[ Page 1153 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 1155

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1155

Mr. Barber –– 1156

Mr. Barrett –– 1158

Mr. Hall –– 1160

Mr. Nicolson –– 1161

Mr. Lorimer –– 1162

Mr. Stupich –– 1162

Mrs. Wallace — 1163

Mr. King — 1164

Mr. Levi –– 1167

Mr. Lea –– 1168

Mr. Leggatt –– 1169

Mr. Lauk –– 1170

Mr. Macdonald –– 1172

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1173

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1173

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Committee stage.

On section 1

Mr. Lauk –– 1174

On section 2

Mr. Lauk –– 1174

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1174

Report and third reading –– 1174

Royal assent –– 1175

Appendix –– 1176

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1979

The House met at 7 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that His Honour is not yet in the precincts, and that he's coming with other members from both sides of the House. I would, under these circumstances, perhaps suggest that it would be in the best interests of the proper dispatch of business that we have a recess until His Honour arrives. I gather that he'll be here shortly before 7:45 p.m.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, about who the House Leader has advised. Since this is an informal exchange, it would be appropriate if the House Leader were to meet with our House Leader and inform us just what the nature of the legislation to be introduced tonight is, so that we can have some idea of what we will be dealing with. I think it would be appropriate for the House Leader to make that contact. And I would like to be advised if it is indeed necessary for His Honour to open the session. As I understand it, we're in an adjournment situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, to try to bring a little wisdom to the thing, perhaps it would be wise for His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to be on the ground before we begin. The Chair, of course, has no knowledge as to what the nature of the business is or how long it will take. But assuming that a bill is involved, undoubtedly His Honour would wish to be somewhere nearby and not embarrassed at the time of closing. Perhaps the hon. House Leader could shed a little more light,

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm more than delighted to have a meeting with the hon. House Leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker — and this could take place during the recess — and inform him of the specific matter that will be presented to the House this evening. I don't think it's going to come as any major surprise to anybody. It's been very pressworthy today; and it's been discussed, not by myself, but by other members of the government with members of the official opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but, with great respect, the House has no knowledge of the matter before us, and the Speaker has no knowledge of the matter before us.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in a state of limbo at this point in a non-debate, in a non-meeting — we're not here. It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for the House Leader of the government side to end the adjournment and introduce legislation, motions, or action. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we know not why we've been called back, what we have to deal with or anything else. It does not take His Honour to instruct the House as to what direction to take.

MR. SPEAKER: The only instrument before us, of course, is the orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, His Honour is required to process the message, and it's not possible for His Honour to process the message when he's in an aircraft.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would refer the attention of all hon. members to the fact that today is Thursday, and according to the standing orders today is private members' day. I'm looking through my orders of the day, and it appears to the Chair that the very first order of business should be public bills in the hands of private members. But I have not had any order of business called. Therefore the Chair does not have any knowledge of what the intent of the House is.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, are we to be informed that although the members were called, the legislation that we were called back for has not yet been signed, or messaged, or even ready? This whole matter of haste may compound the original error that brought us here. It would be well, in my opinion, if we were to have a recess — if that, indeed, is the government's wish — to give us an explanation as to why we were called at 7 p.m. In order to have a recess at 7:15. Surely this unseemly haste, which was complained of by the House Leader, in terms of an attempt to notify all of our members.... We were told that it must be done at 7 p.m., that we must be here, and we find that the House has no order in front of it other than the orders of the day. The orders of the day have not been called, and there is an unseemly haste now to get a recess so we can hurry on with other haste — total confusion, Mr. Speaker.

We need some leadership by a government that was elected to make decisions. There are orders of the day that haven't been called. We have a message, I understand, in flight. It's incredible that we find this confusion compounding the error that brought us here. If it is necessary for the House to put itself in order, then let the House Leader put a motion for adjournment before the House immediately.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we're quite happy to accept the responsibility for the fact that a plane is late — I suppose one has inevitably got to accept that responsibility — or that His Honour is on the plane and unfortunately not on the ground.

I certainly would mention without getting into the questions of debate that this matter is one of concern not only to the government, but to the official opposition.

Sitting on my desk when I arrived in Victoria this afternoon was a wire from the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party. It says: "It would appear necessary to reconvene the Legislature to repair immediately the grievous injury visited upon the company" — referring to Seaboard Life. But if the House isn't desirous of recessing out of a courtesy to His Honour so he can complete the processing of the message, and the House would like to proceed with private members' bills, that's perfectly satisfactory to the government.

MR. BARRETT: This is an extraordinary situation. That is recognized, I think, by everyone here. If the House Leader wishes time to make up for the unfortunate fact — as we have now this moment been informed — that His Honour is delayed by plane, then the method to do that is for a motion to adjourn the House to whatever time the House Leader feels it's appropriate, when the House Leader will be available to tell us that His Honour is ready to serve the House.

[ Page 1154 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That is one method, surely. Another method is simply to await a division bell by virtue of a recess, because it can't possibly be anticipated at this moment at what moment His Honour may arrive. So perhaps rather than to adjourn to a time definite, it would be far more propitious at the moment to declare a short recess until such time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have a motion before us. It's to determine whether or not the motion is in order before it can be put. I am advised after a short contemplation that motions which have to do with the setting of times of the sitting of the House are placed in the hands of the House Leader, and are not properly proffered by another member. Therefore I cannot accept the motion, Hon. House Leader.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, standing orders do not instruct that a motion to adjourn come from either side of the House. I beg to differ. I would suggest, sir, that a motion to adjourn is always in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think it's not a matter only of adjourning the House, but as I understood the motion, it was a motion to adjourn to a time definite. That is the part of the motion that is unacceptable to the Chair at this moment.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw my motion. I now move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: That motion is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there's not been any business transacted whatsoever. I think it would be appropriate....

MR. BARRETT: That's right, that's why we're adjourning.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's right. I'll repeat that. Business has not been transacted before the House, Mr. Speaker, and out of simple courtesy and expected courtesy to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.... I would think, notwithstanding, the opposition is rather revelling in this matter. Fine, that's their right to do that if they so choose. But I would certainly say that it's incumbent, first of all, on us to proceed to orders of the day — private members' bills.

MR. BARRETT: If you can't lead, then let's get some time for you to get your heads together over there. I came back today because there was an emergency, and you haven't even figured that out.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in trying to determine whether a motion to adjourn — which is always in order whenever the House is truly in session and when a member does have possession of the floor — is in order before any order of business has been called is difficult at this time for the Chair. I would hesitate to make a firm ruling since it would establish a precedent, no other precedent being obvious. Therefore it is very difficult at this time. I would almost have to declare a recess in order to determine whether or not....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: There's never been any difficulty in determining whether a motion to adjourn is in order. One motion to adjourn followed right away by another motion to adjourn, without intervening business, means that the second motion is out of order, not the first motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The principle that makes intervening business a necessity between two motions to adjourn is the very same principle that perplexes me at the moment. There having been no business transacted, I would have to rule that, in order for a motion to adjourn to take place and in order for a motion to adjourn to be valid, we would have had to have had at least orders of the day called. And I so rule.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, orders of the day were never called, which is extraordinary in itself. As I recall the event, the House Leader got up and made a statement saying: "Now that we're here, we should go away for a little while."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's what he said. He informed the House that the plane is late — that's fine; now we know that the plane is late. Because the plane is late, I moved that the House adjourn. That's business. We were informed of a reason why we should adjourn the House, so I made the motion, which the House Leader seemed confused about in terms of taking some direction. Information was given to the House, and as a consequence of that information and business, a motion was moved.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think that we have ample opinion, and that we will have established at least some precedent, no other precedent existing in this instance.

Having considered it, I believe that it would be far better that the House have some order of business before it before it be adjourned. I would have to make that ruling.

MR. KING: On the point of order, there are two issues. Is it not true that a ministerial statement is an order of business for the House? A ministerial statement was made.

The second part of my point of order is to eliminate a statement which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) attributed to me in an article he quoted, all of which I would like to share with the House — if your consultation is complete and you give me that privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney-General quoted from a telegram I directed to the Speaker this afternoon. He quoted selectively, and I would like to read the total text into the record of the House so that no one is....

[ Page 1155 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This seems to go beyond the hon. member's original point of order for which he gained the floor.

MR. KING: I have two points of order. Do you want to deal with the first one first?

MR. SPEAKER: The first point of order is a further opinion on whether or not business was actually transacted.

The Chair would have to insist that business is not transacted until orders of the day have been called. The Chair have to accept the responsibility for, up until this point, not even having called on the Clerk of the House to announce the orders of the day. I have to make the ruling that in order for the House to be even in possession of any work for the day, we'd have to call for orders of the day. That not having happened up until this point, I have to say that a motion to adjourn could hardly be accepted at this time.

MR. KING: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, to clear up the incredible situation we have here, the official opposition agrees to a temporary recess. Hopefully the government will be able to get its act in order, and will proceed in a businesslike way at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to the Chair to be the best way to handle the situation before us. Out of respect for His Honour, and in order to give both sides the time which they have requested for a short meeting, I declare a recess.

The House took recess at 7:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:23 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

REPEAL OF THE OBSOLETE
STATUTES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Govemor: a bill intituled Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in order that the hon. members can consider the content of the bill, I ask for a recess, if that satisfies the members of the House.

The House took recess at 8:24 p.m.

The House resumed at 9:21 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36.

REPEAL OF THE OBSOLETE
STATUTES REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move second reading of this bill before us, I want to thank all the members for returning to the House at my invitation.

I want to say in a very brief way, Mr. Speaker, that the simple case in this matter is that during the final days of the sitting that just adjourned, we passed an act called the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act which had embodied in it the repeal of some 62 old and redundant Acts, some of them dating back to the days of Queen Victoria. In this process, notwithstanding considerable care being taken, there was a bill included in this list called the Seaboard Assurance Company Act which goes back to 1953. It was not known at the time the repeal of this bill was passed that there had in fact been a change of name and this was the same company known today as Seaboard Life Insurance Company, a very substantial insurance company operating in some four provinces, I believe, in Canada with head office in British Columbia.

I want to say that the error that was made was in including that Act in this original piece of legislation. Further, the company is indeed active and in good standing under this new name. Consequently the original Act authorizing that company to operate should not have been repealed. As I say, Mr. Speaker, an error was made in including this Act in that original bill, primarily because of the name change.

This matter came to my attention as recently as yesterday just before noon. Exhaustive meetings went on to try to discover a means by which we could find some alternative remedy other than to recall the House on this occasion. These alternatives were examined in detail over many hours. They would have been highly complicated and none of them as sure or as satisfactory to the parties involved with this insurance company. I'm referring to the shareholders, a great many of them, and to the some 8,000 policy holders. So the conclusion was arrived at that the only sure way to remedy the situation was in fact to recall the House.

Mr. Speaker, I regret the necessity of having to call the members back, but I think they agree that this was in fact necessary. I'm pleased to note that in the process the official opposition in this House had gone on record by way of communicating with the Speaker that they thought it fit too that the House should be recalled to attempt to remedy this situation. I'm pleased to see that they're in accord with what has been done on this occasion.

A further word to explain, Mr. Speaker. The bill was introduced on July 4 and was before this House for some three and a half weeks prior to debate on July 30. I just note that, not to make excuse for what happened, but to note that the bill was there for anyone's inspection during that period of time, three and a half weeks.

It's perhaps not necessary to emphasize the urgency of this matter and why it was necessary to call everyone back to this House on such short notice. Why is this an urgent matter? Mr. Speaker, it's urgent because the confidence in a substantial financial institution across this country is fundamental, because we have, as I say, 8,000 policy holders. We have assets in this company of some $29 million and I don't know how many hundreds of millions of outstanding policies — their face value I'm referring to — represented here. It is highly important that this Legislature express the fact that the confidence remains and that this

[ Page 1156 ]

was an unintentional removal of their authority which should be reinstated.

The principle of this bill before us this evening, the Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, is simply to repeal the Act we gave royal assent to on July 31. The members will note that having this bill before us has the force and effect of being effective with the date that the original Act was passed to take care of the intervening period.

It's a very simple, straightforward piece of legislation and, in the opinion of all those who were associated with putting it together, it is the most positive way to deal with the situation.

I'd like to explain, Mr. Speaker, that in doing so we recognize that we are, in fact, removing the repeal of the other 61 Acts that were considered appropriate to be repealed. We recognize this. The reason is that we would like to be absolutely, positively sure before advancing further repeal of redundant Acts that every possibility has been examined so that such an instance would not occur again.

It's a simple, straightforward bill repealing the original Act, and all those Acts which were therein contained, as the most effective remedy, in effect, to reinstating what has transpired insofar as this sizeable financial institution is concerned.

