blatantly discriminatory to people who ran as candidates who were not members of our party or of the government party. Our party can benefit under the Canada Elections Act, so it doesn't matter to us particularly. The government party can benefit because it was aware that it had internally promised itself it would do this should it be re-elected. Other candidates would not have been aware that such a retroactive law would be passed, and they should not be discriminated against.

There are times when retroactive legislation is appropriate. Certainly in the sales tax reduction I would support that kind of principle. I'm not opposed to the so-called principle of retroactivity so much as I am the way it's applied in this particular section. I don't know whether it's necessary to raise my voice, shout and repeat myself. I won't do that. But sometimes in this House it's necessary to do those kinds of things in order to make clear your anger about a particular piece of legislation. This, in my judgment, is reprehensible legislation, and this section must not be allowed to pass this House.

My other major concern is a more general one. I believe it is necessary to have election spending legislation in this province as we now have nationally and as many other provinces have. But I do believe that all of those bits of legislation should be included in one piece of legislation that we can consider as a package, that we can consider as a whole. The subject of spending and raising money in election campaigns is so complex, important and vital to our democratic system that it is a subject that should be explored by a committee of this House, travelling around this province listening to what people have to say and drafting legislation as a result of that kind of public debate and public disclosure. We must not bring in election legislation in a piecemeal fashion such as this.

A few pieces of this section of this bill concern me. Under the federal Act the amount contributed is very carefully recorded under a very careful system of vouchers and forms that have been given to the political parties. Each political party is allowed one person and one person only in each constituency, or in each province, to be the person who is accountable for that donation, who is responsible for that donation. Any violations of the legislation under the federal Act fall on the shoulders of that one person. Who kept the records in the past provincial general election? Who was responsible for keeping the records in the past provincial general election if this bill is passed? Which person is responsible legally for violations? These, for me, Mr. Chairman, are not rhetorical questions. They are important and must be answered before I'm prepared to seriously consider this kind of legislation.

Other jurisdictions in this country, and the national House itself, have spent countless hours, days, months and, in fact, years debating what is a recognized political party. It is a complex issue. Is a recognized political party a party that runs X number of candidates, that receives X percent of the vote? Is it one person standing up and saying: "I am a recognized political party. I'm going to run as an independent."? We don't know clearly enough what the answers are. The bill says: "A bona fide affiliation of electors comprised in a political organization that has as a prime purpose the fielding of candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly." Two people with two friends could qualify under that wording — two people with two friends in two separate constituencies. If you say they don't qualify, what numbers do qualify? Is it four with six friends? How do we define these kinds of things? Apparently we're going to define them in regulation outside the scope of this Legislature, outside the public debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a bunch of malarkey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps what I'm saying is a bunch of malarkey. I'm prepared to have that proven. If the minister is able to stand up in debate and explain and prove to me that this section has had as much deep debate, as much research and as many safeguards as the federal legislation has, then I withdraw what I said.

I'm one of those people, Mr. Chairman, who have spent a great deal of time in the last three or four years with the federal Act. I've dealt with it in terms of its drafting, its implementation and its use, and I know that this whole subject is absolutely and incredibly complicated and cannot be solved by a simple piece of legislation like this that has no rules or regulations attached to it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to say very much more, other than, as some of my colleagues have said, I believe the section should be withdrawn. I believe that it should be re-introduced after committee study. I think it should include a variety of other subjects such as spending limitations and declarations of donors. Will the names of the people who donate under the section be made public? If not, why not?

But most importantly, I believe that in a democracy, the system of electing members to this House or any other House must be seen to be fair, must be seen to be above board, and this section of this bill precludes that.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have the great pleasure to stand here and speak on this section. One thing about the Social Credit Party, I can tell my honourable friend, is that we're not devious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Hansard is having some difficulties with the mikes. It may be necessary for them to make some repairs.

Hon. member, perhaps you could try the mike from the second member for Vancouver South, the member standing behind you or the member for Skeena.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I think it's some deep scheme to get me off the floor. When I speak through a microphone of my honourable friends on this side, I don't

[ Page 194 ]

have a feeling of ease. I feel that something may be lost in the transmission.

But I would like to say that one thing that our party can never be judged for is that we are devious with anything we ever did.

One thing we are clear on: we are brutally honest with the facts, both in an election and out of election. In fact, we are so plain with these facts that it seems so horrendous that the truth could be so blunt and that we are suspected of devious transactions. There are none. One thing we have had in our 23 years of office is absolute truth in government, and that can be proven continuously and forever. No one should ever even suggest it, and I would defy anybody to recall a statement we have made in the past that wasn't completely fulfilled. I think that's a great record for our government, both this administration and the one before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would stop you now to remind you that we are in committee stage on Bill 4, section 5. The Chair has difficulty bringing members into order when they stray from the rules of the House. Perhaps you could keep it in committee.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are at your best when you are correcting me, but the fact is that I am speaking to the point in question because it involves funds. It involves a principle of government and I speak on the principle of government, the principle of our party. Our honourable friends opposite have made it very clear that our principles are not correct, so I speak on the principle. I think it could hardly be denied that when I speak about.... They say that our principles are wrong and I say that our principles are right. They've always been right and they've always been correct, and brutally correct.

MR. BARBER: Brutal anyway, Georgie.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not brutal, brutally correct.

My honourable friend from New Westminster is at his best also when he speaks about Social Credit cards. It shows how little he knows about cards. But let us talk about NDP cards. Let us talk about a letter issued by Burnaby Teachers Association respecting the first member for Vancouver-Burrard in which they wrote a letter to the teachers saying: "If you will pay so many dollars, you'll get most of it back. Don't hesitate to pay your money." Here was my honourable friend talking about our party. We never did that. We were blunt. In fact, we said: "If you pay to this party, we will give you credit in income tax by legislation which will be developed." But this party, no, they said: "If you'll pay us money for the first member for Vancouver-Burrard....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've got the letter. "If you pay money to us, we will see you get it back, because don't forget, we've got a federal party. We'll channel the money to them and we'll get it back, because federal contributions are tax deductible." And they said we were devious. How devious can you get?

I say it's totally dishonest, but I say that we were right in saying what we did. It's time, after 25 years of government, that we should say to the contributors to our party — the best government British Columbia has ever had — "If you pay to our party we will give you a tax deduction." We haven't been able to do it before, but it's high time. I think it's only fair and honourable. We didn't ask you to send it to a federal party and we'd channel it back. We said bluntly: "Give us the money, and we will take it as an income tax deduction when we pass the legislation, when we're elected again" — which we were sure of being, and we were. So we kept our word; we keep our promises. What's wrong with that?

Withdraw this section? Never. This is a proper and good section. I wish my honourable friends could be as honest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we once again appear to be having some difficulty with the microphones. Would a recess be in order until such time as we can make repairs? I shall summon the House with the ringing of the division bells.

The House took recess at 3:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:18 p.m.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, before we recessed, we were discussing the political contributions amendment to the Income Tax Act. I was going to take the opportunity to explain, notwithstanding the confusing comments from across the House, that we made our policy clear during the budget speech that we were introducing such an amendment. To the leader of each political party in this province I circulated details of proposed regulations covering many of the questions that have been raised in terms of the type of receipts that we required and what the definitions of various aspects of this proposal would be. This was merely as a courtesy to all political parties, Mr. Chairman.

