[ Page 4115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Eckardt commission report. MR. Lauk –– 4115

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 4117

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Second reading.

Mr. Barber –– 4119

Royal assent to bills

Municipal Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 54). Second reading,

Mr. Barber –– 4122

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4127

Mrs. Dailly –– 4128

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4130

Mr. Cocke –– 4131

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4132

Mt. Mitchell –– 4133

Mr. Mussallem –– 4134

Ms. Brown –– 4136

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4138

Division on second reading –– 4139

Revised Statutes Correction Act (No –– 2), 1980 (Bill 61). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt)

On section 37 4139

Ms. Brown

On section 38 –– 4140

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to section 38 –– 4140

Mrs. Wallace

Mineral Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 62). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4141

Ministry of Environment Act (Bill 59). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4141

Mr. Howard –– 4141

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4141

Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act (Bill 63). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4142

Ministry of Finance Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4142

Ministry of Tourism Act (Bill 53). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4142

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act (Bill 58). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4142

Appendix –– 4142

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some visitors in the gallery today, but I can't, because everyone is not in his seat, and I think that these visitors should come to the attention of all members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Introductions having been terminated [laughter], I recognize the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Perhaps in the interval the first member for Vancouver Centre will be able to remember their names, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to introduce in the members' gallery and ask the members to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Bob Sloan and their daughter Allison, who are here from California. Mr. Sloan is paying his first visit to Canada, and I know the members will want to be on their very best behaviour this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: On behalf of the official opposition I would also like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Sloan and their daughter Allison. I hope that their visit to British Columbia is an enjoyable one.

This is a very beautiful province, Mr. Speaker, and it always gives me great pride to be able to stand and welcome visitors from the United States and other countries. As everyone knows, apart from the partisan differences that occur from time to time in this Legislature, we are unanimously agreed that this province has a wealth of opportunity and enjoyment for tourists, and in spite of the government that now prevails the province is still a very welcome place for tourists. So I again would like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Bob Sloan and their daughter Allison, who I understand are from California. (Laughter.]

California, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is to the south of us, and we are very, very happy to have visitors from there because, you know, many of our own people visit California. The Premier, I understand, is in Palm Springs today, so it's an exchange visit and we're very happy. I'm sure that all hon. members will join both the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications and myself in a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Bob Sloan and their daughter Allison.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now the good doctor is fully aware of the reason why we are very glad there is a doctor in the House. For the hon. members' joviality, conviviality and many other things, the hon. Premier is in Winnipeg at the Premiers' conference, not in Palm Springs. Once again we have misinformation contributed by the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, is the hon. House Leader prepared to table evidence that the Premier is in Winnipeg, and will he submit to an examination before the public accounts committee on that subject?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some visitors from Westville, Indiana: Cy and Anna-mae McCollup, and their daughter Marion Gilbert who is a British Columbian.

Oral Questions

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Did the investigation of the Attorney-General into the Eckardt affair reveal that boundary maps prepared by the legal surveys branch of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing — I think it was then in the Ministry of Environment — for the Eckardt report, and still in the possession of that branch, are different from the maps and/or legal descriptions that appear in the report tabled in this House on June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker. The inquiry disclosed that the legal surveys branch, which is a part of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, prepared written legal descriptions of the metes and bounds of various constituencies. The maps were prepared by the mapping division of the Ministry of Environment.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation disclose that those legal descriptions prepared by that legal surveys branch are different from the final legal descriptions tabled in the House on June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously didn't listen when I read the report from the Deputy Attorney-General on this subject which makes it abundantly clear that with regard to the ridings in the greater Vancouver area the metes and bounds descriptions for those ridings were prepared by Mrs. Robbins, who is a cartographer in the office of the chief electoral officer, and who is an expert in such matters.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that the legal descriptions prepared by the surveys branch are being held — those prepared by that branch — in a sealed envelope in a safe at that branch, and that they contain signatures of civil servants who were involved in preparing the original maps and/or legal descriptions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that, although members of the press upon whom I place reliance have advised me that that is the case.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that the legal descriptions held at the land survey branch are different with respect only to changes in the boundaries of Vancouver–Little Mountain?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I cannot, Mr. Speaker; I haven't seen those documents.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General provide that information to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that the surveyor-general, in whose possession or on whose authority these documents have been deposited, had indicated that he would release them on the instructions of the Attorney-General. If he wishes to communicate with me about the matter, I'd-be happy to give him that authority.

[ Page 4116 ]

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General table those original legal descriptions and maps in the Legislature in accordance with the views just expressed by those civil servants?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member continues to insert the word "maps." It is my understanding that there are no maps which are so kept in an envelope.

MR. LAUK: Well, if the legal descriptions are different, the maps are different. Perhaps you can track down the maps too. Will the Attorney-General table the legal descriptions in the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm prepared to discuss the matter with the surveyor-general and ascertain the nature of those documents, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: If they're embarrassing to the government, does that mean he won't table them, Mr. Speaker?

According to Vi Barton's notes, she was told that Dan Campbell was in the Laurel Point Inn room during the appropriate times mentioned in the Vogel report. Was this statement confirmed or denied by Dan Campbell, or by commission staff other than Miss Barton?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the course of the inquiry it was disclosed that the only persons of which I have knowledge who were in the hotel room were Mrs. Robbins, Miss Sutherland, and at some period of time commissioner Eckardt and Mrs. McCarthy.

MR. LAUK: On another day in this House the Attorney-General indicated that Mrs. Barton's statement and the allegations made by her were thoroughly canvassed. As a matter of fact it is reported the Attorney-General claims that that was the reason for the lengthy time taken to investigate this matter. With that in mind, did the interview with Mr. Campbell, on the point of whether he was at the Laurel Point Inn room, reveal that he was or was not — in his words?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have just responded to the member by telling him who was ascertained to have been in that hotel room, as a result of the inquiry. I assume he means in Laurel Point on June 19, 1978.

MR. LAUK: Did the interview with Mr. Campbell disclose that there was a meeting which included Dan Campbell in a room in the Laurel Point Inn on any other date?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The total inquiry didn't disclose any other meeting in Laurel Point Inn which was pertinent to the matter.

MR. LAUK: Was another date, as a possibility, canvassed by the investigators?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The dates in question with regard to these matters were the dates from June 16 to June 20. Whether there were meetings at any other time during 1978, 1977, 1976 in hotel rooms, unconnected with the matter, I have no knowledge.

MR. LAUK: One would think that the Attorney-General would be interested in disclosing all of the facts relevant to these allegations. I've heard of justice being blind, but not necessarily with blinkers on.

Did your officers take statements from the dinner guests of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts, to confirm or deny who was present in that dining room on that occasion?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the inquiry extended to Mrs. McCarthy's hosts, Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts, on the evening of June 19.

MR. LAUK: Did both those persons confirm that Mr. Dan Campbell was nowhere to be seen by them on that evening?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The inquiry made of Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts dealt with the evening in question, their association with Mrs. McCarthy, and their whereabouts on that evening. I don't even know whether Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts know Mr. Campbell.

MR. LAUK: That's pretty hard to miss.

Did Evelyn Robbins deny having the conversation with Vi Barton, as indicated in Barton's statement on December 5, where Robbins is reported as having said: "She said she had been interviewed for two hours the day before by the press. She said: 'I'm so afraid for Grace McCarthy. She might lose her job.' "

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the statement taken from Mrs. Robbins was very lengthy, and I can't recall that particular aspect.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General have a look and give us an answer, or table the transcript?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to look into the matter for the member and satisfy his curiosity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: My curiosity is on behalf of the public of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

Did the investigation reveal that civil servants in the Economic Development statistics branch were working overtime, June 18 to June 20, 1978, as indicated in Mrs. Barton's statement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is my recollection that staff of the central statistics branch of Economic Development worked overtime during several days in that week, and certainly on the 19th they were working until the evening.

MR. LAUK: Were statements taken from the staff of the Economic Development statistics branch, canvassing what aspects of the report they were working on?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they were, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that they were only working on population tables?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That was the request made of

[ Page 4117 ]

them, Mr. Speaker — to deal with the question of population statistics associated with the various constituencies in the province.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that in at least one of the statements from those staff members there was an indication that they were working on something other than — or in addition to — population tables?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not my recollection of the statements, but I'll be happy to look at the matter and clarify it for the member.

MR. LAUK: I'll ask this question of the Minister of Human Resources, if I may. Can the minister inform the House where she was resident in Victoria in the months of March, April, May and June of 1978?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, not wanting to do other than to see that the rules of question period are followed, I find it very difficult to allow that question in any way as being a responsibility of the minister. Possibly the member could rephrase the question so that it would be in order.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll ask the question of the Attorney-General. Did the investigation reveal that the residence of the Minister of Human Resources during the months of March, April, May and June of 1978 was in Victoria?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Attorney-General, according to Vi Barton's statement, and I'll quote it: "Up until that time" — and this was referred to by Mrs. Barton as being June 17 or 16, when the report was apparently completed, in her eyes — "he" — Larry Eckardt — "was wholly dependent on his staff. Why would he get so independent at the last minute? The fact that he relied so heavily on his staff and then made changes himself bothers me. How could he have made changes in the maps without telling anyone? Because it would have to be put in the report." In view of this statement and the fact that, according to the Vogel report, Eckardt made decisions regarding the Vancouver boundaries on Sunday, June 18, 1978, did Eckardt have contact with the Minister of Human Resources directly or indirectly on June 17 or 18?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry did not disclose contact on the days that the member mentions.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General support that answer with the written evidence of denials of the Minister of Human Resources, Larry Eckardt, and members of the Ministry of Human Resources staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and the commissioner were interviewed in the course of the inquiry, and it was from those interviews that I gave that answer.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General has repeatedly said that the statements of Mrs. Barton and Miss Tamoto have not been substantiated. Is the Attorney-General confident that both the statements of Barton and Tamoto in all material matters are untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question is argumentative. The member uses the word "material", and that is subject to differing interpretations by people.

MR. LAUK: With respect to both Barton's and Tamoto's statements that Susan Thomson and Evelyn Robbins made certain statements about interference with the commission, is the Attorney-General confident that those statements by Barton and Tamoto are untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, of course Susan Thomson swore a declaration with respect to this matter which is before this House, but with respect to the interviews of both Susan Thomson and Mrs. Robbins, they both deny any interference with the work of the commission.

MR. LAUK: Whether there was interference or not, on the question of whether Susan Thomson or Evelyn Robbins made statements that there was interference, as alleged by Barton and Tamoto, is the Attorney-General, through his investigation, satisfied and confident that those allegations of statements by Robbins and Thomson were untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that requires a decision by the Attorney-General on a matter on which he is not qualified to make a decision. The facts are that the statements were made and their contents resulted in an inquiry for the purposes of ascertaining whether there was any factual basis for those statements. If there was misunderstanding as between individuals as to what was said or not said. that is a matter of no concern to me. It was the implications of those statements, the suggestions that there were improprieties. Careful examination was made into that aspect, and such improprieties were found not to have existed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to reply to a question asked of me in oral question period.

Leave granted.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH
DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, on August 11 the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) asked a question with reference to a neighbourhood pub in north Delta. The member stated:

In his answer to a question, the minister indicated that Mr. Pridie was before the Delta municipal council and that because his proposal was a ramshackle affair Mr. Pridie was twice unanimously turned down by the council. Mr. Pridie has since denied that allegation.

In addition, the member said:

Far from suffering the opposition of municipal officials, Mr. Pridie has produced a letter, dated September 15, 1977, from the Delta municipal clerk to the liquor licensing director, in which Mr. Priche is advised: "The Delta municipal council has no objection to the establishment of the proposed neighbourhood pub in the northern portion of the Kennedy shopping centre located at 88th Avenue and 120th Street in this municipality."

[ Page 4118 ]

The second member asked: "Does the minister now wish to change his story?"

In response to that question, I have received correspondence from Alderman Lois Jackson, former alderman A.M. Schmand, former alderman Don Porter, former mayor Tom Goode and former alderman William Reid, all of whom were members of the council during the period of time when consideration was given to Mr. Pridie's application. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the letter, addressed to me and dated August 15, 1980:

"We hear reports from the Legislature that Mike Pridie's pub licence application is under discussion, and we note that the press is interpreting his reminiscences as fact. We therefore thought we ought to give you the facts as best we remember them and to state our intentions in the actions we took at the time.

"First of all, some background. The council of the day disagreed with the officials of the liquor administration branch with respect to several of their policies. Our experience with pubs located in shopping centres had been highly satisfactory, although the LAB was quite opposed to such locations. We were concerned that the one-mile limit was a meaningless idea in the urban context, and we were convinced that limiting seating to 65 would reduce the capital investment because of the limited returns, thereby reducing the extent of the kitchen facilities and emphasizing the drinking aspects out of proportion '

"It is important that you not interpret council's concern with these aspects as support for Mike Pridie's ideas. As a politician, you will appreciate that there are different ways of saying no, and that we had no wish to rub Mr. Pridie's nose in our rejection of his request. In retrospect, while it would not have been kind to say 'get lost,' these words would have given him less encouragement.

"For example, on December 22, 1975 — Minute Report 507/8 — council endorsed Mr. Al Wawryk's pub proposal as follows: 'that approval in principle be given to the company's proposal.' Similar wording, with the additional phrase 'endorse an application to be made for a liquor licence, and that the LAB be so advised,' was used to support the unsuccessful application of Mr. Hamilton for a pub in Ladner — minutes report, January 10, 1977. Even council's rejection of a pub on the Metcalfe property at Boundary Bay held out more for the proponent: that a committee of council members be appointed to meet with the owners of the subject property to discuss alternative land uses — minutes report 550, November 22, 1976. No such support was extended to Mr. Pridie.