I would urge members, Mr. Speaker, having given the reasons why it was necessary to call all members back to this House, to expedite the passage of this. Undoubtedly anyone may wish to debate the matter, and they may wish to do so politically, but I accept that.

I am urging early passage of this bill because there are substantial numbers of innocent people who are worried about their present situation. We have had calls in my office today from numbers of policy holders who wonder about the status of their situation if a person covered were to die tomorrow, et cetera. So I am urging members, in consideration of that fact, to accept the need for early passage and the urgency for presenting this bill.

In the interests of the shareholders and policy holders and the many people affected with this, I urge the cooperation of the members and therefore move second reading.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of the official opposition, I rise as the designated speaker in this debate.

First of all I would like to advise the government that we propose no undue delay, no obstruction, no unnecessary delay of any sort to the passage of this bill. We do have questions, we do have some arguments, but we do not propose in any fashion to unnecessarily delay the bill. As well, we intend to vote for the bill.

I would like to talk briefly, if I may, about why it is we are here tonight. I want to talk as well about how this came to happen. I want to talk further about how this kind of situation can be avoided in the future. These are, for us as well, important arguments as we debate the bill — debate why we are here and debate what the minister just said.

We are here, at least in part, because of a very considerable error — with even more considerable consequences to it — made by the minister who just spoke. We're here because this government, under what appears to be considerable pressure within its own ranks, has made not just this mistake but many other mistakes in the last several weeks. We don't see just this disarray tonight, but we have seen much disarray in the weeks past. We don't see simply this error tonight; we have seen many errors in the weeks before. We presume that in part that's because they almost lost on May 10; because in part this cabinet is in some chaos.

What we are concerned about as this bill comes forward is that we may see, if the government chooses not to learn from this ridiculous series of errors they have made, that we'll be back here on some other night trying to clean up some other Socred mess. That is also why we are here, Mr. Speaker: not just to debate the bill but to debate, in the narrow measure that the bill provides us, the wholesale incompetence of that minister and his government.

Across the floor earlier this evening the minister made a joke. He said: "This is deregulation gone wild." If I've misquoted the minister, I'm sure he'll correct me. Well, it is, in fact, deregulation gone wild, prompted by a government that simply doesn't know, in the ordinary and correct process of things, how to do its business. This bill is not the only evidence we have that this government is not being run competently. There is much other evidence; it's been referred to before and I won't refer to it again at the moment. But this is the next, but presumably not the last, in a series of wholesale errors and mistakes, run by a government that is in internal chaos and dispute, that is suffering enormous problems inside, the consequence of which seems to be that they were not able to pay appropriate attention to the original Bill 20, and so now we have Bill 36 instead.

The minister seemed to suggest in his opening remarks that because the bill was on the table for three weeks anyone could have had an opportunity to study it. The obvious implication is, Mr. Speaker, that it is perhaps the opposition's fault that we didn't catch the government's error. If that truly is the government's position, I say again tonight in debate on this bill what we said before: give us the research staff we need and we'll catch all the errors you ever make. So by the government's own hint of it, we're here tonight in part because the opposition has consistently, deliberately and foolishly been denied adequate research staff.

How is it that we found out about it and made the first announcement at 10 o'clock this morning? It was very simply this: I was in my office last night at 5:30 waiting for a friend; I was reading statutes; I saw Seaboard, and it occurred to me that I knew that company — they have an office in my riding. Was it possible? Together with my colleagues, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), I spent the evening making phone calls and doing the work that the government itself apparently did not do prior to the introduction of the bill which is being repealed by this bill before us tonight. We spent the morning doing the same thing. We concluded around 9 o'clock this morning that the government, in fact, had committed an extraordinary blunder, the precedent for which cannot be found in the Journals of this Legislature, the precedent for which does not exist anywhere in the records of this province and this House.

Perhaps, had we had adequate research staff when the bill came forward in the first place, we wouldn't be here tonight. Your error would have been caught long ago. As it

[ Page 1157 ]

is, we're here tonight in special session — at a rather considerable cost to the taxpayer, it should also be noted — because of the bungling and incompetence of this government, and their unwillingness to spend the time they should governing, and their apparent preferred willingness to spend time fighting among themselves over ICBC announcements or whatever.

We're here tonight because procedures are defective. It would appear that the minister who sponsored the bill and the government minister who chairs the government committee on legislation didn't even have the wit or the sense to make a phone call to Seaboard in Vancouver. They're in the phone book; I'll give you their number if you still don't have it; they're in Victoria, too, if you've lost that phone book. They didn't even have the common sense to do the sort of research that any clerk 1 would have had the common sense to do. Once again,it betrays a cabinet in chaos, a government in disarray, preoccupied with their political problems and seemingly unable or unwilling to spend the good time they should examining their own legislation before it comes to the floor of this House.

I'd like, if I may, to read very briefly from Hansard. I'd like to describe, if I may, how it was that this came to happen, in order that we can better understand how we should avoid having to come back here on any other evening. In Hansard we find that the minister introduced the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act in the following way — and the words, I'm sure, will cause him some ironic amusement: "It is with mixed feelings that I introduce for second reading Bill 20, which is exactly what it says: Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. It's an honour to stand here and move for the removal of some laws, rather than adding on some new ones." He goes on to talk about a public servant, and to talk about how, through the deregulatory process, they would like to bring in further lists for removal of statutes, perhaps at the next session.

We would like the government to be advised tonight that we are no longer satisfied with those so-called guarantees that you've examined the bills. We put ourselves on record as warning you that, if you come back at the next session with lists of further statutes to be deregulated, the second time around we're not going to have any confidence that you've done your job properly. We have no such confidence tonight; there's no reason to have it. We doubt very much that we're going to be able to have such confidence in the future.

That's what the minister said when he brought down the bill in the first place. What did he say tonight? Well, the minister tells us that he knew some five hours before we did that the company may well in fact no longer exist in law. This is a very serious problem for those shareholders. To say the least, it has endangered the confidence they have in their own company. It is a very serious problem for the policy holders. Our reading of the Insurance Act suggests — and this may not be correct — that none of those policies is currently valid in the legal sense, and that if any of those policy holders tonight, by virtue of the bungling of this government, should have reason to make a claim, that claim would not be honoured. It calls into question as well the possibility of the civil liabilities that this government now faces, should any of those policy holders, if their claims are not honoured, choose to exercise their legal rights against this government. I trust that won't happen; but because of the failure of this administration, the possibility appears to exist in law that should a claim not be honoured by virtue of the error of this government, the government itself may be held civilly liable for any damages that could result.

What did the minister say tonight? He said that he knew yesterday, before noontime, that there was something wrong here, that the company might no longer exist. I want, if I may, to read into the record information we obtained this afternoon from the Vancouver Stock Exchange about what happened to this company. It too calls into question the competence, or lack of it, the speed, or lack of it, with which this government has dealt with this problem. They knew at noon yesterday, and here's what has happened since. According to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Seaboard Life Insurance Ltd., whose exclusive listing is at the VSE, traded a total volume of 300 shares from July 16 to July 20.This may well, in fact, be 150 shares — it depends on the nature of the transaction; we can't tell. In the period July 23 to July 27, it traded 100 shares. However, in the period of July 30 to August 1 this company studdenly traded 6,400 shares.

This very evening we are trying to determine the significance of this massive increase in trading on the VSE. We don't know who had this kind of information. We know that the minister had it as recently as noon yesterday. We also know that trading of shares in this company was not suspended until 10:55 a.m. today. While almost 24 hours went by, it would appear that this minister had knowledge that this company no longer existed and thereby could no longer sell policies, that it apparently could no longer honour policies, and that it apparently had become an unincorporated partnership of some 600 shareholders, each of whom was now personally liable for the corporation's debts. From what the minister said tonight, it would appear that for 24 hours this government was aware of the extraordinary liability these shareholders now faced, and of the extraordinary danger now faced by their policy holders. Once again, this demonstrates gross incompetence on the part of that administration. It is our opinion that trading should have been halted instantly the government and the minister were aware that something was wrong. The fact that trading continued in this massive volume — 6,400 shares in two days, as opposed to 100 shares or 300 shares traded in the weeks before — tends to suggest that something peculiar was happening. We don't know yet what it is. I make no accusation, other than to point out that it is a very curious thing that such very considerable volumes were suddenly being traded during part of the period in which the minister now tells us he had knowledge that the company had probably been wiped out by his own error. This too is one of the problems posed by the utter incompetence of that minister and his administration, and one that we have in debating this bill. We want to know the standing of those shares and the validity, if any, of their trading on the VSE. If they no longer existed as a company, how could they be listed on the stock exchange? If they no longer existed as a company, presumably they were struck off the register of the Insurance Act, as, provided for in that legislation.

We know what the minister said when he introduced the bill. He said: "It is with mixed feelings that I introduce for second reading Bill 20." We know what he said tonight, which was to admit that he sat on this information for at least 24 hours before trading was suspended. We wonder

[ Page 1158 ]

what he will say next time. We wonder what new excuses will be offered for new blunders by a cabinet in chaos, that is so preoccupied with politics and its internal problems that it can't do the job properly in supervising legislation.

This government will, I think, forever be tagged as the government that dumped Seaboard overboard. The government will be forever tagged as those hopeless incompetents who couldn't manage one solitary statute repeal Act without having to come back three days later with something called the Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

The performance of this government is lamentable; it is a joke; it is a costly joke. Being here tonight costs money, thanks to their error. It may be that individual shareholders and policy holders will also lose money or the claim to it. It may be that the company has lost business and thereby the claim to funds, because of the errors of this government. The liabilities are considerable at all those levels. They are the greatest, however, at this level here in this House, because this minister failed utterly, as did the chairman of the government's legislation committee, to do the job properly. That's where the final responsibility lies. That is, after all, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility under which we have always operated in the British parliamentary system.

There is, I suppose, one good thing in all of this; it's the only one I can find: never again will any member of this House have to listen to a speech from that minister or from any of his colleagues about the alleged incompetence of some other administration. Never again, surely, will even this coalition have the nerve to attack some other govemment for some other imaginary incompetence, bungling or mishandling of legislation. At the very least, we are now, at long last, no longer going to have to put up with any of those nonsensical speeches, especially from a minister who introduced two budgets in one month and who admits tonight that he sat on this information for 24 hours. That's the only good thing we can find about it.

We will vote for the bill. We will not delay it unnecessarily or unduly. We will, however, contemplate from time to time about how it is that a government, purporting to be businesslike, could in fact do a piece of business, the like of which we have never before seen in the province of British Columbia. Some business people! Some competence! Some skill! Some government!

We find it very hard to conclude anything other than that it must be as many have speculated: the internal problems of this coalition are enormous; the pressures on each of them are enormous; their preoccupation with those problems is obviously greater than their preoccupation with doing their job properly. We find it hard to have confidence in this particular minister. We find it even harder to have confidence in his government.

Of course we'll vote for the bill. It was our House Leader who first telegrammed you today, Mr. Speaker, recommending a session. Of course we'll vote for the bill. It was our representative — myself — at 10 a.m. this morning who told you you had to call the House tonight and pass a bill. We knew all that. Of course we'll vote for the bill. But we have no intention at any further instance of taking anything that minister says at face value in regard to the alleged skill and discipline with which they examine their own legislation. From now on legislation may take just a little longer to pass this House. From now on it will be just a little harder to have any confidence whatever in the minister who introduced this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be long, not even the time permitted me in the House rules to participate in this debate.

I'm unaccustomed to this reserved, almost humbling silence from the government benches. Normally when an opposition member gets up to speak, it is an opening for the rhetorical cat-calling, the hissing and the smug burps and everything else that fly across the House when the opposition speaks. But tonight they are strangely quiet. Perhaps it's the new mood of humbleness that's overwhelmed them in the fact that they've admitted they've made a human error.

I remember cabinet colleagues of mine who did not wait 24 hours to speak about errors they made, only to be subject to the most virulent abuse from the then opposition benches, who were the most irresponsible group ever to grace this House in opposition and the most incompetent to ever grace this House in government, as proven tonight and why we're here tonight.

This morning I was informed by our House Leader, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), of what the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) had discovered and his plans to call a press conference. At first I was surprised that indeed what was being described to me was actually a fact. I asked the House Leader to double check and I waited. He double checked and informed me, and he also informed me of the action he was taking that he was going to request that the House be called together.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the House has had a request from our side to be called together because of an issue. For the Minister of Finance to say that he responded to that responsible call of the House Leader of the opposition, let us understand very clearly that the government had absolutely no option but to call this House together to clean up this mess. There was no other way. But what is reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, is that it appears that they have become humble in recognition of a mistake only because they could not find any other way to deal with this issue. The only reason we're here tonight is because the government couldn't find another way to deal with this issue. There can be no other explanation, Mr. Speaker, for the 24-hour delay in this knowledge becoming public from the minister other than that they were working that 24 hours hoping to find a way that would avoid the conclusion that the first member for Victoria had discovered.