All of these proposals are before us today in this amendment which has a provision for regulations to support further details. All of these matters were laid before each political party of this province immediately after that budget speech. They were offered merely as a proposal, not as a promise to anyone that there would be this type of deducibility. They were patterned after the identical legislation of the province of Ontario, Alberta and also the federal legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to table the letters which I addressed to all the political leaders with the details I am now referring to. There may be certain members here who have not been informed by their leaders or have forgotten. I also circulated these matters to the press at the time. I want members to be aware of the fact that there were no secrets being made of these matters. This was a matter of full disclosure for the benefit of any political candidate of any political party in this province. That's the nature of the proposal we're discussing here. It's patterned identically after the federal Act and the regulations that are referred to would be similar in content in terms of the receipt required and so on. I don't know if the proper procedure is to table this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The proper procedure would be to wait until such time as the committee has risen and....

[ Page 195 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: I will propose then to table these at the first opportunity. Once again, this has been laid before all of the members for the purpose of any candidate who was a contestant in the provincial election. The letters I am referring to, dated April 12, are addressed to Mr. Vic Stephens, leader of the Conservative Party; Mr. Jev Tothill, leader of the Liberal Party; Hon. W.R. Bennett, Premier of the province of British Columbia; and Mr. Dave Barrett, leader of the NDP.

On April 17 there was a subsequent letter with further explanation. I want all members to be aware of that when they are making comments.

MR. LEGGATT: I haven't had the benefit of the letter that the minister is intending to table apparently to assist us in the definition of a recognized political party under the terms of section 5. But I did want to ask him a question.

The definition in this Act is: "a bona fide affiliation of electors comprised in a political organization that has as a prime purpose the fielding of candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly." Am I right in assuming that a political party may not even field a candidate and still qualify under this? It may be that that political party is unsuccessful in finding sufficient nominees to field a candidate in a provincial election. This is going to open the door to a wide range of.... I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, Mr. Chairman, but I would like the minister to be very clear on what a definition of a political party under this Act is going to be.

I happen to have sat in committee in 1973 when we were drafting the federal legislation and I can assure the minister it was a very long and heated debate as to what was a political party. Under present federal regulations you have to have 50 candidates in the field, as I recall it, before you can register as a federal political party.

So I'm wondering if the minister would mind responding to those of us as new members who haven't had the opportunity of examining this letter, which was apparently circulated among the leaders of four political parties in British Columbia, as to what is going to be a bona fide political party. Are we going to have to rely on some regulations which can change from time to time in the event the minister may not like the stripe of that political group that wants to take the benefit of the Act?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Please understand that the regulations are not yet approved. The information I circulated defines a recognized political party to include a constituency association of a recognized political party. "Official of a recognized political party" means the treasurer of a recognized political party, specially charged with receiving the amount contributed and depositing in a financial institution of all contributions to the recognized political party, and such other persons as are designated by a recognized political party to receive contribution, and whose names, addresses and signatures have been recorded with the income taxation branch. We've got to provide a proper definition of what is a recognized political party. That was the definition circulated to the members at the time.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm very pleased the minister has risen to assist us in this matter. There's a clear admission here that we still don't have a definition of what a bona fide political party is in the province of British Columbia. That means, in effect, that by voting for this particular section of this bill we're voting for a pig in a poke. We don't know what definition is going to come forth; that definition will clearly be by regulation and not by the Legislative Assembly.

It puts in the government's hands a tremendous power to define in society those groups they wish to be recognized political parties. It may be, for example, that the Greenpeace organization might wish to field candidates, and the government may be in a very anti-Greenpeace mood for some reason or another. I'm very disturbed that we don't have before us — not by regulation, not by letter, or any other way — a clear definition of what is a recognized political party. Under the federal law, it's specific. It's referred to in the Canada Elections Act where there must be 50 candidates fielded across Canada before you take the benefits of this particular Act. They did that in order to prevent fringe parties from taking advantage of this.

I recognize that it would be very hard for the Social Credit Party to field 50 candidates across Canada. I recognize that is almost an impossibility. They have been fortunate enough in the province of British Columbia to get a full slate together. In any event, these coalitions come, and go, and change.

Nevertheless, I think the minister owes it to the people of British Columbia to tell us now which is going to be a political party. I have some concern that in the future it might be something other than Social Credit. There might be a different name attached to this group. It may be that we would want to know that group can comply with the law to take the benefits of that law. It seems to me a minimum that we should ask there be a clear definition of what is a bona fide political party. I recognize there's a trend to try to support by legislation fringe groups like Social Credit and these other groups. I accept that in a democratic society we should help. No matter what kind of political ideas one has, we should encourage them to come forward and participate in the democratic process. But we may not want to carry that too far. Before we have the opportunity of voting on this perhaps he would be willing to table this particular provision so that we can have a clear definition of what is a recognized and bona fide political party in the province of British Columbia for the purpose of this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's the same definition as would apply in the Constitution Act. For instance, in section 64 (4) it speaks of a special allowance for the Deputy Speaker or leader of a recognized political party.

MR. GABELMANN: If I heard the minister correctly — correct me if I'm wrong — there are now two recognized political parties in British Columbia.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you referring to this House?

MR. GABELMANN: Oh, no. My understanding is that the minister was suggesting that the rules governing parties in this House would be the rules....

HON. MR. WOLFE: No.

MR. GABELMANN: He's not saying that. Then we're left with an unclear definition of what political parties are. I

[ Page 196 ]

wouldn't be satisfied, as perhaps the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) would be, that we get that definition now. We need that definition effective the date the legislation is effective. We need the definition of what a bona fide political party is the same day the law takes effect.

I understand that the minister circulated letters to four political parties in this province. The implication of that is he did not send letters to other political parties in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I made them available to everybody.

MR. GABELMANN: There might be other groupings in this province — there may have been, had they known this kind of legislation was available to them — who would have contested this last election. They were operating under the law of the province. That law did not exist at that time; it cannot be made retroactive. People were denied the rights that some political parties that the minister decides are political parties — or did decide, and he decided there were four.... That means there are conceivably — whether it happens or whether it would have happened or not doesn't matter — groups in this province who were denied the benefit of legislation that four theoretically political parties were allowed to have. That's the first point, and I think that point has not been answered. We cannot have legislation affecting political parties in effect before we know what political parties are.

The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister said that the person — this is the first I've known about it — in the constituency or in the party who would be responsible for the collecting of money and the issuance of tax receipts, presumably, would be the treasurer of the constituency association or the provincial association. The treasurer of my constituency association didn't know that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Speak to your leader.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the things the treasurer of my constituency association would have said to me is that the Socreds aren't going to win the election, the NDP is, so we won't have that legislation on the books. And isn't that a point, Mr. Chairman? How can one political party make election promises that if they're elected there will be retroactive legislation to do something or other, when other political parties might be elected, and that legislation wouldn't come in? Where would the people be who had contributed to the Social Credit constituency association of Little Mountain, had received a receipt from the treasurer of the Little Mountain Social Credit Party, and that legislation was never again introduced in this House, nor ever passed? Where would the people be then who were given those so-called tax receipts?

