[ Page 209 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Alert Bay hospital inquiry. Mr. Gabelmann –– 209

Uranium and thorium mining permits. Mr. Skelly –– 211

Orders of the Day

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 4).

Committee stage –– 212

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mair

Mr. Mussallem

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Lea

Mr. King

Report and third reading –– 226

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Committee stage –– 226

Mr. Levi

Mr. Barber

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Brown

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications annual report as at March 1978. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 233

Air services branch records as at March, 1979. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 233

B.C. Petroleum Corporation financial statements as at December 29, 1978. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 234

B.C. Railway financial statements as at December 29, 1978. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 234

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed today it has come to my attention that in the introduction of guests to our House, who, by the way, are always welcome here, our speeches are becoming longer and longer. I'm sure that is not your intention, and I'm sure a word to the wise is sufficient. Are there introductions for today?

MR. BARBER: I have no speech but I do have a rather long list, if you'I forgive it. I'd like to introduce to the House today a number of people in the building trades who were on the steps of the Legislature earlier making their point that they're out of work and they want work. Their names include Leo Tessier, Maryann Borges, Robert Williams, Ken Rowell, Gordon Jolly, John Schibli, Doug Page, Ron Lindley and Richard Plasquet among others. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from the town of Hope, in Yale-Lillooet, is His Lordship Mayor Keith Gardner and Holly Fugeta. They're accompanied by Mr. Antonio Arreaga from Guatemala. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, continuing from my colleague I have a list of unemployed building tradesmen visiting the House today. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Messrs. Lazarovicz, Wagner, De Castre, Nix, Webb, Boivert, McMurray and Jones, representing the 40 percent unemployed building trades of Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today some friends of mine from the bread basket of British Columbia, Central Fraser Valley. They are Mr. and Mrs. Giesbrecht and their children, Jodi, Michael and Robert. Would the members please extend a warm welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, visiting the capital today — I had the pleasure of speaking to these students earlier on today — from a new part of the riding of Surrey, the city of Cloverdale, we've got 27 students from Cloverdale Catholic School accompanied by their two teaching Sisters. I hope the House will welcome those students and those two teaching Sisters.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have a guest in the House from Kamloops which gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the 11-year service to my constituency in the House of Commons by the Hon. Len Marchand. With us today is his long-time executive assistant, Mr. Jim Davidson. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. LORIMER: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the Ottawa Board of Education Band, which is visiting the McPherson Park School in Burnaby. Accompanying them are Mr. and Mrs. Christianson and Michael Staples of Ottawa, and Mr. and Mrs. Maitland of Burnaby.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a group of students who are unable to be with us at the opening of this session, but I hope we'll be able to have space sometime during the session. They are a positive young group of students from the Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver, and I would ask the House to welcome them and their teacher, Mr. Ron Henderson.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I trust your initial remarks were no reflection on my remarks of yesterday in introducing my former coach from Sabin High School in Portland, Oregon. I'd like to be much more brief today in introducing some more of my friends from Portland, Oregon. They are not from Sabin High but from Jefferson High School, where they attended during the mid-forties. They are Ray Proctor and Dorothea Craig. They are visiting the chambers today, and such places as Butchart Gardens and Metchosin Heights. Those of you on the other side of the House may be familiar with that particular parcel of land that I have been trying to sell to the government for years. They won't buy, and now I'm stuck with it. My Social Credit partner and I are going broke together. [Laughter.] In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome these friends who are with us today.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome a friend of all of us in the House and British Columbia. He has led the action against the creation of the Trident missile system which will be located to the south of us in Bangor, Washington. I'd like to welcome to the House Jim Douglas from Bremerton, Washington.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the mild reprimand that you gave to the members earlier today was not as a result of my introduction yesterday of an important head of a household. On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who is not able to be here today, I would like to introduce three visitors from her constituency. Would the House join me in welcoming Ivy Burke and Doris and Robert McEwan.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are two people left in the gallery who have not yet been introduced, and they are the administrator of the city of Langley, Dave Christensen, and Mr. W.G. Duckworth, the mayor of Langley, the fastest-growing city in Canada. I would like you all to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ALERT BAY HOSPITAL INQUIRY

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question I would like to ask of the Minister of Health. Does the minister agree that for the Alert Bay medical inquiry to be successful, it must have full community support?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you have a question of urgent public business to do with my ministry? Ask me a question about my ministry and I'll tell you.

MR. GABELMANN: May I repeat the question in another way? Would the minister agree that for the inquiry

[ Page 210 ]

committee that he has put together to be successful, it should have full community support and the trust of the community that it is making inquiries in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GABELMANN: I take that as an answer, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question: is the minister prepared to appoint a neutral, community-supported chairman in place of the current chairman?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I don't have the opportunity to do that. The committee is not, as the member suggests, one of my making. It is a hospital committee of the British Columbia Medical Association. However, it is chaired by a member of the Ministry of Health, a senior staff official who is responding to a request made last February by St. George's Hospital at Alert Bay. The chairman of the board requested that the hospital committee come to Alert Bay and conduct an inquiry into the operation of the hospital and concurrently, because it would be impossible not to, the delivery of health care in the Alert Bay area.

We agreed to that request immediately. However, we were then advised by the coroner who was conducting an inquest that it would be inappropriate for the ministry or anyone else to be holding an inquiry while the inquest was being conducted, and we agreed that the inquiry would be held off until some time after that inquest was held, and that's been done. We have now agreed that we will honour the original request from the hospital board to immediately begin an inquiry which is based on one simple premise — and that is that we're there to help the community get the best possible health-care delivery it can.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that no member in this House will attempt to turn the proceedings of that rather time-honoured system of studying problems in hospitals. That committee has been in operation for ten years now, and each time it has had to go to work it has done an admirable job of sorting out the issues and coming up with some answers, and I don't want anything else but that to happen. It's with that situation in mind that the chairman of that committee has my full support.

MR. GABELMANN: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to tell this House whether or not he agrees the situation in Alert Bay is somewhat different than situations that that committee has had to inquire into in recent years.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that every situation will have differences. It's very difficult, however, to determine what those exact differences will be until the committee has had the chance to do its investigation, to interview the community representatives and to report back to the bodies to which it is responsible — and it will do that post-haste.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to reconsider that position in light of the fact that more than half of the people in the community are not prepared to participate with the committee the way it is now structured?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I can't reconsider what will happen — and I would hope that what the member has told me will not happen, that those people who have some input into the delivery of health-care problems in the community will take the full opportunity to meet with the committee and put forward that input in the freest way possible.

I might add that I would ask that member, who is the member of the Legislative Assembly for that area, to urge, as a responsible member of this House, that each of his constituents take advantage of that opportunity which is now before them.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my constituents, and what they want is a proper committee that's representative of all people. Is the minister prepared to add consumers of health care in that area to that committee, using his offices to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is not customary to ask into the future activities of a ministry. This is a rather grey area, and the question is: is he prepared? Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking about some future policy; I'm asking whether he is prepared now, in this question period.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. I've answered your questions.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if he would encourage the chairperson of this committee to allow cross-examination in the conduct of this inquiry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we're running into an interesting situation here. On the one hand the member for North Island is insisting that I appoint what he calls an impartial, neutral chairman; on the other hand he's asking me to instruct the chairman on how to conduct the inquiry. I won't do that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a slightly different question. Does he intend to make certain that the hospital at Alert Bay will be staffed with additional medical doctors immediately?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the hospitals in this province are not staffed with medical doctors. The member for North Island obviously is not aware of the situation that exists in his own community. The doctor who was the subject of some inquiry at Alert Bay was not an employee of the hospital. He is a private physician who operates as a private fee-for-service entrepreneur in his medical practice, and he has, up until this point, privileges with St. George's Hospital at Alert Bay and rents office space from that hospital. It's not an employee-employer relationship in Alert Bay. I have no power to enter into that kind of a relationship on behalf of a hospital which has its own board of management and runs its own affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: There is another member seeking the floor. Perhaps this line of questioning can terminate. This is the last question.

[ Page 211 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in light of the serious nature of the problems in that remote area as well as in other remote areas in this province, and following up on a question asked by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) some days ago, does the minister intend now to release the report to this House of the so-called "Black commission" so that we can have further information and further evidence and get to a speedy resolution of this problem?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, as the member indicates. I already answered that question just a couple of days ago to another member. The answer hasn't changed. The answer is the same. I'd just like to point out….

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well. how many times do you need the answer? Read Hansard.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary, assuming I get an answer. When does the minister intend to release the Black report?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've already answered that question.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

URANIUM AND THORIUM MINING PERMITS

MR. SKELLY: This question is directed to the Minister of Environment. Is his ministry consulted on environmental and fish and wildlife impacts prior to the granting of surface and exploration permits for the mining of uranium and thorium in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MAIR: In general, Mr. Member, or in specific terms?

MR. SKELLY: In general, I suppose.

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member, if he is asking whether we are consulted before somebody takes a Geiger counter around, or stakes a claim, or looks at property, or something like that, the answer is no.

MR. SKELLY: Before a permit for surface exploration is granted by the Atomic Energy Control Board, through the Ministry of Mines.

HON. MR. MAIR: Before any search for uranium in the manner that the member is referring to takes place, it goes before the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, which is my understanding. I'm not certain, to be quite frank, whether they consult with the fish and wildlife branch, but I'I take that aspect of the question as notice and come back to the House with an answer.

MR. SKELLY: I have a new question on a specific permit. With respect to the uranium and thorium surface exploration permit number MX19/79, issued on April 17 to Lacana Mining Co. for the Upper Adams River area, an area that is very sensitive to fishery values, was this ministry consulted?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment if he has written any memos to his colleague, the Minister of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), expressing an opinion that there should be no surface disruption through uranium mining exploration prior to an evaluation from his ministry. As quoted in the papers, he has the opinion that no surface disruption should take place. Has he contacted his fellow minister with that opinion, or has he just expressed it to the world at large?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order; the second part is not in order.

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, the second part was so long that I forgot what the first part was.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could recall it for the minister. The question had to do with communications with the Minister of Mines regarding surface disruption.

HON. MR. MAIR: I certainly maintain excellent communications with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, et cetera, and I certainly have discussed this and many other matters affecting our two ministries from time to time. Whether or not I have written any specific memos, I cannot recall; but if the member wishes me to go back, I will find out.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, is it the minister's intention to establish a policy that no surface disruption should take place as an extension of his expressed opinion as quoted in a prominent newspaper'?

HON. MR. MAIR: We have an independent commission sitting with the widest possible terms of reference to look into the entire question of uranium mining. We will of course, take that report when it comes to the government, and we will consider it. Government policy will be announced at that time. I am not in the position to make statements as to government policy in this regard. I therefore cannot, and will not, do so.

MR. BARRETT: On the basis of the minister's statement, would the minister inform the Colonist newspaper that they have obviously misquoted him when they state it is your inclination that we should look at stopping what I call "disruptive exploration" — that is, when you actually disrupt the soil and the ore? If the policy of the government has not indeed been made then the newspaper is obviously misquoting the minister about his inclination. He himself said today, as I heard him that he's waiting for the inquiry to finish before he even has an inclination.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the purpose of question period, number one, is not to make statements or speeches. Second, it is not in order to inquire into whether or not media reports are accurate.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you ruling that media reports are so inaccurate we can't use them as a basis of questioning the ministers?

[ Page 212 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order either.

MR. BARRETT: It's a ruling.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I observe that at no time during the Leader of the Opposition's questions did I hear him ask me what my inclinations were. Had he, I would have told him that I would tell him some other time, but that's not a matter of government policy, and I don't think I'm called upon to give him my inclinations today.

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

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 5.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 26

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

On section 5.

MR. HANSON: In my discussion yesterday it was the contention of many of my colleagues that this legislation was hastily drafted and poorly conceived, and the more you read section 5(d)(1), the definition of "amount contributed…." It means a contribution for political purposes to a recognized provincial political party or candidate.

The crux of the remarks of my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) yesterday is that this section of the bill does not define what a political party is, and enables this legislation to provide for contributions to individual candidates. In other words, one person could appear and give a large sum to a single individual.