I want to publicly say this about that member. He's young in years but the wisdom and approach and service he has presented not just to Victoria but to the province of British Columbia in his role has been tremendously enhanced.

There is the unanswered question that obviously relates to the fact that in my opinion the government tried to stall for 24 hours. As a consequence, rather than grasping the nettle immediately and picking up on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I believe the Minister of Finance thought the problem could be swept aside some other way. Instead of immediately recognizing the significance of the blunder, and the responsibilities that went with the blunder, the minister deliberately avoided for 24 hours contacting the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which was the most obvious

[ Page 1159 ]

public vehicle still dealing with a company that was no longer in existence because of this error.

The error is bad, Mr. Speaker. Incompetence may be levelled at the government. But what is worse is fear-inspired action, or the lack of it, because of the discovery of an error that may be embarrassing. What we have witnessed is that fear inspired that minister of this government to avoid facing the responsibility for 24 hours, avoid alerting the press, avoid alerting the stock exchange, and attempting to avoid the ultimate the discovery of responsibility of having to come back to this House tonight. The original error is very human. The original error, now found by Social Credit can happen to a government in power. But the original error, Mr. Speaker, was compounded deliberately by the fact that that minister had knowledge for 24 hours and did not pick up the phone to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and inform them.

I'll tell you something else that compounded the error. Did the Premier attempt to contact me? To my knowledge, no. Did the Minister of Finance attempt to contact the House Leader of the government (Hon. Mr. Gardom) during that 24-hour period when he knew about this? No. The House Leader was contacted, finally, at 1 o'clock today, after the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) did his responsible duty, as I was apprised of this morning, by alerting the public and calling a press conference before the government even publicly acknowledged that the error was there and that, indeed, some people might suffer.

The question has to be asked: how much longer would the public have had to suffer in the ignorance of the blunder had it not been for the fact that the member for Victoria went public on this issue?

A phone call to the Leader of the Opposition, a phone call to the House Leader within hours after the blunder was discovered and with the full knowledge that ultimately the House would have had to be called would have gone a long way to add to the credibility of the government that says now: "We're sorry, we made an error." Mr. Speaker, the only reason they're now reaching for that ground and 'fessing up is because there was no other option. The shame is that 24 hours went by before they 'fessed up and faced the responsibility of the fact that they had made a major error.

From a personal point of view it is interesting to see that the government has been humbled enough to admit an error. This is the first time since this group came together as a coalition, after error after error, that faced with no other option they finally said, at the eleventh hour: "We've made an error and we've got to call the House together and we ask for cooperation."

Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt in their mind that the opposition wouldn't cooperate, that doubt was inspired not on the basis of us, the New Democratic Party, but on the basis of their remembering their own irresponsibility when they were in opposition. Let me tell you, there sit in silence a number of those members who smugly giggle and think back about their own behaviour: the "not a dime without debate" irresponsibility; the filibustering for hours on legislation that they are now praising; the behaviour by member after member in the most abusive and vituperative manner, delaying, stalling, attacking with personal attacks.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that there is some growth and maturity there among the government benches. Not the new members; their habit patterns have not yet been jelled. They will be congealed once the government decides who shall be incorporated in the cabinet and who will be left to swim among the back bench and survive among the barracuda. Because barracuda it is. I believe that the caucus of the government was not notified or called together at any time other than when they got the instruction to get here; and they weren't fully apprised as soon as the government knew. They weren't even apprised, as responsible representatives of the people, of what the error was.

The minister talks about confidence. The minister is an employer himself. I ask whether if the minister had an employee that had led him to believe that the action he had delegated to that person were correct and thorough and proper, only to discover that a proper job was not done, the minister would fire that employee. Or would he pat him on the head and say: "We're going to erase this last 24 or 36 hours and say it didn't happen."?

Mr. Speaker, the public of the province of British Columbia employs the government of the day to be businesslike and responsible. It recognizes that errors can take place, but no public can tolerate any minister who deliberately avoids bringing this error to the public's attention for 24 hours. Any minister who keeps this kind of information from the public after a blunder, and after an understandable human error, has to ask himself what further use or what further role he can play in a cabinet in terms of the very word that he tried to express about the company's need, and that is the question of "confidence."

We're not here tonight talking about the confidence of the company. We're not here talking about some problem the company is having. We're not here talking about their investments or their insurers or insurces. We're not here talking about who's buying or selling shares under the curious examination of what took place. It is not the confidence of the company that is at stake here, as the minister is trying to slough off, Mr. Speaker. It is the confidence in the minister and the government that is at stake here.

For a government that claims to be businesslike, it is understandable that errors can take place. For a government to be businesslike, it is understandable to say there must be confidence. But from a government that is supposed to be responsible, there has been no public explanation of the delay in this information being broadcast, and no explanation of the minister's own role in undermining confidence in the company because of his mistake. It should go on record, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no question in the minds of the members of the New Democratic Party that this company is any better or any worse than it was before this blunder took place, and let not the minister imply that its confidence is at stake. Every citizen of this province knows that that company stands on its own record, regardless of the blunder by the government. To suggest that its confidence is a question mark is to sluff off responsibility for the very cause that brought us here. That very cause rests at the doorstep, at the desk, under the pen of the minister.

Every minister of the Crown is responsible when his or her name appears on legislation. Questions must be directed to that minister: Did you double-check before you signed that legislation? Were you satisfied that every possible examination on the removal of legislation had taken place? What fail-safe system was implemented to ensure that, by the time the material came to you and you gave your signature to it, there would be no such error?

[ Page 1160 ]

I don't want anyone to think that this is nothing more than a little mistake. It is a human error, something that this government has found difficult to acknowledge. It is difficult for demogod arrogance to recognize that, on occasion, humans make mistakes. But beyond the mistake is the action of the government after the mistake was discovered. That is the very serious question that has to be dealt with. And it has to be dealt with more in the minister's mind and conscience and in the Premier's mind and conscience than in any debate taking place here tonight on this legislation.

I was asked by a reporter who was coming to the chamber tonight whether we intended to move a motion of non-confidence. Well, the backbenchers are in no mood to vote for that, Mr. Speaker. They're lining up to get into the cabinet, and they're going to give confidence no matter what happens — until their stakes are over with. I turned to the reporter and I said in a somewhat offhand manner: "It's not a question of non-confidence tonight. Since this is a unique situation, for the first time it is a motion of incompetence." Never before in the history of this province has such a blunder taken place, and never before has there been such incompetence in dealing with it, in terms of the indecent delay in dealing with this matter.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the point made by my hon. colleague, who is even more esteemed by our group now — if that is possible — because of the work he did. That young man came to this House as an idealist, and he has not yet been jaded by the cynicism of some of us who are a bit older and greyer. I welcome his idealism, along with that of the other new and younger members of this House. But, Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the statement he made about the opposition being cut off at the pass for adequate research staff has come home to haunt the government.

I know it is embarrassing for the government. The Premier has candidly said that, and I welcome that candour from the Premier. But once having admitted the embarrassment, we do need a public explanation for the delay; and we do need a public explanation as to why a phone call was not made to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I want to thank all the MLAs who have come to the House tonight in what I consider to be undue haste brought on by a government that, once discovering it had made this error and that the only course to correct the error was to call the House, hadn't even got itself together, having been rattled by this mistake, to the point of putting things in order before they got here. A few phone calls to the opposition, a little understanding of the nature of this chamber, a little more direct honesty as soon as information came to the minister's attention, would have gone a long way and would have added to the idea that there is some confidence in the government.

I'll put it squarely this way. As far as I'm concerned, I have no hesitation with my colleagues in supporting this legislation. These people are innocent victims of human error that even Social Credit can make. But I'll tell you that where I part company in terms of support of this government and calling this session tonight is the fact that there was a 24-hour delay without a phone call to the opposition, a phone call to the press, and a phone call to the stock exchange. That, Mr. Speaker, beyond the human error, is inexcusable, deliberate, compounding of keeping that information secret from the public while they scramble to clean it up quickly by finding another way. That is inexcusable. And let no citizen of this province forget that you ran for cover for 24 hours before you 'fessed up to your mistake. We hope that doesn't happen again. Human error is understandable, but compounding it with deliberate action of avoiding responsibility is inexcusable.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, it's a serious occasion when the House is recalled to repair an error. I think the House should examine the error, and also examine the things that have been already suggested on the floor of this House tonight.

I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, some ideas about why these things happen. It's very easy to talk about human error. We've already heard during the course of this 24 hours all sorts of reasons why this kind of mistake may have happened.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is put forward again by the Minister of Deregulation. I think that in itself is really the error that is being made. The bill that was passed third reading at the end of July and received royal assent was produced in the name of the Ministry of Deregulation by the Minister of Deregulation, and it's all part of a government public relations program. It's got nothing to do with repealing obsolete statutes. It's got nothing to do with the real honest-to-goodness work of a government, nothing to do with the real honest-to-goodness work of a cabinet. It's the fulfilment of a bit of PR. As long as you've got that kind of serving to be done, you are going to find mistakes. The human error that will always accompany human endeavour won't be picked up when you're serving other kinds of criteria. The kind of criteria that are being served in this bill again, because it's again in the name of the Minister of Deregulation, is really public relations hype.

I've dealt in estimates, Mr. Speaker — you won't know because you had left the chair — with the kind of PR puffery that accompanies the statements from the Ministry of Deregulation. I dealt at some length with the fact that all they'd done was to erect a catalogue of some 400 letters. Indeed, when the minister introduced the bill that we're now seeking to correct, he didn't praise his own staff, didn't commend them for the work that on the face of it the bill we're seeking to repair would convey. He congratulated the work of a member for another department — the Attorney-General's department.

Tonight I'd like to hear from a minister who's got something to do with this particular mistake we're here to correct — namely the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Maybe he's going to tell us something about what his department did. How come his department didn't know something about this? I hear in the corridors it might have been his department that made the mistake, not the civil servant that was mentioned on the floor of this House as having spent all these months collecting these 62 statutes. The fact of the matter is that now, Mr. Speaker, we've got more statutes than we started with and we've got no further forward. That's deregulation if you like. Around the corridors they're talking about some kid, some third-year law student who boo-booed. That's very convenient, very convenient. The fact of the matter is that it was the Premier who made the mistake in the first place of trying to find a cabinet position for somebody who wasn't and shouldn't have been in the cabinet in the first place. Now the second member for Vancouver–Little

[ Page 1161 ]

Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is going to pick up all the marbles and take them home, and he's not competent to do that either.

The whole question of deregulation has been a farce from start to finish and will continue to be a farce. All that was needed in the first place was a decent Attorney-General to step on somebody and say, "get this work done," and a member of Treasury Board who will say: "cut out some of the rubbish." I've said that over and over again, and that's all that's required, instead of spending all this money and having to apologize to people and cause all this trouble in the business sector.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Deregulation that you can get all the help you want. You can be coached all you want by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who's spent the last 10 minutes telling you what to say. I've been watching him.

MR. LAUK: That would be your second mistake.

MR. HALL: That would be your second mistake. All you need, Mr. Minister, from the Minister of Education is the name of a good wine to drink with crow.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has just preceded me has very aptly described this Ministry of Deregulation. A government that's talked about cutting down the size of government, and is constantly trying to hype up this situation, brings in this legislation which today we're back here to repeal. I'd like to just say that I think that the whole way in which this House was called into this special session is shocking.

The minister says that he knew about this yesterday. So what was plan one for the government and that minister? Today I think we've seen plan two. They've come in here, made a clean breast of things and said that they made a mistake, but only after the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought this to the public attention. What was plan one? What were they doing for 24 hours? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that plan one was a cover-up. They didn't want to be revealed the extent to which they had bungled, and so they have tried to cover up, tried to keep it silent, tried to cover up as they did the illegal expenditures that were made in violation of the Constitution Act by previous people. That has been their history. Whenever they're in trouble they try to cover up. But this is one time in which the ramifications out there were very readily understood. Because when you have to finally suspend trading on the stock exchange because of some government error, then you can no longer keep things hushed up.