Mr. Chairman, that kind of legislation cannot be introduced into this House. I think the point has been made, and I would like the minister to explain to me how he can rationalize his decision to pick four political parties, and to deny that to others who might potentially have been in the field had they known about this legislation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I guess it doesn't pay to try to extend the courtesy to candidates and members of the information on this proposal, that's all. I would answer your question by saying that this same proposal was made available to any political party or any other candidate who was not included in the four parties. So it wasn't the intention to restrict it to anyone. The information was made available on request through the chief returning officer, who supplied it to any candidate who wished to apply for it.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, those are four political parties he is talking about, and he is relying on the press in a province that did not have the major newspapers operating in the election campaign to circulate the information to other groups of citizens in this province who may have wanted to band themselves together to become a bona fide political party. Also, he has not answered the important question about what would have happened to this legislation should his party not have received a majority in the last election. What would then have happened to those tax receipts and those people who contributed money under false premises?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that no promise was extended. This was put forward as a proposal that may go forward — simply that — and it is very clearly indicated as such in the correspondence and in the proposed rules that might apply. No promise was extended that this would apply. Obviously it is the intention now that we have been re-elected to pursue this, and put through proper legislation in this regard. But no promise was extended, and this material, to the best of my ability, was circulated to all of the four political parties as we know them in the province. And for the benefit of any other candidate who would not fall under one of those banners, it was made available through the returning officer for the province.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I really am rather amazed that the minister would say no promise was made. I myself saw promises made on television about the income tax forgiveness aspect of this legislation. It was promised on behalf of the Social Credit Party not on one but on two occasions. I can't quite understand why he says there were no promises made.

But let me deal with the specific issue that divides the Minister of Finance and a number of people on this side. That is that surely to goodness, in this day and age, and because of the importance of this particular kind of legislation, we should see written in the definition section a full and complete description of what is a recognized or registered political party. He doesn't seem to agree to that. He wants to see that in the regulations. We simply are not agreeing to that and we're pointing out the hazards in terms of legislative drafting that that will take us into. Surely there is one thing that the public of this province should be expecting from its legislators, and that is a clear and unequivocal definition of what a political party is.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's your definition?

MR. HALL: You'll have your say in a minute. Now I've listened to you. You just listen to me for a few seconds.

The minister, grabbing out of the air, said it will be the same definition as the one in the Constitution Act. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The definition in the Constitution Act has got nothing at all to do with the

[ Page 197 ]

purposes that are taken into account by the drafting of this legislation. Not only that, but his own man, the Social Credit candidate for West Vancouver, latterly a judge, now the author of the Eckardt commission, says he wants to do away with that anyway. Whoever tabled the report should check and send a copy to the Minister of Finance so he can read it.

The Provincial Secretary has charge of two statutes in which the words "political party" occur. Have you talked to the Provincial Secretary about a definition of the words "political party"? The answer is no. He obviously hasn't. So now we've got ourselves in a position where we're going to have three statutes in front of us with the words "political party" in them, but with different definitions. That's ridiculous, and I would say that to expect this Legislature to blithely accept the promises of the Minister of Finance that somehow or other he'll fix it up in the regulations, on such an important thing as expenses, income tax, is really asking too much.

Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with this legislation is that it comes on its own; and as other speakers have said, it should be part of a package. It should not only be part of a revised Elections Act, which has been promised to us by the Provincial Secretary.... We're waiting for the action of the Provincial Secretary, who wrung his hands on May 11 and said it was obvious that there should be a new Elections Act. We're waiting for that. We agree with the principle that is supposed to be contained in this section, by the way, Mr. Minister, as we've said many times, because we are the beneficiaries of it, in the federal sense. We want to see you get your share of it. We want to see other people get their share of it, and the only way they're going to do it is by writing this section correctly.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, if you're going to have an election that tells you how to vote, and if you're going to have an expenses Act that tells you how much money you can spend, you should have a disclosure Act, a contributions Act and an income tax Act that show where the money is coming from and where the money is going. That's the three-part package to anything to do with the democracy of us getting here. To come in here and whisper something about "it works in Ontario or it works somewhere else," that doesn't turn me on at all. We're doing our own thing here, Mr. Minister of Finance, and we want to see a good Act. We want to see a first-class Act and we're doing our level best to help you by trying to correct the imperfections that are inherent in just simply saying "a recognized political party" and you saying: "Oh, that's somebody who fields candidates — a party that exists with a prime purpose, that of running for election." That's not the way you do it at all. It should be in the Act, not in the regulations. I don't want to wake up one morning when the mailman comes and read in orders-in-council that suddenly on a Tuesday afternoon, or a Tuesday morning, whenever you get into the mahogany-lined chambers of the new executive council suite, you decide to have a different thought about what constitutes a political party. For all I know, there used to be a member for Saanich, there used to be a member for Esquimalt, there used to be a member for Shuswap — Messrs. Tisdalle, Bruch and Jefcoat — and they may want to start a political party. I'd like to be in your deliberations as to whether you're going to let them have tax benefits to come back here. All sorts of things come to mind, Mr. Minister, and you and I remember those days.

I think you should take this whole section back and bring it back a few months from now when you've had an opportunity to debate with the Provincial Secretary as to what his plan really is, when you've had an opportunity to talk to Judge Eckardt and find out what his plan is, and then bring in all the legislation together so we can have a look at it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again, the definition is in the Act, Mr. Chairman — "recognized political party — page 2 of the Act. It means "a bona fide affiliation of electors comprised in a political organization that has as a prime purpose the fielding of candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly." So it's very clearly in the Act now. If there are problems that develop in terms of that definition as it applies in other provincial Acts, I'm sure they can be dealt with.

MR. HANSON: In my first speech in the Legislature I tried to point out to the government that the people of the province aren't happy with the electoral process as it is presently constituted. They are not happy with the fact that they have difficulty voting, that we don't have proper election expenses legislation here in British Columbia. Notwithstanding the technical objections that we have regarding how to define a political party, those are important concepts.

One of the first principles of democracy is the ability of citizens to organize themselves in opposition to a government. That is a right. The people in this gallery, if they object to the performance of the government and the opposition, have the democratic right to organize themselves in opposition to this setup. The question before us is whether they would qualify for funding under some kind of democratic process.

I need not point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are hazards inherent in not having proper funding for political parties. What we have are large expenditures by third parties, by third-party supporters, concerned citizens' groups, corporation fronts and various other front organizations that put large amounts of money into political campaigns. What I am trying to say to the government is: please be sensitive and aware of the fact that the people of the province are crying out for electoral reform. They want disclosure; they want to know who is supporting political parties; they want limitation on expenses; they want to be able to vote. If the present government does not pay attention, is not cognizant of those feelings, tries to force through a section that....

We know why it is there. You — through you, Mr. Chairman — want to have access to the refunds that are available to us in the federal House. I want you to have that too. I think you deserve it, as does any political party. But you propose to put through a section like this just to qualify for expenses, and not pay attention to disclosure as it was outlined by my colleagues, and all the other very, very important concepts that must be built into this bill. I would urge the minister to withdraw it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this bill is hastily drawn. One would expect that the minister, having promised such legislation many months ago, would have had the opportunity to draft something in a more proper form.