What I want to talk about briefly now, Mr. Chairman, is what I regard as a serious question of conflict of interest in this legislation. That is under section 5(d)(4), whereby the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council — that is, the cabinet, the Social Credit government cabinet — may make regulations for the purposes of this section. My charge that this is a serious conflict of interest is based on the following. The cabinet will be able to make regulations requiring the keeping of records and the return of receipts. Now everyone here knows that this section will allow for a tax credit to come off the federal tax. But a receipt will be forwarded to the province, indicating the amount contributed to a political party by a particular individual.

In other words, for all contributors to political parties, no matter whether they are Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit or NDP, these receipts would be returned here, presumably to the Ministry of Finance, and they would be tabulated in terms of records to check them against the amounts credited in income tax. The politicians presently holding office would have access to all of the information regarding provincial political contributions. I think that is a serious conflict of interest.

You have politicians regulating political contributions and keeping records of political contributions at their own level of government. I think it is very, very serious. I think it is one more of a number of reasons why this bill should be withdrawn. I think that if any of the government members look carefully at this, they will have to admit in all honesty that what it states is that a political body, the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council, the provincial government cabinet — Social Credit cabinet — will be able to call upon the lists of political contributors. There is no guarantee within this legislation, within this section, of confidentiality. The list could be put on tape for the B.C. Systems Corporation, and could be accessible to any minister, as any minister can ask for documentation to come forward from within the ministry.

If this section is under the purview of the Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Finance or the Provincial Secretary could call upon those records. I think it is extremely dangerous that any political party in government would have access to confidential information on political contributions in this province. As you know, computers can cross-reference political contributions by occupation, age, constituency or political affiliation. It would be very, very interesting for political scientists, but very, very dangerous for politicians. I would again ask that the government withdraw this section.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) makes a good point in terms of unilateral, one-sided disclosure.

I think what we're really looking at, of course, is the government's objective to keeping an election promise to the donors to the Socred campaign.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Get off that kick.

[ Page 213 ]

MR. COCKE: How could we otherwise look at this proposition?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's for every party, you dummy.

MR. COCKE: "It's for every party. you dummy," the minister says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister to withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. In fact, perhaps Hansard could….

MR. COCKE: What you need around here is a vacuum cleaner for Hansard when the minister is sitting in his seat.

Mr. Chairman, they're back-dating it to April 2. The reason for the rush is obviously to do with what I've just said. Otherwise it would have come into this House in tandem with a number of items that are required to clean up our Provincial Elections Act and Income Tax Act. For instance, we would have had a public disclosure section, which is why there can be very little argument with the federal income tax deduction for political donations. The public have access to major contributors, anyone contributing over $100 to a political party. But there is no disclosure here. Disclosure is only made available to the government, and that does not make it even-handed at all.

Under the present circumstances what would happen if a Crown corporation, under the direction of the government, made a political contribution? It would be very difficult for the opposition to find out about it. It's something to think about. When sloppy legislation like this comes in, it's very difficult for the opposition to sit back and say: "Hosanna, it's fair. It's for all political parties." It's rubbish, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us how much benefit accrues to other political parties in this province as a result of this particular piece of legislation. It wasn't legislation under active consideration by this House until we reconvened. If the Social Credit Party organization maintained the records that are necessary to fulfil the demands of regulations which we don't even know yet — we've got the minister's rough draft of some orders-in council — it could be that there would not be an even treatment of other political parties — that is, the contributors to those parties that could have gained from this legislation.

I just think it's unusual and unorthodox, and I cannot support this particular section of Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: When it comes to examining legislation of this nature that involves an aspect of the democratic political process, I think it readily brings to mind the fact that contributions to political candidates or parties for tax purposes are only a very small part of the whole mechanism. It seems to me that the government. obviously having spent some time prior to the opening of the last session of the Legislature, chose deliberately to ignore other important aspects of the political process. The general public must be able to examine what goes on, not up front in terms of election campaigns — we can see that — but in the totality of things behind the scenes.

We have a question which has been debated and argued in this province and in other parts of this nation for many, many years. We have the argument that it is necessary for the general public to be able to put into proper context the position of a political party or of a candidate disclosing to the general public the source of that party's funds or that candidate's funds so that the general public can have some idea as to whom that political party or that candidate might be attached to, might be beholden to, might owe a debt to. And I'm not getting into the bribery/promise aspect of things, but just the normal osmotic relationship that exists between political parties and candidates and other elements, economic largely.

It has been generally accepted, except by members opposite, that it is a valuable part of our democratic process for the general public to know where candidates and parties get their money — not whether or not those who contribute on that narrow base can deduct it from their income tax, but where they get the money. What's the source of revenue? Who pays the bills? Who says, for argument's sake — as it is possible to say — in the course of a telephone conversation: "Look, I made a certain contribution to your party or to your electoral return as a candidate. I would like you to give some consideration to this proposition'"? That goes on. That does happen.

In the absence of any provision being proposed now by government to deal with that question of a disclosure of sources of income so everybody in the province can see who's paying the piper, in the absence of an exhibition of that type of honesty on the part of government. I think this particular clause should certainly not be supported.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It wouldn't be included in this Act anyway.

MR. HOWARD: I think the minister said something that there's a disclosure aspect in this. I didn't understand what he said. There's nothing that I can see anywhere that says that's going to happen. That's one very important aspect of political process reform that needs to take place in this province.

The second one deals with a limitation upon expenditures. It has been considered in other jurisdictions. It has been considered in this province as well, and talked about, that there needs to be some compression placed upon the amount of money that a political party or a candidate can spend, recognizing that excessive amounts of money can be used to buy excessive amounts of advertising time, can be used to buy services from people and can be used, in effect, to unduly influence the voters. Maybe that's not saying very much for the thought processes of people who are voters, but that point of view has been argued and it has been recognized as being a valuable one.

Political parties who these days find that inflation is eating up their funds as well as it’s eating up everybody else's funds may want, for self-preservation purposes if nothing else, to place a limitation upon amounts of money that can be expended during an election campaign.

Again, I think, in the absence of any legislative form here that says that that's a necessary part of electoral reform, the clause can't be supported because it only deals with one minor part of the totality of things which are necessary.

[ Page 214 ]

It may be that the arguments that we are putting forward now will be responded to favourably by government. If so, then perhaps our arguments do have weight and merit to them. But what seems inappropriate to me is that the government, already having spent many hours examining this question, was only able to come with a small facet of it and not to touch upon the larger aspects of electoral reform.

There's the question to be determined as to whether or not in the course of assisting or in the course of restricting, in view of the undue influences that money and power brokers can have on political parties that there should be some payment out of the public treasury toward the costs of conducting a campaign to ensure that if that takes place, and you restrict on the other side the amount of contributions that can flow into political parties and into the coffers for individual candidates…. There is a question of whether you should examine the question of disclosure and make sure that the sources of funds are disclosed, and place a charge upon the public purse to bring the whole thing into some equitable balance in order that we might see something a little more decent and honourable in the course of our political processes in this province.

The bill in this clause is barren of any indication that those subject matters were even thought about. I myself dislike that others have expressed this thought earlier. I myself dislike it immensely, and I think it's an intrusion of a magnitude that should not be contained within a piece of legislation dealing with electoral matters.

It is an intrusion in subclause 4 of part of clause 5 for the cabinet to arrogate onto itself the determination as to what are going to be the records that should be kept; to have a group which is politically oriented make determinations about the question of the return of receipts, the subject matter covered by my confrere, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and for the cabinet to take unto itself the determination about restricting or otherwise qualifying the meaning of the amount contributed.

It would seem to me that in a piece of legislation of this nature, which is not like other pieces of legislation, to be administered by a department and a group of public servants…. To administer a matter of public policy, it's a question of electoral reform of any subject matter that belongs to all the Legislature and not just simply to one part of it. It would seem that if the government really had had a sense of what is democratic, really had a sense of propriety about the manner of doing things, they would not have come to the Legislature with a clause of this nature that says: "Here is only one part of our electoral process, as it's going to be dealt with, and insofar as deciding some of it, the cabinet is going to keep that decision unto itself and establish it by way of regulation."

That is a wrong basis upon which to approach electoral reform. I know there have been arguments. We've just had — I'm not casting a reflection on it, Mr. Chairman — a vote a moment ago about the effective date of this particular proposal. That decision has been made. We know what the effective date is going to be.

Because of the need that exists to look at this whole question of electoral reform in a broad public concept, and not as a matter of peculiar partisan political mechanisms, would the minister be agreeable to keeping in mind that the same effective date is going to apply, whether this bill is passed in this session or passed sometime later in the fall? What does it matter in terms of the effective date? Would the minister be agreeable to committing his government — and this Legislature would certainly go along with it, I'm sure — to establish a legislative committee to examine the whole question of reform of our electoral processes as we have discussed them here or as they need to be enlarged to encompass the Elections Act itself, in terms of the democratic processes of voting? Would he give that subject matter to a committee of this House to listen to presentations and to come back later on with an all-encompassing proposal that can be examined in its totality, and take a step toward bringing some common sense to prevail in terms of reforming the political and electoral processes in this province? Do that; hold off this particular clause. It's not going to put anyone at a disadvantage if it comes into effect this week or next week or next month, or if it is passed by the Legislature, say, in the fall or at some other time.

There's no disadvantage whatever. We know what the effective date is going to be. There won't be any disagreement about that; the committee made a determination on that matter. Draft the legislation in such a way truly to serve the interests of democracy in this province and not just to serve the interests of the cabinet in one respect, insofar as regulations are concerned, or to serve a particular political concept about election expenses in the total frame of things. If the minister could give us that kind of assurance and make that commitment, I'm sure he would stand head and shoulders above any of his colleagues in terms of making a contribution to democracy in this province, and he'd find unanimity in the House if he were to make such a proposal.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is a simple amendment to the Income Tax Act only for the province, which therefore can deal only with the objective of this, which is to provide some tax benefit for all candidates in British Columbia. The members have asked for all sorts of electoral reform. A lot of these have been dealt with by the Eckardt commission. Reference has been made to the requirements for disclosure of the source of funds and all these other matters relating to elections which have been a matter of public debate for years. They could not, in any event, be dealt with in a simple amendment to the Income Tax Act, so we should really direct our thinking toward that matter in this particular instance. As you're aware, we're all now familiar with the Eckardt commission and the other recommendations which, if implemented, would require amendments to the Provincial Elections Act and other Acts of this Legislature.

So what we're looking at here is trying to provide a benefit for the costly business of running election campaigns, which every person in this Legislature is fully familiar with. I think the people of this province are now familiar with the fact that it is a costly business to ask people to put their names forward for candidacy and be exposed to the tremendous expense of this. This is simply a gesture on behalf of all of the taxpayers toward making it a little easier for all candidates to put themselves forward for office. I think we should all support this amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the debate and some of the statements that have been made outside of the House following the debate on this section and on this bill by members of the opposite side seemed to indicate that there has been some devious suggestion by our Minister of

[ Page 215 ]

Finance in some way to give some special deal to members of this particular political party to which we belong on this side of the House. I would like the House to be reminded that all political parties, with the exception of our party, have had in this province over some time an opportunity for the collection of political funds which have had the tax deduction for some contributions on the federal situation.

MR. COCKE: Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that the member for New Westminster, although I didn't hear his remark, is protesting in some way either that some political parties in our province on a provincial basis do not get some kind of a benefit, or that some of the federal parties do not.

MR. COCKE: Right.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But as I understand the federal legislation, Mr. Chairman, those members of a political party in the province of British Columbia that have a liaison with a federal party are able to collect for the federal cause.

It's interesting to note that throughout this discussion on this bill in the past few hours we have been accused on this side of the House of trying to do something which the party opposite has had on a federal basis the option of doing, yet somehow or another in this debate they seem to feel that their provincial members — those who sit in this House don't want that same kind of opportunity.

I'm sure that the members opposite on the provincial side of the New Democratic Party and those members outside of this House who aspired to public office on the provincial scene who are not sitting in this House at the present time, but have just gone through a provincial election, would not collectively as a party condone the idea of a provincial member taking a benefit through federal legislation. In fact I would think that you would say that wasn't possible for your party to do. Is that correct, Mr. Member for New Westminster, that you really should not, as a provincial party, take a benefit that is provided through federal legislation to the federal parties — whether they be NDP, Liberal, Conservative or whatever? I would interpret, on your behalf, that that would not be possible through federal legislation. I think it was debated yesterday that two members from Victoria had even advertised the fact that there was a possibility of having a tax benefit if one would contribute to the NDP party provincially.