"Mr. Pridic appealed to council for approval in principle for a pub on March 14, 1977. Council discussed it on March 28 — minutes report 146. The motion was to forward a copy of his letter to the LAB. The intent of most members of council was to reject the proposal. At that time Kennedy Heights shopping centre was deteriorating, and the addition of a pub was expected to attract toughs from neighbouring municipalities. Concern was therefore expressed for the location near the adjacent Catholic school. In addition, Mr. Pridie was known to most members of the council, but council members did not have sufficient confidence in his management abilities to risk support for his proposal. At this time, moreover, Mr. Pridie did not have a specific property in mind.

"The matter was raised at council again on May 2, 1977 — minutes report 217 — because of a copy of a letter from the LAB refusing Mr. Pridie's request. Council voted to 'receive the correspondence and let Mr. Pridie be advised of the refusal.' This was the second time that council turned down his request.

"Mr. Pridie wrote council again on May 31, and this was discussed on June 6, 1977 — minutes report 260. Council voted 'that a copy of the refusal received from the minister be forwarded to Mr. Pridie.' This was council's third refusal.

"Mr. Pridie wrote council again on June 22, and appeared as a delegation on June 27, 1977 — minutes report 307/8. Concerns were expressed about the proximity to the school and about traffic, and council referred the matter to the planning department and the traffic and safety committee. On July 25, 1977 — minutes report 352 — council received a report from the traffic and safety committee, and voted to advise the LAB that council had no objection to the proposed pub, but to request the LAB to contact, and obtain comments from, the operators of St. Angela Academy.

"Making reference to our earlier remarks about other pub applications, this was hardly strong support for Mr. Pridie. We confess that each of us supported the motion only on the sure and certain expectation that the LAB would not reverse its refusal of Mr. Pridie's application, and knowing that the concerns of Rev. Franks of the Immaculate Conception parish would be addressed by the minister.

"Another letter of information was sent by Mr. Pridie on September 14, 1977. On February 28, 1978, he asked for a letter to be forwarded to the LAB, and on March 2 he advised council of his intent to appeal the decision to the minister. Council 'received' this letter on March 6, 1978 — minutes report 99 — and subsequently voted to ask why Mr. Pridie's application was refused. We cannot construe council's actions as being supportive of Mr. Pridie's application.

"Subsequently the Olma brothers made application and received approval for a complete redevelopment of the Kennedy Heights shopping centre, to demolish the older buildings and put new life into the area. Their application for a pub licence next to the shopping centre on the site of the dwelling formerly used as the NDP campaign office received strong support, because it was to be located next to a revitalized shopping centre and to be operated by people in whom members of council had great confidence. The previous concerns were therefore dispelled.

"We are personally most grateful that you granted this appeal, as we see this pub being a real asset to the citizens of Delta."

This is signed by the people I indicated at the beginning of my statement.

[ Page 4119 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the bill, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be within the precincts close to 3 p.m. We will request a short recess at that time.

Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 54.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that gives office space a vote. This is a bill which undermines the democratic tradition and principle of one man, one vote. This is a bill which has virtually no popular support and virtually no editorial support. This is a bill which the minister himself has freely confessed he dreamed up and which does not in fact represent the legitimate or even the expressed opinions of electors in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Bill 54 is, to put it plainly, a disgusting bill, and it should be withdrawn. I ask the minister to indicate at this point if he is prepared to withdraw the bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I do not yield my place to him. I ask him to indicate in the traditional way....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What is the traditional way?

MR. BARBER: By speaking out, as members do from time to time.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: If the minister rises on a point of order, I will, of course, take my place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the floor, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: I know. Does the minister wish to rise on a point of order and indicate whether or not the government is prepared to withdraw this bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair can't think of a point of order that would suffice....

MR. BARBER: Standing order 604 clearly....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There is no standing order 604.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member continues on Bill 54.

MR. BARBER: There are five particular reasons and arguments and cases we put against Bill 54.

The first is that it offends deeply against the principle of one man, one vote. This bill now creates a special caste of citizens who are entitled to two votes or more on the basis of property. This is a bill which creates a special class of privilege which will be entitled to two votes or more on the basis of property. This is a bill which does more to remind people of a class system that should have been abandoned years ago than any other piece of legislation we've seen in this session. This is a bill which pays homage to property and thereby reduces the importance of citizenship being the one and only criterion upon which the franchise shall be granted. This is a bill which says that if you rent a piece of property, you are entitled to another vote.

The minister offers the half-hearted defence, parenthetically, that you are only entitled to one vote in one municipality. This is a ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable excuse for such a disgusting principle as the bill enunciates. The minister would then have to confess that if you own 120 different pieces of property in 120 different municipalities, you get 120 votes.

The bill makes it perfectly clear that Social Credit no longer believes in the principle of one person, one vote. They are creating a special class of privilege based on the ownership of property. On that basis they are granting extra votes. A case can further be made that these extra votes will largely be exercised by the friends of Social Credit; that's a different argument, which I'll get to in a moment.

I pointed out earlier that this bill has virtually no editorial support anywhere in the province. The Vancouver Province newspaper, to its credit. has now run three editorials attacking this bill; the most recent ran this morning. It's entitled "Potty Idea Justified by Talk of Flower Pots." It reads as follows:

"Now we know why Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm wants to give businessmen who rent their corporate premises an extra vote in civic politics. They must have a say in whether their block should have flower pots along the way to make the premises look a little brighter. "

Parenthetically, let me add that that's what the minister himself offered as one absurd explanation for this insupportable and unsupported bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Who do you believe — the editorial or the people?

MR. BARBER: We believe the editorial and the people. Clearly they do not support you here. Who do you follow — the editorials and the people or your own ridiculous political instincts?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You believe only what you want to hear.

MR. BARBER: The editorial continues:

"The way to have flower pots apparently is to make them an issue in local government elections. The candidate who really wants to impress the businessmen who contribute to the municipal well being should be in favour of flowerpots' Flowerpots would be good not only for the business'men but also the municipality because presumably they would attract more business, make the property more valuable, and thereby broaden the tax base.

"For all this to come about, the business renter

[ Page 4120 ]

should have a vote in the municipality where he operates, even if he also has a vote in another municipality where he happens to live. He should have that vote, just as the owner who rents it to him has that vote.

"This may mean that the renter will actually have two votes, one in his residential community and one where he operates his business, just as the owner of the rented property may also have two votes, while the rest of us must be satisfied with one. There's nothing wrong with that, according to Mr. Vander Zalm. In fact, he says there's something wrong if he doesn't.

"In case anyone thinks this is a rather fanciful interpretation of the minister's argument, listen to what he said: 'We have a situation now that if a business block wanted to put flower pots along their block and pay for it themselves, the business tenants who in actual fact are paying taxes through their rent would not have a say, and that is wrong.' "

Is that the best argument the government can put up in favour of this disgusting bill, that it's necessary to give votes for flower pots?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just for one moment I would remind you that the language and the term you just used in unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: Disgusting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: It is a disgusting bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but it does reflect upon this House. I find it unparliamentary. The member is aware of parliamentary language.

MR. BARBER: But I'm not aware it's on the list, Mr. Speaker. Is it on the list? I don't believe so. We checked the list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A term that is considered unparliamentary is unparliamentary, whether it is on the list or not, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Does the Speaker consider it unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Hon. member, I'm not asking you to withdraw it; I'm just simply pointing out that in my opinion it is an offence against the House to refer to business of the House in that manner; I would consider it that way.

The hon. minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like your advice on this. Certainly the problem in reading from an editorial is that it may not be a quote, as was the case in this particular editorial. It wasn't a quote of mine, even though perhaps it might have been in quotation marks. The member is reading from a newspaper article, and certainly that leaves some doubt as to its validity in this whole debate. I ask you to rule on that.

MR. BARBER: That's not a point of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The member has indicated to the House and for the record that he is reading from an editorial. I accept that point.

The hon. first member for Victoria continues on Bill 54.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the fifth time for the protection of the Chair.

The editorial goes on to say:

"There will be some amendments to his plan. He won't say what they are exactly 'but we want to tighten (them) up to allow business tenants a vote.' "As we said earlier in these columns, we thought Anglo-Saxon practice had got rid of the rotten borough system and given the vote to people rather than property. Clearly we have misunderstood the march of time."

The Province editorial ends sardonically.

There are many other editorials that we can and will read into the record. These are editorials put forward by newspapers which traditionally have supported Social Credit but in this instance will not and cannot. These are editorials put forward by newspapers that have traditionally opposed the New Democratic Party at election time, but now find common ground with us. They find this common ground because they know and we know — and because the people of British Columbia know most certainly — that this bill is an attempt to take the province of British Columbia back to the sixteenth century, when property and the ownership of property had all the say and ordinary people had little or none.

This bill is an offence against the principle of one person, one vote. A special class, a special system, a special caste and a special privilege are now being given to the tenants of office space; Bill 54 gives office space a vote. Wherein ties the sensibility? Wherein lies the humanity? In what sense can you possibly describe office space as a human being? In what sense can you possibly construe that office space is entitled to an opinion and a vote? Mr. Speaker, the government's usual reply is, well, it is the tenants of the office space who will have a vote. The government, of course, misrepresents the facts; the tenants already have a vote, if they bother to register in the municipalities wherein they live.

Who could be and should be entitled to more than one vote in one place? The one place is where they live by choice. Now if they care so much to have a vote in another municipality, let them move to that municipality. If a resident of White Rock, concerned about the government of Vancouver city, cares so much to be able to exercise a vote, let him move to Vancouver. We have no prohibitions against that; he would be most welcome to do it. But why should the business renter in Vancouver who lives in White Rock insist that he enjoy not only the privilege of living in that beautiful suburban community but also the unearned, undeserved and undemocratic privilege of having an extra vote somewhere where he does not live? This is an anti-democratic bill which betrays the anti-democratic instincts of Social Credit.

My colleagues will in the hours to come be reading from other editorials — the editorials in the Vancouver Sun and in the Victoria Times.

HON. MR. FRASER: Is that all the research you've got?

[ Page 4121 ]

MR. BARBER: We've got a lot more. My colleague from Burnaby will shortly be reading into the record at some length the history of the attempts of free people to become enfranchised on the basis of their citizenship and not on the basis of their ownership of property.

You bet we've been doing research; you bet we've been finding out why it is that Social Credit wants to return to the disgraceful system, known in the United Kingdom as rotten boroughs, whereby absentee landlords are given the privilege of extra votes and extra power that they have not earned, do not deserve and which for a century in the United Kingdom corrupted the political process of that nation.

In our system no one needs more than one vote; no human being needs more than one vote. It may be the case that Social Credit would like to have more than one vote for its supporters, and that is most certainly what they've done here. But I'll get to that attempt to gerrymander the voters' list itself in a little while.

But the first and most redeeming argument against this bill is that it corrupts and diminishes and denies the great principle of one man, one vote. Social Credit is now creating a special class of people who get two votes or more because they rent property. Now maybe in twentieth century Iran that sort of tyranny is acceptable; maybe in sixteenth century England that system of votes, courtesy of property, was acceptable; and maybe in the southern United States the modern representation of it in the discredited poll tax system was also acceptable to certain people afraid of the free expression of the democratic will of all the people, but in British Columbia it is not acceptable and has not been for many years.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that Social Credit has been typically sneaky in its attempts to bring this in. Let me illustrate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I would advise you that the language should not be unparliamentary, should not allude to dishonourable intentions of other members, and I'm sure the member is well aware of what unparliamentary language is. The member continues.

MR. BARBER: It is not our language which is unparliamentary; it is their behaviour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is also unacceptable. We have a tradition of parliament here where all members are honourable members, and that protects all of us in the House. I would just ask the member to continue on....

The hon. member for New Westminster on a point or order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the precedent and the long tradition of parliament has been that if a member is in any way defamed by the enunciations of the member speaking, that is to be withdrawn. If, on the other hand, a party or a group is mentioned — providing the term is within reason — then it's never been asked to be withdrawn. Nothing more, nothing less. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has a very short tradition here, which will become even shorter, I'm sure, will have some kind of an argument around that one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster makes a point, and I will reply to that before recognizing the other members.

The only point I was trying to make to the House at the time was the fact that unparliamentary language and unparliamentary expressions are to be avoided by all hon. members, whether or not they refer to a party, a person or a document. The Chair feels that we do have certain standards of language that have to be maintained. That was my only comment to the hon. first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Had Social Credit the courage of its coalition convictions, they would have brought in this bill when they brought in two others during the regime of Mr. Curtis, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but they've done it step by step.

They did not have the courage to reintroduce the ancient and discredited system — known as "rotten boroughs" in the United Kingdom — all at once. But rather, now, in this the third step in the last four and a half years, we see what their agenda has been all along.

On two previous occasions they reversed the force of history and went back to allowing property to have a vote. They did that under the regime of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis. Now they're doing it in the third stage this year. and I suppose they hoped that by delaying it until the end of the session no one would notice.

But it is typical of Social Credit that they would attempt to do it in this fashion without being plain and straightforward about their motives and reasons.

Clearly, the solitary purpose of this bill is to allow the owners, and now the tenants, of property to have an extra say and an extra voice — an extra vote. Does anyone deny that property currently — rented or owned — has a voice? Well, of course they do. They appear at public hearings. They receive notice of rezoning bylaws. They write letters to the mayor and letters to the editor, They stand up. They speak. They're recognized. They are heard. No one, least of all us, wants to deny the democratic expression to any person for any reason at all. They are not denied a voice currently, and they will not be, at least not by our side of the House.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour....