[ Page 198 ]

One of the other concerns that we have with this bill is that it is retroactive; and, in fact, promises were made. Erskine May is actually quite forthright in terms of talking about election campaigns, and what constitutes bribery during an election campaign. It was resolved in the House of Commons that it is highly criminal in any minister, or ministers or other servants under the Crown in Great Britain to directly or indirectly use their powers of office in the election of representatives to serve in Parliament. Yet there were promises made — highly criminal.

In order that this House not implicate itself in something that could be in any way tied in with this type of action, I would propose the following remedy. I would move the following amendment to section 5(5), line 2: by deleting "April 2, 1979" and substitute "June 8, 1979."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: I think that it's very important that while normal items contained within a budget speech have force and effect as of the date on which they're introduced, and things such as sales tax would come into effect on the evening of such a change, in a case such as this, where a form of modification of income tax which would allow for the rebate of portions of donations made to political parties was made almost provisional upon the return of a certain party to power.... I just think that it is so patently obvious that this is wrong, that the government is probably a little bit uneasy about it, that the government would hope that the opposition would almost forget about this and treat this very fundamental transgression as something unimportant. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to assure you that we feel it is not unimportant. For a measure such as this to become part and parcel of the campaign which has just passed and to be supposedly legitimized retroactively is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, it can't take effect for that last election. There were no forms made available. How were persons to conduct themselves during that campaign? Did the agents have forms? How could they have forms? How could regulations be made when the Act was not even enacted? While it's common and accepted practice that increases in tax or decreases in tax have effect usually immediately at midnight after the reading of a budget, in fact, Mr. Chairman, this particular legislation can in no way with any modicum of decency be allowed to pass unless it is amended to remove the offending section, which is a section which would be retroactive — not to some previous period in this thirty-first parliament, but going back even into the thirtieth parliament. One indeed might, ask, since probably parties have records, that it be made retroactive to the 1975 election.

It's obviously a very bad move and it is a move that can be rectified by this very simple amendment. I know that on one occasion the minister did accept an amendment which put a sunset provision in an Act. He did accept one of my amendments, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will use that same good judgment and accept this very simple and modest amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I speak in favour of this amendment. I think we have to examine why this section of the Act is in front of us in the first place. Did the Liberal Party need this section in order to qualify for an income tax deduction during the last election? The answer is no. Did the Conservative Party need this change in order to qualify for an income tax break in the last election? The answer is no. Did the New Democratic Party? The answer again is no. What is the one and only party that had to have this in order to get an income tax break for contributors to a political party for the last election? You're absolutely right. The only political party is the Social Credit Party.

So this is an Act that favours one political party. However, I wonder if the minister could tell me, Mr. Chairman, whether this gives the New Democratic Party an even bigger break than he'd thought of? Can we, for instance, apply under the federal Act and then apply under this provincial Act and get a double?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, can I have your attention for a moment, please? Your line of debate would be more in order under section 5 rather than under this specific amendment that we're on right now, just for this 38-day period.

MR. LEA: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to point out why this amendment should be accepted by the minister and by the government, because what we've been doing is sort of beating around the bush. The Social Credit needed some money for the last election. One of the ways they thought of getting money that they couldn't get hithertofore was to go out and to bribe the people. That's what they were doing. They were doing nothing more, nothing less than attempting to bribe the voters and the supporters of Social Credit prior to legislation coming in this House.

In other words, they were prejudging....

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would like to bring up a point of order afterwards, but I will not stand for our party being called "bribery." That is simply out of the question. I will not allow that. That must be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member finds the word offensive. Would you please withdraw'?

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, in the history of the British parliamentary common law, Social Credit is the only party that had a minister go to jail for bribery. So I don't know why they're so concerned and worrying about their morality now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, nonetheless, if a member finds a word used in the House offensive....

MR. LEA: That's the member's problem because it was pure, out-and-out bribery. It was pure, out-and-out bribery to go out and prejudge what this Legislature was going to do with a piece of legislation. What the government did was take all of you new members over there and say: "When you come to this Legislature, you're going to vote exactly the way we tell you."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Okay? Okay, then where would the government's Act be right now if you didn't vote exactly

[ Page 199 ]

the way they told you'? Where would they be then? They were not only prejudging what this Legislature was going to do; they were prejudging what their new members would do. They had to do as they were told — vote and shut up. That's exactly what they're being told right now. "Vote, shut up, and go back to your riding."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What we have are two things: first of all bribery, and now blackmail. Those are the two ingredients that make up this piece of legislation that we have in front of us.

You go out to the public and say: "Vote for this political party and when we get in power, we're going to make it so you pay no income tax at all. None. We're going to wipe out your income tax, but don't tell anybody. Oh, by the way, we did make a little press release about it, but we didn't let a number of people know in the province. We hope they found out about it so they can vote for this political party too.''

You can't do that, Mr. Chairman. You can't do it in all good conscience, and I don't think you can do it under the constitution. As the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out, in other Houses it is classified as a criminal act to do what this government has done.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Is it in this House too? I would be very surprised if it weren't. So really what we're doing is taking a look in British parliamentary practice at a criminal act. We're going to allow that government, not you people down there, to go into the seclusion of a cabinet room and decide what is going to be a political party in this province. That's what they're going to decide by regulation, not by legislation.

We can't stop it, Mr. Chairman. They have more members than we have. But for those new members over there to allow themselves to be blackmailed and to be told how they're going to vote before they even get to this House is a little bit much to swallow. If they hadn't been sure of the way you're going to vote in this House and predetermined how you're going to vote in this House, then they could not have made that promise in the first place.

How can the government go out and make a promise that they can't deliver? The only way they can deliver it is to know beforehand how you're going to vote, and to know how you're going to vote beforehand is collusion in this House, blackmail in this House and bribery in this House. That's what it is. Now that's what it is, Mr. Chairman, and I don't care what other brush you stroke it with. That government and that political party is guilty of bribery, blackmail and collusion. That's what they're guilty of with this piece of legislation.

There's no other word for it because only one political party gains from the previous election and that is the Social Credit Party. This should be called the "Social Credit clause" because it only helps one party and the supporters of one party. It helps no one else because of its retroactivity. They've got the nerve to come in this House and try to put it forward as some democratic process. It's not a democratic process when you pass a retroactive piece of legislation that only helps one political party. It's any rotten name you can call it. Call it that, because that's exactly what it is.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I clearly heard implications of wrong conduct imputed to members of this side of the House, the government in general, and specifically members of the cabinet, and members of the Social Credit Party. I ask the member to withdraw those imputations and implications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, while temperate language is always encouraged in the House and the specific naming of members and impugning of those members is not condoned, there is nothing in our books that indicates that the impinging of a party per se and not specific members is not allowed.

However, it is incumbent on all members to use temperate language and if that is followed, then we do not arrive at the position we are at this time. Further, if members would address the Chair and refrain from the kind of overuse of such terms, the proceedings of this House would go much further and the stature of this House would likely increase.

HON. MR. MAIR: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, I didn't complain about the member impugning bad conduct to a political party. He impugned members of this House and the members of the government vis-à-vis the caucus of this party sitting as hon. members in this House. It was that to which I objected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is the case then that is withdrawable. If the previous speaker the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), did impugn specifically any members of this House, would he make such withdrawal at this time?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, you know I didn't specifically do that. I only did it to groups, and that's allowed under the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. Again we are talking about members of this House, and I would simply ask that if any particular member or members of this House were indicated, would you withdraw any such indication?