Mr. Chairman, although it was not written into the record yesterday, I would like to, if I may, read into the record a letter that was dated April 9, to which my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) made some reference yesterday, but which was not read into the record in detail. I would like to do so at this point in time because it has reference to this clause and it has reference to the debate from the members opposite.

During this past provincial campaign a letter dated April 9, from 6953 Kingsway, Burnaby. and signed by Mr. Norm Nichols, whose home address is 1775 Kentwood, Burnaby, was addressed to the teachers in Burnaby-Edmonds. Aside from the fact that using a mailing list of members of the BCTF for political purposes is questionable in itself, may I please repeat the letter to the House? It shows quite clearly that members of the political party opposite have requested the people in Burnaby-Edmonds to give to a political party through the federal machinery, in order to benefit the provincial machinery of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think one of the members opposite said: "It's all the same, isn't it?" Because it's all the same under that federal legislation, and because they have both a provincial party and a federal party, they think it is all right for them to take that advantage for their party, an adventure they don't want any political party in this province but their own to share. That's really what their argument has been this past day.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, let me just continue with the letter:

"Dear Teacher in Burnaby-Edmonds:

"As you know. Rosemary was 'gerrymandered' out of her riding by the Socreds. and is now seeking election in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. Running a campaign in a new riding is an expensive business. In addition. the calling of a provincial election while the federal campaign is in progress means that the individual contributors upon whom Rosemary has relied so heavily in the past are going to find it very difficult to help her as generously as they did before. Nonetheless, it is a job that must be done if Rosemary is to carry on her very valuable work.

"Fortunately, changes in the federal income tax legislation do help. Income tax credits are available to individuals as follows: 75 percent of the first $100 of total contribution; 50 percent of the next $450 of total contribution; 33-1/3 percent of total contributions exceeding $550 of the total. Allowable federal political contribution tax credit is $500 maximum. The tax credit is allowable for federal contributions only, so to be eligible cheques should be made payable to the New Democratic Party. Any such contribution will be shared 25 percent to the federal NDP, 15 percent to the provincial NDP, and 60 percent to Rosemary's campaign.

"In other words, donations work out like this: cheque from you, $50; tax credit to you, $37; to Rosemary's campaign. $30. Cheque from you $100; tax credit to you, $75; to Rosemary’s campaign, $60. Cheque from you, $150; tax credit to you, $100; to Rosemary's campaign, $90. Cheque from you, $250; tax credit to you, $150; to Rosemary's campaign; $150. Cheque from you, $550; tax credit to you, $350; to Rosemary’s campaign, $330.

"The above comments apply to donations for which you are seeking a tax credit. If no such credit is desired, contributions could be made directly to 'Rosemary Brown Campaign.'

"All donations should be made as soon as possible to Rosemary Brown Campaign, Burnaby-Edmonds NDP, 6953 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C., or please phone us at 522-9913, or 522-9801, and we will arrange to pick it up.

[ Page 216 ]

"Having Rosemary in Victoria is important to all of us, so please give generously.

Yours sincerely,
Norm L. Nichols,
7775 Kentworth,
Burnaby, B.C."

Those opposite have tried to read into the record some form of deviousness on the part of our minister in bringing forward this legislation. The member who has just sat down talked about decency and honour. May I say that's a very shallow phrase in the face of the letter which I have just read. A member of this House used federal legislation during the election campaign and intimated it was for a federal cause when the purpose of it was for a provincial member running in the last provincial election.

It is all very well for members opposite to want just some selfish advantage for their party which they don't want to share with other members of this House, but it is not really democracy in action in any sense of the word. The kind of discussion which is emanating from that side of the House on this bill is….

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you inform the House whether it's polite to read other people's mail?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to gain the floor by a spurious point of order is, in itself, a violation of our standing orders. All members should be aware of their responsibility when seeking the floor to make such points of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Before I complete my remarks on this bill, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you ask the member for Prince Rupert to withdraw the imputation contained within the remark he has just made in the false way in which he gained the floor for a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert has been asked to withdraw the remark….

MR. LEA: Well, obviously then if it's not someone else's mail, it's her mail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not the question for debate.

MR. LEA: What is the question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been asked to withdraw the remark….

MR. LEA: What remark did I make?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not for the Chair to remind people what they have said. You were just asked to withdraw. Other members have been asked to withdraw and I ask you to withdraw the remark that the member found offensive.

MR. LEA: What I want to know is what the minister takes objection to, and if I find that I should withdraw, I will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nonetheless, the Chair asked you to withdraw the remarks. The Chair asks you to withdraw the remarks.

MR. LEA: What remarks, Mr. Chairman? What were they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask you to withdraw, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for Prince Rupert has been on record in this House as quoting mail which has been stolen from offices, and it's quite interesting that he should make that imputation to another hon. member of this House. If he doesn't wish to make the usual withdrawal that is given for hon. members of this House, then that's on his head and it doesn't bother me.

Whether it should be written in an electoral reform bill, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, or in a finance bill, as it is in this case, has been clearly demonstrated by the Minister of Finance. I'm very pleased to support the Minister of Finance in the bill before us today and this clause that is before us at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Listening to the Minister of Human Resources, I've come to the conclusion that Social Credit cabinet ministers must go through a training course designed to teach them how to distort what other people say. I'm not going to bother myself with any reference to the hon. minister withdrawing anything. I don't think it makes any difference whether she does or not. The imputation is in her mind and in her remarks, and let it stay there. She did make a reference to my earlier remarks, saying that when I talk about having some decency and honesty in dealing with electoral matters, in dealing with this particular bill, those remarks were shallow. That is a complete fabrication and distortion of the force of what I was saying.

In my remarks on this particular clause, similar to those made on second reading of the bill, I talked about the need to expand into other areas of electoral reform. I disagreed with the provision in the bill which gave the cabinet the right unto itself to make political decisions and determinations affecting other political parties, a matter touched on by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). Earlier references were made — although not by me at the committee stage — to the question of how you determine what a bona fide political party is. The whole structure of this clause is inappropriately worded and reflects sloppy thinking on the part of the cabinet, and I indicated that I, for one — and others in this party as well — could not support this particular clause in the absence of any declaration to deal with the broad spectrum of electoral reform. For the hon. minister to classify that declaration as shallow is, I think, not very well meaning on her part.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder the now Minister of Human Resources lost the portfolio of Provincial Secretary, because she doesn't even understand the Provincial Elections Act, let alone the federal Elections Act or the Income Tax Act. I notice that she left the chamber. But just so that we can put the record straight I would just like to say this. She said that we don't want to share the opportunity that we have as a party in getting income tax

[ Page 217 ]

exemption for donations made. That is patently untrue. My suggestion was — and my colleagues' suggestions were as follows — why was this Act not formally introduced, brought into second reading, then committee stage and, finally, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor before you went into an election, if you wanted to use it? Instead of that, it is a promise held out; it is a carrot — introduced, withheld and nothing positive done.

Now let me describe what occurs federally. We are one party, federally and provincially. When we make donations, we make donations to that one party, and the party has an agreement that those donations are distributed in such a way that the whole party benefits, federally and provincially. So is it any wonder, Mr. Chairman, that we do have…?

MR. BARBER: They can't understand it.

MR. COCKE: It is very difficult to understand, and particularly for someone who doesn't even understand the Act that she supervised for three and a half years.

Now, Mr. Chairman, why is it that the Liberals and the Conservatives haven't access to their federal counterparts? It's a decision made by their federal counterparts, that's all. You see, in order for a provincial wing of a federal party to take advantage of the Act, which applies to all citizens of Canada, it has to have a provincial agent within each jurisdiction. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not so direct. Therefore they have no provincial section as far as that federal Act is concerned. That's all, pure and simple. Now is there any particular reason why, as Canadian citizens in a Canadian party, we should not take advantage of an Act for all of Canada? I get so furious when I hear an insipid discussion like the one we heard from the Minister of Human Resources, who got up in this House and admonished us for taking advantage of an Act that was made for all citizens in this country. By virtue of manipulation, these other parties have not agreed to do what was rightfully in the best interests of political donors. Then we have to take flak from that minister, and then she dashes out of the House, knowing full well that she is going to be shot down in flames.

Mr. Chairman, where does that minister do her best job? I'll tell you where she does: on a platform where there is nobody around to argue back. Remember how she went around from 1972 to 1975 pretending that we had a secret police force, and all the rest of it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are straying somewhat from the bill.

MR. COCKE: Straying a little bit from this bill, Mr. Chairman, but suggesting….

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Shame? That minister went around this province telling falsehoods for three and a half years. Who are you directing shame at?

Mr. Chairman, no wonder, in light of what she just said, they removed her as Provincial Secretary. However, I feel very sad about those people who are recipients of her present service.

MR. LORIMER: I don't intend to go into the retroactivity of this bill. I want to say, though, that the Minister of Human Resources was correct when she pointed out that we on this side of the House were able to take advantage of the federal Income Tax Act and they were unable to.

I would like to see the Social Credit Party get advantages of income tax deductions for political donations. The retroactivity of this bill, though, is, in my opinion, and as has been expressed before, most unfortunate.

Under our standing orders, section 18 states: "No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed." Now on bills or votes in which the advantages go universally to all, then it is permissible to vote. But in this particular bill, it has been explained by both sides of the House that the advantages are to those who have made donations to the Social Credit Party and that therefore the advantages in this bill are not universal and that those benefiting are those who have made donations. I would suggest that any member who has made a donation and intends to take advantage of this bill is unable to vote in this vote. There's no question in my mind that our standing orders are quite clear on this.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we could get a ruling from you as to how members should vote or whether members can vote on this bill and take advantage of the provisions therein on the clear case where this is not of universal advantage to all members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not make a ruling on a hypothetical question.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your own back bench, your own members, the members of your own caucus are making it difficult for me to hear. Would you please proceed.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, I understand that and I'I try and hush them up, Mr. Chairman.

The question I pose is the question of standing order 18 on page 4 in my copy, which states that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed.

Now I think it has been practice over many years that where there is a universal advantage to all, then a person may vote. But where the advantages are not universally obtained by all members of the House, then there is obviously direct pecuniary interest to any person who has given a donation. The Social Credit Party, in my opinion, not being able to claim under the federal statute, will likely make application for benefits under this Act.

What I am suggesting is that if they vote. I presume that they are advising us or intending not to make any application for benefits under the Income Tax Act. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling on this before we vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, members of this House must go by their own consciences as to how they may wish to vote on standing order 18. I would refer you to Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, page 399, wherein it

[ Page 218 ]

indicates, for example, where members of the executive council are allowed to vote on what is, in fact, their own salary as it passes through estimates. The same type of ruling would apply.

If any member of this House feels that they are in violation of section 18 of standing orders, then it would be up to them to conduct themselves appropriately.

MR. LORIMER: I would point out that what I'm talking about is the standing rules, not a question of conscience. In my opinion, they're set out here to control and direct the conduct of this House.

The second thing, the question of salary doesn't, in my humble opinion, apply at all. The question of salary is a universal benefit to all, and as such it has been held for a long period of time that that may well be voted upon. Here there is an advantage to one side of the House but not to the other, due to the fact that the other side of the House has that advantage already through federal legislation and the government side has not seen fit to take advantage of the federal provisions which apply to everyone in Canada. So it's not a universal benefit to all members of this House; it's a benefit to one group in this House. I suggest that those people who are intending to take advantage of the regulations under this bill — if they vote in the vote that's coming up — are undoubtedly disallowing their claims under the Income Tax Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not a point of order, and prior to recognizing your point of order I would like to read to you from page 399 of Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, on which this standing order 18 is based. It goes as follows:

"Personal interest in votes on questions of public policy.

"The only instance to be found in the Journals in which vote of a member has been disallowed upon a question of public policy is the case of the votes of three members given in the session of 1892 in favour of the grant in aid of a preliminary survey for a railway from the coast to Lake Victoria in Nyanza, which had been undertaken on behalf of the government by the British East Africa Company, in which two of the members in question were directors and shareholders and the third was a shareholder."