MR. BARBER: Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me. Do you wish to take a recess or have a motion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just adjourn debate for a short recess, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: And I do not lose my place in debate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, sir.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, a short recess would be in order at this time. I believe His Honour is in the immediate premises. Possibly if members could retain their places, we could just proceed within the next few moments.

[ Page 4122 ]

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Land Amendment Act, 1980

Transpo 86 Corporation Act

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act

Mines Act

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980

Business Licence Act

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980

Pension Plans (I.W.A.–Forestry Industry) Merger Validation Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: We're debating a bill that gives office space a vote, and thereby diminishes the worth of individual votes that human beings have. We're debating a bill that has five especially offensive aspects, five especially primitive arguments put forward by the government.

The first one is that it offends against the great principle of one person, one vote. It now gives a vote to people on the basis of their rental of office space. It does not do so on the basis of any other criterion save that solitary one. That is, to say the least, an extremely backward one, and we oppose it as strongly as we are able.

The second reason why this bill cannot be supported is because the government has put forward a false argument in its favour. The government says that the reason we have to support it is because of the principle of no taxation without representation. It is a hollow, contradictory argument; it is inconsistent and false. Let me illustrate. Mac-Blo pays far more in provincial taxes than it does in local, far more in federal corporate taxes than it does in local. Would even the most fanatical Socred argue that Mac-Blo should have a vote provincially or federally? Even the most wingy Socred realizes that she or he would be laughed out of court if they tried to propose that Mac-Blo be given a provincial or federal vote, but by the logic — such as it is — of the government's own position they must believe that, because after all they don't believe in taxation with representation. If Mac-Blo is entitled to a civic vote, the same logic that gives them that requires they be entitled to a provincial and a federal vote as well. If not, why then does the government draw an artificial line and say they may only have a civic vote and not a provincial vote? This government is empowered to grant a provincial vote to Mac-Blo, but they won't do it because they know it would be an even more ridiculous spectacle than they have already made of themselves.

We cannot take seriously the old canard about no taxation without representation, because the argument is itself incomplete, unless the government is prepared to go all the way and give Mac-Blo and every other corporate owner and every other piece of property that pays provincial taxes a provincial vote. They won't, because even these guys aren't that clownish, even they won't take such a risk with their reputation — although they've blown their reputation in countless other fields since 1975.

If they really believed in the principle of no taxation without representation, they would then have to call into account the status of all of those persons who pay no taxes. I refer to persons in receipt of social assistance who do not pay taxes, and I refer to those persons who are senior and retired and do not pay taxes, either property or personal and income. We have many citizens in this province who pay none of the taxes that the minister himself referred to in his opening remarks. They don't pay any of those taxes at all. Would Social Credit propose to deny them the vote? Why not? Their own argument would suggest so, because apparently they believe in the old canard: no taxation without representation. If they believe that property is entitled to a vote because it pay taxes, would they then argue that human beings who do not pay taxes are disentitled?

You know, the old Socreds in the sixteenth century in the United Kingdom apparently believed that. We can trace the philosophical ancestry of these disgraceful arguments. Those who opposed the abolition of the rotten-borough system and those who opposed the abolition of the poll tax made the same arguments that these people make today. Those arguments are and were false. They deny the fact that the whole architecture of democracy rests on a very simple foundation: one man, one vote, period — not one man, one vote; one piece of property, two votes.

The whole architecture of our system resting on that simple foundation is corrupted when we try to establish a special class of privilege that has extra votes, extra power and an extra status that more ordinary folks are denied. We ask rhetorically: if Mac-Blo pays provincial taxes, why shouldn't Mac-Blo have a provincial vote? If some people pay no taxes, why should they have any vote at all? If the minister means his own argument, he has got to realize that this bill does not in fact make material his own case. If the Socreds were serious they would give the vote to Mac-Blo and deny it to the poor. You see, the poor don't pay taxes and presumably aren't entitled.

There is a third aspect to this bill which offends us. I dealt with it earlier today; I'll deal with it again now. Everyone knows about Gracie's Finger. Everyone knows about the Eckardt report. Everyone knows what it means to gerrymander electoral boundaries. Everyone knows that Ross Thatcher tried to get away with it in Saskatchewan and failed. Everyone knows that state legislatures in the United States have tried to get away with it and have sometimes succeeded.

[ Page 4123 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

MR. BARBER: Name the point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate hearing from the member as to how he relates his arguments to this particular bill. To get into electoral boundaries and such does not relate to the bill. I think it is taking valuable time of the Legislature. I would prefer to hear about the bill. I would ask that you call him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs has some validity. The member now discussing the principle of the bill should contain himself specifically to that principle.

MR. BARBER: I thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone knows what it means to rig the electoral boundaries. Under Bill 54 we now know what it means to rig the voters' list. Let me observe again: courtesy of Bill 54, overnight and artificially, a whole new class of electors is being created that never existed before. Courtesy of Bill 54 the electors' list will be altered radically in the province of British Columbia for the purposes of local elections. We are now looking at a 1980s form of gerrymandering, and thus the analogy, Mr. Speaker,

It is a matter of public record that the Socred machine has controlled local government in this province for 30 years. They have used local government as a farm team and have promoted their supposedly best people — including the former mayor of Surrey, who now sits as Minister of Municipal Affairs — to higher office. Social Credit has always used local government as a device to get its provincial members elected.

One of the reasons this bill offends us is because of the clear attempt to gerrymander the outcome of civic elections in this province from the day Bill 54 becomes law.

Let me point out again that we would have heard screams opposite if the New Democrats had attempted to give every registered trade unionist in the province two votes.

HON. MR. FRASER: Do you think you've got all their votes? You're sure being presumptuous, aren't you? On everything you say....

MR. BARBER: Would you call that elderly member to order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria continues relating to the bill before us.

MR. BARBER: It should be noted that the member who just interrupted, the Minister of Transportation, was the Socred mayor of a town in British Columbia for 20 years, and president of the UBCM.

AN HON. MEMBER: All those years in public service. Maybe you'll match that someday.

MR. BARBER: Well, I probably won't. I doubt I'll live so long.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members! Again, if the first member for Victoria would address the Chair and other members afford him the opportunity to express his remarks without interruption....

MR. BARBER: I thank you once more for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

It's clear and understandable that the Socreds are so sensitive about this issue because the Socred machine is losing its grip. Non-Socreds are being elected to local governments across the province.

What does Social Credit do in reply? They rig the voters' lists in their favour. They can't win honestly in civic elections anymore. They are losing the grip that Social Credit has always had on local government.

They've put up a pretence from time to time, and they stand up solemnly and tell us: "Local government isn't partisan. Gosh, when I ran as mayor of Surrey, I wasn't a member of a political party. I wasn't supporting anyone else. I was just running as an independent." "when I was the mayor from Quesnel, I wasn't a member of the Social Credit Party; I was an independent," or "when I was the mayor of Saanich, I wasn't the member of Social Credit..." — or then the Liberals, and previously Action Canada, and later the Progressive Conservatives. It's hard to keep track of the Minister of Finance. When he was the mayor of Saanich he might have tried to persuade us that he was an independent with no party affiliation.

When all of those people were involved in local office, they tried to maintain the fiction that local government was non-partisan, and so were they. Unfortunately for the Socreds, the fiction is coming to an end. Fortunately for good government, the Socred machine is also coming to an end in local government, and authentic independents and representatives of other political points of view, including those of the New Democratic Party, have become successfully involved in running for and winning local office in the last five and ten years.

What is the hysterical and frenzied response of Social Credit to that political change? A new kind of gerrymandering: they rig the voters' list. They don't need to bother rigging the electoral boundaries; they'll save that for provincial affairs. What's going on here is that they have created, artificially and overnight, a brand-new class of electors that never previously existed and which represents: surprise! surprise! — "The Business Point Of View."

How has business traditionally voted in British Columbia? Well, by and large they have voted Social Credit.

HON. MR. FRASER: Is that right?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I sure am glad to hear that from Charlie Barber.

MR. BARBER: Gosh! They're sensitive! They really don't like to hear these things pointed out.

[ Page 4124 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It has certainly been the happy case, since the second Socred government was re-elected in 1975, that they have begun losing some of their small business support. That's a good thing and we encourage it. But the fact remains that by and large business identifies with the private enterprise party called Social Credit, and tends to identify somewhat less with the mixed economy of public and private enterprise called the New Democratic Party.

Who does this benefit, Mr. Speaker? In Vancouver, for instance would you expect that 10,000 more votes for business would benefit Mike Harcourt, a former New Democrat provincial candidate and now candidate for mayor? Well, not likely.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. This member is misinforming this House. It has nothing to do with the city of Vancouver, and he knows it. I'd like to make that clear.

MR. BARBER: That's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria continues on the principle of the bill before us. While that does allow some latitude.... Carry on.

MR. BARBER: For the eighth time in this debate I thank the Chair for its protection and support.

Clearly 10,000 new votes on this basis in Vancouver would likely not benefit Mr. Harcourt, who is honest and openly a New Democrat. However, it's just possible that it might benefit Mr. Volrich or even Mr. Zlotnik. Why is that possible? Well, because the people who rent commercial space tend to be businessmen, because businessmen tend to vote Social Credit, and because Mr. Zlotnik and Mr. Volrich are, to say the least, not New Democrats and tend themselves — one can easily see from their statements — to support this administration.

Now fortunately, Mr. Volrich, to his credit, has repudiated this attempt to rig the Vancouver election in his favour and has denied an amendment to the Vancouver Charter. That's a good thing — and I'll get to it in a moment. But the point remains that the self-evident political agenda of Social Credit is to shore up the Socred civic machine because it's in trouble. Let me illustrate again how it's in trouble. We observed the horror and the disarray in Social Credit ranks and among Socred supporters when the New Democratic Party in its most recent convention passed a resolution which establishes the means whereby openly, publicly and without fiction — unlike the Socred operation — people may run as New Democrats in local elections. Now whether or not many or any will choose to do so is a moot point at this point, but the fact remains that our party has had the guts, the courage and the candour to be open about the way in which it chooses to be involved in local government.

Social Credit would have us believe that they are never involved in local elections and local campaigns. Of course, that's patent nonsense, and they know it. They've been involved for 30 years; they've been involved running it their way for 30 years, and now that it's running against them they don't like it. Now that non-Socreds are getting involved and in some cases taking majorities, they get hysterical, they panic, and they bring in a bill like this, the political purpose of which is to add a new class of electors who, they expect, will vote Social Credit. There is no other rational explanation, because we already have the word of the minister that no one asked him to bring this bill forward. He didn't get petitions signed: "Your friendly office space at 1147 East Georgia." He didn't get letters from office space at 941 Fort Street in Victoria asking to have a vote. The minister has clearly admitted and confessed that it was dreamed up in the cabinet room....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They pay taxes to pay your government grants.

MR. BARBER: The minister says they pay taxes. That's right. So does Mac-Blo. Are you going to give Mac-Blo a provincial vote? They pay more provincial taxes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Government-grant Charlie; all his life on the dole; never worked a day in his life.

MR. BARBER: Tell Sam Bawlf that. We out-worked and out-organized Sam Bawlf, and we dumped him. However, that's a separate matter, Mr. Speaker.

This is an attempt to predict beneficially the outcome of civic elections in favour of the creaky and fading Socred machine — that's what it means.

There is a fourth argument against this bill. It is the question of voting rights for tenants. The government once again falsifies the case and misstates the history of the matter. Under the old Socreds, tenants, who are also human beings, were denied a vote in civic elections. In my own provincial riding 64 percent of the electors are tenants. My own riding roughly corresponding with the boundaries of Victoria city, I expect we could as well calculate that 60 to 65 percent, of the human beings are tenants. Under the old Socreds, every single one of those people was denied a vote. Why was that? Well, because they weren't part of the privileged class; they didn't own property but rather they lived in apartments, or rented their accommodation in some form or other. Thanks to the New Democrat administration the local franchise was extended to all citizens, not on the issue of whether or not they paid taxes directly or indirectly, but on the issue of their citizenship. For the New Democratic Party the issue was not ownership, it was citizenship, and that's why the franchise was extended to tenants, whom we call human beings. Now what does this group want to do? They want to extend it to tenants called office space. Even the most anthropomorphic imagination — I'll explain to the minister what that means afterwards, but the gallery knows....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Probably something to do with government grants.

MR. BARBER: No, the minister is wrong again; a remarkable education that minister has.

Even such literary licence couldn't possibly imagine that office space suddenly took on human form, human character, and human animation. Office space, Mr. Speaker, ain't human; it is space. That's all there is to it. It does not have an opinion; it does not get born or die; it ordinarily doesn't feel things. In a democracy, other than British Columbia, it wouldn't count. But in B.C. it counts, because office space is going to get a vote, thanks to Social Credit.

[ Page 4125 ]

The fourth reason we oppose this is because the government had deliberately misstated the case made when we were in office and during that period when we extended the franchise to tenants who were human beings. Additional arguments can be made about the fact that tenants in apartment buildings indirectly pay property taxes; you bet they do. The taxes the owners of those buildings pay is tacked on to the rent that the tenants pay. Of course, they pay property taxes, but, you see, that's not the question for us. We don't want to take the vote away from any citizens, whether or not they pay taxes. As far as I'm concerned, if I were to discover that the mother of the Minister of Municipal Affairs was below the poverty line and did not pay any taxes at all, I wouldn't want to take her vote away. If she happened to be a tenant, I wouldn't want her to lose the vote either. You see, we believe that the test in a democracy is citizenship, not ownership. For us on this. side of the House it's a very simple question. It has been a consistent principle for years and years.

I imagine that if the Socreds thought they could get away with it they would revoke the franchise we gave to tenants in 1973. You see, tenants ain't property, and human tenants ain't office space; therefore, according to the absurd logic of Social Credit, they don't deserve a vote.