I am here at the behest of my secretary, Betty Leech. That's the information that I had that the House was in session. I came down because she is an honourable secretary and I take her word on matters. But to my knowledge I had no official information that this House was in session. It was called in session with undue haste. I understand that your office was, as late as 4 o'clock, requesting the current telephone numbers of hon. members. Yet I heard that it was the intention to start to convene this House as early as 7 o'clock this evening, when members were all over the province. In fact, if the minister has given the assurances that policy holders and stock holders will not be hurt, and that legislation will be brought in giving full force and effect to the actions of the company as is proposed in this bill, one would really wonder if we could not have convened this Legislature.... I would hope that if future emergencies arise, we would not act with such unseemly haste.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about us having this on the order paper for three weeks. Yet ever since they have been elected they have been talking about what they are doing in terms of the review of obsolete statutes. The government has had four years to prepare this legislation. If they had done anything in terms of looking at this legislation, I'm sure they would have noticed that not only was this one of the bills passed by this House, but as recently as 1971 amendments have been brought into this House amending the original piece of legislation, which I believe was passed in 1951.

I believe there are at least five different bills pertaining to this private company which have come through this Legislature since 1951 or 1953 when it was first incorporated by an Act of this Legislature. So how could that minister possibly have missed this in bringing in such very, very important legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the responsiblity for this cannot be relegated to some clerk, or some summer help, or anyone else. The responsibility for this Act lies clearly at the feet of the minister, and I think that the minister should behave as anyone would expect in a matter of this magnitude. We talk about responsible government. That means that the person at the head, the person at the helm, is the person who is responsible, and that minister bears the full responsibility for this.

Before I sit down I'd like to send a message to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The Minister of Health also brought in one of these bills which we had a few days to look at before the House Leader was asking for second reading, and wanting committee reading the same day. That's what is leading us to this kind of legislation — this attitude, this feeling that the Legislature is just an administrative inconvenience for all of these administrators over here. It's about time they started to pay some attention to it.

There is a serious question now as to whether members of the Ministry of Health are acting illegally in the mental health field — I'm referring to social workers — because of the hasty manner in which the minister brought in legislation. I want some assurance that in two weeks from now we are not going to be brought back into this Legislature. as we have been today, because of hastily conceived legislation and because people working in the mental health field under that minister are being fined $300 for a first offence and are liable to imprisonment. This is the whole benchmark of this government's current attitude towards legislation. It is worse in this Legislature than it was in the previous one. Every day people get up and say: "Oh, let's have leave to do committee. It's just a routine bill.'' This was a routine bill. The minister got up and introduced it in an almost jocular fashion. It has led to this tremendous impact on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and also to the expense of bringing us back for this emergency session.

I would hope that this minister and other ministers will think in terms of their responsibility. I would hope that the Premier, the House Leader and the whole cabinet would reflect on their attitude toward legislation. They had a year and a half to get their legislative program ready. What did

[ Page 1162 ]

they bring in? They brought in about 31 bills; they fouled up three of them beyond recognition, and this one may be the most serious foul-up of all. They've had a year and a half since the last session to get things in order. They were having committee every night trying to get these few bills ready for this session. With this particular piece of legislation they've had four years to get it ready, and it has led to this. I just hope that the whole works of them will take things just a little bit more seriously in the future.

MR. LORIMER: I left this place two days ago and didn't expect to be back this soon. I notice that there's already a fair amount of difference in the chamber. There's very little noise from the other side. It seems like a different place altogether. I don't know what the reason is. I don't know why we're being faced with this silence, and I don't know why some of the members on the other side are not getting up to explain the unexplainable.

The interesting thing that has come to light is the 24-hour delay in advising anyone of the human error that occurred, and failing to advise the Vancouver Stock Exchange or anyone else. I wonder why this lengthy delay took place in such an important area.

A number of questions arise from this legislation which we're debating tonight. One thing that was touched on by my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was the question of notice. At the adjournment on Tuesday, the motion was: "I move that the House at its rising to stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet." Then it goes on: "Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice." It doesn't state what length of notice. I received word up in the Interior around 2:30 this afternoon — not from the Speaker's office. I had no contact at all with the Speaker's office. It's my opinion that it's not good enough to notify the different political parties, but I think it's essential that we all represent our own constituencies. We're all MLAs, and an MLA is entitled to proper and sufficient notice. On hearing tonight that we could have had an additional 24 hours' notice, it's a bit of a shocker to have to get to a session without having time to pack or anything else. The inconvenience is somewhat great.

The question of the legality of this sitting is an issue which I think we should address ourselves to. If anyone so desired, I would suggest that they could go to court to determine whether or not this sitting in passing this bill is a legal sitting. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no court would be satisfied with the notice given. And if anyone wished to set aside our work tonight, I would certainly think that a court would undo it quite promptly.

I think the next question we should look at is what has happened to the assets of Seaboard Assurance Company. It doesn't exist. We've forgotten that in the last three days they haven't existed. In my opinion the assets of this company have probably escheated to the Crown. The Crown now has the holdings of a corporation called Seaboard. The minister was saying how worried the shareholders and policy holders of Seaboard were, because they're no longer in existence. I would suggest that I'd be worried too if I knew my assets were in the hands of some car dealers. There is a lot of worry in what's going on here tonight. I would just like to wind up by saying how really disappointed I am in this minister. I thought he was one of the more efficient ones in the group across the way.

MR. LEA: He is.

MR. LORIMER: If that is one of the most efficient ministers we have, I'm wondering what's happening to the rest of them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I think it says something for the MLAs who did gather on such short notice that we were able to get here in such numbers with such short notice. Perhaps some of us, like myself, didn't have an opportunity to get properly dressed, but at least I did get here. I think it's pretty good that on the kind of notice we were able to get for this session so many of us were able to come. That's good for both sides.

As for the reason for us being here, that of course is something else. Talk about a mountain labouring and producing a mouse! We've had a Ministry of Deregulation for a year and a half. All that it has to show for its activities in that period and for the cost of running that ministry is Bill 20 that we're discussing again this evening, except that this time we're talking about getting rid of it. So in a year and a half a piece of legislation is produced, and the result of that is that we have to be back here in special sitting....

MR. LEA: The Premier says: "Just six months."

MR. STUPICH: It certainly seems like a long six months. Okay, so it just took six months to produce a bill that we now have to be back here this evening to cancel. Since that's what we're here for, I thought I'd look at some of the remarks made by the minister who introduced the bill, Bill 20.

In quoting from his remarks: "Only a few of these statutes contained in the present repeal Act are really causing us any trouble." I wonder which one was causing us as much trouble as the one we're debating this evening, or the one that is the reason for us being here. He didn't identify any that were causing any trouble. As a matter of fact, he divided the 62 statutes that were being cancelled into three categories. One of them was described as "one-shot Acts" — for instance, authorization of spending for a specific purpose, a particular problem. Those were being gotten rid of. Now certainly they weren't causing us any trouble, not nearly as much trouble as the one that we're dealing with this evening. Second were those statutes which are now redundant, no longer in use. Now those couldn't have been causing us any trouble that I can think of. They couldn't have been worth putting us through the trouble that we have been put to. Then there are those that are obsolete. Those are the three categories of bills that were introduced, or that were being dealt with in Bill 20. He said that only a few of those were causing any trouble. I can't imagine that any of them were causing us any trouble. I can't imagine that any of them were worth the trouble that it took to pass Bill 20 in the first place, let alone the trouble that it is putting people through to reverse that one decision that was made by the Ministry of Deregulation.

[ Page 1163 ]

Some of the members opposite were fond of telling us on many occasions that we couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want any of them running my peanut stand or anything else.

I think there's a much more serious aspect of this question, though, and that hasn't been commented on by the minister who introduced the legislation this evening. I don't know whether he was aware of the extent to which stock trading was going on. Information was revealed to the House this evening by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) who spoke about the volume, the regular volume between July 16 to 20 of 300 shares; July 23 to 27,100; and then suddenly July 30 to August 1, 6,400.

The Minister of Finance told us tonight that he knew some 24 hours ago about this. The Premier stood up today and did a good job of apologizing on radio and TV — said they were sorry they made a mistake, and had to admit it. It looked good, Mr. Speaker, until we found out that he wasn't finding out just then, but had known for some 24 hours. And from the moment that investigation started, people in Seaboard Life Insurance certainly knew that something was going on. Is that the reason for the sudden increase in volume of trading?

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that the Minister of Finance didn't know about this increase in volume of trading. And I wonder why he didn't tell us about it this evening. I wonder why he didn't make any comment about it. I wonder whether there is any investigation going on to find out just who was trading stock. Did somebody make money or lose money because of information that they had that the government had made a mistake and was going to do something different? The Premier didn't comment on this. When the Premier stood up and told the people of British Columbia that the government had made a mistake, that the government had erred, that was very noble of him; but he didn't tell us that he, and a number of other people, had known for 24 hours. He didn't tell us how widely that information had gone abroad in the community in that 24-hour period during which trading on the stock exchange had not stopped.

The minister responsible for this legislation is taking the brunt of the attack this evening. The Premier's just sitting back and letting it all happen. But it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the person who is responsible is the Premier himself. The Premier must have been informed the moment the Minister of Finance knew about it. Yet the Premier did nothing, and the Minister of Finance did nothing. Other government members must have known; they must have known what was going on; they must have known about the mistake. And yet collectively and individually they took no step, until some 24 hours later, to start to correct the error of their decision. It's not just the minister responsible for this legislation who is under attack this evening. All the cabinet members who were in on this decision suppressed this information for some 24 hours, suppressed it from the public, suppressed it from the House, and yet did not suppress it from the business community. Those are the people who have to bear the responsibility for what has happened. And we just don't know the extent of the damage done. The Minister of Finance could have told us more, I think, but chose not to. Hopefully, he'll answer some of these questions when he closes second reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't want them running your peanut stand would you?

MRS. WALLACE: You know, there is nothing worse than uncertainty or confusion in the state of the law.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who told you to say that?

MRS. WALLACE: Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of the minister when he introduced the bill to get rid of what he thought were obsolete statutes: "There is nothing worse than confusio, in the state of the law."

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight faced with some very grave confusion in the state of the law as a result of the inefficiency of this government. They're not only inefficient. Why did it take so long for this to become public? The minister has admitted that he know that there was an error as early as 10:30 yesterday. Why did it take so long? Was there an intent to try and keep it quiet? To try and find a way around it? To try and keep the public from finding out how badly this government had goofed? It was an attempted coverup that left stockholders and shares open to abuse in the marketplace. I'm convinced that's what it was,

It was only after the public announcement by this party, by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that the minister came forward and admitted his mistake. And even at that time he was still saying we were all wrong, that there was no need for a session of this Legislature. He was attempting to cover up, and not even facing up to his responsibility as a minister to make sure that the stockholders were protected, that the shareholders were protected, that the company was protected and that the Legislature was aware of the problem — not even an attempt to do so for 24 hours.

And then what do we get, Mr. Speaker? We get a rush session. Even though this legislation has one of those Socred retroactive clauses which is supposed to protect everything, which has to be in in this case because of the bungling in the first place, we're rushed back here without any notice, as far as I'm concerned, from the Speaker's office or from the government benches. There was a phone call from my secretary to my constituency representative, who finally contacted me at 5:15 tonight. And I live very close to the capital.

It's amazing to me that so many of us have gathered together. I think it's only through the efforts of the two political parties that made sure they got their troops here rather than any procedures that should have been followed. Because certainly I would suspect that nearly every member who is here is here not because of any official notice they've received, but rather because of an unofficial notice. It's very wrong to have to rush into that kind of procedure. They're always rushing into things, trying to cover up, and trying to correct some problems that have existed. And that's just typified in this particular section.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'm wondering how in the world this ever happened that we find in this list of obsolete statutes a company that is still active. I had occasion just the other day to pick up the phone and phone the company registrar's office. You know, if you're an MLA it doesn't even cost you 50 cents to get that

[ Page 1164 ]

information. You can just phone. I picked up the phone and I wanted to inquire about two companies. I had that information within about three minutes. Both of those companies had changed their name in the course of time from the name of the company that I was asking for. One of them had disbanded; the other one was still active. I had all that information within about three minutes. Yet this particular minister includes in this bill a company that is still registered, still active, still reporting.

Where is his direction? Do we have to blame this minister or do we look at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)? It's his responsibility as far as registration of companies go. I guess we couldn't have a worse combination for efficiency than the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it's obvious in this bill that's before us tonight.

One of the worst features is that here we have a Minister of Deregulation with a double portfolio, and that's probably one of the reasons. This government is great at double portfolios and it happens all the time. The other day in the Legislature I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about a report. He told me he had filed it in his estimates, and yet he filed it the next day in the Legislature. That's the kind of thing that happens when you have doubling up of portfolios. There's no time for that minister to deal properly with the problem that he has before him. That's one of the reasons why we have this problem here — doubling up of portfolios, not enough attention to what's going on.