That is a specific case involving a specific member, and in each case members of this House must decide on their own specific instance, and so decide when they're voting. Now you are asking me to make a ruling from the chair as to whether it applies to members; but it's for the members to decide for themselves. All members of this House are honourable members.

MR. LORIMER: I would suggest with respect, Mr. Chairman, that the analogy that you have presented is one of a conflict of interest, and not one of a pecuniary interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your argument does not come within the grounds of section 18, and that's my ruling.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, the superior edition of May, which is the seventeenth, has this to say at page 435: "In the Commons it is a rule that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it" — so it isn't a matter for individual members; it's up to the Chair — "but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character."

Mr. Chairman, we have members in this House who have undoubtedly, out of the generosity of their hearts — although the hon. minister from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) said he didn't give any money to his campaign; maybe he didn't believe in the candidate that much, or he was going to let the little people contribute to it…. I always give money to the campaign in which I'm running, Mr. Minister, and I'm sure you must have.

HON. MR. MAIR: Prove it.

MR. MACDONALD: Now there are members who must have given money since April 3, I guess it was, who will receive the benefit of this retroactive legislation, and they have a direct and special pecuniary interest in this vote.

HON. MR. MAIR: Name names.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you seriously prepared to say that none of your members gave money to their own campaigns?

HON. MR. MAIR: You prove they did; the onus is on you.

MR. MACDONALD: Is this a criminal court? I have to prove the obvious beyond a reasonable doubt?

HON. MR. MAIR: It isn't obvious.

MR. MACDONALD: It is obvious.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you have read a section of May on a very special question, but the general thing is set forth at the beginning, and it talks about a direct pecuniary interest, separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned. There's no question that to get back 75 percent of the first $100 you gave is a direct pecuniary interest. You may not apply for it, but the fact that it is there now and you have voted to enable yourselves to receive money in your pocket as a refund from the provincial portion of income tax is unquestionably in violation of the rules of this House.

As the hon. member for Burnaby has pointed out, it is not a law of general application; it is not that exception pertaining to cabinet ministers. In this vote you are directly allowing yourself to recover a pecuniary interest in the contribution you made to the Social Credit campaign. Nobody can tell me that they did not put up money, that none of these members put up money for their own campaign. They're not such spoilsports as to allow all the other people of the province to contribute to their campaign and not do something themselves. It's a very serious point. It involves the whole question of passing retroactive legislation for the benefit of a special group. Legislation prospectively that applies to everybody is an entirely different thing.

[ Page 219 ]

This is legislation to reward the bagmen of Social Credit. Okay, you want do do that, but those who sit in this House who are going to benefit directly from this vote cannot vote. The government should withdraw the retroactive feature of this legislation, because you can't vote on it and the government would fall if you put it to a vote and you lived up to the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. MAIR: It seems to me that if what the second member for Vancouver East says is true, then all those on the other side of the House who have contributed to their campaigns will likewise benefit, because you'I get it provincially now as well as federally.

Since I'm the only person in this House who has stood up and acknowledged that I did not give anything to my own campaign, perhaps the entire chamber should disqualify itself except me, and I'll vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No vote has taken place, and if the members feel the matter is to be raised it should best be raised after such time as a vote has taken place.

MR. MACDONALD: They should not be allowed to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's premature to discuss it at this time.

The member for Vancouver East was quoting from the seventeenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 435, with the paragraph starting: "In the Commons…." If the member would take the opportunity to read that paragraph it will become much clearer.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the one I did read.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy." I would leave it at that, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), I think I should point out that it was somebody on this side of the House who raised the point of order in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just prior to recognizing the point of order, the position of the Chair has to be that the Chair cannot rule on a hypothetical situation until such time as the members have voted on this particular question. Standing orders clearly point out that if a vote takes place and someone does have an interest, the vote shall be disallowed: it's clearly in place.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise in this debate on this section of which we've heard a great deal. We have recognized that the debate in this session has certainly fallen to a new low. In this session I've never heard so much pure nonsense and inconsequential words wasting the time of this chamber as I've heard today.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) judiciously claims to have said that the NDP by some machination or other was able to receive a kickback on federal funds because of an agreement. I want to tell him that no arrangements by political parties supersede the Income Tax Act.

The hon. Deputy Premier of this House (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) read the letter written by Mr. Nichols. I want to assure you that if anyone wishes to take exception to that letter, the same Mr. Nichols has done a culpable act and is subject to prosecution for joining in what could be considered an act contrary to the Income Tax Act.

I feel that this debate has gone on too far. It has no point in fact. It gives me the impression that the House is merely stalling the business of this House.

How can the NDP say that they have some special privilege of having kickbacks from the federal party? It is not in the Income Tax Act. It’s some machination of their own.

As I said very clearly yesterday, we are not doing indirectly what we cannot do directly. We were saying that in this election, if elected, anybody who contributes to our party would have the same benefit as the NDP would have had by their kickback method.

Let us drop this ridiculous debate. Let us get on with the business of this House. It is not accomplishing anything. We're only spending our valuable time wasting the public money and the public time, and we're not here for this purpose. This is too simple a section and it does us great discredit on both sides of the House to be involved in this ridiculous debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak briefly to this particular section to draw attention of the members of the House once more to the double standard of my friends who sit on the opposite side. It's one thing to be against a provision of this kind on general principles for everybody. But it's something quite different to come in full of honour and purity the high moral standard, the certainty that you would never transgress a direct or implied rule of the House, or a law of Canada, because your standards and your purity are so impeccable. Yet here we find in practice that when the NDP goes to the public seeking power, their standards aren't quite the same as they preach to us here in the House. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the former Attorney-General. who understands so much about moral conduct, the member for Burnaby, who drew our attention to the rules of this House…. Well, here we have it in the Victoria newspapers during the election campaign: ''Yes, I want to elect the Hanson-Barber team and the NDP."

MR. BARBER: And they did; they sure did.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm sure they did. "Get a tax rebate for your donation to the NDP."

MR. LEA: Under an existing law.

HON. MR. McGEER: "If you pay federal income tax," and so on.

[ Page 220 ]

MR. LEA: Under existing law.

HON. MR. McGEER: "Under existing law," so you say — inviting people to contribute to your provincial campaign, to get you elected to this House here. Yes, yes, it's a provision of the law. Well, let's read the law here, Mr. Chairman. "There may be deducted from the tax otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this part for a taxation year in respect to the aggregate of all amounts, each of which is an amount contributed by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, or to a candidate at an election of a member, or members, to serve in the House of Commons of Canada."

That's not to the provincial Legislature of British Columbia but to the House of Commons of Canada. Those two candidates over here for whom this advertisement was taken out were asking to be returned here to the Legislature of British Columbia, not to the House of Commons of Canada. You could hire all the Philadelphia lawyers in the country and they couldn't worm around that particular provision. But no, when it comes to interpreting the law to suit your purposes, then morals don't count. You use every twist you can. You interpret the law the way you wish to your advantage.

MR. MACDONALD: Why not?

HON. MR. McGEER: "Well, why not?" says the Attorney-General. Of course, why not? There's where you express your true moral standard. Why not if you can get away with it? But when it comes to talking in this House about our standards and our morality, oh, how different that story is. I can only tell you that there is the party with the double standard over there. Once they go to the electorate seeking power, principles be damned, Mr. Chairman, when that's the exercise. But when it comes to lecturing the government in the House, oh, how different it is. That's when the high moral conduct can be put forward. They're not seeking power now, no sir!

HON. MR. MAIR: Sanctimonious claptrap.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what it is, sanctimonious claptrap from the NDP, and I'm voting for this section.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey claimed to be waving a copy of the federal legislation. He had, in fact, a photocopy of one page. I have on my desk a copy of the income tax amendments from 1973-74, the House of Commons. It takes several pages…. It would take me about 40 minutes to read the entire income tax amendments that we're referring to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he deliberately misleading this House?

MR. GABELMANN: No, he wasn't aware that he was misleading this House, but he was. The fact is that there are two kinds of contributions under the federal legislation. One is to candidates running in elections, and the other is to registered political parties. For that member who has spent some years in this House, it's incumbent on him, with his years of experience, not to quote some sections of the Act that are to his benefit in his argument. He should quote all the sections. If he were to do that, he would understand that the federal legislation is very clearly written in a way that allows candidates and their agents, and registered political parties and their agent, one in each province, to be recipients.

MR. BARBER: Are you going to apologize?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not asking the member for an apology. I've seen them before, and there's nothing new.

The federal Election Expenses Act was passed in parliament in 1973-74. The government here has been in power since 1975. They were aware, or should have been aware, that their political party was not eligible under the federal statute. They had the time between the beginning of January 1976 until the spring of this year, three years plus, to bring in amendments to the Income Tax Act which would allow them to do what they're doing, which would then have allowed them to get the benefit from law that we have had for the last five years. Why didn't they bring in that legislation in that three and a half years they had? That's a valid question to the government.

You would not then have had to make it retroactive. You would then have been able to do it properly so that the procedures that are spelled out very clearly in this federal Act, which are complicated procedures, could be spelled out too. How can you retroactively appoint an official agent in a campaign for the purposes of income tax legislation? You can't. How can you retroactively issue receipts on prescribed forms that must accompany such legislation? How can you do that? You can't, so I'm concerned.

Let me say this to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who isn't in the chamber at the present time, and his comments that he thinks we're stalling or wasting time: there is a very basic principle of parliament included in this section, and it must not be allowed to go by unchallenged. Frankly, if the government had a leader in the House today, I'm sure the government would be withdrawing this section, because it is most unparliamentary and most improper.

MR. HANSON: The member for Point Grey is a professor who teaches at a university. If one of his students had done what he just did and improperly quoted his sources, he would have tweaked that student's ear. That thesis would have got a D.

But he can stand up and do it, because he's being political. My colleague for North Island had just made reference to the comments of the member for Dewdney, where he said what we were saying was nonsense and inconsequential. That is not true. The points we have raised, and the points I would like to address to the Minister of Finance, are: Will he please tell us what guarantees of confidentiality there will be on receipts of contributors to political parties in British Columbia. Would he please tell us and allay our concerns about the confidentiality? Will it be kept in the B.C. Systems Corporation on a tape? Will it be recalled by a minister? Would you please tell us? Would you pay me the courtesy of responding to those questions?

MR. BRUMMET: Briefly, it seemed we got started on talking about a simple income tax amendment, and since

[ Page 221 ]

then we've discussed the electoral Act, electoral reform, the definition of a bona fide political party, and just about anything and everything except what this bill is dealing with. We have had the implication that it is not of general application. I see nowhere in this bill where it says these deductions are limited to any particular political party. It looks like a very general application to me, so I'm assuming that much of the legislation that has been quoted and referred to here is really a matter of interpretation, and that is also a matter of interpretation. I don't see anywhere in here that it is limited. It looks like a general application to me.

Since we've spent many hours debating this, are the members on that side prepared to say that they are against allowing deductions for everyone in this province? If they are, then we can have very clear what they are saying. Otherwise, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said, we seem to be spending a lot of time just talking. I'd like to repeat that question for the record. Are they saying that they are against allowing deductions from income tax for all people in this province? Is that what they are saying?

MR. BARBER: The answer is no. Our people have said repeatedly what I say now: it is fair and just and appropriate that supporters of the Social Credit Party receive the same financial advantage at tax time as supporters of any other party. That's the message. But listen as well to this. We want it done right, Mr. Chairman. We want it done lawfully. We wouldn't want to see you pass a bill that would be challenged in the courts later on for its inadequacies. We wouldn't want to see you consider retroactive legislation that, by the nature of its retroactivity endangers a significant tradition in the British parliamentary system. We wouldn't want you to get into trouble through your own misadventure. What you have done is propose a bill that has many errors: errors of omission; errors, one presumes, of deliberation; errors that will get you into trouble.

You have proposed something which, in principle, we endorse. Let me say it again, for those who are school teachers seem to have some difficulty in listening to anyone other than themselves. We want Ed back. The principle which we endorse is that supporters of yours, or any other recognized political party, shall be able to obtain in the proper and correct way remuneration at income tax time, as do other Canadians in other provinces. That's fair, that's appropriate. We don't object, we support it. Do you understand that now?