The issue, the test, the criterion, the only measure of voter participation in a democracy should not be property; it must be humanity. That's the only issue.

There are further arguments, equally deceptive, misleading, and false, coming from the government benches. They would have us believe that because property pays taxes, property deserves a vote. They are not prepared to follow their own argument so as to give Mac-Blo a vote provincially or federally. They know darn well that if their argument were consistent and not a tautology, like this one is, they would have to award Mac-Blo a vote, but they won't do that; they don't have the guts, philosophically. Mind you, no coalition ever did have philosophical guts, which is why it's a coalition and not a party. However, that's a separate matter too.

Let's hypothesize for a moment, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes no reference whatever to the amount, to the size, to the physical space that is required to be determined as a commercial tenancy and then made eligible for a vote. What if, for instance, the Social Credit Party decided to sublease its building on Commercial Street — or is it Main Street; I've forgotten which it is — in Vancouver.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Neither.

MR. BARBER: Neither: Did you get kicked out of both?

Let's pretend that Social Credit owned an office building and it had 1,000 square feet. If Social Credit wished, under this vote they could sublet one square foot each to a thousand different commercial tenants. Then each of those tenants would now have a vote as a commercial tenant in the building owned by Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. BARBER: It is true. Read the bill. There is no prohibition against it. None!

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Then when you take your place in debate prove it so, but until you can, the case remains clearly this: there is no legislative prohibition anywhere in this bill to prevent that from happening. In fact, there is no legal definition anywhere at all of the minimum space required in order to have a vote. Presumably you could take the case even further: a square inch could have a vote if it were a registered tenancy. What the heck, if you were renting to dwarfs, mental or otherwise, gosh, the Social Credit office space could provide lots of room and lots of votes, especially if they rent it to their own supporters.

The fact remains that this, in a practical and legislative way, is a provision that is vastly open to abuse. There isn't a word in sections 2, 3 and 4 in this bill that relate at all to the issue of what qualifies as office space, what shall be determined to be a commercial tenancy, and how many persons may subdivide a commercial lease and sublet that space and thereby get a vote. The government has got to realize that it has created an incredible loophole here, through which unscrupulous persons could easily pass in order to command an enormous number of votes, and thereby even more despicably gerrymander municipal elections in this province. We have had out legal office examine this case since the bill first came down. We can find no legislative prohibition against the Social Credit Party subdividing a thousand feet of its space and leasing one square foot each to a thousand different tenants and each of those commercial tenants being given a vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Dishonest.

MR. BARBER: Of course it would be dishonest.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're dishonest.

MR. BARBER: But the fact remains that it's your law.

Interjections,

MR. BARBER: As soon as it becomes law it is law, and it could happen.

The issue of tenant enfranchisement is a very special case. and a very important one in the field of what shall constitute the democratic people. It is our position that property does not constitute the democratic people. It is our position that rented property does not constitute the democratic people. Those great people in this democratic system are defined as such by the fact that they are alive, they are Canadians and they are entitled. That's all there is to it. We do not grant them a vote on the basis of how much they earn, or how much they own. We don't give them a vote on the basis of how much wealth they inherit, or how much office space they rent. That is not the issue, or at least it should not be in a mature democracy. But this immature coalition opposite thinks it can turn the clock back to the days of the rotten boroughs, the poll tax and the disfranchisement of the great majority of our people.

My colleagues will, in the hours to come, be reading from texts which illustrate the profound and moving struggle of human beings to liberate themselves from the notion that property has the vote and persons who don't own it have none. The people of England fought a great civil war in part on that issue. Who shall govern parliament, who shall have a say, a vote, and have standing in that system as men and women? Well, of course, women didn't have any at all in this country until the First World War, but that's another issue. It

[ Page 4126 ]

does, however, reflect the traditional bias that establishment political parties have always had against extending the franchise in an authentically democratic way. My colleague, Ms. Brown, will be dealing with that at some time in the near future.

The point remains that when we were in office, tenants were not granted the vote, because they paid property taxes indirectly. It is an ancillary argument, but not the most important argument. Our case is that they were granted the vote because they were citizens, because they were affected, touched, and their lives shaped by government — locally, provincially and federally. It is on that basis that they are granted the vote.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would observe as well that the Socreds have turned the clock back in another field. During our administration we also gave the people the power to vote directly in regional government elections. It was our position that if you are affected by regional government you should have a regional government vote. No, that's not the Socred position. Unfortunately, in the last few years this group opposite has once again denied a regional franchise. Instead, they allow only indirect election of persons who must win another office first before they can win regional office. That too will be changed when the New Democrats are re-elected at the next general election in this province. I offer it as an analogy of the many ways in which Social Credit seeks to return to the dark undemocratic days when ownership was the first test and citizenship was no test at all of your eligibility to vote.

The fifth and final argument we have against this bill is that in many mechanical ways the general application of it has now been made inoperable. Why is this? It is because of the home-rule traditions which have always held that Vancouver city will not have its charter amended contrary to its express wish. Vancouver city is currently, of course, the largest metropolitan district in the province. It has the largest number of commercial tenancies of any district in the province. What a ridiculous situation will now result! Everywhere in B.C., except the most populous community, office space will have a vote, business will have two votes, and somehow it's going to work. There will be a mess on polling day when it comes to sorting out — if the Vancouver Charter is not amended — who is and is not entitled to vote, as a business person renting commercial office space. Why is it a mess? Because Jack Volrich, Mike Harcourt and the other members of Vancouver council have had the guts and the good judgment to say no to this most improper piece of legislation and the ordinarily consequential amendment to the Vancouver Charter that would follow after we amended the Municipal Act.

Precisely because Vancouver has said no — as have so many others in local government — to this ridiculous bill, it is now being made largely inoperable. It will lead to chaos on election day in the lower mainland. It will lead to the most confusing, confused and irreparably nonsensical situation that we've seen in local government for many years. The question of who is and is not entitled to vote — precisely because Vancouver council has had the courage to say no to Social Credit — will muck up ballot box after ballot box this November.

Any law of this order, if it's to be rational, has to be a law of general application. The problem is that this law — thank God — may not be generally applied until the Vancouver Charter is amended, because Vancouver goes by its own rules and is not governed by the Municipal Act. And that's how it should be. It's a very special place, it has special authority, and we support the home-rule tradition. But the point is that as long as Vancouver holds out, the bill is an administrative mess. Maybe it's just that Social Credit likes messing around. We know about the Heroin Treatment Act, Brannan Lake, the Eckardt commission, dirty tricks, Seaboard, the Princess Marguerite, doubling the ferry rates, killing tourism. We know that Social Credit likes wallowing in messes of its own creation. The problem is that this mess this time is an unacceptable creation. Let me read what the Vancouver Sun had to say on the same matter on August 15. "Double Trouble" they called the editorial. It says:

"The provincial government's proposed amendment to the Municipal Act to give commercial renters the vote is feudal and should be abandoned.

"Fortunately, it almost certainly cannot be extended to the city of Vancouver in time for this year's election, even if it is forced through the Legislature.

"What's objectionable about this amendment is that it would give some people more than one vote in municipal elections, and in municipalities to which they do not owe any responsibility.

"But it doesn't have to happen, even if the Legislature does approve the change in the Municipal Act, because the amendment provides that the franchise would not be extended unless proclaimed by the cabinet. But that is not a discretion we would like to see the cabinet enjoy.

"It is unlikely that the provincial government has hatched a plot to influence the elections in Vancouver this winter."

Let me add, parenthetically, that the Vancouver Sun is charitable.

"To do so would require more legislation, an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, under which the city conducts its business aloof from the Municipal Act. That may be planned, but it is doubtful if it could be implemented before registration for voting in this year's Vancouver municipal election closes on August 21.

"If the government rushes to beat that deadline, then indeed its motivation will be questionable.

"In any event, the alleged beneficiary of the business vote the government misguidedly wants to confer on renters, Mayor Jack Volrich, says he is absolutely opposed to the idea. And what's more, he has no intention of asking the provincial government to change the Vancouver Charter, a prerequisite. Good for him.

"There should not, as the mayor says, be one voting law for some municipalities and a different one for others, although the city council was not prepared to go on record to that effect. Of course, it is up to each municipality to state its own opinion, but Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm says there was no pressure, and implies no consultation, in advance of the change, which he should withdraw."

The Vancouver Sun printed an editorial on its editorial pages written by Marjorie Nichols. The title of it was: "Throwback to the Dark Ages." It will be read by one of my colleagues shortly.

[ Page 4127 ]

The Vancouver Province of August 12 quotes the mayor of Vancouver:

" 'In the first place, I don't need that kind of help from anyone, thank you,' Volrich said. 'I'm confident of being re-elected in Vancouver by a wide margin.

" 'Secondly, and most importantly, I don't agree with the legislation. We had corporate votes in Vancouver some years ago, and I was one of those who urged that the situation be changed.

" 'I believe in the principle of one man, one vote, and I don't think that any one person should have two votes or more votes under any circumstances.' "

Alderman Harry Rankin of the same council called this government's move medieval.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will create administrative chaos on election day. It creates a double vote in most parts of the province and a double standard in one. It will apply everywhere but downtown Vancouver. Now Vancouver is certainly big enough that this is a significant exception, and thus we lead a debate on the issue. But the point is, if the bill cannot be found to have general application, then it is flawed in law. If a bill does not have a principle of general application when it comes to the enfranchisement of office space, then it is clumsy in its execution. And "clumsy" is being charitable.

If Vancouver says no and everyone else has to go along with it, how can the law be administered? The minister will reply: "Oh, but that's always been the case. The Vancouver Charter has always allowed these exceptions." But it has not been the case, with respect, in reply to that inevitable argument, as we see in this bill today, making a new case that never before existed.

It is true that from time to time property has had a vote in this province. It is true that in Vancouver from time to time, under the charter, property has had a vote, and those provisions have been consistent with those in the Municipal Act, more largely.

But it will now be a unique and unprecedented circumstance which finds that office space has a vote, thereby diminishing the value of all other votes by debasing the currency of those votes — except in Vancouver, until the charter is amended. And it's likely that the charter will not be amended this session, because the mayor of Vancouver says no, to his undying credit.

That being the case, how on earth can the government proceed with the act? How can you do it when Vancouver, which has the highest number of commercial tenancies of any district in the province, says no? How can you make the act equitable and fair across the board if Vancouver city is excluded?

The government is in a box of its own making. They were found out. It was readily understood who this bill was intended to benefit. The intended beneficiary stood up and said: "No, not me. I want no part of it. I don't need that kind of help from anyone." Bully for him. Let him get re-elected on his own merits. Let him not be re-elected because the voters' list has been rigged. Good for Mr. Volrich. Good for Mr. Harcourt, his principal opponent, who took the same position for the same reasons. Good for the both of them. Either of them, no doubt, would serve as a fine mayor in the major city of this province. Not so good for the minister, who is deaf to public opinion, blind to public interest, ignorant of the public history. Not so good for Social Credit, which is going to find itself attacked and attacked, and attacked again, for this retrograde law that should never have been introduced in the first place.

We're going to speak for some length yet on the bill, Mr. Speaker. Let it never be said that the NDP is made up of weaklings who don't fight stupid, bad, reactionary laws. We're made up of tough people who have tough convictions. Those convictions and principles argue simply this: you must not be allowed to defraud the electors ever, at any time, for any reason. Thus we go on at such length about the Eckardt report. Thus we go on at such length about Bill 54. Why is the principle of one human being, one vote not good enough for Social Credit? What's wrong with that principle? Why should property have a vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us all over again.

MR. BARBER: We will, in the hours and days to come.

This bill is an offence against a hard-fought and a hard-won principle of liberty. This bill will be a mess administratively, because Vancouver council says no to its application in that community.

This bill and the minister's arguments totally misrepresent the notion of "no taxation without representation." This bill misstates the case, as did the minister in his own opening remarks as to why the New Democrats awarded the franchise to human beings called tenants. This bill is, in a word, unacceptable. It is unacceptable, and you should withdraw it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't know if I'd ever get an opportunity to say anything with that member for Victoria carrying on with all his presumptive ideas. He and his party have certainly brought party politics into civic government for the first time ever. The NDP are going to run candidates as NDP, and he tries to cover that decision up by saying that we have done the same. Our party has never run candidates as Social Credit in any civic election in this province. They are now getting quite brash and bold, and I predict that none of them will win, because they've got that tag on them. That's what I predict in this province.

Regarding this legislation here, he is very upset about the fact that a certain type of tenant is going to get a vote — not two votes, one vote. That's what this amendment calls for, and I don't see that they are any different than a tenant in a apartment block. I am referring to a tenant, as an example, in a shopping centre. They pay taxes. So does the tenant in the apartment block. Why shouldn't they have a say? That's what this amendment gives them — that say. Otherwise the only person that has a vote where you have 40 or 50 shops in a shopping centre is the owner of the development or the shopping centre itself.

I have an example in my own riding. I know that this member for Victoria has never been there, but I just opened a shopping centre in my own riding — $10 million. Are you saying that they are entitled to one vote when there are 40 shops in that shopping centre? I suggest to you that what you're really frightened of is democracy. That's what you're afraid of. That's why you're all excited — because it'll give the tenants in that shopping centre a vote each. That's 40 votes, and what's wrong with that?

What I want to say to the opposition, and particularly to this member for Victoria being so presumptive, and also some members of the media that I won't name, but to the media generally.... Who are they to say how these peo-

[ Page 4128 ]

ple are going to vote? I think they have a lot of damned nerve to say how people are going to vote. You're very presumptive, and are assuming a lot, aren't you? How do you know how they're going to vote? All your arguments are based on the fact that their vote is not going to go your way, the way you want it. I think you've got a lot of nerve, and you should apologize to these people for assuming how they're going to vote. You haven't got a clue. What are you making these kinds of statements for?