I wonder how many hours all told have been charged up to the Ministry of Deregulation — hours and hours and dollars and dollars of taxpayers' money — and they finally came up with 62 bills that they were going to get rid of. Now, because of one error, we're going to wipe the whole thing out and start from scratch. That is a dastardly waste of taxpayers' money, a dastardly waste. The only reason I'm glad they're wiping the whole thing out is that if there is one error in here, I wonder how many other errors there are in here. Because this minister is noted for errors.

It was interesting that when I came into my office tonight I found a letter on my desk. Who do you suppose it's from? It's from the Minister of Finance. And what is it? "A copy of the revised regulations regarding eligibility requirements for income tax credits for contributions to candidates in political parties in respect of provincial political purposes is enclosed." A revised list.

MR. BARBER: We've only had it for two weeks.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we just got it two weeks ago. That minister is so busy revising things he doesn't have time to carry on his business. You know, everything he does is wrong. And this is just one more example. We had two budgets. You know, he can't get anything right. Every time something is wrong. That costs the taxpayers all kinds of money. I wonder how much it's going to cost the taxpayers for this session tonight. Private planes were running all over this province bringing people in here. I would estimate $100,000 at least, Mr. Speaker, just to correct this one error. And that government has the audacity to sit over there during a session and blame the opposition for delaying tactics. You know, next session we're going to be much more careful; we're going to spend much more time. We're going to have to take that time to ensure that our very limited research staff has time to research the legislation you bring in, because we can't trust you to have it right.

I'm concerned about the bill itself, in that it disallows the Interpretation Act. I know the Interpretation Act makes provision for that; but I suggest it's a very dangerous precedent when we start doing things like this, because that Interpretation Act is in place to protect the democratic process of this Legislature. It's there for a purpose, and when we start making retroactive legislation to correct errors, and do it in such a way that we have to disregard statutes of this Legislature, it creates a very dangerous precedent. I think the least that minister could have done, when he found he had made a mistake, was to bring in a proper bill under the standards that are set by this Legislature, without having to disregard an Act that is there to protect the democratic process. That bothers me very much. What bothers me as much as the extra cost, as much as the goof, as much as anything that has happened here is the fact that we are disregarding the democratic processes that are set up, and the Act that is in place to protect those democratic processes. I know the provision is allowed there, but that is for extreme emergencies. There was another way that this could have been handled, and I am very upset that the minister has chosen this way to bring in this legislation.

It is time that that minister reviewed his responsibilities, because I believe that minister has more than he can handle in one ministry, let alone in two. To make that man responsible for something like this has certainly shown that we're not getting our money's worth for his attempts to do something that sounded really good. Deregulation wa a political gimmick. A lot of people were concerned about the red tape that they were faced with, that's true; but there is nothing in this bill that is being repealed that did anything to reduce the red tape. This was not a bill to reduce red tape; this was a red herring to make the public think that that minister was doing something. All he did was create greater confusion, and yet that's the minister who introduced this bill and said that there was nothing worse than confusion in the law. That's the minister who is causing the confusion in the law.

MR. KING: First of all, before making some comments with respect to the particular bill that is before us this evening, and the problems surrounding it, I would like to read into the record a telegram that was sent to the Speaker earlier today under my signature, on behalf of the official opposition. Since it was referred to in part, I think it is only appropriate that I read it into the record and explain precisely why it was sent. The telegram was sent to Hon. Harvey Schroeder, Speaker of the Legislature, and it says:

PASSAGE OF THE OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT HAS RESULTED IN THE REMOVAL OF AUTHORITY FOR AN ACTIVE COMPANY, NAMELY THE SEABOARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, TO ENGAGE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY POLICY HOLDERS AND SHAREHOLDERS IN THIS COMPANY ARE PLACED IN GRAVE FINANCIAL JEOPARDY. PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COMPANY CAN ONLY BE IMPAIRED AND ERODED BY THE HIATUS CREATED THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL. IT WOULD APPEAR NECESSARY TO RECONVENE THE LEGISLATURE TO REPAIR IMMEDIATELY THE GRIEVOUS INJURY VISITED UPON THE COMPANY. SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO NOTIFY AND TRANSPORT MEMBERS BACK TO VIC-

[ Page 1165 ]

TORIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS YOUR PLEASURE TO RECONVENE THE LEGISLATURE. RECOGNITION OF THE EMERGENT NEED TO ACT, COUPLED WITH RECOGNITION THAT MEMBERS ARE, IN MANY CASES, HOLIDAYING IN ISOLATED AND DISTANT LOCATIONS, REQUIRES REASONABLE NOTICE AND SPECIAL TRAVEL ASSISTANCE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED....

A copy was directed to the House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I had discussions with the Minister of Finance this afternoon, as well as the Premier, and, while I recognized the emergent nature of the business before the House, I did not feel that it was so emergent that it could not have kept until tomorrow morning, which would have provided ample time to respect the right of each and every member of this Legislature to be notified and to have the opportunity to travel to Victoria to attend this session, as they were elected to do.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it grieves me and concerns me when the reconvening of the Legislature is apparently predicated upon the instructions of the Minister of Finance, rather than upon the Speaker's calculated consideration and duty to protect the rights of each and every member of the Legislature in terms of meeting their duties and obligations here.

The minister opened his remarks tonight by saying: "You are returning to the House at my invitation." I suggest that that is a scandalous comment for the minister to make, one which compromises the impartiality and the duty of the Speaker's office, and is hardly calculated to instil confidence in the members of this institution that, indeed, their rights and their independence as members of this Legislature are being protected by the Speaker of the House, rather than dictated by the government. That, to me, is a very, very important principle. Even in the face of emergency and even in the face of grave emergency, we must never let the rights of parliament be trampled and ignored, nor should we, in reacting to emergencies, in any way breach the civil rights of citizens. Sometimes in the name of emergency, governments have been known to take unusual and dangerous actions. That's why I raise this matter tonight as one of sincere and very deep concern.

The minister said that exhaustive studies to find alternatives to calling the House had been undertaken by his ministry — and presumably by his cabinet colleagues. He said that they had been working on a solution since 2 p.m. yesterday. Again, I ask what kind of mentality it is that has such little regard for the Legislature that they would seek to undo a legislative statute, duly passed through this House, by some administrative procedure in the secrecy of the cabinet room. What kind of mentality would seek to provide that kind of secret back-room solution to a problem which was created by a bill passed through proper debate and through the legal process vested in this Legislature in the province of Britsh Columbia? That is a dangerous kind of admission. What we have here is not just proven incompetence and scandalous bungling. It's both those unfortunate circumstances, followed by two admissions which scandalize the traditions of this House, which compromise the integrity and impartiality of the Speaker's office, and which run roughshod over the rights of members of the Legislature. It shows complete disdain for statute law, properly passed through this Legislature, by an open admission that he sought to remedy, and bypass, that statute "by working on a solution since 2 p.m. yesterday as an alternative to calling the Legislature."

Do these people really understand what the responsibilities of government are? Do they really understand the traditions and the basic underlying principles of parliament in a free, democratic society? I find it absolutely astounding that the kind of statements the minister made tonight would be uttered in the year 1979 by a supposedly modern government. These are the kinds of things blood was shed for in the past by parliamentarians to protect their rights and freedom to represent all of the people of free nations.

I don't believe it's a conspiracy. I believe it's shocking ignorance. I believe it's very, very dangerous — the offhand, cavalier way the minister admits: "Oh, yes, we sought to circumvent the statute. We sought to circumvent the parliament of British Columbia by finding a solution, an alternative to calling you back to deal with our error." It was presumably out of embarrassment, and presumably out of the desire to hide their incompetence, and presumably out of the desire to maintain their shame in the secrecy of the cabinet room, That's shameful and dangerous.

There are questions to be asked about this bill. There are questions to be asked regarding the trading which took place on the stock market in Vancouver. Again, I think it's shocking. I think it's inexcusable and inadequate for the minister to introduce this bill without giving the Legislature some indication of the damage, impact and effect the government error may already have had in the business and financial community of this province and, indeed, other provinces. The minister never gave any indication. Has the minister made inquiries as to who apparently developed the run on these shares on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Who bought them?

I believe that the Premier of the province should have issued a statement as soon as this oversight and error was revealed and known, instructing Crown corporations dealing in the financial sector not to purchase any shares in this particular company while the hiatus of its charter removal was unresolved.

MR. LEA: Did the Premier know?

MR. KING: Did the Premier know? Did the Premier issue any instructions to BCRIC, for instance, that no shares must be purchased in this firm? These are valid questions. The Premier and the minister should have addressed themselves to these particular questions. I find their position very incompetent and really infantile in terms of how they grappled with the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I found the minister's comments instructive when he introduced the bill, and I know some of my colleagues have quoted from them. I suppose it's hard to resist pointing out the irony that resides in the minister's comments when he introduced the statute. He explained he had "mixed feelings" about it. I imagine those feelings are still in turmoil and very mixed tonight, and I sympathize with him to some extent there. But I do say to him that the worst error and the worst sin that any minister of the Crown can commit, in my view, is to seek to evade responsibility for his ministry and staff. To suggest by rumour and inference that some obscure staff person, whether of senior or junior level, is the one responsible for the error is to abandon ministerial responsibility, which some members may smirk about, but it is a long-standing tradition and tenet

[ Page 1166 ]

of the British parliamentary system. Unless members of the government understand and respect that principle, then we shall continue to have shoddy and inept government in the province of British Columbia.

The minister, ironically, went on...and I would just like to quote a few classic lines which, I imagine, will come back to haunt that minister for many years to come. He said: "I would like to make it clear that by indentifying these statutes which are no longer necessary, we hope this will be an ongoing process." Well, Mr. Speaker, if it's going to be an ongoing process, I want to make a recommendation to the minister and to the government, in good conscience, as to how this process may be improved. Then we may have some confidence that they are not in fact making colossal boo-boos, and deep-sixing active trading companies who are out there in the business community of British Columbia at the present time.

MR. LEA: Where will he strike next?

MR. KING: Where will he strike next? It was Richard Nixon's advisers who first came up with the phrase: "We have to deep-six this one." I think that was the reaction of the cabinet when they were confronted with the colossal error they had made. They said: "We've deep-sixed the company. Now we have to deep-six our responsibility for facing up to this shemozzle."

I want to suggest to the minister that if we are to be confronted in the Legislature with more statutes for repeal of obsolete statutes, he refer the statutes contained in such recommendations to a standing committee of this Legislature that was established during this session to deal with statute revisions. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, whether it is coincidental or not, that Dr. Gilbert Kennedy is working on those revised statutes. This is an essential function and is simply improving language in statutes that are very old, and bringing them up to a contemporary standard. Surely if it's necessary to strike a standing committee of this Legislature to deal with updating of language in old statutes, then it is doubly important to refer statutes which the government proposes to repeal to that same committee for consideration. That seems fairly fundamental, and it seems to me an adequate safeguard to make sure that no other company has to rely on the tender mercies of this minister to maintain their function and their role and their activities in the business world. I think that is something worthwhile doing and I think it is common sense, and the government should certainly look at it. It's a standing committee made up of members from both sides of the House, and I think this would be a useful purpose for it.

I just want to say before I sit down that I've looked at the statute, and I want to read it again for the benefit of the members of the Legislature themselves and also for the benefit of the draft people — I think they're up there — and for the guests, and Hansard, and the press gallery, and the Pages, because, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this moniker, this handle is going to become synonymous with Social Credit in the annals of British Columbia parliamentary history — and it's a dandy: Bill 36, Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act. I want to suggest to you that only a Premier of the province of British Columbia who is steeped in the traditions of politics, as he was from childhood, could come up with a handle like that — only the Premier of the province could come up with something like that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As for the bill itself, it too is very fascinating. I'm not going to equate it in any philosophical way with Il Duce, the man who was going to make the trains run on time, and the man who was going to rewrite history. I wouldn't equate it with his undertakings in any philosophical way, but in terms of the language I think all members should listen to what it says: "The Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1979, shall be conclusively deemed not to have come into force, and is repealed." Mr. Speaker, if we never had the rewrite of history in the province of British Columbia before, we have it today — 1984 visited upon us, five years in advance. It shall be conclusively deemed to have never happened because Social Credit did it. Isn't that a dandy?

MR. BARNES: I wish we could say that about everything they did.

MR. KING: The second section is same as the first. It says: "Everything done in accordance with the provisions of any of the Acts referred to in the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1979, between July 30, 1979, and the day this Act comes into force shall be conclusively deemed to have been done with full legal capacity." Poor company! It was deep-sixed; it was out of existence for four days. It did business; its shares traded on the stock market; but now, through retroactive legislation of the most spectacular kind of language, it shall be deemed by Social Credit to have had full legal authority to do so, and the Act which offends it and deep-sixed this company shall, for the purposes of Social Credit, be deemed never to have happened. Now that is interesting.