If you can understand that, will you also understand this? The law you have proposed is defective. It doesn't work properly. It is not competent law. What we argue with is that if you did it right, if you did it better, it would be something we could support. Can you understand that? It is, admittedly, a somewhat complex argument.

The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made a hopeless fool of himself five minutes ago, and he has abandoned the House, as usual. My colleague for North Island quite correctly and properly read the law. We hope you understand the law as well. If you understand those three things, you may then share our objections: you propose something that is retroactive; you have done it in such a fashion as to suggest that you may have held out to the voters what, in other less parliamentary precincts, might be called a bribe — I don't suggest that, but I observe that others have; you have drawn up a law which, in some technical detail. appears to be defective.

MR. BRUMMET: Where?

MR. BARBER: Where? Where indeed. Where have you been?

Further, what you have done is endanger a valid principle by the incompetent handling of the whole legislation, and that's just foolish. You should realize, at your political peril, that you have managed to botch something, and to look like fools in the process of its botching. You could have taken credit for this legislation. but, unfortunately following the example of the Minister of Mis-education, you chose not to read the law correctly, you chose not to understand the law adequately, and you chose not to write the law competently. No wonder we object; any opposition would.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Act we are contemplating here is that proposed or already in effect, in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. I have circulated the proposed regulations, the ones which you have on your file. The regulations would have to follow the passage of the amendment.

One of the members expressed concern over disclosure, or the privacy of this information, in terms of a minister or ministers. The members need have no fear in terms of the disclosure of this information. What is required here is a system whereby the receipt developed will have to be related to the federal income tax files, in order for your receipt to be valid. You have to have some relationship between the provincial ministry and the federal ministry to accomplish this objective.

Otherwise you rely strictly on the trust of all contributors, of all registered agents not to falsify returns, et cetera. So although concern is being expressed here about details which we really haven't gone into there has been considerable consultation with other provinces on these very things that you're concerned about. I just want to emphasize that there is a need to relate to the federal income tax department with our own department, in which these returns will also be filed, to verify and validate that the returns are correct.

MR. LEA: The minister has raised the very point. or one of the very points. that we're concerned about, and I'll use his own words. He said: "The details of this we're not discussing here. We're going to decide the details on our own, in cabinet, by resolution, and we'll let you know the details later." Now we may just pass a regulation that will, by the terms of the regulation, only have one political party that's eligible for this, and that could be yours. That could be the minister's, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Act covers that.

MR. LEA: The Act does not cover that, Mr. Chairman. Regulations can change the whole flavour of what's going on in this debate, and that's what we're concerned about.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now if the minister and his cabinet are not fearful of open scrutiny of this legislation, then why does he persist in

[ Page 222 ]

doing the most important part — that is the regulations — in the secrecy of cabinet, and with no opposition in cabinet?

Do them here. Do them in this House. Bring the regulations that you're going to apply and pass them into law within the Act itself. That's all we ask. We're not saying that the Social Credit Party shouldn't get the benefit. It might be better if you took the benefit of the federal law and made yourself a national party. That might be better still. Then we wouldn't even have to face this kind of stupidity. But, Mr. Chairman, the minister by his own words has said we're not discussing the details here. "We'll discuss that later as a cabinet." And this cabinet, which is made up of members of a certain political party, will decide what the regulations are going to be that pertain to all political parties. That's what we're objecting to.

Now surely, Mr. Chairman, members of government and the backbenchers should understand that. That's what we're objecting to. And the way they change parties over there, Mr. Chairman, maybe some of them should be objecting too, because you may not be in that party in the next election. What about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) ? Will he be in that party or will he be sitting over here as an independent? Now how does the legislation affect the member for North Vancouver–Seymour if next election he is sitting over here as an independent? That's, of course, unless he goes into cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has put his finger on the fear and the concern that we have. He said: "Yes, we as the cabinet will be dotting the i's and crossing the t's of what this Act really means when we get into the privacy of cabinet." That's exactly what we're objecting to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Read the bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps saying: "Read the bill." We have read the bill. My concern is that the minister hasn't read the bill, because obviously the bill was probably put together by the Minister of Finance, who is not that minister. It was probably put together by the Premier.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Read what it says about regulations.

MR. LEA: All it says about regulations, Mr. Chairman, is that regulations will be drawn up. That's all it says.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It does not. Read it.

MR. LEA: You read it to me, and you tell me whether you can draw anything more out of the Act than that the cabinet will make the regulations as to this bill. We say at least do this: if you're going to make the regulations in cabinet, if you persist on taking that course and you won't put the regulations into a different form and put them in the Act itself, then do us a favour.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I circulated them to you. I've done you enough favours.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he has given to all of us what the proposed regulations are going to be. We know that old trick. We've had proposed regulations before. And guess what, Mr. Chairman? The regulations haven't come out as they were proposed. That happens all the time. But the minister is asking us to trust him. Doesn't he understand that he's not just a member of government? He's a member of another political party. Why should we trust him? We don't trust him, and why should we? We're saying bring that legislation into this House so all members know exactly — and also the public — what you're going to put in that Act — it's not going to be any good for us to complain afterwards. Once this bill passes this House, it's out of our control, it's out of the public's control, and it's strictly within the control of the government by order-in-council to make regulations. That's what we're complaining about. All we're asking is that simple justice and simple democracy be carried out. No wonder they object; they don't believe in it.

MR. KING: I'm going to be fairly brief. I don't want to prolong the debate, but in light of the wide-ranging debate this afternoon, I thought I should make a few observations. There has been some misrepresentation of the points members were trying to make. For the record, there are basically two points I object to, and I want to try to explain those to the minister as clearly and concisely as I can.

The minister indicated earlier, I think, there's nothing wrong with holding out prospective legislation during an election campaign. The minister should recognize that only the government can do that. The government controls the House; the government determines what legislation will be proposed and passed through this Legislature. Therefore, dealing with an issue such as campaign provisions and political donations, that should be above the taint of partisanship. Certainly it should not be held out as a potential provision during the course of an election campaign. There would have been very little difficulty with this bill had it been proposed and introduced, clear and free from any election campaign. The main problem has arisen because it was tied to a potential offering held out during an election campaign.

Much has been made about the federal campaign contribution regulations, and I think my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has explained that quite clearly. Most political parties are one political party, federally and provincially. The Social Credit Party happens to be a different stripe; for whatever reason, they are strictly provincial, and make much of that in their own propaganda. I suppose that's partly why they have very provincial ideas in other spheres of philosophy and so on. Be that as it may, they are strictly a provincial party, and as such they are prevented from participating in the federal election campaign contribution system that is available to all the other major parties in British Columbia. That is their choice, and their design. That is the choice and design of the Social Credit Party.

I'm going to suggest to you that the main problem I have with this legislation is the retroactivity part of it being held out during an election campaign. I suggest the letter distributed by an executive of Midland Doherty during the election campaign was a private letter, not a public one. It wasn't a public appeal for funds, such as was done by my colleagues from Victoria, open to public scrutiny. This was done behind closed doors, within a corporate structure. That in itself is significant, I submit, and I think it should be read into the record because it completely highlights the kind of problem we have with the legislation proposed by the

[ Page 223 ]

government today. This letter I am going to quote is directed to all sales personnel and staff, all branches:

"I am deeply concerned about the coming election, mainly because of the apathy that has developed, because too many of us are of the opinion that this election is liable to be a 'shoo-in.' I need not remind you that if the Socreds are not returned as the government on May 11, a lot of us are going to be looking out the window, or perhaps looking in the window.

"I would like to stress that if we could muster the same aggressive attitude that we all showed during the last election, indeed, then, maybe it will be a 'shoo-in.’ But no political party, no matter how popular, can win without workers. We are at a very dangerous crossroad at this moment in time, and to have the Socreds turned out of office would not only be a personal disaster to ourselves, but generally destructive to the economy of the province. I urge you all to put in the effort you are capable of doing in working for the Socreds. Our livelihood depends on it.

"I would also like to appeal to you to make a personal financial contribution to the party. I will point out that any contribution up to $500 is 5 percent deductible from your tax payable if the Socreds are returned to power. For example a $100 deduction costs you only $25. I would like to ask you that if you are going to contribute anything from $1 to $500 that you make the cheques payable to the British Columbia Social Credit Party in trust, and give them to your manager who will in turn forward them to me. Let's all get behind the Socreds and keep this province moving. Thanks very much.

Ian A. Falconer
Member of the Executive Committee,
Midland Doherty."

I have heard members on that side get up and decry the fact that my colleagues for Victoria made an open and above-board public appeal for financial assistance, with the benefits accruing under the federal Income Tax Act that our party is entitled to. If those members find that approach offensive, or objectionable, do you feel in good conscience this kind of corporate appeal, with all the strength and all the coercion that could be associated with it, is completely acceptable to your morals and your conscience? Do you find it acceptable that a private appeal to employees by an executive manager should be made without the light of public scrutiny when that executive manager has the power over his employees to influence promotion and to influence indeed whether or not there is any security to their tenure of employment with that firm?

The kind of implications raised by this document clearly highlights the objections that my colleagues have been raising: the immorality of holding out the promise of a benefit — "if you will only vote for us so that once we again assume power, we will be able to bring you financial favour and financial return as the benefit we pay for your support."

Surely to goodness it doesn't take a very bright person to understand the implications of this kind of arrangement. The proposal before the Legislature today would have been quite acceptable had it not been tied in to the kind of odious implications introduced and suggested by this kind of promise during an election campaign. The kind of provision you are putting before the Legislature should have been brought in and debated and fully dispensed with by this Legislature free from the implications, the fervour and the partisanship of a provincial election campaign.

I tell you that every single voter in the province of British Columbia can understand that principle concisely and clearly, and I suggest that if the Social Credit backbenchers, much less the cabinet, have difficulty understanding the implications of that principle, then indeed the administration of the ship of state in this province is in serious jeopardy. There's no question about it, Mr. Chairman, that is what we're somewhat exercised about. It's an unseemly way to do business.

If members wish to associate themselves with that kind of approach, it is appropriate and it is necessary that this debate takes place to clearly state the difference of philosophy, the difference of political morality and the difference of values between this party and yours.

Mr. Chairman. apparently members on that side find this kind of behind-the-doors appeal, with the coercion implied in it, completely acceptable but reject and object most strenuously to an open public appeal for financial assistance under the laws of this nation such as was put forward by my colleague from Victoria. That’s the only conclusion one can draw. I say shame on you, particularly you new people who I assume came here with some fresh ideas and some commitment to the people of British Columbia. If on occasion your good conscience prevailed, it would cause you to depart from the narrow, partisan interests of your political party, the government of the day. I'm sorry to see that you've lost those fresh ideas and that kind of verve and commitment at so early a stage in your political careers, because here clearly is a moral issue where you have an obligation to represent the voters of British Columbia, not Social Credit.

Let's get the debate in its proper perspective and not have the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) try to muddy the waters with irrelevant and incorrect references to federal legislation. We are dealing here with the propriety of a statute introduced in this Legislature that could have been debated on its own merit had it been introduced and disposed of free from the furor of a provincial election campaign. That's the issue. The retroactivity of it is the issue. That implies that this statute was introduced as payment for the contribution and the voting support of certain corporate enterprises who made their decisions behind closed doors. That's wrong — absolutely wrong.

The other thing that's wrong about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not necessary to deal with a matter of this kind on a retroactive basis. I can see dealing with tax relief for all of the citizens of the province of British Columbia. such as sales tax or personal income tax, on a retroactive basis. But what is the urgency of making electoral reform essentially retroactive? That certainly makes the motivation behind the legislation suspect, in my view. Had the government handled this properly, as my colleague for Prince Rupert said, there would have been very little controversy in this Legislature today. The backbenchers should pay particular attention to the ineptitude of some of their ministers who besmirch what might otherwise be acceptable legislation by the most grossly incompetent handling. They should pay particular attention to that because the opposition is here to make sure that whatever statute is brought forward is

[ Page 224 ]

properly scrutinized, so that the public is alerted properly to the implications of that legislation, and to make sure that we have this kind of debate and this kind of exchange of ideas so the people clearly have an option and can make their determinations in complete compliance with the democratic process that we all represent.