MR. LEA: You are making it very difficult, Mr. Chairman, because they did what I said. Now you want me to take back something that is true?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you please, if such imputation were made, would you withdraw such imputation?

MR. LEA: They were not made.

HON. MR. MAIR: With respect, Mr. Chairman, they were clearly made, and the member opposite can’t get out of it by saying they weren't made. He alleged a course of conduct between the government of this province and members of the caucus. He then characterized it as ''bribery, blackmail" and other words to that effect. I suggest that must be withdrawn. Mr. Chairman. with the greatest respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hon. members....

[ Page 200 ]

MR. LEA: If the shoe fits, wear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I will read from Sir Erskine May, nineteenth edition, page 430: "Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder." Now I can hardly think of more appropriate words than "bribery" and "blackmail," and I would ask again that if the member for Prince Rupert specifically indicated any member of this House, or impugned any members of this House, would he then please withdraw that imputation?

MR. LEA: Well, you are absolutely right. I did, and I withdraw it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak against this amendment.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has put in: "by deleting 'April 2, 1979,' and substituting 'June 8, 1979'." The strategy is that those people who contributed to the provincial Social Credit Party don't get relief by getting a reduction in their income tax for this year, and would have to wait until the next election.

There's a party which is supposedly for the people. We all come into this House representing our constituents, and everyone over there represents a constituency. I would think, in fairness, not just to the Social Credit member who contributes to a political party on a provincial basis, but in fairness to their members, they should consider that the bill should be effective prior to the last election of May 10.

Let me tell you why. We always complain about the federal government watering down our income tax that is paid back to the province. What's probably happening to a lot of their members over there is they make their contribution, and then the federal NDP, that national party, allows the funds to come back into the province. Maybe you, as members, as candidates, aren't getting the benefit of funds which were directed to you. Perhaps your federal party that looks after the income tax receipts takes a little bit from you.

But I think it is pretty cheap; I think it is pretty shoddy that representatives of a party whose members and supporters get the benefit of income tax reduction would not look and say that all people of British Columbia should be treated equally.

There's a party over there that has gone around this province to everybody, saying: "We're for all the people, and we're looking after all the people" — not just the millionaires that they accuse us of getting support from — "all the people."

This amendment indicates the two-faced effort of the NDP opposition. Instead of looking at all British Columbians as having equal opportunity under the legislation that is passed in this House, they are prepared to say one more time, "Well, delay this to June 8," knowing that June 8 is a date picked out of the air.

Why don't you stand up and say that? Why don't you stand up and admit that's what you're doing? It's a cheap trick. I'd just like to say that this type of amendment, this type of debate, in this House, is a shame. This House is supposed to represent all the people and do things for the public good instead of discrimination against people who feel they want to support the private enterprise opportunities for individuals in this province, as opposed to power groups you people represent. I think it is shameful, and it should be withdrawn.

MR. BARRETT: The member who has just spoken has overlooked a simple little thing that this amendment is designed to clear up. The fact is that the minister raised this issue, in correspondence to me and to other political leaders, in the middle of an election campaign. The letter I received was dated after the writ had been issued for an election campaign. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll be tabling it.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sure you will; if you don't I will. Acting as a minister of the Crown, that minister wrote to me about campaign funds. He said: "If you vote Social Credit, it is our intention...." You said if you're returned to office it's your intention....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Quote it correctly.

MR. BARRETT: Was it not your intention, if returned to office, that you would bring in legislation to allow people to deduct donations to a political party from their income tax? Is it not true that was the intent of the letter? Just nod your head. Certainly the way I read it, it is the intention of the government to have this amendment apply to the year 1979. And there's your name attached to it. Is that not your intention? Were you fibbing in this letter?

Now we have the pious statements by the member for Penticton, who says: "We just want to be fair. " If you want to be fair, you should have brought in the bill a year ago. Bring in the bill now under the amendment. But there is a serious charge, levelled by my colleague from Prince Rupert, that can be substantiated in exactly the words he used. It is parliamentary, indeed, under the Constitution Act. I refer you, through Mr. Speaker, to the provincial Constitution Act, sections 162 and 163. For my friends the lawyers, I'd like to read this section so they'll understand what this particular amendment is attempting to deal with. Section 163:

"The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery and are punishable accordingly: Every elector who, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receives, agrees, or contracts for any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place, or employment, for himself or for any other person, for voting or agreeing to vote, or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting, at any election. "

Is this not a promise of a contract? Is this not a statement saying: "If you vote for us it is our intention in the government to have the amendment applied to 1979, if elected?" Is this indeed not open to a charge of the violation of the Elections Act, under this section, by bribery? I use the word in all modesty only, to quote from our own legislation, not with any intention of accusing anyone of anything. Read the whole of section 162:

"Every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure, or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any

[ Page 201 ]

voter, or to or for any other person, on behalf of any voter, or to or for any person in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting, at any election. "

If this was ever an inducement to give money, in violation of the Act, what more do you need? It's an inducement to vote for Social Credit. This letter was written April 12, after the campaign started, assuming....

HON. MR. MAIR: What section of what Act are you referring to?

MR. BARRETT: The Provincial Elections Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: There is a section in the Constitution Act which deals with this too. But I am quoting now, first of all, from the Provincial Elections Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said the Constitution Act.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, thank you. I command the interest of one of the lawyers in the House. Sections 162 and 163. This letter was written after the writ was issued. Presumably some people gave money to Social Credit before this letter was written. If that is indeed the case — or they were hesitating giving money to Social Credit and they got elected, they would get a tax rebate. This is indeed influencing the vote; it's making a promise.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The same way as you did with the natural gas price.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Agriculture to restrain himself until such time as he might participate in the debate.

MR. BARRETT: This is a letter dealing specifically with campaign donations to a political party.

AN HON. MEMBER: To all political parties.

MR. BARRETT: To all political parties — and it is signed by the Minister of Finance. It says that if you give money during an election campaign, it is the intention of the government to have this amendment apply to the year 1979.

AN HON MEMBER: To all political parties.

MR. BARRETT: So what? It's your party and every other party being told in the middle of an election campaign that a promise is being made for return of funds.

Now if you believe that your hands are clean, that you make no promise and that this letter does not offend the Elections Act, then don't make the legislation retroactive. The amendment is perfectly in order, not only with Sir Erskine May but with our own legislation.

What could stop a citizen from laying a charge against the government under section 162 or section 163? Nothing. This letter is all the evidence one would need that a promise is being made. Is this letter not a promise? It certainly is. I quote: "It is the intention of the government to have this amendment apply to the year 1979." It's bribery and it's a promise according to the definition in our own Elections Act. The only way to avoid that is to accept this amendment.

I ask my good friend the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair): as he reads this section, does he not think that he's being compromised by the minister's promise?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I won't hire you as a lawyer.

HON. MR. MAIR: I wouldn't accept your case.

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to get any money back from your campaign headquarters. In terms of any donation you made to your campaign?

HON. MR. MAIR: I didn't make any.

MR. BARRETT: You didn't make any donations?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair when speaking.

MR. BARRETT: Did any cabinet minister give any donation to his own election campaign?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is not the appropriate time for....

MR. BARRETT: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the amendment to a bill. In any event, the Chair cannot entertain questions of that order.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister give any money to the Social Credit Party in the last election? It's not against the law. Did the minister give any money to Social Credit to further the campaign of Social Credit for himself or for the party? That's a fair question.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think I did, you know.