You know, I can just imagine what would have happened had the NDP ever brought in legislation which sought to rewrite the history of this chamber in that fashion, I should not have been surprised if under those circumstances the Premier had run out and rented a hall and said: "Not a dime without debate; no repeal without authority." Remember what he did? He'd have gone out and rented a hall, first thing; then he'd have hid in his office for three days.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate. I am very concerned about a variety of the principles involved here. I intend to speak, sir, with you and with the appropriate committee of this House with respect to the introduction of rules which guarantee to every member of the Legislative Assembly that except in the most dire emergencies which threaten the health, safety and welfare of the people of British Columbia, adequate and proper time be taken to not only notify members, but to make sure that all of those who are able have the time to arrive and participate in the Legislature, which they were elected to do. Quite frankly, it alarmed me when the minister opened his remarks as he did. With all due respect to your office, sir, I am sure that on reviewing those remarks you also could not help but be concerned, and that you would want to see something done to ensure that this kind of questionable recall never occurs again. Whether it be in response to something important or in response to just a government whim, the rights of each and every member of this Legislature must override government needs, except in the case of a grave emergency which could in some way jeopardize public health and

[ Page 1167 ]

safety. This is something all of the legislators should take under advisement and should view in a very serious manner.

MR. LEVI: I hope that the minister exhibits a great deal more candour in closing the debate than he did when he opened it. I would expect that he would be able to tell us some of the circumstances surrounding how in fact he discovered the predicament which he's in right now. From what we read in the newspaper and from what we hear from various people, we can only deduce that the mistake was first observed by people connected with the company, not by the government. Perhaps the minister would tell us if, after having found out the mistake, he discussed the matter with the president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Did he call the president of the company? Did he speak to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who has responsibility for the administration of the Securities Act? Did he d any of these things? We don't know. We are left doubting that in fact he did anything. It's been strongly suggested from this side that for 24 hours he did absolutely nothing.

The minister tells us that what is important is to re-establish confidence so that the company can continue. The company published a quarterly report in May, dealing with their operations for the first three months of this year, which says:

"Commenting on this year's first-quarter results, President J.M. Burnett says Seaboard Life Insurance Company experienced significantly higher claim ratios on both disability and life insurance compared with the equivalent period in 1978.

"Some improvement occurred in March, and hopefully this trend will continue. Administrative and selling expenses showed virtually no change over the comparable period. However, with a vigorous sales year ahead, management expects these costs to rise."

They showed a net profit of $270,000, and 50 cents on each share for the first quarter. That is the situation of that company some two months ago. The minister should tell us exactly what he did when he found out that there was a problem. I would think that, as a matter of courtesy, he would talk to the company. Has he spoken to the people in the company? He assured them through the press that everything would be okay: "We'll go back into the House and we'll remedy it."

In relation to the legislation, it's a little difficult to understand why this particular problem was overlooked by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), After all, nine years ago in this Legislature there was a great debate going on about Seaboard Life Insurance Company. The AttorneyGeneral had a lot to say in that debate about the problems of Seaboard Life, Columbia Beneficial Holdings, CanAmera and all those companies that were involved at that time. He knew about it. We don't know whether he had an opportunity to run his finger down the list to see whether he recognized any of the companies. The whole business of putting together Acts that are going to be repealed is not new. The statute-law reform problem has been in existence for a long time. The former deputy minister in the Attorney-General's ministry has been working on it for some six years. It's not a new thing. The minister would have us believe it's new; but, in fact, it is something that has been going on. One is a little taken aback by some of the particular statutes that he feels need so urgent a repeal.

All of the time that we've now spent assisting this minister in repairing some terrible damage that he's done we could have very valuably spent in this House debating other ministers' bills — perhaps the question of children's legislation which still hasn't been brought forward. But no, we're here trying to bail this minister out of a terrible mess.

That party, Mr. Speaker, put out a research newsletter, series 2, volume 4, July 27, 1979, and there's a little item dealing with the Minister of Finance and Deregulation. It's headed: "Cleaning House, Deregulation Wields a Big Broom. "

"The Minister of Finance and Deregulation, Evan Wolfe, has introduced in the Legislature The Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, which the minister described as the first cut in the government program to eliminate redundant or obsolete statutes." The first cut: "Mr. Wolfe cited the Goat-breeders' Protection Act, Threshers' Lien Act, and Sales on Consignment Act as examples of statutes which no longer serve any purpose except perhaps to confuse."

He's right, and in making the statements that he did about these particular statutes he completely overlooked the one statute that has resulted in the tremendous blunder that has taken place. That's why we're here tonight.

I would urge that the minister exhibit some candour and tell us in some detail if he will just what he did when he discovered or was informed that there was an error. Because that is important. It's more important than standing up and telling us that they're going to take their first cut at deregulation and they're going to repeal the Goat-breeders' Protection Act. He can't blithely talk about confidence, because he knows as well as anybody else that there are some very serious problems out there in respect to the way this government keeps intruding itself into the marketplace and into the business community. This is another example. We don't know until we go through, as he apparently is going through now, the rest of the 63 bills to find out if they've made a slip-up there. One wonders how one makes the decisions to put those pieces of legislation into a bill — whether, as my colleagues have suggested, somebody does a check, sends a letter to the registrar of companies and gets confirmation in writing as to whether these still are active companies. Or do they have some students sit down and go through the bills and look for that section which says: "And this Act is now repealed."? After all, that's what the companies office is there for — to supply information on request. It seems to me that that's the logical process to follow. Perhaps the minister will tell us what kind of process they did follow. What kind? lt's not good enough for him to tell us that the company changed its name. That's part of the problem that we've got tonight. A company changed its name and it was eliminated.

The House Leader for the NDP has gone into some detail on the kind of charade that exists within the bill about rewriting history. It makes one wonder, when we're going through the whole business of statute reform and improving the language so that it is understandable, that this is a perfect example of what we've got to look forward to down the road when they get through simplifying the legislation and the language. Because there are very few people that can understand this kind of language. It's high time that we got the lawyers to speak English and then put the bills in English. We'd be a lot better off. That's what the minister

[ Page 1168 ]

might very well address himself to in the whole question of deregulation that he's so interested in.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister again, I would urge him, to be frank with us about exactly what happened. Because accusations have been made that for 24 hours he appeared to do nothing until that stock was suspended on the stock exchange. If that's not the case, then in closing the debate let him get up and deny it and tell us exactly what happened. All we ask is a great deal of candour, and that will do more in the eyes of the public, who expect to get a better degree of behaviour from that minister than him just saying, or as the Premier said: "We're sorry, we made a mistake." We don't know how sorry they are. We don't know whether they're sorry because it's political, or whether in fact they're sorry because people are now troubled by the fact that they may not have any investments at the moment. They don't know where they're going. We don't hear the government or the minister saying that they've created possibly an enormous financial loss to those companies.

What are we going to get down the road — a series of lawsuits? And what is the government going to do about that? There's been no indication from the minister at all as to what the government is prepared to do to remedy that particular problem when people are going to have to spend large amounts of money for lawyers to seek some kind of recompense from the government, because they made the mistake and not the company, and not the people who have investments in there. He should address himself to that when he's closing the debate. He should recognize now that when he started to introduce this bill, nobody over here treated him seriously in the remarks that he made in presenting the bill. If he wants to have any credibility at all, then he had better express with a great deal of candour what happened, and what he intends to do in the future. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than a joke, and a meaningless gesture on his part in the business of repealing. Some serious charges have been made, and that minister has an opportunity to give us a clear picture of exactly what has happened. He's the only one that knows the facts and he's the one that has to tell us, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is the old pull-the-wagons-in-a-ring act by the Social Credit again. You see, the minister is in trouble, and what they do all the time is pull the wagons in a ring on one side of the pasture and let the burning wagon go over the cliff.

Where are these other ministers who are partly responsible for this error? Where is the minister who is in charge of the securities division of government, who obviously has some stake in what's happened to Seaboard, and to make sure that it can't happen again, and to explain why in his ministry there are not procedures to make sure that it didn't happen this time? Why isn't the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) taking his place in this debate to shoulder some of the responsibility? Obviously some of it is his. What about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who sits as chairman of the legislative process? Where is the Minister of Labour tonight? Why isn't he standing up talking about his lack of accountability in this matter? Why aren't those two ministers also taking their place?

Why isn't the Premier taking his place in this debate to explain government's position in the overall? Because those ministers' wagons are not on fire. They're circled on that side of the pasture, and this poor minister, whose wagon is on fire, has been pushed over the cliff by his colleagues from the coalition. It's just lovely.

What kind of powers did they use to rectify this error? Could they be called sweeping? I mean, are they the kind of powers that democratic goverments use every day? Obviously not, because we have a situation that doesn't happen every day. We don't normally have a complete company wiped out by a mistake of the government. But today we have that so we need some extraordinary powers to take care of an extraordinary situation, and so the minister is left on his own.

How did he handle it? Immediately upon finding out that he had a problem, did he do those things that he should have done as the Minister of Finance — notify the Premier, notify the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Services, notify the Minister of Labour responsible for the legislative committee? Did he do any of those things? Or did he say: "Maybe we can sneak by and nobody will ever find out."?

I think, Mr. Speaker, that's what he did. There was no admission that it had happened and no "I'm sorry" until the official opposition, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), pointed out that it had been done, even though he says he had information 24 hours prior to the announcement being made by the NDP. So what did he do in those hours? Well, the kind of powers that he's using to rectify the error would almost seem like the powers of an emperor. When I say "emperor," Mr. Member, I don't mean the kind of decisive, authoritative decisions that an emperor would make, but more like Nero, who fiddled and played while Rome burned. As a matter of fact, I think we can call this the "Nero Wolfe Act, 1979, " because that's how he's acted — like a person who panicked for fear of losing his job; a person who panicked because he didn't want to have the Premier angry at him — and the Premier probably is a little angry at him over this, as probably the Premier is a little angry with the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Labour for allowing it.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's not the first time that this minister has done this sort of thing. It's not the first time he's made an error; it's just the first time he's said: "I'm sorry."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just interrupt you a moment to remind you of the scope of debate in second reading, and that debate on stages of the bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration. Although the Chair has been very lenient, nonetheless I do not believe that we can build an entire debate on a criticism of administration. Perhaps you could use that as a guideline. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I'll try to do, then, is bring it down to the debate of universal good or evil, because I don't see how we can discuss that without talking about the administrative bungling that caused us to be here tonight. That's what we are here to talk about: why we have a need to be in this House to debate this bill in the first place and, I think, to point out, as is our duty to the public of British Columbia and to those members who weren't here prior so that they can take it back to their constituents and tell them all about it, that this minister has goofed time and time and time again.

[ Page 1169 ]

The first budget that he brought in.... He brought in two budgets. That was also a mistake. He just didn't say: "I'm sorry." Did you know that? He read one budget in this House, and then when he sent it out to the people he changed it. Now that's the kind of mistake that the minister made before. He didn't say he was sorry. At that time they had a few more seats in the House than we had, quite a few, so they weren't sorry.

What was the next thing he did? He went around this province inferring that Clarkson Gordon did an audit of the books of British Columbia when that isn't true — another mistake of this minister. He didn't say he was sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I trust that soon you'll be bringing the debate back to the principle of the bill, and perhaps leave the central tenor of the debate which seems to have been a criticism of administration. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Yes, it is a criticism of the administration. That's what the bill's all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is exactly what is out of order in second reading. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we talk about this bill, which is because of administrative bungling, without talking about administrative bungling? It's impossible.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am simply reminding you of the rules which you have placed in my hand. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'll take you back again to a cheque in ICBC, again handled by this minister, a cheque that he wrote to ICBC as a grant, and two days later borrowed back as a loan because he said that ICBC needed the money — another administrative bungle. And at that time, with over 35 seats, he didn't say he was sorry.