I regret that this debate has had to go on so long. I regret that it has become at times somewhat asinine and somewhat far removed from the principles involved. They're fairly narrow principles; they're clear. I regret very much that some members on that side of the House could not muster their courage enough to say to their minister: "Take this legislation back to the drawing board. Bring it back free from the taint of partisan political campaigning, and let's deal with it as a statute properly designed and properly introduced in this House."

MR. HOWARD: I vaguely recall a reference to that particular letter during the course of the campaign. It was just something that came over the news. Victoria is a long way from the realities of life in the north and in the Interior, things that may be of great moment here in Victoria, but somehow or other the Gulf of Georgia prevents them from getting across to the rest of us. I vaguely remember hearing about that particular letter. I think we are indebted to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) for having read it into the record, because if there ever was a reason put forward to oppose this particular clause on the grounds of political morality and honesty, there's the reason in that letter. It's connected with the earlier plea that has been made from members on this side of the House for a disclosure of source of campaign funds. Look at the connections that could take place and probably did take place. The letter was sent from somebody in the upper echelons of Midland Doherty to the people down below in sales or someplace.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Disclosure is not allowed under the Act.

MR. HOWARD: Disclosure is not allowed in the Income Tax Act — in the Act that we are now amending.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly. I'm glad the Minister of Finance has cottoned on to tat. I'm glad he's caught that truth. After listening to you for the last few days since I've been here, that's a real revelation. It's an exhibition of his perceptiveness.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Hear, hear!

MR. HOWARD: It makes me wonder why he's been kept on as Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on section 5.

MR. HOWARD: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I wish you would have told the Minister of Finance that before he interrupted me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're strictly on section 5, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I'm dealing with section 5, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has some difficulty in seeing that, hon. member. We have had very wide-ranging debate. I think now we must really specifically relate to the section.

MR. HOWARD: I can see clause 5 very clearly. The part right at the beginning of it talks in terms of an amount contributed, and it then identifies what that means. It means "a contribution," et cetera. That's the first part I'm going to deal with.

When the decision was made by the government to distribute shares in B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, it decided to pay to the financial agents, whoever they might happen to be, who were to process the applications for the five shares, $5 per application. Midland Doherty was one of those agencies involved in receiving $5 per application.

The processing of an application in a bank or a financial institution doesn't cost that financial institution $5 — it's 60 cents, probably. What would they do with the $4.40? Well, they'd have to take out a little bit in reserve to pay their income taxes, maybe. Then comes the letter — written by the vice-president of that firm, I'm told — that we just read that said: "Friends in Midland Doherty…." It was not an appeal but almost a directive to the personnel and the staff working in Midland Doherty, which said they could contribute some of their money to Social Credit and get a tax rebate on their own income tax returns. It told them not to worry about the money coming out of their own pockets because, in addition to getting the tax rebate, they were going to get the money from the taxpayers of the province for every application they filled out for BCRIC shares. And that's the process that is horrendously injurious to the political system.

My friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the Whip of the government party — who isn't in his seat right at the moment — talked a while ago about kickbacks, and pointed his finger at us as being involved in those kickbacks. Well, if there is any sort of under-the-table, strings-attached kickbacks involved in politics, here it is with a group like Midland Doherty and the Social Credit Party. And the taxpayers are paying the shot for it, Mr. Chairman.

In closing I would say to my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke that he was really wasting his time trying to convince Social Credit backbenchers to vote against this particular clause. They are not going to, Mr. Chairman, for a very simple reason. Apart from the fact that they support political immorality when it comes to financing, there is a fundamental structure in this Legislature that is very, very clear, and that is that there are, apart from the Premier, 15 cabinet ministers and 14 backbenchers. What greater attraction can you have to be subservient and do what you're told?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have raised today and yesterday a number of concerns that I have had regarding the confidentiality of the records and receipts that will be obtained by the government from people who will have made political donations. I want the record to show that I have received no assurance on that. There are many provincial government employees in this province who

[ Page 225 ]

want to contribute, as free citizens in the public process, to a political party of their choice. If they believe or feel that the records of those receipts or of those contributions could possibly ever fall into the hands of their employer, you are denying them access to the political process. Do you think that is funny?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was agreeing with the hon. member. I thought, perhaps, he would be more courteous.

MR. HANSON: Then I would like the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head to accept my apology, because I think that, in the way I phrased my comment, I misinterpreted what he was saying. I am pleased that he agrees with me, because I think it is a serious matter — and I am raising it in all seriousness — that the confidentiality of the participation of people in the political life of this province should not fall into the hands of one political party.

My colleagues for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), have all raised concerns about confidentiality. The Minister of Finance has said to us that we should trust the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to draft regulations that will be in the best interests of the people of the province. I am sorry, but I can't feel totally confident in that. The first recommendations of the Eckardt commission were to do away with ridings of my colleagues. Those were political judgments that came out of electoral reform. I think the regulations that will be drafted will be political regulations. And I don't think that one political party that happens to get more votes, and sits in office, should define what a political party is or have access to the names of the political contributors of this province.

I am not getting any answers on that, and I want it on the record, Mr. Minister of Finance — through you, Mr. Chairman — that we have had no assurances that the records and receipts will not fall into the hands of the cabinet.

MR. LEA: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 26

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

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: If we could for a moment. let's take a look at the case that the government has attempted to put to the House. One minister misled the House and misquoted federal law in a very bad way. He totally misinterpreted the burden of federal law, and the opposition made it perfectly clear how that law actually works.

Another minister seems totally unaware of the actual operations of the law he is himself advancing. The government repeatedly has in this law and by its debate around the same, offended against the competent principles of retroactivity in the British system, which are very narrow and very precise, They've offended against the only way that retroactivity can ever be made a fair or a just thing, Their law is not just and not fair as it is presented here today.

My colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) read a letter into the record of this House which some of us were able to use at an earlier time during an earlier and more public debate, a letter from the ever-generous Mr. Falconer of Midland Doherty, making it perfectly clear what Social Credit has been doing all along in anticipation of this legislation. That too offends against the way fair law should work.

The problems with the government's case and the problems with the government law make it clear that they would have us approve defective law, and we will not do that.

There is another aspect as well, which I was pleased to note the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith) shared. I hope he speaks. I hope the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head will have the courage to stand up and speak his mind. It was gratifying that he nodded across the floor of the House that he shares our concern. It would be more gratifying to have him on the record. I trust he will.

The particular concern, raised particularly well by my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), is that what you ask us in the way of power to be granted through regulation to amend law is too great a power handling too many regulations. We want instead that power determined here on the floor of the House.

Let me ask, if I may, whether or not you would be prepared to take the Gaglardi test. This is the one that David Anderson made famous. When we were in government, asking from time to time for certain authority, he said: "Okay, maybe we can trust the NDP. Maybe we can trust your government. They're not crooks; they're not hauled up on this charge or that charge. They're an honest bunch, well meaning. Maybe they burnble from time to time, but basically the NDP is an honest lot. Maybe we could trust your government with that particular power." What David Anderson went on to say was: "Assuming that we could trust your government with political power, what would happen if that government changed? Would you trust Phil Gaglardi with that power?"

That's this same Gaglardi who some weeks ago said: "They'll never prove I took the $60,000." Do you remember when that came out in the campaign? "They'll never prove I took the $60,000." Well, maybe one member

[ Page 226 ]

of this House would trust the Phil Gaglardis of this world, but we wouldn't.

The burden of the Gaglardi test is simply this: you may wish in conscience to be trusted and feel yourselves honourable enough to manage the trust — to do by regulation what you seem unwilling to do on the floor of this House. Well, let me ask you this: acknowledging the antipathies that exist from time to time and are expressed from time to time here, would you trust our guys with the same power?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARBER: No, you wouldn't, eh? Listen to that. What kind of standards are those?

What you've failed to comprehend is that you're not passing a law for your party. You're passing a law for the people, and that's the difference. You are only, with all respect, the government of the day. What if today you passed a law which gave, as you propose to do, powers to achieve in cabinet what you will not forthrightly try and achieve or debate on this floor, and then the government changed hands?

There are some of your supporters who believe that our guys talk Russian in their sleep, and you wouldn't trust us with anything, not a ruble. Some of our supporters think that you guys regularly commune with Joseph Goebbels, and we wouldn't trust you with a mark. Is it not reasonable to ask, given the political hostilities in British Columbia, that the great burden and bulk of law be debated here, and not in cabinet chambers, here, and not by regulation, here, and not by fiat?

We ask no more than this: bring to the floor and debate here every aspect of regulation which will be the engine of this law, and not simply the framework that we have in front of us. We'll be prepared to debate, relatively quickly, this whole thing. But continue to hold out, as you propose to do, for the secrecy of the cabinet room, for the retroactivity of this legislation and for the very considerable endangerment of good public law and good public policy, and we'll debate you for a long time to come. Understand that as well.

If you wouldn't trust us with the power you propose to take, why then should anyone else trust you? Let the law be so wholly and clearly fair that such powers as are granted be granted here, and not in the cabinet room. Let the regulations as are required be determined here, and not in the cabinet room. It's a very simple principle for which we argue.

Your case, presented this afternoon, is, with all respect, a shambles. The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) goofed badly. The Minister of Finance is simply not able to explain or defend his law. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith) agrees with us that what you propose to do by regulation is wrong. What kind of a law is it that you would have us agree to? It is not a good law at all. We shall not, and will not, agree until you amend it. Amend ito improve it, make it a law worthy of support and we'll support it.

Section 5 approved on the following division.

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 23

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

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 12.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LEVI: I have an amendment. It's under my name on the order paper — section 1, line 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I might read the amendment for those other members present, it seeks to amend section 1, line 7, by deleting the words, "but does not" and substituting the words "and shall." It's signed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The amendment appears to be in order.

[ Page 227 ]

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: The intent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is really to go back to what we were given to understand was the original intent of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, that people should participate, and that they would have a say in what was going on. Now, of course, since the original legislation there has been an about-face on this particular issue and they've introduced the concept of the free shares or the bearer shares which give people absolutely no right at all to participate in the corporation.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister of Finance, who is presumably piloting the bill on behalf of the Premier, as to why he thinks that these people should not participate in the ongoing business of the corporation, because it does create two classes of people in respect of the corporation: those who hold free shares who cannot participate, and those who can afford to buy shares who can participate. I think that I would like to hear from the minister why they've gone this route, and I'll wait until the minister replies.

MR. BARBER: I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague. As the minister is well aware, we've prepared a number of amendments which will in a considerable fashion, we feel, democratize the operations of the corporation itself; guarantee that every citizen who has a share has a vote; guarantee that the corporation is as accountable as it may be held to all of the people of British Columbia and not just a few; guarantee as well British Columbia control of British Columbian resources.

The first amendment presented today by my colleague is the first in a series that we will be introducing. It may well be that one or two of them will be determined ineligible by the Chair by virtue of the particular nature of them, requiring government sponsorship rather than that of the opposition. We acknowledge that in advance, and we will present that amendment as well as we can and hope at the time to persuade the government to adopt it.

As to the amendment at hand. Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. now that I have your attention, perhaps on page 23 of our standing orders you might review the section on relevancy — and strict relevancy — especially at this time when we're dealing with this proposed amendment. Please continue. The remarks are for the new members as well as for those who have been here for some time.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I appreciate that.

What we're trying to establish here, and if the government accepts the amendment of what the law will establish, is that every shareholder in the corporation shall have voice and vote. Against whom does that principle offend? Against what institution traditional in British Columbia does that procedure offend? It certainly doesn't offend the Companies Act, Mr. Chairman; the Companies Act requires that. It doesn't offend the Societies Act or the Cooperatives Act either. In every instance of current law where the members or the owners of any publicly established corporation are recognized in that law, they have voice and vote.

The government has in this instance chosen, for some reason never explained by the Premier, to determine, as my colleague put it, that there shall be two classes of citizens in British Columbia: those who have a vote and those who don't have a vote. The government has argued since 1977 that the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation should be considered to be owned in a unique way by the people of British Columbia. If that is the case, and we are to adopt that argument, then will you not adopt our amendment which follows the perfectly reasonable conclusion that, if they should own the corporation, they should also control it?