MR. BARBER: Now tell us about Gracie's Finger. How did they vote?

HON. MR. FRASER. I want to deal with this bill here. You're being very presumptive, and so are members of the press that assume how they're going to vote. You have no idea how they're going to vote, and neither have I. So what are you saying, standing up there and making wild statements about the fact they're all going to vote one way or another?

The other thing that this member said was the fact that he tried to get trade unionists in there, again being presumptive that you've got all the trade union votes. Don't get carried away, Mr. Member. We wouldn't be the government if we didn't get some of their vote, and don't ever forget that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, all this member is afraid of is democracy. I never thought I'd stand in this Legislature and see that party putting up an argument on the basis of fear of democracy; that's what you're afraid of.

Another thing — this member was forever bringing Vancouver city into his debate. I tried to bring it to order, but it didn't happen. But I want to emphasize to this House that this amendment doesn't affect the city of Vancouver. It affects all the rest of the municipalities in this province, but it has no effect on the city of Vancouver. Again, I suggest to you that all he's doing, and he did in all his debate, is just muddying up the waters. That's all he is doing when he pulls in the city of Vancouver.

I'm really absolutely amazed at the fact that that party, and that member particulary, is afraid of democracy. These people that we're talking about giving this vote to pay taxes, as I said before, just like an apartment owner. Therefore why shouldn't they have a say in how the place is governed? I would say that if they weren't so inept as a party, they have as much chance of getting these people to vote their way as anybody else has. Get off your backside and work on it; that's all you have to do. You're saying that they're not going to vote for you. Certainly they won't if you don't get out and do a little work and ask them to.

What I can't buy is the fact that any elected person can get up — including the press — and state how a certain segment of our society is going to vote. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they have no idea how they're going to vote on any issue at any time. I fully support this amendment, and I also hope that it'll be effective for the 1980 municipal elections.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I must say this is not original, but we have just heard from one of the best minds of the 17th century.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that anyone who is in the gallery today would think that they are taken back, almost in a time machine, to a debate that took place in the British House of Commons in 1832, the start of the first major reforms in suffrage.

What do you think the debate was then? One person, one vote. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it unbelievable that we are faced here with a government that is actually bringing in legislation that was fought against by thousands of elected members of the British House of Parliament. And they won. To think that this minister is standing here, in this House, wanting to take us back to the debates of 1832, back to the times when it depended on how much money you had, and how much property you had, and that determined how many votes you had.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many votes do you have? You have two votes.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the interjection if I may. I've been listening to it all afternoon. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) — and I'd like to have him designated for Hansard — has been suggesting all afternoon that I happen to have two votes. Anyone in the province of British Columbia who does reside in two places, and does own property in one, does have the opportunity to vote in two places. May I say that is something that the NDP rejects, and did reject when the Social Credit government initiated it. That is something that I have never taken the option on, because I do not think it is correct. One person, one vote, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to get that clear. I hope that that member over there does not find it necessary to use that what I consider rather unnecessary interjection, which adds nothing to the debate except to show that he has no understanding whatsoever of the basic principle of this discussion in which we are taking place today.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the Blues, which are now available. At the conclusion of the speech made this morning by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), he said: "There is also a section to deal with unsightly premises. This certainly is all very positive, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that we might have good support and quick passage of an excellent piece of legislation."

I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to Erskine May, Proposal of Motions:

"When a member is at liberty to make a motion, he may speak in favour of it before he actually proposes it. But a speech is only allowed upon the understanding, first, that he speaks to the motion; and secondly, that he concludes by proposing his motion formally."

We have no motion to put this into for second reading of the bill before us at this time. That was the 16th Edition of Sir Erskine May, page 406.

On page 182 of Gilbert Campion, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, he also says:

"On a day ordered for second reading, the short title of the bill is printed as on the Orders of the Day, and when it is called, the member in charge rises to explain and recommend the provisions of this bill, and concludes his speech by moving that it be 'now read a second time' or, he may say 'now' without rising and reserve his speech for a later moment in the debate."

Mr. Speaker, also, the third edition of Gilbert Campion, on putting the question, on page 172: "The moment at which the question is proposed is at the conclusion of the speech by the mover, or the seconder when a seconder is required."

[ Page 4129 ]

So, Mr. Speaker, we have a case of déjà vu. The only precedent that I know of in this House where such a matter occurred before was on Friday, September 16, 1977, when the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders, and an order was called for the reading of Bill 65, called the Community Resources Board Amendment Act, 1977. A debate arose upon a point of order being raised by the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Minister of Human Resources, that he had inadvertently failed to move second reading of Bill 65 at the conclusion of his speech. The minister asked leave to do so. Leave was not granted. Having gone over the Hansard of the day, the Speaker was unable to resolve the matter. The House adjourned, with the member who had the floor — on no motion — being the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) at that time.

We have heard a dissertation from the minister; we have heard a splendid speech from the first member for Victoria. The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) now holds the floor but there is no motion before this House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I opened my remarks by moving second reading and I, of course, again, will conclude with it at the end of the debate in my final words. I could repeat it again, but I opened my remarks with "second reading."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the order was called on second reading. The hon. minister has indicated that he did move it. The point of order of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is well taken. I will reserve decision on this for the moment, and the debate will continue with the hon. member for Burnaby North on Bill 54.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you tell us what the order of business is which is presently being debated? I agree that the member for Burnaby North has the floor, but there is no motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister has indicated that it was moved, and the Chair has reserved decision on his point.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it was not moved at the conclusion of the speech. I have cited eminent authorities — Sir Erskine May and Gilbert Campion — on this, which are very strong on the point that the motion must be moved at the conclusion of the speech. And it was not.

Here are the Blues, Mr. Speaker. I would be pleased to send these up to you if you wish to examine the Blues.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On the same point of order, the Speaker called for the second reading of Bill 39, and that was followed by the hon. House Leader saying: "I call second reading of Bill 54." I stood in my place and I said: "Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to move second reading of Bill 54. I would like to say a few words in advance of anyone else wishing to comment on this very popular, very positive, very excellent piece of legislation. "

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the Blues here. The second reading was clearly moved and the bill is in order. That is my decision.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, if Mr. Speaker is reading the Blues that I sent up to him, in the introduction the member said that he would be pleased to move second reading. However, as I have pointed out, I would draw upon the emphasis in Gilbert Campion:

"On the day ordered for second reading, the short title of the bill is printed as one of the orders of the day, and when it is called the member in charge rises to explain and recommend provisions of his bill, and concludes his speech by moving it be now read a second time — or he may say now."

Lest there be any dispute in the matter, it is also in Sir Erskine May:

"Proposal of a question on the motion. When a member is at liberty to make a motion, he may speak in favour of it before he actually proposes; but a speech is only allowed upon understanding first that he speaks to the motion, and secondly that he concludes by proposing his motion formally. Even when notice of motion is not required, the motion should be placed in print or writing in the Speaker's hands except in the event of informality in the form of a motion. "

So, Mr. Speaker, both are quite clear that upon conclusion of a speech the member is to move second reading. One might excuse such an oversight but this is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are now entering into debate. You have made your citations. I have indicated that it is a tradition of.... The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think the member for Nelson-Creston reads very well and I think he's absolutely correct. However, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has not concluded his speech yet. He will conclude his speech upon closing the debate, and he will move at that time. He has introduced the bill and moved its second reading, and he will close debate by formally moving at the conclusion of his speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the tradition of this House is that a bill can be moved at the beginning or closing of the minister's speech introducing second reading. The Blues indicate to me that the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs did move second reading of Bill 54; it is now before me in print. The bill is before the House now.

On Bill 54, I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby North.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have made my decision. The bill is before the House. Are you entering debate on Bill 54?

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm simply citing references, Mr. Speaker. I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to Hansard of September 16, 1977. I would point out that on this very point of order pages in Hansard were consumed and it was not resolved. Indeed, it carried over to September 19, 1977, at which time I believe the House Leader grabbed the floor. But today the member for Burnaby North has the floor. Mr. Speaker has said that it's a practice of this House. Well, it

[ Page 4130 ]

was certainly not the practice of the House that day when such a question consumed, as I say, pages and pages and led to the adjournment of the House because the Chair was unable to deal with the question and the conundrum caused by the failure of a member to propose a motion.

I would suggest a remedy. I would suggest that we go on to the next order of business, that this be a dropped order and reintroduced by substantive motion. When there is a dropped order, Mr. Speaker, there is a way of reintroducing it by substantive motion; I submit that that is the correct manner in which we will have to proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have made my decision: the minister did move second reading; we are in debate in process on Bill 54.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to make a correction in my earlier remarks. I referred to interjections by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) ; it was the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

I was discussing and attempting to articulate further some of the concerns the opposition has with this very medieval, archaic piece of legislation which the Social Credit government has placed before us today. I mentioned earlier that it could only come from a medieval mind, Mr. Speaker. For those who have studied political history at all and have gone back to the famous debates in the British House of Commons, starting in 1832, I know that they will be as concerned as we in the opposition are, that in 1980 we are having to stand here and debate something that was debated thoroughly in the middle of the nineteenth century.

It's interesting to note that the Social Credit Party members of the House here are very similar to the ruling classes of that period, who fought so hard to reject the principle of one person, one vote. They have had to live with and accept something which most right-thinking people would never question today. Obviously the Social Credit government has never been satisfied with the principle of equality when it comes to voting. So here in 1980 they are sneaking into this House — at the end of summer when they hope the general public isn't aware of the implications of this bill — an amendment to the Municipal Act which is going to destroy this basic principle that many people fought for, the principle of one person, one vote.

It seems to point out something which is concerning many people in the province of British Columbia. It's becoming more apparent every day that the basis for legislation and rule by that government is the premise that what is good for the Social Credit Party is going to be good for the government of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we reject that. Every piece of legislation, and the actions of this government since they came to office, point out very clearly that what is important to the Social Credit Party comes first, not what is important to the average citizen. Mr. Speaker, we repudiate that concept.

What they have brought here in this bill is a very underhanded attempt to ensure that in municipal elections they may be able to buttress up some of their very, very weak support in the municipalities across the province. Their strength has been going down locally and so they have actually, Mr. Speaker, decided to tamper with the franchise that has been given to all the people of this province for many years — to tamper with it for their own base political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the whole principle of universal suffrage was fought for, as I've said before, over the years; and, you know, it is sad to say that even past the original fights in the 1830s plural voting was maintained in some countries and even in parts of Great Britain. But in 1948 in Great Britain the very idea of any form of plural voting was repugnant to the members of the House of Commons in Britain. Yet here in 1980 we are faced with this kind of legislation. I am sure that people who have just arrived in this gallery in the last few minutes would wonder what we're debating.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a party that I consider is ruthless in its attempts to maintain power. They have shown us that they're willing to tamper with basic principles to maintain votes. I find it offensive. I know that the people of the province of British Columbia find it offensive. We have no intention of just sitting here quietly without putting up a strong fight, which has been started off and led so ably by our critic in municipal affairs.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, if this terrible, frightening legislation is passed in this Legislature, I know that each one of us will make it a very special purpose of ours to inform the people of British Columbia that we have an exceptionally dangerous government running this province. A government that would tamper with the franchise is a dangerous government, and I reject that kind of government; the people of British Columbia will reject it. Despite your manoeuvrings, despite your intentions to use legislation and other means to gain votes for yourselves, I can tell you now you will not succeed. The people of British Columbia want honesty in government; they want to maintain their basic right to vote; they do not believe in giving an extra vote to someone simply because he happens to rent a business in another municipality.

There is one final thing. No, we cannot predict how people will vote — I understand that — but the point is that if you're giving votes to a businessman who happens to rent premises in a municipality where he does not raise his family, where he does not live, for you really think that that particular voter is going to put the interest of children — for example, services to children — ahead of his tax bill? You know, they should be ashamed of themselves, Mr. Speaker. It goes beyond their own need for political power and maintaining it. They are also not showing any concern for what the very serious results could be. I would predict that some very serious things could happen in municipalities, where needed services could go right down the drain because of an imbalance in voting — they're trying to create an imbalance in voting.

I can't speak any more strongly than I have this afternoon to say we reject this. This government has taken us down a dark road, back several hundred years, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is: the sooner they are removed from office so that the province of British Columbia does not have to be faced with this kind of legislation, the better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments. The member for Burnaby North touched on this. Madam Member, I have property in the municipality I live in and I rent an apartment in Victoria; I pay rent for that apartment in Victoria. I have the right to register and to vote where I own property and I have the right to vote in the municipality where I rent — that's in the act and we passed

[ Page 4131 ]

that legislation, as you so said. But what is so bad about that? Because of the fact that I pay rent in an apartment block and contribute to the taxation of the municipality in which I pay that rent, should I not be able to vote for a person to represent me in that municipality where I'm renting? Is that so wrong?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I don't think it is wrong,

Madam Member, because there is one thing that your party seems to forget. What you forget is the fact that government doesn't print money; government is a vehicle to get money from the producer or the taxpayer to take that money and to provide people's services. What's so wrong with the person who is contributing that money having a vote? Good gracious, what's so wrong about a businessman who lives in Saanich who has a $100,000 home and happens to have a garden shop in Esquimalt possibly, or a dry-cleaning shop in Victoria, and pays rent and contributes to the coffers of the city of Victoria, or the municipality of Esquimalt, or whatever...? What's so wrong with him being able to say: "I cast my vote for that man to represent me and to administer my tax dollar, whether it be via property tax or via rent. The rent that I pay contributes to the taxes that my landlord pays."