MR. BARRETT: You don't think you did. Well, you're clean.

HON. MR. MAIR: I've been thinking about it and I don't think I did. I didn't need to, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: I'm now asking the Minister of Finance if he gave any money to Social Credit during the election campaign.

[ Page 202 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Dave, get back on the amendment, will you? You're so far out in left field you don't know what you're doing.

MR. BARRETT: The amendment deals with making it retroactive.

Under sections 162 and 163 of the Elections Act, the minister is clearly violating the Act, because he's benefiting himself if he passes this legislation. He'll put in for a tax rebate himself.

It's obvious that a promise was made during the election campaign that if you vote Social Credit it is their intention to bring in retroactive legislation to cover campaign donations to political parties. That's a bribe and that's a promise, as defined by our Elections Act. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, wittingly or otherwise, bribed and promised voters of this province that if they donated money to a political party during the election campaign and if Social Credit were returned to office, they would get a tax benefit back for that donation to that political party, whichever party it may be. Otherwise why would this letter say clearly that it was the intention of the government to have this amendment apply to the year 1979?

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've been trying very hard not to infer from the Leader of the Opposition's words any imputation of wrongful conduct, but I am unable to do so and I must assume that he is implying unlawful conduct. I must ask him to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it may be necessary for me to peruse the Blues, but I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the member speaking said something that implied directly that the minister was involved in a bribe, and that, hon. member, as you well know, is unparliamentary. So I would ask that you withdraw that particular statement.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the word "bribe," but I don't withdraw the word "promise."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's quite in order. Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Now the Act clearly says that: "...any person who directly or indirectly by himself or any other person on his behalf gives, tends or agrees to give, lend or offer promises, or promises to procure or endeavours to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter is guilty of an offence against this Act." The minister promised money would be returned by way of benefit on income tax amendments if Social Credit was elected. Now the Act defines that as a bribe and a promise. However, through your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the word used in the Act, this terrible, nasty Act that has the word "bribery" in it that cannot be used in this House. They should take all of the copies of this legislation with the word "bribery" in it out of this House. Such an unparliamentary word appearing in our legislation is an offence against this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's how you use it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I'm sure that you are misinterpreting the remarks of the Chairman, and I'm sure you're well aware of the intent, and that is that we cannot have a member saying that another member bribed someone or was involved in bribery. The word "bribery" in itself is not unparliamentary, and I am sure that the member is well aware of that.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, we will dispense with the word bribery, because we find that offensive, but we agree that the minister promised something.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. When did he say "promised"? Read it.

MR. BARRETT: He promised, as he said in here, that on budget day a bill to amend the Income Tax Act was introduced in order to provide for deduction for provincial income tax of political contributions in respect of British Columbia provincial elections. All right, but the bill was never debated, never passed, it was not law. So what did you say in the next paragraph'? Because it was not debated, because it was not passed, because it was not law you said this: "It was the intention of the government to have this amendment applied in the year 1979." Well, good for you! We love your good intentions, but we know what road is paved with good intentions.

AN HON. MEMBER: The road to heck!

MR. BARRETT: You bet your life! I'm glad you're parliamentary. Intentions are not legislation, Mr. Chairman, and a promise to provide legislation that gives tax relief for political contributions, in my opinion, contravenes a number of sections of the Provincial Elections Act. The way to avoid this is to support my colleague's amendment. Otherwise, any citizen in this province can justly say that there appears to be a case of bribery under section 162 and 163 of the Provincial Elections Act, a case of bribery that could be made in the courts against certain government members. How's that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Terrible!

MR. BARRETT: It is terrible; you bet your life it's terrible. It's crass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, bribery by certain government members would be the same as bribery by a government member or any member of this House. I know there's going to be some difficulty in doing so, but I would ask you to withdraw that as well.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, let's turn our attention, then, to section 178.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have a withdrawal first'?

MR. BARRETT: Withdrawal of the Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, I am quite sure you know what I'm asking you to withdraw.

[ Page 203 ]

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw any connotation that offends any member of this House of the use of the word "bribery." I withdraw that unequivocally. I only refer to the word bribery as defined in an Act of this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I refer you to section 178 of the Act: "No direct or indirect contribution or other thing of value for use of political purposes or for election or campaign purposes within the province shall be made or contributed by any person within or without the province corruptly or in consideration of any promise thereof." There it is, defined again — "promise thereof."

Mr. Chairman, I would think that to avoid charges against the minister, intemperate use of the word ''bribery" in this House, and other and sundry problems that we may run across, it would be useful for the minister to clearly point out, with some virtue, that he accepts this amendment so that no one would leave this House with the impression that Social Credit, through the minister's letter, was somehow attempting to induce people to support Social Credit with a promise that if they were elected, they were going to get money back from their income tax.

Now the test of any argument, other than the hearty approval of the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the test of any argument....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It was the cleverest statement you’ve made in three years, Mr. Member. It would be worthwhile to consider what would happen if the NDP had made this promise and we made the legislation retroactive after having made this promise. I am sure my learned friends over there would be up yapping their heads off saying: ''That's retroactive legislation; it’s political bribery.'' And our Chairperson would have to say: "You can't use that word 'bribery.'"

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd be more concerned if you passed legislation without being the government.

MR. BARRETT: It's all part of a sleaze. This government will say anything and do anything to get a vote or to influence voters. What further evidence do we need than the minister's letter? Stand up, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — and tell us you accept the amendment so that there'll be no misinterpretation of your intention. Stand up and tell us that you don't want to violate our Elections Act, sections 162, 163 and 178. Stand up — through you, Mr. Chairman — and announce how many cabinet ministers gave money to Social Credit, knowing that this legislation would be retroactive and they would benefit from their actions. Tut, tut!

The minister has obviously been involved in a violation of the Act, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you don't like that, eh?

MR. LEA: Let's let a judge settle it.

MR. BARRETT: Let's let a judge settle it. Let's take it to court. Let's ask a judge to settle whether or not indeed this letter constitutes a violation of the Elections Act and then if the judge says it doesn't, let's pass the bill without the amendment. And if a judge says it does then let's pass the Act with the amendment. Let's be fair. I challenge the government to hoist this bill and take this matter to a judge and ask for his opinion on whether or not the House is acting properly. Is there anyone against that? Nothing is fairer than asking the government itself to go to court and ask a judge to rule. Perhaps Mr. Eckardt is busy; perhaps we could find another judge. Perhaps we could find another judge — say a federally appointed judge.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Berger?

MR. BARRETT: That's not a bad name. But I don't think it would be wise to go to him. After all, he has a political background, unlike Mr. Eckardt's. Mr. Eckardt's political background is different from Mr. Berger's.

I challenge the minister to take this to a court or to a judge and ask his opinion on it. It's more than just a little bit of fun in here and giggles by the back bench. There is an important principle involved here, and that is the interpretation of the Elections Act. If this government is concerned about people having a good view of politics and politicians, then have the courage to take this Act and your letter to a judge and ask for that judge's opinion on whether or not it should stand or it should go as amended by my friend from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson.) I believe that all along — and nothing will change my opinion on this unless a judge gives a different ruling — that indeed your letter violated, if not the law, the spirit and the intent of the law in the Provincial Elections Act; and you know it all the time. I think it does constitute a promise as defined under a section of this Act; and I use the word ''promise," not bribery, even though they mean the same thing in this Act.