The conclusion we draw in this amendment is that the perfectly arbitrary and, in law, fixed limit, below which if you fall you do not have a vote is not reasonable. The government has proposed that you may not exercise any authority whatever unless you have 100 shares. Why would such a limit be drawn? Why would such a line be in place? Why would such a specific figure be chosen? Obviously, it's arbitrary. It could have been 106 or 94: presumably 100 is a round enough number that even certain government members would remember it for the purposes of debate. So there it is: 100 shares. The problem with it is that you undermine your own claim that this is the people's corporation. In fact, we are informed that fewer than 60,000 of the people — not 2.4 million — may in fact consider this their own corporation. Only 60,000 will actually be able to vote.

Look what you've done: look what the government proposes to do if it does not accept our amendment. You have disfranchised 2.4 million people in British Columbia; you have restricted the vote to 60,000 people alone. Assuming you have not deliberately set out to disfranchise 2.4 million people, may we not then assume that you might consider our amendment' What's wrong with the principle that every shareholder should have a vote? Those of you across the floor who operate companies are well aware that if those are publicly held companies — not family firms, obviously; I presume you operate differently — you expect in the ordinary course of business that everyone with a voting share has a vote. They show up, or their proxies arrive, and they conduct the business of the company accordingly. That's fair: that's Canadian law that's British Columbia law. There's nothing wrong with that.

What we ask is that you extend the provisions of Canadian and British Columbia law to this corporation. What my colleague's amendment argues is that the figure of 100 shares is arbitrary, and not very bright. What happens when people read the fine print and discover that you have disfranchised them? What happens when 2.4 million British Columbians, or, rather, those who applied for the shares, 2 million or 2.1 million — excuse the error — receive the five free shares and read the fine print? They will discover that they have five free pieces of paper, and no vote. They have five free shares, and no say. They have five free shares, and no standing. It may turn out that you've offended 2 million British Columbians who thought you were giving them control, as well as a piece of paper; who thought you were giving them a direct say in this corporation, as well as five free shares.

What objection can you have to allowing this company to be governed like all the rest by its shareholders?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 228 ]

If I owned a share in B.C. Tel, which I do not, I would consider it my right to go to a B.C. Tel shareholders' meeting and ask questions of the chairman as to the operation of my company. Even the smallest shareholder in private enterprise has that right. To the credit of many of them, they exercise that right; and that's a good thing. That keeps the companies accountable. You are denying that right to our citizens; that is not a good thing. You are denying the individual exercise you grant to private enterprise in every other circumstance. Why would it benefit the government to do that? If one is to be charitable one would have to presume that the only reason might be mechanical. You're worried about two million people showing up to a meeting. With all respect to those who might hold that belief, that's not a very credible argument; it's not going to happen.

At the time when the greatest corporation of them all in British Columbia, this Legislature, has its annual meeting, only 70 percent of the people show up for that. That's disappointing; it should be 100 percent, but it's not. When the most important public corporation we all own is up for grabs at election time 30 percent of the people disqualify themselves. It disappoints all of us on both sides of the House. The number of shareholders who would actually show up to a meeting of this corporation would be even more disappointing.

It is not a rational defence of the previous government position to argue the reason you're opposed to democracy in the Resources Corporation is because you feel too many people will be democratic. That's not a rational defence it's not a rational reply. The official opposition and my colleague argue that, if you've meant what you've said all along about intending that this corporation be owned by all the people, then let it also be controlled by all the people. In British Columbia, that means 2.4 million people, if they care to exercise that, but they won't. You're not going to have to rent the Coliseum, you won't even have to rent the Memorial Arena.

If you deny the amendment, you deny an important principle. Those of you in business acknowledge the principle in business. Every shareholder has a vote, doesn't he? Why would you repudiate that principle in this business? Well, maybe you wouldn't. Maybe the amendment will pass. It is in order. It could pass and it could do a great deal to redeem this whole corporation in the eyes of the people of British Columbia and to guarantee to the people of British Columbia that every one of them may, if he or she wishes — as shareholders, with one vote or 100 or 10,000 — show up and exercise that franchise, ask those questions and know for a certainty that it is their corporation. Please accept the amendment; it's fair and reasonable.

MR. LEGGATT: I rise briefly to support this particular amendment.

I think it's useful to review the success of this particular operation. The government, I know, is going to be telling us that something in the order of two million people have applied for shares, that there are only about two million shares left and that therefore the purpose of the legislation, which was — and I'm quoting the Premier — "to allow people in British Columbia to experience personal ownership…." But this legislation doesn't allow that broad cross-section of British Columbians who have applied for their shares to participate in this company in any way, shape or form. The only people who are going to participate in this company are the approximately, I think, 60,000 people who have applied to purchase shares in BCRIC. That very small group of people will be allowed to participate in the operation of this company, but this government doesn't want the broad cross-section of something over two million people to participate in the operation. How is that teaching them something about individual ownership? You don't want them to have a chance to vote if you don't want to have them show up at the annual meeting.

Mr. Chairman, we're going to be dealing with another provision which attempts to avoid the whole concept of the annual meeting entirely — a unique step in the history of law in this province, and probably in the British Commonwealth.

But, to get back to the principle of this first amendment, if you're really serious about seeing this corporation have a broadly based ownership and that ownership have some participation, why don't you just accept the amendment? We can all sit down; we don't need to beat our gums anymore about this, because it's a very simple question. Do you really want them to participate in this new people's capitalism that this government has developed?

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this is pure hypocrisy. They don't want these people to experience real ownership. They don't want these people to have any say in the action in this particular company. They want them out. All they wanted was their votes in the last provincial election — and that was just enough to make it — and now they're frozen out of any real participation with regard to this particular company.

Sixty thousand people have applied for purchase and we don't know how many individual shares there are. I don't know how many have applied for their maximum 5,000, but that could reduce it even more. It could be an even narrower participation in the real decision-making of this particular operation.

Mr. Chairman, the reality is that the group which tried to see some democratic operation of these assets that are now in the form of BCRIC was the previous New Democratic Party government, which allowed people to have some say through their elected representatives on the floor of this House. But from this point on, unless you accept this amendment whereby we can have a little more broad participation, none of the elected representatives of the province of British Columbia is going to have a chance to come in here and ask questions about the operation of BCRIC. None of the people's assets are going to have any kind of democratic control, and that's the key principle behind this amendment. This amendment is to provide the kind of thing that the New Democratic Party had provided previously.

You know, this idea of somehow always segregating the government as something other than the people of the province…. This is the only party, when it was in government, that tried to make them one and the same and to give them some sense of participation in the assets and economic destiny of the province. We plead with you, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — to accept this amendment, so that you will at least go part of the distance that the previous New Democratic Party government did to see some democratic control for the assets of British Columbia.

[ Page 229 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is the proposed amendment to section 1, which would change the rules of the establishment of this corporation, in that the present bill excludes bearer shares from the definition of voting shares. I think everybody is pretty clear on the objective of this. This amendment would include bearer shares.

Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been made a matter of policy in all the preliminary announcements having to do with BCRIC — made by the Premier and others associated with it — right from day one, long before the provincial election. The simple fact is that it would be an administrative nightmare to contemplate a corporation of this size being obliged to conduct shareholder meetings, being obliged to circulate annual reports and the other obligations associated with that. You are talking about close to two million shareholders. The largest single corporation in Canada probably wouldn't have any more than 25,000 to 30,000 shareholders.

The practical problem is not just the physical difficulty in contemplating conducting a meeting of this impossible size, but the cost. The cost burden on this viable corporation, in terms of being faced with the expense of underwriting the things we are talking about, would be really substantial. And no corporation could make a decision involving this kind of obligation without affecting their economic future. So it is simply an impractical consideration that a corporation would be obliged to hold an annual meeting where they have this size of shareholding.

As we say, this was the reason for the development of the 100-share board lot, which, as you know, will be sizeable. And you can even contemplate the tremendous difficulties which could arise in the formation or calling of such a meeting. I'm not telling opposition members anything they are not already aware of. Despite all the rhetoric associated with minority shareholders and so on, it's simply an impractical consideration.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister explained that it wouldn't be possible to accept this amendment because to do so would be to do something retroactively. But I thought that by passing Bill 4 the government had just established the precedent that we can do things retroactively. He said the Premier had made promises during the election. I don't know why that should be an issue: he's never kept any of his promises. So that's not a reason for not accepting the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I must rise on a point of order to correct what the member has just said. I was alluding to remarks made by the other member here, in which lie intimated that we suddenly called an election and that everybody found out later that the bearer shares wouldn't have a vote. That is contrary to the facts of this whole introduction. People have known right from day one that bearer shares would not be able to vote. This has been a part ongoing policy. I made no reference to retroactivity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is a point of correction. Mr. Minister, not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: I accept the minister's correction, but that still doesn't explain why it's not possible to accept the amendment. If the government can be shown that it made a mistake by depriving bearer shares of their vote. and this is brought to their attention, it isn't any reason why they cannot accept the amendment at this time.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this reminds me of the biblical story about the son who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Now, I don't know how many people in this House know very much about biblical stories, but this is a story about a son who sold his birthright to his brother for a mess of pottage. This is a little bit different because, although these five shares are just a mess of pottage, the shareholders, the people of British Columbia, did not in fact sell their birthright — it was taken away from them by this legislation.

The government never intended the people of British Columbia to own these assets equally. That was the situation until this bill was introduced. All of us, as British Columbians, owned equally all of these assets. Moreover, we had purchased them; we paid for them through our tax dollars. What the government did, Mr. Chairman, was to take these assets, which we had purchased through our tax dollars, and turn around and give us five shares in these assets which we had purchased and call them free.

How you can walk into a store and put your money down for goods, then have some of these goods handed to you and be told, "Here are your free goods," after you have paid for them, I've never been able to understand. But then I've never understood Social Credit logic. I've never understood their financial logic anyway.

In fact, all of us purchased these assets. We all own them equally. The government introduced legislation which in effect deprived all of us of our equity share in these assets, and went further than that by handing to each person five shares out of what is theirs, and calling these shares free, and then saying to them: "You can't vote on this. This is your five shares. You sit in the corner and you keep yourself quiet. Anyone in the province who can afford to purchase 100 shares will make decisions from now on about what happens to these assets, presumably on your behalf." The government may have done this by accident. The government may not have understood that what it was in fact doing was robbing us of our birthright and offering us in exchange a mess of pottage.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has introduced an amendment which now gives the government the opportunity to undo this wrong. We now have a chance to once again restore to all the people of British Columbia our equity right, our equity position, in these assets.

What puzzles me and what puzzles all of us is why, now that this opportunity is open to the government there is some reluctance on the part of the government to deal with it. The only conclusion I can come to is that the minister does not have the right to make those kinds of decisions in the absence of the Premier. That brings us to the puzzling question: why are we debating the Premier's bill in his absence? Why is the Minister of Finance being asked to take responsibility for a piece of legislation which he does not understand, has never understood and is totally incapable of dealing with?

The amendment, however, gives the Minister of Finance an opportunity to do something which I’m sure the Premier probably would have done if he were here. I'm wondering if the minister would like us to grant him a short recess so that he can make a quick phone call and check

[ Page 230 ]

with the Premier. He could start out by saying: "Mr. Premier, we've made a terrible mistake. We have in fact disfranchised, in fact robbed, the people of British Columbia of their equity position in assets which they previously held. But now there's an amendment before us, Mr. Premier, which will set the situation straight. Mr. Premier, unless we accept this amendment, we are in the untenable position of having 60,000 people make decisions on behalf of 2.4 million about assets which are owned or previously were owned and controlled by the 2.4 million people. Mr. Premier, since we, during the election. told the people of British Columbia that what we were trying to do through this legislation was to give everyone 'a piece' of the province, maybe you would be willing to permit me as your emissary to accept this amendment. If we don't, Mr. Premier, persons in this province who have not the financial ability to purchase the additional 95 shares will not be able to have a vote, to have a say, to make any decisions about these assets which they purchased and which, incidentally, have improved considerably since the time they were purchased."

The Premier wrote my kids a letter, two of them, and said, "I want you to apply for your five free shares because this is a lesson in private enterprise," I think. Being my children, they didn't know that much about private enterprise, because we haven't told them that much about it, I guess. So we decided to explore. We ended up referring to it in my house as the "great tomato robbery." I explained it to my kids this way.