Now we can only surmise that the reason the minister's sorry that he had to come in with this bill is that he got caught, and he got caught when they were only three members above not being government at all. That's the only reason we're getting "I'm sorry" tonight. That's the only reason we see a bit of humble pie over there. The only reason that we're back here tonight at all is because with that minister it's been one incompetent act after another ever since he took office, even to the time when the press went down to interview him about ICBC and he had to stick his bubble-gum under his desk before he could speak to the media. Ever since that bubble-gum trick by Nero Wolfe, we've had one, two, three, four, five administrative bungles that I can think of, the fifth one being the one that we're talking about tonight.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but this bill came through the chairmanship of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who only two short sessions ago brought a piece of legislation into this House that he had to say he was sorry for. That was labour legislation regarding new regulations around union certification. He had to come here and say he was sorry for bungling up the legislative program. Why is that minister still in charge of the legislative committee that allowed this bill to come onto the floor of this House, or the need for it? Mr. Speaker, it's administrative bungling time after time after time. And if there's one minister who deserves the title of the most horrendous bungler of all, it's the Minister of Finance, who I don't think even now, as I look across at him sitting there giggling, understands the gravity of this thing that he's not done — to check out legislation before bringing it into the Legislature to have it passed.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that should happen out of this legislation, the Premier should deal with this minister in the harshest way, because it undermines the confidence of all of the people of British Columbia, all of the business community in British Columbia, in a government that has had a Minister of Finance for four years who's bungled one time after the other in an accumulative way until we get the biggest bungle in the history of the province of British Columbia, all by one minister. Should he be there? That question, of course, is for the Premier. But I think the Premier would be well advised to ask that minister to reconsider whether he's suitable to serve in'that cabinet.

MR, LEGGATT: I was hoping at some point in the evening that we might hear at least one other member on the other side defend this government; because I can remember during the campaign the eloquence of the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith) so eloquently telling us about this businesslike administration that runs this province so well. Now surely we could expect a few minutes, maybe five or four, because I know you don't want to extend the debate, but I'd be very interested in hearing some kind of defence now that they've had an opportunity to watch this businesslike government in their first session, as I have; whether their view of this administrative performance is the same as mine objectively, that this group are those skilful, dedicated, administrative giants that have run this province in such a magnificent fashion. I'd like to hear whether they still hold that view about this particular government. I suspect there are a good number on that side of the House that no longer hold that view, that have had their touching faith in the rhetoric of the past three years shattered just a little by what has occurred tonight.

I'm not concerned particularly about the 6,400 shares that were traded. I think it's odd, and I also think that it's incumbent upon the minister to have found out tonight, so that he can advise this House, whether there is anything wrong with the trade of those 6,400 shares. I see he's been sitting in his seat listening to the debate. I hope he's given his officials some instructions to get on the telephone so he can reassure this House that there's nothing whatsoever the matter with that strange transaction. That's surely this minister's duty. We've heard about the delay of 24 hours, in which the minister has clearly shown significant negligence. I hope he's not showing more negligence by sitting in his seat and not at least following up on the hard-won information of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), so that together we can cooperate and get this information on the floor of the House. Surely it's incumbent upon that minister to satisfy this House and the public of British Columbia that that transaction is okay and sound. And I'm not suggesting it isn't. I'm not suggesting there's anything the matter with it whatsoever; but surely we are entitled to a reasonable explanation, and I hope to hear the minister shortly about that.

[ Page 1170 ]

I've come to this debate from a slightly different perspective, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has deliberately and studiously tried to build his reputation in the world of federal-provincial conferences — he's taken the very high line about senate reform — and it's clearly been a strategy from his advisers that this is the right political route to travel. But I'm a little unhappy when I pick up the Globe and Mail and I find that this parliament is made a laughing stock right across Canada by the bungling of this administration. This is a night when British Columbians are a little unhappy that every other provincial legislature is quietly laughing at us because of an incredibly stupid administrative blunder. It's a sad day for all of us who like to go east and promote British Columbia and say what a wonderful place it is. Now they're going to come out to have another chuckle at the B.C. Legislature. That's too bad, especially from a government that came to office saying they were going to provide great administrative competence.

I am interested in the bill itself. On a cursory look it would appear they may have been able to luck out of this mess. But section 1, which really attempts to pretend the last three days didn't exist, supposes parliament has the power to do anything it wants within its own jurisdiction. How can we possibly debate this bill without debating administrative competence? This is a bill to correct a serious administrative error. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker — and I'm not debating your ruling — your suggestion to the previous speaker that he could not debate the question of administrative competence while dealing with the principle behind this bill flies in the face of the very principle of the bill. The principle of this bill is: "We blew it, fellows. Please help us out of this mess." That's what this bill is all about, and what we're doing is exactly that we're trying to help you fellows out.

The question is: how do they feel tonight in the Vancouver Club? Are they really happy about this government now? After all, this is the government coalition that was going to keep these socialist hordes from the banks of British Columbia. I don't know what's happening over there; but I've got a feeling there are some people muttering: "What are these guys up to? How could they do this kind of thing?" Where are they going to strike next, Mr. Speaker? That's the real question. They don't really know what they're doing. Is MacMillan Bloedel now really safe? Who knows? They've got a special interest there.

It's not as if it were deliberate. It would be safer if it were deliberate, you know. But it's that craziness in which you never know where they're going to move — an elbow goes this way, and suddenly somebody else bites the dust. It reminds me of a fighter who used to compete against Muhammad Ali, who had a great name for him. He used to call him the Washerwoman. He'd get out there and he'd hit in every direction. Quite often he hit the referee, wound up knocking somebody in the front row, but never laid a glove on Muhammad Ali. You know, that's these guys — moving everywhere but never hitting the target.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should trust them with anything big any more. We really shouldn't. It's a bit too much for them to handle. In fact, since we're in the mood tonight for repealing bills, and we are cooperating, it seems to me it would be reasonable if the government would cooperate with us and repeal a few others that came up this session and which have just as bad an effect. The principle in the Whistler bill, which means that if I've got a lot of money I get a few extra votes: that's a great principle. How about Trinity Western College? We might have a look at Trinity Western College.

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please. Hon. member, it's not in order to reflect on votes that have already been taken in the House.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not arguing, of course, with your ruling. I make the brief point that this is a statute to repeal a statute. Surely it's within the confines of the rules. Otherwise, the entire debate would be out of order, since it's clearly a reflection on the vote of this House, with regard to this particular bill.

It's an interesting day in this House. We've come a long way, in terms of debating what happened in '72 and what happened in '75. Now maybe in this House we can get to what's going to happen in the province of British Columbia in the future. This Seabord bungle is going to hang around the necks of this government until the next election. It will. This is a well-deserved albatross. In fact, sometimes I think that whoever's in that great sky above looked down on that minister and said: "Let's have a little justice." After all that funny money, game-playing with the phony deficit, and with the exaggerated errors and all that, maybe it's time a little justice was done in this place. Therefore I just conclude by thanking God for this little error.

MR. LAUK: First of all, I want to thank an acquaintance of mine who is the regional director of CBC, because it was via the CBC radio news that I was able to learn that my presence was required here this evening. I'll send him a note telling him that he's taken on the responsibilities that by the conventions and rules of the House properly rest elsewhere.

The bill itself is an interesting one. We've all gathered here in the late hours to correct a mistake by a minister and a government. As the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) pointed out earlier this evening, the Ministry of Deregulation has spent somewhere — in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars. There is the cost of many distinguished lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney-General — multi-millions of dollars. There's the $40,000 to $80,000 to $100,000 cost for the Legislature to convene this evening. All of that, plus 50,000 civil servants behind the government, and they make the silliest mistake in the history of the province. What was required to avoid this mistake should be the question all of us are asking. Any practising lawyer knows what's required. You pick up the phone, for the cost of about 35 cents, and you ask the registrar of companies to conduct a search — 35 cents, in the face of half a million dollars for the Ministry of Deregulation. It costs five cents more than a package of Certs to find out that this company is still an operating company. A package of Certs might be a good idea for the hon. Minister of Deregulation, because there's a lot of bad air this evening, and a little sweetener wouldn't hurt.

There's the question of the minister standing in his place this evening and introducing this bill without any kind of apology to the taxpayers of the province for this tremendous cost. He alluded to the responsiblity being in the hands of the civil service. Shocking! This flies in the face of the

[ Page 1171 ]

British parliamentary system and its conventions which hold the minister responsible for the actions of his ministry. He is responsible, not the civil servants, when he brings a bill into this Legislature on behalf of the Crown.

As a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I am very embarrassed on behalf of Her Majesty, Mr. Speaker. How embarrassed she must be now to hear that her government in the province of British Columbia has, in such a grossly incompetent manner, shovelled this money out of the back of a truck. They've spilled more money in the Ministry of Deregulation than any other ministry has spent recklessly in the past.

The Premier is another person who shocks me by the behaviour that he has displayed today. He's apologized to the press. He's apologized to the public, I suppose, through the press. But where the bungle was made — and the responsibility in a representational Legislature — he has not seen fit to accept his responsibility as the First Minister to stand in his place in this chamber and apologize to each and every MLA. It is also a tradition in the British parliamentary system that if a minister is responsible for his department, the Premier is responsible for his minister. He has the responsibility to stand in his place today and say: "I'm sorry. Here's the action I'm going to take to remedy this terrible blunder."

The minister, when introducing Bill 20 earlier this session, stated: "Nothing is worse" — I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mentioned it — "than uncertainty about the state of the law." We've found one thing worse: the minister, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and his cabinet are so concerned with internal party affairs, and the Premier particularly with the state of his own position as leader of that party. That distraction is so great that it has taken up almost 99 percent of their time; so 1 percent, if that, is left for his attention to the important affairs of state. The rest is politicking, backstabbing, double- shuffling, wheeling and dealing, backroom cigar-smoking party politics. As a result, we get blunder after blunder after blunder, and this one the most costly in terms of the taxpayers' money.

Can you imagine if it was a major finance bill? After all, the Minister of Deregulation is in charge of Finance as well. Isn't that a sobering thought? Can you imagine if it was a major statute that required an emergency special session of the House?

I am now gravely concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this government that will bring us to this state of affairs, so eloquently described by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) as the laughing stock of the Legislature, is the laughing stock not only of the country. This news item, I'm just told by my office, is going across the United States, and the newspapers in Britain are making inquiries about the blunder of the British Columbia Legislature.

In the face of that, Mr. Speaker, can we go back to our constituencies and tell those thousands of people that have bought shares in BCRIC that that $450 million is safe in the hands of that government? That they are also the government that is in charge of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation? That they are also the government that directs, supposedly, the British Columbia Hydro, corporation? This is the government that is in charge of some of the largest corporations in North America. It's no wonder that we are the laughing stock. But I don't think it's a laughing matter; I think it's a serious matter for all hon. members.

With respect to the bill itself, I regret to say — and this is my opinion only, for now, because we have only had this evening to review the bill — I believe, number one, that it is a bill that is ultra vires, and, number two, I believe it is a bill that is unenforceable at law. I think that in any application or reference to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the court would have no other alternative but to strike it down and we'll be back in session soon again. I'll explain, in the gravest possible terms, what I believe to be the case, from a legal point of view, and I hope very much that I am incorrect in saying this.

Section 2 particularly says as follows, and I wish everybody would listen carefully: "Everything done in accordance with the provisions of any of the Acts referred to in the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act...between July 30, 1979, and the day this Act comes into force, shall be conclusively deemed to have been done with full legal capacity." One of the Acts mentioned in Bill 20 is the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

So I want you to imagine a perfectly plausible situation: an individual in private business, associated perhaps with this company, learned that more than 24 hours ago — or they've had 48 hours — that the company had no longer legal status to operate, and he conducted certain business affairs of a legal nature on the reliance of that fact. Then everything done in accordance with the provisions of any of the Acts shall be conclusively deemed to be done with full legal capacity. You can't have a statute section that flatly contradicts itself. It's totally contradictory. And any court must take the plain and literal meaning of a section and not depart from it to inquire into the intention of parliament. Any court, therefore, would strike down the bill because section 2 is an essential and integral part of the Act. The court cannot go beyond the words and the literal and plain meaning of the words of the statute. It would have been very simple for the statute to read: "Everything done in accordance with the provisions of any of the Acts except the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, referred to in the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act." That might have solved the problem.

Again this is an example of haste and sloppy draftsmanship. Again this is an example of the kind of panic-stricken government that staggers from one disaster to the next, from one bungle to the next, trying to cover up and repair their mistakes — and with more haste comes more mistakes and ever bigger mistakes. This is the kind of thing I was afraid would happen when we were called back at 7 o'clock this evening. I looked carefully at the Act, I thought carefully about it, and I thought carefully about how a court would look at this if some private citizen did something in reliance of his knowledge that the Seaboard Assurance Company did not have legal capacity to operate, disposed of shares, entered into a beneficial share arrangement as yet unknown to us, entered into contracts in reliance of the company being defunct for those two days or whatever number of days.

According to section 2, Mr. Speaker, acts done in reliance of that knowledge are conclusively deemed to have been done with full legal capacity. The court cannot extricate itself from it, nor can the court extricate itself from a counter argument which says: "But that would defeat the purpose of the bill in sections 1 and 3. The court is not there to patch up sloppy legislation. The court cannot say: "Well, we'll redraft it for you." The court will say: "It's not

[ Page 1172 ]

competent of the Legislature, it's ultra vires, it's illegal, it's unenforceable."