You attack the businessman, and I'm just amazed at the people who've been going around this province talking about their impact on the small businessman and the fact that they represent the small businessman. You're attacking every small businessman who operates his store in Victoria or in a shopping centre, and your disfranchising him because he lives outside the area where his shop is. We're not talking about the big store, the big operation; there are a lot of little businessmen who work hard, a proprietorship.

MR. HOWARD: Stop twisting the truth.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, I'm not sure about twisting the truth; I think your side of the House has done that all afternoon. When you want to speak I'm sure the Speaker will allow you to rise and spout your usual.... I won't call it garbage, but it's pretty close to it.

However, the point I'm making is that there are two sides to the role in a municipality: the person who pays the tax dollar, and how those tax dollars are used. The vehicle is the city council and the administration to provide public service to the people of that community, who are the tenants and the taxpayers who contribute to the coffers of the community. I don't see anything wrong with a businessman being able to vote for a representative in the community.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

They seem to look at this as something we're doing to benefit the Social Credit Party. These are municipal elections, and it's one vote in one municipality. I can't own property and rent a store in the same municipality and vote twice. I can only vote once in one municipality, but if I happen to live in one and work in the other I can still have that one vote in that municipality, whether I live in it or work in it. I think the Minister of Highways made mention of there being no benefit to the Social Credit Party; we're talking municipal politics and municipal elections. We're attempting to do here the same as is done for a person like myself. Because they keep me down here for so long because the session is so long, I have an opportunity to have a voice in casting a vote for somebody in the municipality in which I rent, and I also have the opportunity to vote where I own property. I don't see anything wrong with this. The act at the present time indicates that a person can have a vote where he owns property and where he rents it. A small businessman, a proprietor of a business, a person who contributes to taxation in a municipality through his rent — I see nothing wrong with that. I'm quite prepared to support this amendment.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that that's the debater that I would want working for me if I wanted to lose for sure. They're the most specious arguments I've ever heard in support of this bill. In the first place he spoke on a bill that we passed in this House — and certainly I voted against that one some time ago — in terms of tenancy and where that member can vote. He has two votes according to a bill that we passed here in 1977. What we're talking about here is a bill that provides the entitlement for business people, for anyone renting business premises, to vote within a municipality. That doesn't happen to be anyone for the most part; that happens to be a corporate vote, and they know it.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Did you read it? Read the bill.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the bill indicates that very thing. The bill indicates that if a business person or a business rents property, they or their agent will vote.

What I have to say is that when you go beyond the one person, one vote you are then prevailing upon democracy. In 1975 I watched a group who at that time used an insignia. It was a seagull. Frankly, I thought the seagull — a very pretty bird, but a scavenger nonetheless — was an appropriate insignia. But they used it to try to provide evidence that they would come forward with more freedoms. What they've done is curtailed those freedoms, in their acts, in this House, in this act, and in so many of the other acts.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I was very proud and pleased when I saw that the mayor of New Westminster — which city is actually not covered by its own charter, and therefore will be affected by this act — came out in opposition to this bill.

The small business people in the shopping centres, that I heard about.... I happened to take a tour through Guildford just recently, and the small business people in Guildford, for instance....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You mean Leonard Friesen? You only saw Leonard Friesen when you were there.

MR. COCKE: Leonard Friesen is probably one of the few small businessmen left in there. When you go in there you see Tip Top Tailors, and they have two other outfits in there that would appear to be small business people, but they are actually subsidiaries of Woolco — four outfits in there, all different names....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They don't qualify under the act.

[ Page 4132 ]

MR. COCKE: Don't qualify, the minister says.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has put forward an act that is an act of aggression against democracy. It really is. It's a stupid move by a stupid, arrogant government which will defeat itself — which will defeat itself in the way it has acted in this province. It is counterproductive.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you sit down, then?

MR. COCKE: Why don't you sit down, the Minister of Energy says — that most destructive of all ministers, the heroin addiction man.

Mr. Speaker, the wisdom in this province is that they've done wrong. Now why didn't they back away from it? They didn't back away from it because of their arrogance and their sheer stupidity. When one person, one vote is the consensus of a democracy, the basis of a democracy.... People have fought for those democracies, and then they want to turn the calendar back and they say: "You don't have it all right." Well, as far as we're concerned, we have absolutely no position other than to be in total opposition to this most misguided piece of legislation.

I'm very sorry that this legislation was put forward by a person who should know better, by a person who was involved in municipal politics for some time — a person who knows perfectly well that when you provide for more than their just share of the vote, some people will take advantage in a way that is not going to be to the common advantage. It is just as clear as day follows night.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what's the point? His old friend Muni Evers can't get through to him. Jack Volrich, the mayor of Vancouver, can't get through to him. All these people have an appreciation of the democratic process at the municipality level. They don't, and on that basis the sooner we're rid of them the better off the province will be.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief. The matter of one person, one vote will be dealt with more fully, I'm sure, by the minister when he closes debate. I just wanted to deal with one aspect of the debate entered into by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), in which he indicated in some way that municipal councils around the province served as — in his words — farm teams for the Social Credit Party, and in some way indicated that there was something wrong, something immoral, something antidemocratic about members serving on municipal councils and then progressing — if that's the right word — on to provincial government or provincial opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that's an honourable way to serve your community — to serve on a local or municipal council, a local hospital board or school board. As one who has, I don't apologize for being either a Socred or a former member of a city council. I have a feeling that in the scheme of the democratic process that's a pretty good progression in terms of people who wish to serve their community and continue to serve their community in many different ways. I don't know of any members opposite who have ever served their community in that way. If I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected, but as I go down the list I don't see any who have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mrs. Dailly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that on this side of the House the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) was a proud member of a school board in Prince George; the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was mayor of a community in north central British Columbia; the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was the mayor of one of the Victoria communities for, I think, ten years and served on council as well; the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) served on the West Vancouver municipal council; the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) served long and well, and very proudly, on the Vancouver Parks Board; the first member for Surrey, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), was the mayor of Surrey; the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) served on council in Penticton; the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) served on council in Prince George; the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) served on municipal council; the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) was the mayor of Oak Bay, who served well and proudly. I happened to serve, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very proud of that service to the community.

The one member who was maligned in the debate by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), is entering into his 31st year of service to this province — 20 years as the mayor of Cariboo....

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, apart from the fact that the minister is making my point perfectly about local government being a farm team for Social Credit...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please come to his point of order and state it.

MR. BARBER:...the minister wrongly and falsely says that I maligned the member for Cariboo. That is completely untrue; that is absolutely false. I ask him to withdraw it as unparliamentary and offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria asks for a withdrawal.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

It's interesting that that member stands here in his pious way, with his vacuous speeches. He's the most vain member of this chamber. Once anyone contradicts anything he may say, he gets up immediately and has to defend his honour. He is giggling Charlie; he chuckles nervously over there sitting in his seat, because he knows his arguments are stupid and don't make any sense. Well, the public is learning about chuckling Charlie, Mr. Speaker. He's an insufferable egotist. Even his own members walk out of this chamber with their faces red with anger because they can't stand his speeches either.

The Minister of Highways served this province for 20 years as the mayor of Cariboo, and he's been in this House since 1969, with a proud record of service to this province.

[ Page 4133 ]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying there are many ways of serving the public. The first member for Victoria has chosen, up until now at least, to serve the public only if he could get a government grant in order to serve. Others, like those I've mentioned, do it because they believe in their community and because they love their province; they don't do it for money.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources said regarding the speeches of my colleague from Victoria — who is probably one of the hardest-working MLAs who has ever been in this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please state his point of order or resume his seat.

MR. HANSON: I ask the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources to withdraw the remark that members of this House exit from this chamber because of the speeches of that member. We happen to enjoy the speeches very much, and we're proud of those speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not the basis for requesting a withdrawal.

MR. MITCHELL: I rise in a very odd kind of situation. I rise on this amendment, asking this House to reject this amendment that is going to give me a vote, According to the amendment.... I have a constituency office that I rent in Langford, and because of that constituency office I get a vote in Langford.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you don't.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I do. section 36 is amended by adding "or tenant in occupation" after "owner." Read what section 36 says. A person who qualifies under section 35, except for residents in the municipality, and who is the owner or tenant in occupation gets a vote.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: No, I don't. I don't live in Langford, I live in Esquimalt. But because I rent an office in Langford, according to your amendment, I get a vote.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: It's a regional district, and I get a vote in a regional district. Mr. Speaker, will you ask this gentleman from Housing to keep order? When he wants to get up and debate the motion he can.

According to this amendment I get a vote in Langford, and under the main section of that bill I also get a vote in Sooke because I own property in Sooke. According to this bill I can vote for the regional director in Sooke and I can vote for the regional director in Langford.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The first member for Victoria, in his argument, said that Social Credit could sublet their office in Vancouver. I share an office in Langford with the Member of Parliament for that area, Jim Manly. As a tenant he gets a vote in the Langford area. Not only does he get a vote in the Langford area, but he shares an office in Duncan, so he gets a vote in Duncan. He also rents an office in Ladysmith, and by your amendment he gets a vote in Ladysmith.

This sort of legislation leads to chaos — bringing in amendments without any sense and without any sense of democracy. In a democracy one gets a vote as a person; one gets a right to express one's opinions, and one participates as a person, regardless of where one spends money or where one rents. I support the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) when he argues that if he is renting an apartment in Victoria he should have a right to vote in Victoria because he is living in Victoria, but I oppose his right to vote anywhere else solely because he owns property. Maybe it's wrong that I should stand here and ask this House not to give me three votes. I say that I should only have one vote, and that one vote should be where I reside, regardless of where I own or rent.

What really bothers me is that the minister, in his opening address to the House, said that no one petitioned them for this extra vote. He said no one wrote letters, no one made presentations for the right to vote two or three or four times. This was the idea of the government, he said. I want to bring to the minister's attention that some people have petitioned his ministry for the right to participate in elections. I'd like to read into the record a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs from the trustees of the Sooke fire protection district:

Department of Municipal Affairs,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Sir:

"The trustees of the Sooke fire protection district are concerned that owners of mobile homes, living in a mobile-home park or on a leased lot, are paying taxes but are not eligible to vote under the terms of our letters patent. They resolve to request that clause" — I'm not sure if it's 8 or 5 — "of the letters patent be amended to read: 'The persons qualified to vote at the elections of trustees shall be Canadian citizens who are 19 years of age or older, are entitled to be registered as voters under the Provincial Elections Act, and are owners of land or improvements in the tract here before described. The persons qualified to be candidates at the said election shall be the persons qualified as aforesaid to vote and their spouses.'

"Could you advise us if this wording would be suitable and what procedure the fire district would take to have the letters patent amended.

F.C. Richardson,
            Secretary."

What was the answer of that same Ministry of Municipal Affairs, headed by that same minister who brought in this amendment to give people two or three votes — people I know — in the province of British Columbia? What did the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have to say to people who are paying taxes into a fire district when all they asked for was an opportunity to participate in the affairs of that improvement district? This is their reply, dated February 4, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Richardson:
"Subject: voting eligibility, mobile-home owners, leaseholders, Sooke Fire Protection District.
"Further to your letter of December 21, 1979, and subsequent telephone conversations with Mr.

[ Page 4134 ]

McCrimmon of this ministry in connection with the above-noted matter, we would advise that this ministry is not prepared at this time to consider the alteration of voting eligibility requirements as they relate to improvement districts. We would also mention that we are not aware of any other improvement districts which have had their letters patent amended so as to alter voter eligibility requirements in the manner proposed.

"However, voter eligibility qualifications as presently provided in the Water Act for improvement districts are currently under consideration along with other legislation with a view to bringing such requirements more in line with those presently applicable to municipalities. As such, the proposal of the trustees of the Sooke Fire Protection District will be placed on file and will be given every consideration should amendments to applicable legislation be provided for in the future."

These are people who are paying taxes today. Each month they are taxed in their rent but they have been denied the opportunity to participate in a community water protection district that is giving fire protection to that area. If the municipal department maintains that because a person is paying taxes he should have the right to vote, then give him the vote. Here you are saying that if you are paying rent you have the right to vote, but if you are paying taxes in a fire protection district and you're leasing property and you have improvements like a mobile home, you do not have the right to vote.

I say that we have the right to one vote for each person — not two, three, four or five — in the province of British Columbia. I say that the right to vote in a municipal election should be restricted to where you live and only to where you live. Democracy has been built throughout the world on where a person resides, not on the wealth or property that he owns.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to support this excellent Bill 54. I cannot let it pass without first remarking on the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I hope she did not intend a statement of derision when she referred to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) saying: "We have now heard from a 17th-century mind." I prefer to think that member, for whom I have considerable respect, did not intend that in a derisive way. It is to the minds of the 17th century that civilization owes its greatest applause — to Adam Smith, the greatest economist ever known; to Cromwell, the father of parliament; to Luther.

MR. BARBER: Cromwell was a dictator. He abolished parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: He murdered a king.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He was the father of parliament. You see, they've got everything in reverse.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member might be well served by sticking to the bill — Bill 54, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We're not going to debate Cromwell. Cromwell did attempt to destroy parliament, we know, because he wanted parliament his way. But he was the leader of parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you guys.

MR. MUSSALLEM: All these people had great minds and our civilization today was built on the minds of the 17th century. I hope that she was meaning that, rather than what I thought she meant.

I am surprised at the debate, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'm more than surprised; I'm a little disgusted, because the principle espoused by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr Vander Zalm) is clearly one person, one vote, and that's all. That is all he is saying: one person has only one vote in one municipality. He would be eligible to vote either as a small businessman or as an elector of another sort, providing he fulfils the requirements of sections 35, 36 and 38 of the Municipal Act. That's very simple: one person, one vote. He says no more, he asks no more, but in justice, he asked that the small businessman, who must own 51 percent of his business, have the right to vote. Now there are two partners in that business with equal shares; neither one can vote; you must have 51 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you see that?