You purchase a tomato plant — this has to do with the amendment, and I'll show you the link — and at the end of the year there are ten tomatoes on the tree. I say to you, as your mother, as the Premier of this province: "Here is your free tomato; the other nine tomatoes are for sale. Now, if you can afford to purchase three more of the additional tomatoes, you can decide the future of the tomato planting in this family. If not, you sit down, be still, and be quiet with your tomato. I am going to place the other nine tomatoes on sale to anyone who wants to purchase them. Whoever can purchase three tomatoes decides the future of the tomato planting in this family."

My son said to me: "But that's the great tomato rip-off."

I said: "That's precisely what the Premier is doing to the people of the province. It's the great tomato rip-off."

But we can do something about that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has given the Premier the opportunity to deal honestly with these tomatoes. In fact, the person who purchased the tomato tree originally, who planted the tomato tree originally, to whom the tomatoes should accrue, can now have an opportunity to make decisions about future tomato planting in this province. We should accept this amendment which says that every British Columbian should be entitled to a voice.

Is it asking too much that all British Columbians, the same British Columbians who made a decision about who should be the government of this province, should have a say in what happens to the assets of BCRIC? Does the government not trust the people of British Columbia? The only reason that the decision could be made to deprive the people of British Columbia of the right to control these assets is a fear that the people of British Columbia are profligate, that they will waste, give away, or sell these assets.

Is the minister suggesting that the government of British Columbia has made this decision in our own best interests? Are you suggesting that there are only 60,000 people, or, that only the people who can afford to purchase 100 shares or more have the intelligence and the ability to make decisions about these assets? If that is not the case, and if this government does not want to discriminate against people because they cannot afford or do not choose to own 100 shares or more in this corporation, then this government should be willing to accept this opportunity to return control of these assets to all the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister if he would inform the House about his adviser on the floor and in what capacity the adviser is serving.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's in order, Mr. Chairman. His name is Mr. Hebenton. He has been legal adviser on the question of BCRIC. Is there some objection under the rules, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BARRETT: Is the legal adviser being paid by BCRIC, or is it an order-in-council appointment?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the leader wants to know the answer to the question.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly do. You didn't know it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As I suggested to my associate here, he's an adviser to the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. BARRETT: Is he an order-in-council appointment, or a casual employee of the Attorney-General's ministry? I wish to know in what capacity the stranger is sitting in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's no stranger.

MR. BARRETT: He certainly is. He's not here by permission of the House. There are rules in this House, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is customary in the House for members who are not directly associated with the minister to sit at the back of the House. If objection is being taken by the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order, then the point of order at this point is in order.

MR. BARRETT: That is not my objection. I am asking clarification before I ask whether or not the point of order be invoked. The minister himself does not appear to know who he is an employee of. I wish to know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair had to recognize the Leader of the Opposition because it was a point of order when the Leader of the Opposition did rise.

MR. BARRETT: And the point that you recognized me on was a question related to the point of order. I'm asking the minister to clarify the point of order that I have raised. Would he please inform the House specifically who the adviser is employed by and if it is an order-in-council appointment?

[ Page 231 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the gentleman is here on a pass from the Speaker. If there is objection to him sitting in this particular vicinity, I would be happy to oblige. His name is Mr. Hebenton. I explained that earlier. He is retained by the Attorney-General's department. He's not an order-in-council appointment.

MR. BARRETT: Now we've got that far. Following the same point of order. It is the practice of this House to have casual counsel employed by the Attorney-General sit advising a minister about specific legislation without order-in-council, without any funds specifically allocated by this House for that advice. I want to know how much he's being paid, whether it is specifically related to this bill, and what other role is being played here in this very unusual practice that is going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It has been the custom in the past for members to sit with the minister; it has happened in the past. However, custom of the House is that individuals in the capacity of the gentleman to the left of the minister sit at the back of the House if exception to that is taken.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is not the point at all. There was no information given to this House that the practice of having an order-in-council employee or a permanent civil servant sitting next to the minister was going to be changed. We have here an instance that I cannot recall a precedent for — a casual employee, hired by the Attorney-General's office for legal advice around one specific piece of legislation, sitting in the House counselling the minister, who doesn't even know who is paying him, on the BCRIC shares. This is a very sensitive issue in the public's mind and we need a full explanation of whether or not public funds are being used for BCRIC purposes beyond this Legislature. That's what we need to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what is his condition of employment? Has he been employed? I need to know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not going to enter into a debate. I have ruled on the matter, as far as the location of where the individual sits, and we are not going to entertain a debate on the salary, et cetera, of the individual to the left of the minister. That is my ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a temperate recess would be well advised until the Speaker informs the official opposition as to the role of the adviser the minister has seen fit to bring into this House without notice. A temporary recess would be most advisable, in my opinion, so that the official opposition is informed of exactly what the minister intends in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has given indication as to the findings regarding the incident. If the members wish to challenge and report this to the Speaker, then that is the option of the members. But the matter has been decided.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, following your advice I ask you to call the Speaker to rule on this matter. I've asked for specific information rather than the invocation of existing rules, and we don't have enough information on whether or not to challenge. So I'd like the Speaker to come back — it would be useful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Speaker can be called in when the Chair is challenged. If you would challenge the ruling of the Chair, then you would accomplish that end.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've said earlier that if the attendance of this gentleman, who has been adviser to the Attorney-General in the matter of the BCRIC share issue for many months, is offensive to the member, and if he wants to restrict the minister from having the best advice available to him to answer the questions the members want to ask, I'd be quite happy to oblige, because I don't want to offend the rules of this House. I respect the rules of this House, Mr. Chairman, and I would therefore ask Mr. Hebenton to sit at the rear of the House. I'm not objecting if that's what you understand the rules to require.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the pious statement by the minister saying that he has been hired by the Attorney-General to advise on BCRIC was information he didn't have until he asked him himself just a moment ago. So it's obvious that the House doesn't know what the minister himself didn't know a few moments ago.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What does that have to do with it?

MR. BARRETT: You didn't know who'd hired him, whether it was by order-in-council or anything else. I suggest we have a short recess and have the Speaker give us a ruling on this new practice. I would like the Speaker to be called, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you cannot instruct the Speaker to be called. The Chair has given a ruling. If you wish to challenge that ruling, then the Speaker may be brought in.

MR. BARRETT: What was your ruling on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: My ruling is that a precedent has been set indicating the position of the individual beside the minister, and that is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've asked whether or not he is a stranger in the House, not whether or not he should sit by the minister — that's what we need clarification about. He's not an order-in-council appointment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Speaker gave him a pass.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we weren't notified about that — how do we know? We know the Pages got a pass today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, may I just briefly review the fact that technical advisers have

[ Page 232 ]

been permitted to sit at the back of the chamber. There is a technical adviser presently with the minister. I was asked as Chairman to rule on the point of order by the minister. The ruling is that the technical adviser may sit in the chamber at the back, but he should not sit where he is presently sitting. That is the ruling of the Chair and that is the only ruling before the Chair at this time.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, is a person who is not an order-in-council appointee a technical adviser? Under what payment is the adviser? That is the question, not the location of the stranger. I just happened to notice him cuddling up to the minister, and I'd like to know who's paying him for the cuddling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The House has never before delved into whether an individual is an order-in-council appointment or not, nor has it been precedent in this House prior to this particular moment.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct. That's why we should be cautious with this ruling. He may be a lawyer. How do we pay lawyers, order-in-council or fee-for-service? How did he get here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has ruled. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge the ruling, he may do so. But the matter, as far as the Chair is concerned, is that technical advisers have been admitted to the House in the past. As a technical adviser he is permitted in the House and that is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: The rule says that technical advisers are not classified as strangers if a member wishes to raise that issue. The point of order I'm discussing is that he may indeed be a friend, not a stranger. I don't know. I want to know who he is and who's paying for him. I haven't seen him before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the representative with the minister is here based on practice of this House, and if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge the standing order, then the galleries as well will be cleared.

MR. BARRETT: I don't see anyone in the galleries. I don't see anyone in the press gallery. I saw someone next to the minister, and I'm just trying to ask the Chairman if the minister would please tell us who is paying him so we understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. The Chair has ruled.

MR. BARBER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Do I understand your ruling to indicate that a technical adviser, who is not a public servant and not an order-in-council appointee, may be brought in from time to time to assist a member of the Legislature, as does this gentleman assist the minister with advice on legislation before the House? Do I understand the Chairman to be saying that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a courtesy, and has been a courtesy of this House extended to ministers.

MR. BARBER: On the same point of order, the member knows full well that there are no different rules for ministers or for any members of this Legislature. Continuing on the point of order, there are certainly different obligations and duties, but there are not different privileges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not a special privilege. The member knows very well that ministers, for example, may make motions on behalf of the Crown, whereas other individuals in this House may not. So the ruling of the Chair is, hon. members, that the individual is allowed. As you know, there is no argument with the Chair. You may challenge the ruling but you may not argue with the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I'm neither challenging….

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no further debate on the matter, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: Continuing on a point of order, I'm neither arguing nor challenging; I'm questioning. In particular, I would ask this question: would you or would you not consider it in order that I, as one sponsor of an amendment shortly to be presented, may have my legal adviser here sitting behind me?

MR CHAIRMAN: As the hon. member well knows    .

MR. BARBER: I am not finished. Hear me out; hear the whole point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are finished as far as the Chair is concerned. You are out of order because you are continuing to argue a ruling of the Chair. That is the finding of the Chair, hon. member. I ask you to respect that ruling. If you wish to challenge the ruling and bring in the Speaker, please do so; otherwise you are gaining the floor by an improper method.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am not debating the previous point of order nor the previous rule.

If I understand you correctly, you have said that the minister may be advised by a person who is neither a public servant nor an order-in-council appointee. May I also have — and I ask for your ruling — the same privilege of having an adviser here to discuss amendments for which I will be responsible in this Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you're asking the Chair for a ruling, the answer is no. That is a practice of the House which has been accorded only to ministers of the Crown. To the best of the knowledge of the Chair, you are not a minister of the Crown.

MR. BARRETT: Where does it say in the rules that the ministers have more privileges in this House than any other member? All the rules are equally applicable to every member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's custom.

MR. BARRETT: Where is the rule? We're not asking for custom.

[ Page 233 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer to the Leader of the Opposition is that all members — and especially the Leader of the Opposition — are well aware of the custom of this House particularly as it relates to the permitting of advisers when legislation is presented by ministers of the Crown.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the custom comes from practice. The practice has been that it's either a senior civil servant or an order-in-council appointment, with the courtesy….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now clearly arguing with the Chair, and you are clearly out of order. I ask you to take your place.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to finish on the point of order and custom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you do not lecture the Chair in this House.

MR. BARRETT: Neither should you lecture the members of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only, hon. member, when they refuse to respect the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: I am respecting the Chair if you'd let me ask my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have asked the same questions repeatedly. I have ruled on the matter and the matter is before this Legislature at the present time. The ruling is clear.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you're informing me of custom, which has nothing to do with rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have informed you repeatedly of the reason for allowing individuals to assist ministers of the Crown in presenting legislation. I have indicated repeatedly what is custom in this House. It is the custom of the House and as custom of this House has the same effect as rules, and the hon. member is well aware of that.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the Chairman to tell me what rule he is invoking that is in our standing orders. I'm not interested in custom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rule of custom, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Rule? Rule? The number of the rule, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as all hon. members know, the rule of practice and custom has the same effect as what is written in our books, and I would expect particularly that the Leader of the Opposition would be more than aware of that and not try to embarrass the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there are strangers in the House. Those are the rules; you don't make the rules up. There's enough abuse of this House, bringing in people we don't even know and not even having the same privileges. There are strangers in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Just to clarify, may I read standing order 23: "If any member takes notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be) shall forthwith put the question 'that strangers be ordered to withdraw' without permitting any debate or amendment. provided that Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, whenever he thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers." That shall include the gallery.

MR. BARRETT: We were given no notice. He's not order-in-council. He's not a senior public servant. Now you're breaking the rules — not customs, the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I therefore put to the House the question that strangers be ordered to withdraw.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 25

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

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.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications for the year ending March 1978 and the records of the air services branch for the year ending March 1979.

[ Page 234 ]

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed financial statements for the year ending March 31, 1979, of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the British Columbia Railway financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 29, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.