MR. SMITH: We should be indeed grateful to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his judicial interpretation of that section. If that interpretation is correct, then the two members for Victoria are both in violation of section 162 of the Elections Act. I recall that both had advertisements in the newspaper urging people to donate money to their campaigns and avail themselves of the tax deductions that were promised.

MR. BARRETT: Federal tax deductions: existing law.

MR. SMITH: Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know how to read the Elections Act because the operative words are not a promise....

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, I would like to clarify for the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You must state what your point of order is.

MR. HANSON: I want him to withdraw that remark. He's referring to a federal statute. He made accusations that we were in violation of some statute and we were certainly not; it's a federal statute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the second member for Victoria: I had some difficulty understanding what you would like me

[ Page 204 ]

to ask him to withdraw. Is it an offensive statement? Would you withdraw?

MR. SMITH: If that's the purport of my remarks, I certainly withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how they could possibly request donations under a federal statute when funds raised under a federal election expenses Act can't be used for provincial political purposes. They must have been referring to legislation that was coming provincially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read the Act.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, they have not read section 162 of the Provincial Elections Act in its entirety. It doesn't make it an offence to promise valuable consideration; it makes it an offence to do that in order to induce someone to vote or refrain from voting. Nothing like that is done in that letter.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few comments against the amendment, in effect in support of the legislation as proposed by the minister.

I think the first good reason why members should reject the amendment is, of course, the marvelous consistency with which it is made. We didn't hear these impassioned arguments when we dealt with further removal of the corporation capital tax, which had a retroactive clause. There's a good reason for that, I suspect, and I will refer to it. And the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) gave us a very impassioned plea for retroactivity on the sales tax question, while he admitted that as a practical matter sales tax announcements had to be made forthwith. He gave us a very impassioned set of remarks as to why that should nonetheless have been deferred. But to our great surprise there was no amendment there.

The first further reason why the amendment should be rejected is that, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith) has inferred, the members of the NDP have got to be saved from themselves. It is probably known to the two members for Victoria that one of the federal Liberal candidates for Vancouver Island has officially written the federal elections officer, asking for an inquiry into this whole question of NDP supporters and NDP advertisements during the provincial campaign purporting to raise provincial political campaign funds through the mechanics of the federal legislation. Before anybody says, "Read the legislation," I would suggest there is a serious inquiry underway, and I think that this House would be doing the NDP a great service in saving them from themselves by passing the legislation as proposed by the minister, and thereby giving a safe haven to those zealous members of the NDP who perhaps walked a little afoul of the federal legislation.

Now we've had another lecture from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) on judges and juries. Mr. Chairman, I think that the most important judge and jury in this province, the people, have voted on this proposition as part of the minister's budget, and those returns and that jury have come in, quite properly. But, you know, there's a real reason — and this is the essence of my short point — not mentioned why our friends in opposition are against the proposal of the minister, a reason why they don't want it retroactive. How conveniently and how cleverly in their remarks they've overlooked the fact that, as proposed by the minister, this credit, this deduction, is also available to people who provincially supported the Liberals and the Conservatives. The reason is that if there is a coalition for power in this assembly, it now sits on your left in that party which now has a vested interest in being the only monopoly in opposition in this province. They would just love the people who voted Liberal provincially to be kept down, to keep that tied up. They know that if the people who voted Liberal provincially and paid a little money and wanted a tax credit and find it taken away.... Some of those people are just going to say: "Well, gosh, maybe it wasn't worthwhile and I should look elsewhere."

Mr. Minister, I think you're to be commended for bringing in a credit which applies to all parties, which welcomes competition in the provincial political field. We in the government benches are quite happy to campaign in an open, competitive field. We have no interest in monopoly on our side. Let's encourage competition in provincial politics and let's not be swayed by the arguments of a party which now wants to do their best to keep the provincial splinter opposition groups down, particularly the provincial Liberal Party.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, there are new members in this House, and just so they don't get confused by the last member's remarks, I want them to understand that when you're in the back bench, you're not in the government benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To gain the floor by....

MR. LEA: It's a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would have some difficulty in defining that as a point of order, but gaining the floor by the use of the point of order is in itself a violation of the standing orders.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is absolutely in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under which standing order, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Forty-two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, nowhere in our standing orders is there such a thing as a point of clarification, and I think you have already....

MR. LEA: But you will see under order 42 that at the end of a member's speech another member may get up and clarify something that has been said. And what I'm trying to do....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 42 deals with a situation in which a member has been misrepresented. Does

[ Page 205 ]

the member for Prince Rupert feel that he has been misrepresented?

MR. LEA: No, I think that member was. And it doesn't say anything about that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to make a point of truth?

MR. LEA: Probably not. Sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is highly unusual procedure.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I find I can't support this amendment, and I'll tell you why. They can talk about blackmail, bribery, all this sort of subterfuge, but the letter referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was a simple explanation of what was said in the budget speech on April 2, prior to the date of any election being called.

In the election speech we stated very clearly....

MR. BARRETT: Election speech? [Laughter.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the budget speech I mentioned that in the income tax bill I am presenting here today there would be a proposed amendment that would allow the deduction from the British Columbia income tax of a portion for political contributions, made by both individuals and corporations, to British Columbia political parties and candidates for election to this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, on April 21 introduced to the fourth session of the 31st Parliament the same amendment that is before us today, which was very clearly stated as being effective April 2, and therefore having application to the year 1979. There was no secret or subterfuge here despite the mockery being made of this by the Leader of the Opposition — pounding books on the table, throwing his hands in the air, all sorts of allegations....

MR. BARRETT: It's the law.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You could make the same statement about any other budget proposal which was before the people of this province — the tax reductions, the corporation tax changes, et cetera. We very clearly had a bill before the previous House which had the very same content as this one, and which had an effective date of April 2.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is strictly a subterfuge to try to paint a scenario of implications that are simply not there. So I can't support the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am not even going to mention anything that the minister has said, because it is obvious that his arguments are so entirely weak that they don't mean anything.

But I would like to just say a word or two about the second lawyer that spoke, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). The member for Vancouver South, who is another one of the heavy lawyers that are now in the Social Credit caucus, gave us all sorts of outstanding reasons why we should be voting against this amendment, one of which was the protection of the dying species, namely the Liberals and the Conservatives. I mean, after all, he wants them to get their tax rebates. His great sympathy and his tears flowing down his cheeks as he was talking about this huge monopoly over here that was opposed to that sort of occurrence just brought me to my feet.

I can't imagine that the sympathy goes back that far, because I remember during the campaign when the leader of the Conservative Party was virtually gnashing his teeth at the threats being made at his members. And who were they made by? They were made by Social Crediters saying: "If you, insurance man, or you, little business man, run for them, you're going to be right out of town in terms of your business. "

Mr. Chairman, the Liberals and the Conservatives in this province were absorbed by that motley crew of opportunists across the floor. Let's not kid ourselves. Those who try to abstain from or try to refrain from that kind of an association were dealt with in another way.

HON. MR. MAIR: We got the Liberals and Conservatives; you got communists and the Maoists. It seems fair enough.

MR. COCKE: That's a smart-alec remark from a minister of the Crown.