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's very clear, you must have 51 percent, and it's in the act.

Now one of the honourable friends — I don't remember who, but I think it was the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — said that if you had an office building divided into 50 square feet, each one would have a vote. Well, that is simply a red herring across the trail, because that is not a business; it must be a business and you must have 51 percent of that business.

He referred to Mac-Blo. That's a large business, and a reporting company does not have the vote. This simply maintains the right of one person, one vote. But what small businessmen do differently than some others is that they put their money where their mouths are. A businessman puts his life's savings in that business. He says: "I'm going to make a success of my business; I'm going to make a living for my family just as much as anyone." And he does it in his business. That business represents everything he's got, and he should have the right to say in that municipality how it's going to be operated. It does not help the provincial government; he does not get the provincial vote, but he gets the municipal vote.

Now why is the New Democratic Party so strongly opposed? They are under the fallacy that every businessman is contra to their party. They don't want them to have a vote — that's obvious. They're assuming that every businessman does not vote NDP.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: One person, one vote — I believe that, and that is all. If that person has a vote in a municipal election, he only has one vote. He has one vote if he's an elector in any other sense, but if he doesn't have that category he comes in as a businessman. But he must own 51 percent of the business. It's so simple.

Interjection.

[ Page 4135 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is absolutely true.

MR. COCKE: Read the legislation.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've read the legislation. You do not have two votes in that municipality, only one vote. Let this be clear, Mr. Speaker — not two votes in the municipality, one vote. He might have one vote in the municipality of Maple Ridge and another one in the municipality of Coquitlam, even have a different one under a different category, but his life's savings are in Coquitlam or in Maple Ridge.

MR. COCKE: How many does Mac-Blo have?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mac-Blo has no vote, because they're a reporting company.

MR. COCKE: Read the legislation.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I've read the legislation. Maybe you don't understand. It's very clear.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mac-Blo, a company that is a reporting company that has shares on the market, cannot vote — only a businessman, and particularly a small businessman. That's what this opposition is against. They're against anybody who wants to make a living honestly. Why should an honest businessman who wants to make a living honestly not have a say? He may be an NDPer — I hope they have more sense, but there may be some.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the hon. member for Dewdney has the floor. There are quite a few members from both sides interrupting, and that is quite unparliamentary. Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Pardon me for interrupting you, Mr. Speaker, I'm so sorry.

But I would say this: the hon. first member for Victoria was very clear in the denunciation of a Socred machine. How often he sang that on his harp, backward and forward: we listened to that for almost three-quarters of an hour — the Socred machine, the Socred machine. There is none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We know that.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They admit there is no machine.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was.

MR. MUSSALLEM: There never was one. We have 80,000 members, strong, but no machine. Everyone can do as they please and what they please in their own country according to law, but no machine.

But that party has a provincial machine, that party has a federal machine, and the two machines mesh together.

That's what's worrying them. They're worried because they have this machine. Not only do they wish to take over the country politically; they want to take the country over municipally. If you please, Mr. Speaker, they run municipal candidates; they run school board candidates; they try and get their members on every board and commission they can get them on — to control this country. That's why I fight the socialist system, and this is contrary to that principle. We stand for every person having a right to vote in his area; and we are not a machine. Every school board — they're after them tooth and nail. Get the NDP into the school board; get the NDP into the municipal council; get the NDP into every possible appointment they can. I see it happening in our constituency of Dewdney. They stand up as NDP to take control of the lives of the people of that municipality, because they think they have the god-given right — because a socialist is right.

I say not. I say today that people must recognize true democracy. Why are they afraid of the system? Because it spells out democracy a little stronger — the principle of one person, one vote — only one vote. But that principle applies also to a man or woman who puts money in his business and has his money where his mouth is and is prepared to stand up and say: "I can make a living." Today they take great pride in saying so-and-so went out of business. I'm telling you as a businessman who has spent his life in it: there's nothing more terrifying to a businessman than the danger of going broke. I've lived that all my life. I still live with it. It could happen any day. But these smart alecks get up there and attempt to suggest that a businessman is dishonest, that he doesn't have the right to vote. Why? Because they think that the businessman does not vote for them. As the Minister of Highways said, why do they make that supposition? How do they know? Why should they know? I say that they are presuming a great deal.

It is regrettable that we must stand up here and debate this bill, which should have been over in 15 minutes. There is nothing to debate. But the designated speaker for the NDP spoke for over two hours, obviously to kill time, because he said nothing in the final hour and three-quarters that he hadn't said in the first 15 minutes. It is his right to speak. It is democracy in action. And we sit here and we listen. But I'm going to tell him that we're going to speak also, because we know we're right. They try to twist information, try to indicate to this House — try to get the press to report that we are standing for more than one vote for one person. I tell you that's dishonest. It is not only dishonest, it is a terrifying untruth, because we do stand for that great principle of one man, one vote. It'll never be any different under the Social Credit system.

I'm telling you what they stand for: it's everything that can feather the nest of the NDP. Why should they want to feather the nest? They are afraid of the small businessman. Let the small businessman hear the story. The small businessman is the backbone of this country. It is the small businessman who employs over half the employees of this province and this country. Why should they be afraid of them?

This morning, as I said to you as a businessman — how terrified you are. If you are a businessman.... I don't think there's one in that whole party; not in this House. But they do not know the terror that a businessman lives under. They do not know the day when you write a cheque and you're not sure the money's in the bank.

[ Page 4136 ]

MR. BARBER: That's illegal.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, such a ridiculous statement. Yes, I've written many cheques without money in the bank, but it was already arranged with the bank manager. That's what all businessmen do. There's too much danger in business. But we go into business. Why? Because, number one, we make a living for our families; number two, we give employment; number three, we take a part in our community — a lively part. That's what a businessman is. We're not sanctimonious individuals who are ethical, pompous individuals with an idea that we are smarter than anybody else. We have to work for a living, and we do. Why they should stand there and knock a small businessman, I fail to understand.

I do not know how I can put it more strongly, because I'm incensed at the attitude that this....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bank of Montreal. Chevron.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The Bank of Montreal and Chevron do not have a vote under this bill. I'm talking about small business. Mr. Speaker, they have not read the bill. They have no intentions of reading the bill. They don't want to read the bill. They want to make only one thing: political hay. That's all that interests these people. That's all that has. I am discouraged that I stand here and have to attempt....

Why should we defend this thing that's the right thing?

I said the small businessman has a responsibility to a community — takes part in his community, has the danger of going broke, as I said before. That's a big danger for any businessman. Because I said I've written cheques without money in the bank — did you hear them laugh? They didn't know the terror in my heart, or in any businessman's heart.

Mr. Member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), you know the problems. You know what it means. When you've got to make a payroll tomorrow, you know what it means that you've got to pay those cheques and you don't have the money in the bank but you have the assets. You know you wonder what's going to happen. You give him no vote? What is wrong with the thinking of that.... I know what is wrong with the thinking of that small group. They think that this businessman cannot stand for anybody that's a sponge on society. The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) should be ashamed of himself in many ways, but particularly that he attacks this bill. Let this province know, let the public understand that we stand for one vote, one person, but the businessman's entitled to a vote as a tenant elector, is entitled to a vote as a homeowner, because he pays money in that municipality. He's entitled to have a say in what happens there, and certainly he should. I applaud the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I applaud this bill. On and on, my friends!

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been offended by the remarks of the member who just spoke, when he referred to my colleague the first member for Victoria as being a sponge on society. I would ask him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will ask the hon. member for Dewdney, if there is any imputation, if he will withdraw that remark.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I was very careful not to suggest that the hon. first member for Victoria was a sponge on society. I said: "that party that's a sponge on society." I did not mention the member, and I would not do that. I referred to the party only, and the record will show that. If I said "the member" I withdraw it; but I did not say "the member." I wouldn't be so small as to make that suggestion. But if the hat fits he can wear it, I don't mind.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. member for Dewdney will rise in his place and indicate that he would withdraw any imputation against a member of this House.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have the honour to withdraw, if I said it. But I cannot help but add: if the hat fits he can wear it. That's what I said as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I cannot accept the qualification. Will the member, in his place, please withdraw.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I withdraw, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without qualification, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, you're most generous and kind. I admit your power and you're right to ask me to withdraw. I do so withdraw, gladly and without question. I do not believe the hon. member is a sponge; he certainly is not. He's a fine fellow, I like him, but he gets carried away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are now entering into debate. The withdrawal has been made. The Chair is satisfied,

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is certainly dissociate the members of the opposition from the statement made by the member for Dewdney that small businessmen are in the habit of writing cheques when they haven't got money in the bank to cover them. We certainly don't want in any way to be associated with that comment on the part of the.... It's a criminal offence to do that, although the member for Dewdney indicated that small businessmen were in the habit of doing that. That obviously is the opinion of his party. But that is certainly not the opinion of the opposition and we dissociate ourselves from that.

One of the things that the hon. member for Dewdney did say that I certainly agree with was his referring to the government over there as being like Cromwell. I think that is a very apt description. For those who have forgotten what Cromwell was like, I think the time has come, in speaking on this bill, to cite a little history.

As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, when Cromwell did not like the kind of government that Charles I had in Great Britain — that democratic government — he simply beheaded Charles and took over the government. He beheaded Charles, formed his little army, overthrew the government and took over himself. He permitted, as you will remember, democracy to survive for a while and then decided that he

[ Page 4137 ]

was not satisfied with democracy. So he literally booted the parliament out of the building and moved in and took over himself. He referred to himself as the Protector.

I think that when the member for Dewdney tells us that this is what his government is like, I am certainly willing to take the member for Dewdney's word for it. If the member for Dewdney believes that when his government does not like an opposition they simply behead whoever is in charge, redistribute their seats, draw fingers here and fingers there to ensure that their dirty work is done, I think the member for Dewdney is speaking the truth, and I'm certainly willing to accept that description of the government over there.

There's something else about Cromwell that maybe we should keep an eye on. That's, of course, that after Cromwell was in government for 11 years he died, and the government was taken over by his son, who was so incompetent and inept that he totally destroyed even the bad government they had, and the son of Charles I, Charles II, was called back to restore democracy to Great Britain. So we're going to keep posted to see what happens to the Cromwells over there when all their redistributed borders and their multi-votes to their friends and supporters go down the tube.

The other thing that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) — I'm sorry he's left his seat; invariably he comes in, filibusters and then takes off — tells us is that only individuals are covered by this vote. So I want to read sections 2 and 4. It says here in the explanatory note: "Sections 2 and 4 permit a person or a corporation who is not a resident in a municipality but is a tenant occupying premises in a municipality to vote in municipal elections." When the member for Dewdney says the government's talking about one man, one vote.... He says it doesn't matter; the man can be of either sex, which I thought was kind of interesting too. But then one never knows when the member for Dewdney says what's happening. However, when the member for Dewdney says that the bill only covers one man, one vote the member obviously has not read the legislation, because it's right here that a corporation which is not resident in a municipality is also entitled to vote. If that's not correct then this should be amended, either before we go into committee stage, or at least during committee stage. But as the bill now stands it says here: "permits a person or a corporation who is not a resident in a municipality but is a tenant occupying premises in a municipality to vote in municipal elections."

I'd also like to set the record straight, because as happens every single time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) takes his place in debate on the floor, misinformation and incorrect information can always be expected. He never ever fails to live up to that expectation. Once again he said that there was no member sitting on this side of the House — the opposition — who had ever served at the municipal level. I would like to set the record straight, and to point out to the Minister of Misinformation, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was a member of the school board for 10 years, and was chairman of the school board for part of that time. Also the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) was a member of council in Burnaby, and also that....

AN HON. MEMBER: I served on a council.

AN HON. MEMBER: Me too.

MS. BROWN: The member for Langley said that no member on this side of the House ever served at the municipal level, so I'm trying to deal, this once, with some of his wrong information.

HON. MR. FRASER: He didn't say that.

MS. BROWN: You were not in the House; you did not hear what he said, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I heard,

MS. BROWN: To continue, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) served on school boards. Not that this is of any benefit to the member from Langley, because he will continue to use wrong information; that's what he always does. But anyway, for the sake of Hansard, the record should be straight in that regard.

What this vote says, and what this vote does is to say that people with businesses can vote early, often and in as many places as they rent premises or business. How one can reconcile that with the concept of one person, one vote is very difficult to understand. It does not say one person, one vote; it says one person who has a business can vote once in every municipality in which that person has a business. That's what that says. You have one vote in each municipality in which you have a business. And, of course, you have a vote where you live. That means that those corporations that are tenants, non-resident in a municipality but tenants occupying premises in three, four, five, or whatever number of municipalities, have that number of votes. It is absolutely ludicrous for the member for Dewdney, the minister, or for any member of the government to say that they support the philosophy or concept of one person, one vote and then support this kind of legislation which can see individuals having an unlimited number of votes based on where their business is and in how many municipalities they have businesses.

The minister says that he was not petitioned by an individual, and I believe that. I believe he was petitioned by corporations, that he was petitioned by businesses. He certainly has the support of the chamber of commerce in Victoria. But that's the only support I've been able to find through reading the media and listening on radio and TV. I haven't been able to find any support anywhere else for this legislation. But I guess the support of the chamber of commerce is all that member needs.

I just want to quote from a couple of editorials in the Sun, the Province, the Victoria Times and even the Colonist. It's not possible to find a newspaper that supports what the minister is doing, but the Province of August 13 says that what the minister is really saying is that a piece of property should have a vote. That puts an inanimate object on an equal footing with an individual, which is its own best argument against the proposal.