I'll tell you the only thing that I can see now after 48 hours of the most interesting political events in the province — if we can overcome our embarrassment of being the laughing stock of the nation. You'd think that they'd at least after this tremendous mistake come to the Legislature with a statute that's been carefully considered. You'd think that they'd gone over every aspect of the statute, considered every possible interpretation. You'd think that, wouldn't you?

This leaves me to the inescapable conclusion that the only way that we can have competent government in this province is for the Premier to issue another election writ. And although I'm very tired, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a duty to go to the people and elect a government that can be competent and deal with these problems with administrative competence, and by the same token add some imagination to the government benches.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rather surprised, in view of the seriousness of the subject matter, that no member of the government benches has see fit to speak in this debate. I know the hour is late. But the opposition has presented a very cogent case of government mismanagement and blundering. And the crestfallen members of the government benches say nothing, but simply seek to ride out the storm. The Premier who, unlike some premiers of this province heretofore when a minister's in trouble, says nothing and avoids the storm of debate or a discussion of the issues. If it could end here with a governmental mistake — a pretty serious one, but simply a mistake — it would be all right perhaps and we could go home and pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, and be content as legislators that we had done our duty. But we are bound by the constitutional precedents of Canada and reaching back from Canada the constitutional and parliamentary precedents of Great Britain. That puts the position of the minister who has to bring in this bill in question.

The mistake has been well documented in spite of the frivolity of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). The mistake has been well documented in the words of the Minister of Deregulation (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he introduced the bill. He himself pointed out, as the facts are, that this is a company that does business in four provinces. It has some 8,000 policy holders. It is a sizeable financial institution that substantial numbers of innocent people are worried as a result of what has happened in the last few days. He says he regrets the necessity to introduce this bill. He says it is urgent that there be financial confidence restored to this particular institution of the province of British Columbia. Therefore he asks us, the Legislature of the province of British Columbia, to pass an Act that what has deemed to have happened shall not be deemed to have happened, and that's the end of the matter. It is not the end of the matter.

I refer to two constitutional authorities only. The first is McGregor Dawson, a greatly respected Canadian author, whose Government of Canada, published in the year 1963, had this to say at page 190:

"A minister of the Crown is responsible under the system in Great Britain for the minutest details of the administration in his department. He is politically responsible when anything goes wrong in his department. He is responsible, therefore, to parliament. And if he comes to parliament and points out that he entrusted the duty to an official in the ordinary course and in good faith, that he had been selected for his capacity and ability and integrity, and the moment that man had gone wrong, the minister had investigated the matter to the full and punished that man either by degradation or dismissal, he has done his duty to the public. That is the way matters are dealt with in Great Britain, and it is the way, it seems to me, that our affairs ought to be carried on in this country."

Now this minister has admitted the great mistake, but he has not gone further than that and admitted his own responsibility as the minister for that mistake. The expenses of the public purse for this session are as nothing, apparently, to the government and that minister.

I turn to another authority, and there are others. I turn to Sir Ivor Jennings, who in his third edition of Cabinet Government, at pages 497 following, had this to say about ministers who perhaps through no personal fault were nevertheless responsible for the actions of their department and did the right thing and resigned their office, or had that resignation requested of them by the Premier. At page 497 it says this:

"In 1873 there were accounting irregularities in the practices of the post office which were not checked by the treasury. None of the ministers concerned had their minds directed to the question though the Postmaster-General was the accounting officer and was thus technically, as well as ministerially, responsible. Mr. Gladstone effected a change of offices for the three ministers concerned."

The Premier has not even spoken in this debate, much less regarded these precedents with any seriousness whatsoever. Going on with the quotation:

"In 1914, the Secretary of State for War resigned because he had allowed an interpretation to be added to a cabinet memorandum on the duties of officers in Ulster, and he resigned. In 1917, Mr. Austin Chamberlain resigned because he considered himself to be ministerially responsible as Secretary of State for the inefficiency of the government of India disclosed by the report of the Royal Commission on Mesopotamia. In 1922, Mr. E.S. Montague, as Secretary of State for India, permitted the government of India to publish a telegram involving a major policy without cabinet sanction. He resigned."

Now compare that mistake, within that department, within that country which is the country of Great Britain, with what has happened here tonight, and you ask yourself whether or not that Premier should not ask for a resignation, and whether that minister ought not to tender one.

Sir Ivor Jennings goes on and gives the general principle:

"Some of these examples disclose a rather high sense of obligation in the minister's concern, but they show also that the government does not accept responsibility for an error of judgment or bad administration by one of its members. The process of government compels a delegation of authority. The cabinet must leave to each minister a substantial discretion as to what matters he will bring before it."

[ Page 1173 ]

If he makes a mistake, then he must accept personal responsibility.

"On the other hand, the minister cannot hide behind the error of a subordinate. Within a department there must be a substantial delegation of power. But the most essential characteristic of the civil servant is the responsibility of the minister for every act done in his department. In practice the minister can hardly avoid saying that the mistake was that of a subordinate, but parliament censures the minister and not the subordinate."

We don't have any personal grudges with respect to that minister, but he is in this constitutional fix that the great usages of parliament require him to bear responsibility for a mistake. How large? Fairly large in this case — not gargantuan, to be sure. The minister bears the responsiblity. As a member of the British Commonwealth, and as one embracing the freedoms and liberties and usages of the British Constitution, British Columbia should live up to that kind of tradition. If a minister makes that kind of mistake, the constitutional precedents are clear: he resigns. If that minister, forgetful of the great constitutional precepts I have quoted, comes before this House and says, "Too bad, I've made this mistake; fix it up for me," then the Premier of the province of British Columbia has the obligation to insist and demand that minister's resignation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before the minister closes debate, I would like to say that the government admits that an error has been made. We've accepted that responsibilty. We also appreciate that it's been at great incovenience to many members that this Legislature has had to be reconvened. To those members we apologize. I also appreciate the fact that so many could come from all sides of the House to correct this error with the urgency we felt was needed to allay the fears of those doing business with the company.

Yes, it's an error of the government; we accept that. This legislation is intended to correct that legislation. From this experience, hopefully we will be able to set into motion those mechanisms which will enable this government, and governments to follow, to provide even more safeguards in the preparation of not only new legislation but in those new areas of thrust where legislation has become obsolete and needs legislative removal, or in those areas where we will be reducing the number of regulations.

The burdensome number of excessive regulations may not only be within the government, but maybe between them. Obviously there is then as much pressure, or more, on any government who would attempt to clear the maze of old legislation or excessive regulation for which most of the citizens of British Columbia and Canada have become concerned. Obviously then this experience, although unfortunate, will serve us well in providing a system of better guidelines, better procedures. We have no intention of placing the blame anywhere but upon ourselves. It would not occur to us to call it a clerical error or to blame it on someone else. This error is that of the government. We have sought through this assembly to correct that error as quickly as we reasonably could. We accept that. But in saying that, I would say that it was an error of government. I would support the minister. I support those that work in the preparation of all the legislation.

We believe that from this experience we will be wiser, and the experience will benefit not only this government but, as I say, future governments.

Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying that the air of cooperation in trying to resolve this matter is one for which I congratulate all members. And all British Columbians should take note of how quickly all of the members of this House are willing to return to deal with the public's business, particularly when there is some urgency. I think that no matter what party those members are from, the public should say that we've got elected officials who are concerned and put their first concern in doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, of course I support this legislation to correct this error that belongs to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance closes debate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've listened very carefully to all of the comments by members of the opposition, most of whom had something to say in this debate. They've had their period of fun, and I expected that this was exactly the approach that they would take. I haven't heard a great deal of comment on the contents of the bill. There were a few comments on that, but mostly criticisms of the administration, and so on and so forth.

Suffice to say that what we've heard here this evening is a bit of a leadership contest, Mr. Speaker. That's pretty clear to me, sitting here listening to the whole thing. You could hear the applause a little louder, perhaps, for one member than for another. But that's what was coming through a great deal of this. Is it the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)? Is it the member for Vancouver Centre? Well, hardly. Is it the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt)? There's a hand up over there, a fourth hand. Anyway, I think that we should recognize that for what it is worth.

I've made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I've made no excuses for the error that we are here to discuss tonight, At no time did I attempt to cast any blame, although many members opposite inferred that I had tried to blame it on civil servants and so on. At no time did I suggest that, and I want to make that very clear.

We had one member from across the way, from Vancouver Centre, suggest that he didn't agree with the bill, that it wasn't going to do the job. I'll be interested to see whether he votes for the bill or against it when the time comes. It will be interesting to see that.

MR. LAUK: It's not my job to draft your legislation. You're arrogant!

HON, MR. WOLFE: The member calls that arrogance. I think I'm entitled to respond, after many hours, to some of the comments that have been made. Anyway, you are losing your voice, Mr. Member. Take it easy.

Mr. Speaker, I think I made it very clear at the outset that the reason for us being called back was to rectify the situation in the most immediate fashion. I regret the necessity of this. I've indicated that we did examine possible alternatives — not to sweep them under the carpet, not to hide the whole issue, but to find an easier way to deal with the problem on a temporary basis.

 [ Page 1174 ]

I want to emphasize again the need for the immediacy of this measure, and all members, I am sure, appreciate the urgency that I mentioned earlier. Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members want to see the matter pursued with every intention of completing the matter at the earliest opportunity, so in the interests, as I say, of avoiding potential harm to the many people involved, shareholders and policy holders, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 36 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: In the opinion of the Chair, after having listened to the debate on both sides of the House and with every urgency to proceed with alacrity, I have considered the matter to be under standing order 81, which says: "Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days previous to being passed. After the second reading, it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice, thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day."

On a point of order, the member for Nelson Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: In opening debate on second reading, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) stated that this side was going to cooperate in the passage of this bill, and I find that a personal affront to the members on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't recognize the point of order. The question before us is the committal of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

REPEAL OF THE OBSOLETE
STATUTES REPEAL ACT

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, as the first member for Vancouver Centre, I wish to voice my sincere surprise that the House Leader and the Speaker would choose to use standing order 81 after the Premier of the province stood up and stated that we were cooperating with the government. I think it's a slap in the face. It's characteristic of an arrogant government.

section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LAUK: I'm warning the government now, and I'll repeat....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Order!

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? Have you got some problem, Madam Minister? If you spent more time listening to what is going on in this House, those cross-comments wouldn't be necessary.

The minister had no idea what I was going to say. She was saying: "Order!" That's the very kind of characteristic of cabinet members that brings us this kind of sloppy legislation in the first place.

On section 2, I bring to the attention of the government and the minister, if a degree of wilful stupidity would subside for a moment so they'll listen to reason, that section 2 is unenforceable, and I'll tell you why. I want to give you an example. Two days ago, let's say, I am a shareholder in the company in question. I read, because I happen to be a student of the Gazette, or what have you, that the company in which I own shares is no longer able to legally operate. I contract with other persons certain arrangements in reliance of that information. Section 2 purports to make those actions legal. The persons with whom I have contracted may thereby suffer a serious financial loss. A court, therefore, cannot award damages against the Crown or the Legislature for its acts, except under special circumstances against the Crown, but not in this case. The court, therefore, has to strike down the statute. I'm not going to propose amendments at this stage of proceedings to patch up the sloppy draftsmanship of that government.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member, both in second reading and the precis of those remarks during committee pertaining to this section. The way I understood his remarks in second reading was that the courts would not be inquiring into the intentions or considering the intentions of the Legislature when interpreting legislation. With every respect to the hon. member, I differ with his concept of statutory interpretation. I think that he, perhaps, would agree with me that it is always the function of the court to consider what the intentions of the Legislature, or parliament as the case may be, might have been when interpreting legislation of either body.

MR. LAUK: Well, I hesitate to advise the chief law-enforcement officer of the province on how courts interpret statutes, but they proceed in this way. The first rule is the plain and literal meaning of the words of the statute. Are they clear? If they're not clear, are they either ambiguous or contradictory? If they are ambiguous, the court is entitled to look at the intention of parliament. If they're contradictory, the court is not so entitled.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resurned; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 1175 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I gather that His Honour is either within the precincts or shortly approaching the precincts. Perhaps we might have a recess for a few moments.

The House recessed at 12:25 p.m.

The House resumed at 12:27 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the 32nd Parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved,

Hon. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.

[ Page 1176 ]

GOVERNMENT BILLS

[ Page 1177 ]

GOVERNMENT BILLS

MEMBERS' BILLS

PRIVATE BILLS