HON. MR. MAIR: But it's true.

MR. COCKE: What are you talking about? Of course it's not true.

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course it's true.

MR. COCKE: Of course it's not true. You know, I can make the same statement standing here that you're the people who have the fascists. That's just a ridiculous statement, and one you should withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the sake of the Chair and for the sake of Hansard, I did not hear the offensive remark, but if the member found it to be offensive, I would ask you to withdraw it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was nothing wrong with it at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In any event, if any member of this House....

MR. COCKE: I find it particularly offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If any remark made by any member of this House is found offensive by another member and if the member speaking asks the Chair to withdraw the remark, I must ask that the remark be withdrawn.

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any remark that the member opposite finds offensive.

May I just ask this question? I could say something outside of the House and it's okay, but if I say it in here, even though it's true, I've got to withdraw. I just want to be sure I've got it all right here.

[ Page 206 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The function of the Chairman concerns what happens in this chamber and also in this committee.

Hon. member, the other point that I might like to make is that if we take the time to address the Chair.... Hansard cannot pick up these remarks that are made across the floor of the House, and it makes the remarks, when one reads the Blues the next day, appear to be frivolous, because there's only one side of the argument.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, another thing that the lawyer-member suggested was that there was some way that our system of tax rebating, tax deferment was somewhat suspect at the moment. That is just quite incorrect.

You see, the reason that the poor Liberals and the Conservatives in this province are unable to declare federally for their provincial support money is because the federal Liberals and the Conservatives have never provided the British Columbia party with an agent. That's all. They don't recognize their own provincial parties.

If the federal Liberals and if the federal Conservatives did as the federal NDP, which is one party across Canada, if they recognized the provincial party, then they would have the same kind of opportunity as we have — the same thing which applies to the Social Credit Party, incidentally.

Anyway, I leave that with you, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is they just don't understand the way the law in this land works.

MR. LEVI: I just wanted to point out to the House, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister talked about this important piece of legislation, he kept referring to the fact that somehow it was in the budget speech and everybody was advised. I would remind the minister that the essence of the amendment deals with moving April 2 to June 8.

Now until the time that the budget speech was printed, which we received when the House sat prior to the election, there was absolutely no mention at all in the printed version of the budget that there was in fact going to be this legislation which dealt with an income tax deduction for contributions. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even appear in the highlights in the budget.

Now we've had great debates in this House about how you put together a budget, how you do the estimates, how everything has to be prepared. I don't know whether the press received the addendum when they were locked up and got the budget, but had somebody got a copy of the budget on that day and read it, there was no mention of an income tax deduction at all, absolutely no mention whatsoever. But in the middle of the speech — this is how important the minister felt this was — he said:

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now notify the hon. members of the House that in the income tax bill I will present today there are proposed amendments which will allow the deduction from the British Columbia income tax a proportion of political contributions made by individuals.

We have become somewhat suspicious about the motive behind the introduction of this bill. The budget speech made no mention of it in its printed form, yet the minister got up — and bear in mind this is the day when he is presenting the budget, the day before the election was called — and he characterized it in the middle of his speech as an aside: "Oh, I forgot to mention, chaps, that what we're going to do is when the election comes and you spend a lot of money on donations, we're going to give you a deduction."

There has been a lot of discussion about it. We have a right to be sceptical about that kind of performance because this is a government that claims it is organized, that it plans things, that it knows exactly what it is doing. Yet when he brought in his budget speech, there was absolutely no mention of it whatsoever in the printed version. One can only conclude that, at the very last minute, a decision was made by the Premier to call an election. He called in the Minister of Finance and said: "Look, we're going into an election; we'd better throw them in a goody. Let's deduct contributions from the income tax."

That's the basis of this. This is why we are cynical. This is why a number of accusations have been made as to the real motivation of this. People are standing up and telling us how nice it would be to preserve the multi-party system. We have the former member of the Conservative Party now telling us why he left the Conservatives and went to the Social Credit Party, because he wanted to go to a party that was against monopolies. That's what he told us.

But he wasn't here two months ago when that minister came in. We didn't know; we usually put his general nervousness down to the fact that he's going to have to read for two and a half hours. The thought was that he was going to have to spring this on all of the back bench and all of the people of British Columbia as an aside: "We're going to allow you to deduct your election expenses." We are pretty cynical about the minister getting up and giving us all this nonsense about preserving the multi-party system and how he wants to save us from ourselves. If we had to look to you to save us from ourselves, we ought to look to the Liberal Party. They brought in an election expenses Act.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're beyond salvation.

MR. LEVI: We don't know yet how much you spent on the Eckardt commission, but all we've had as a result of that Eckardt commission is a piece of piecemeal legislation coming down just when it fitted the government's plans. In June of last year, it was redistribution. It was an opportunity to knock off three members. Then they come in almost at the last minute and now they find a way of getting another piecemeal piece of legislation through.

Of course we have a right to be cynical. Of course we have a right to tell the people out there that this is not the way you do legislation on such an important issue. One can conclude that the only reason you did it is because you were in trouble with the electorate and you needed to give your supporters some kind of a boost. That's why you did it. You won't convince us at all, particularly in the way that you introduced it. I would like, Mr. Chairman, for the minister, when he constantly refers to the budget speech, to make a point of mentioning that it was almost an afterthought in the budget speech. It did not appear in the original budget speech at all.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to state very clearly at the outset that I believe that all political parties, including Social Credit, should be allowed provision such as this. I believe that strongly, and I believe it should have been enacted in legislation some time ago.

I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that if you're going to go into an election campaign, you must go into the election

[ Page 207 ]

campaign with the rules of the game clear and spelled out ahead of time. The one opportunity that people have to determine their future in this province is through an election campaign. They have one opportunity every three or four years. And if, when they go into that election campaign, the rules of the game are not clear or spelled out, then the game itself may become suspect. And that concerns me.

Democracy is a very fragile institution, and we tend to forget that here in North America it has survived consistently for some years. It doesn't survive around the world as well as it does here in this country. It is a very fragile institution, and it is not something we can count on having forever, just because we have it now. When we begin to change the rules in the middle of the game, then, in my view, we are tampering with the institution of democracy.

I am not saying there are people who would have, but there are people in this province who may have wanted to become a recognized political party. Because all that is, is a bona fide affiliation of electors running some candidates. And as I asked in my initial comments to the minister, does that mean two candidates and two other people? How many people running — for whatever reasons — make a recognized official party? There may well have been people in this province who would have run, had they known what the rules would be. But they had no guarantee that that party was going to get re-elected and that the rules would be as such.

I think that is an important principle that we cannot violate in this Legislature. I don't stand on my feet very often in this House — on either side of it — and get angry and incensed and concerned about an issue; but I have on occasion, and this, Mr. Chairman, is one of those occasions. I believe we are tampering with the institution of democracy when we change the rules after the game has been played. And that is not because I don't believe Social Credit supporters should get a tax break. I believe they should have got a tax break and they should have got it because the legislation should have been introduced in package form, debated and passed prior to the election. And if it wasn't introduced and passed prior to the election then it can't take effect during the election. I make that plea on behalf of the institution that we're all sworn to uphold. We cannot change the rules of the game after the game is finished.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy filed the sixth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled documents referred to earlier.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented the 1978-79 annual report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.