Of course. one of the things that the Province probably doesn't know is that as far as that government is concerned property is not on an equal footing with individuals; it has always been superior to individuals. One has only to compare the services that they provide for people as opposed to the services that they provide for property to find that to that government over there property has priority, not people. Nobody in their right mind would even think that people count for that government over there. It has always been property and business — and big business at that.

The member for Dewdney talks about the small business-

[ Page 4138 ]

man. The statistics are there to show that more small businesses have gone bankrupt since this government came into power than at any other time in the history of this province. So there is certainly no concern over there for small business, but they are certainly taking care of the big business people who support them.

The Victoria Times said in its editorial of August 12:

"Perhaps this proposal will focus public attention on some of the basic principles on which our democratic society is built. Federal and provincial elections are held on the basis of one person, one vote. They are based on the idea that a person's eligibility to vote is not affected by his social position, wealth or business interests — and those are good principles. Some members of the provincial government obviously think that those principles need not apply at the municipal level. "

The Vancouver Sun column of Linda Hosie on August 14 said:

"It's a lousy amendment; a throwback to the high-handed tactics of the Socreds of old; a regressive, hopelessly transparent attempt to stack the deck in municipal elections in favour of conservative interests."

I'm not quoting NDPers, because I don't think anyone could accuse the Colonist or the Times or the Province or the Sun of fronting for the NDP. We are talking about editorial comment, letters to the editor and newspaper articles, all of which say the same thing: this government, in introducing this legislation, is ensuring that the principle of one person, one vote no longer exists — certainly not at the municipal level. In fact it is now possible for one person to have a number of votes. That is a direct attack on any concept of democracy that anyone has ever held in this nation. It's not the first time, of course, that democracy has been assailed by that government over there, and I'm sure it won't be the last before they are defeated.

Quoting from a Province editorial of August 12:

"In effect, the corporate vote changes the basic principle of the individual vote to one in which a property may vote as well as a person. The proposed business renters vote enlarges the scope of that change, and once that course is embarked upon it takes us into all sorts of real and potential difficulties. "

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Rubbish!

MS. BROWN: The minister of pub licences says it's rubbish. I guess one should look at that minister's record and take what he says into account.

Quoting from John O'Brien in the Province: " 'Talking about corporate tenant voting is stupid and idiotic,' says Volrich." O'Brien further quotes the mayor of Vancouver:

"I don't agree with the legislation. We had corporate votes in Vancouver some years ago and I was one of those who urged that the situation be changed. I believe in the principle of one man, one vote, and I don't think that any one person should have two votes or more votes under any circumstances. "

I just want to close by quoting from a cartoon in the Times which showed Socrates on a pedestal saying, "All men are created equal," Pitt on another saying, "One man, one vote," and the Minister of Municipal Affairs on another pedestal with a shovel beside him saying, "One businessman, two votes." That is essentially what this legislation is all about: depriving every individual in this province of the kind of power that rests in that one vote which they have when that vote makes them equal with every other voter.

This legislation is introducing inequality into the electoral process. As I said before, it's not the first time that government has done it. The government does it when it redraws electoral boundaries to suit its purposes, and it does it again.... If it doesn't gerrymander one way it gerrymanders another way. For that reason we are totally opposed to this piece of legislation, which we know will go through despite our opposition because they have the large numbers. When we remember that that minister was responsible for almost defeating his government with his destruction of the VRB, all we can hope is that this time he will succeed in defeating his government by insisting on carrying through with this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the success of this legislation is as great as that which was referred to by the former member — that is, the legislation dealing with the VRB — then I think all British Columbians can be extremely grateful.

I would like to read into the record here a section of the act which has obviously been overlooked by the members of the opposition. section 38 (5) states:

"In this section, 'corporation' means a corporation that is not a reporting company under the Company Act, and of which all the shares, or more than 50 percent of the voting shares, are owned or controlled by one individual, or by him and one or more other individuals connected to him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption. For the purpose of this section, those individuals shall be deemed to control the corporation."

Much was said about large corporations apparently having a vote and having control, and certainly what we mention with regard to small business was not applicable. I think, hopefully, this will explain it, especially for the member for New Westminster.

There has been a great deal said, too, and I certainly think perhaps a good many small business people, who could be voting whichever way they felt — they ought to in any election — are rather surprised by the continued assumptions by all of the members who spoke from the opposition, that there was no support from them for the NDP party. Simply because you were a business person, regardless of where or what size, you could somehow be associated with the Social Credit Party. I'm grateful for that. I wish it were so. But I don't think it is, and obviously some of the opposition members should talk to Leonard Friesen, who continually gets on the radio every time there's an issue, and says that he's speaking for some small business group. Really, Mr. Speaker, I think that should be cleared up.

Again, while the first member for Victoria mentioned this repeatedly, he said as well that if they instead were to give the vote to a member because of a unionship affiliation, then that would be just — wouldn't the Social Credit scream.

Well, I think it's equally wrong to assume that somehow all union people must necessarily vote socialist. Not all union people are socialists. I think that should be set straight too.

We were asked repeatedly by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hon.-

[ Page 4139 ]

son), and by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who this benefits. It's not intended to benefit a political party, as obviously the inference was, because certainly then too that might have been said about the amendment which was brought in by the opposition when they were in government to allow tenants to vote. There's been nothing said about that. To raise it now certainly is not appropriate. But if, in fact, there is a benefit to the small businessman, then great. That's good. He's deserving of it. Why shouldn't the small business person have the benefit of the vote in determining what works take place in his particular area or who is the trustee for the moneys that he pays in taxes to his local council?

Somehow there's the assumption by the socialists that when people are elected to a municipal council they then become the gods, they then can make all decisions regardless of who pays the bill, or how the moneys are collected.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, we certainly will be providing all the details with respect to the Downtown Revitalization Program. It's another good attempt to assist small businesses in the downtown core that are suffering because of some of the larger shopping centres that have been set up outside. We're wanting to bring about a good resolve to that situation by assisting the small business through that program. Should those people, the majority of whom might be leaseholders or renters, not have some say in what programs might be proposed for their immediate community, for which they will be charged directly.... Is it so wrong that if a person lives in Abbotsford but is actively involved in a business in New Westminster, that he be permitted a vote in New Westminster where he pays his taxes? Most leases in fact read: so much per month, or per annum, plus taxes. Very often many of those large business people, who control those shopping centres or whatever where those smaller business people are leasing, probably do not care a great deal about the vote or the expense placed upon their centre, because it is ten years plus taxes. And if those taxes go up, so does the rent go up, or at least so does that charge go up to the lessee, because all of it is charged to him.

Again, it's clear throughout the legislation that it's one person, one vote in that municipality. If you want to confuse it by saying that a person has a vote in New Westminster and Abbotsford because they own property in both, or because they operate a business in one and live in the other, or if you want to suggest that if I vote for the government of Abbotsford it's really sufficient for me in my business in New Westminster, then I think you should also consider that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) could vote in Haney and could vote in Victoria as a tenant.

I certainly agree with one of the comments made by the members with regard to why people, perhaps even those who do not pay taxes.... Mention was made of the welfare recipient. I'm not sure that they don't pay taxes but that was the suggestion by the member for Victoria. I agree that most, or all, people that are affected.... Certainly all the people at the municipal level, all of the people that pay taxes or who presently have the privilege of the vote — and a tenant pays taxes too, hon. member — really should have a say in the business of that community, because it does provide schooling, land use, traffic circulation, local improvement, parking meters, and all the things that are very close to us each and every day.

I think is great legislation. It's a very positive, forward, democratic and fair move, and I'm pleased to again move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 19

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

Bill 54, Municipal Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

REVISED STATUTES
CORRECTION ACT (No. 2), 1980

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, just speaking very quickly on section 37, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is in the House. I raised the issue of the farmers on the flats being wiped out by hail, and was told that they were not covered because there wasn't any legislation to cover them. Now would they be covered under this farm distress assistance if they applied again?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like the member to repeat what she has to say in regard to that section. I've got my notes here now.

MS. BROWN: I had raised earlier the issue of the farmers on the flats whose crops were wiped out by the hail storm. I raised it during the minister's estimates — the Burnaby flats.

[ Page 4140 ]

At that time the minister said there was no legislation that covered them. I wonder why this particular piece of legislation didn't cover them, or can they reapply now, in view of this amendment?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to review that with the member in regard to seeing whether or not that would apply. We have crop insurance which is available to the farmers for the various crops they pay premiums on, and that normally applies where we have a disaster in an area. I believe there is a disaster program in the Ministry of Environment that can be of assistance, but I'd have to discuss this particular one with the member, whether it would relate or not.

Sections 31 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to add after section 38 a new section, 38(a), to read as follows: — 38(a) Title of the Farm Income Insurance Act (RSBC 1979, chapter 123) is amended by deleting the word 'Insurance' and substituting the word 'Assurance'."

The reason for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a very fine point, but it is a technical point. My understanding is that when the 1979 issue of the statutes consolidated the old statutes, the intent was to carry the same meaning forward as was entailed in the old statutes. There were to be no legislative changes, as it were, and the intent of the new wording was to be exactly the same as the old wording. Certainly the intent of the original act was to be an assurance act, not an insurance act, and I would quote from the first section of the act which reads in part: "Provides in any way for the payment of money to, or the guarantee or assurance of income" — assurance of income. Now, in changing the title, we are departing from the intent of the act. I have discussed this with the minister; I had hoped that he would be prepared to accept this as a technical amendment, but he has indicated to me that he is not prepared because in his opinion insurance apparently means that people contribute to the scheme and assurance doesn't mean that. Now I know of a great many life assurance schemes and fire assurance schemes and I don't think anyone who holds a policy in any of those schemes has any misconceptions about whether or not to make contributions.

So to change the name to insurance indicates to me that it is departing from the intent of the act, which was not just to insure, but to assure farmers who were now being asked to protect agricultural land that they would have a viable income. They would pay premiums into the scheme, naturally. But to change that terminology to insurance indicates to me that it takes away that assurance and could well be translated, as a result of changing the title of the bill, into a scheme that is only available for crops that are viable at the present time, or in the very near future.

Further down the road, I'm sure that many crops that are not viable now will be viable later on. In order to ensure that we have not only the farmers available to produce those crops, but also have the land protected to ensure that those crops can be produced, we have to have an assurance scheme — which was the intent of the act — not an insurance scheme. That is the reason for this motion.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not in favour of the amendment for this very reason. We changed it to insurance because in many of the farm income insurance programs that we have in place now the producers pay an annual premium. Quite often the premium comes out of the total assistance that's going to them because the marketplace has not given them the cost of production. But there are instances where the market does give them their cost of production figure. There is no benefit paid, but those farmers pay a premium.

The point that was being made in the revised statute was to indicate to the public in general that the farmers aren't getting handouts or subsidies, but are in effect contributing in the form of a premium to a program in good years, and in bad years, they get insurance from that. That's the reason for the change, and I would not support the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: I suggest that this is technically incorrect, because it is changing the intent of the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to assure farmers of a viable income. I suggest that assurance included contributions, as the minister has said, and he full well knows that. I don't think that changing the name from "assurance" to "insurance" is going to change anybody's mind out in the general public if they have the misconception that there are no contributions coming in from the farming community. Certainly if you look at the figures that you so kindly tabled with the House in answer to my question, Mr. Minister, you will see that a sizeable balance has been paid by the farming community into the total scheme. Only two or three of all the plans have gone in the other direction during the past two years.

There is no question in the mind of anyone who is knowledgeable about the thing that farmers are making contributions. This kind of a change from "assurance" to "insurance" is not going to convince anybody who is confused about it. The minister could do far better by going out and selling the program than by making this kind of change.

I do ask your consideration, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not it is valid to change the intent of a piece of legislation without bringing it through this House. By changing the name in this particular instance we are really changing the intent of this piece of legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 38 to 45 inclusive approved..

On section 46.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

Sections 47 to 60 inclusive approved.

On section 61.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 4141 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 61 as amended approved.

Sections 62 to 81 inclusive approved.

On section 82.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 82 as amended approved.

Sections 83 and 84 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports Bill 61 complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill considered as reported?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

Bill 61, Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 62, Mineral Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I now propose to call a number of bills for second reading, and they are simply structural and formalizing in establishing the ministries. The first bill would be No. 59, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ACT

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to move second reading of this bill. Very briefly, the bill sets out the general purposes and the functions of the ministry and more clearly defines its roles. I believe the bill is largely self-explanatory and I'd be happy to discuss any details in the committee stage, and I move second reading of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, as the government House Leader pointed out, there are four or five bills seeking to do precisely the same thing with respect to different ministries. We've examined them and agree they have all generally parallel functions and purposes, and I wouldn't see the need to engage in a debate per se with respect to second reading of those bills.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I move second reading of Bill 59, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 59, Ministry of Environment Act read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: In reading of Bill No. 63 I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the former Minister and the hon. the House Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Howard), and therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 63, Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 49 — similar remarks.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 49, the Ministry of Finance Act.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4142 ]

Bill 49, Ministry of Finance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM ACT

HON. MRS. JORDAN: In the same spirit, I move second reading of Bill 53, Ministry of Tourism Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Ministry of Tourism Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Last but not least, second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 58, Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

61 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 6 1) intituled Revised Statutes Correction Act (No. 2), 1980, to, amend as follows:

New section 61.1:

"61.1. section 302 (b), (c), and (d) is amended by striking out '10' wherever it occurs and substituting '10 days'."

By adding the following after section 46:

"Insurance Act amendment

"46.1 section 234 (3) (b) (i) of the Insurance Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 200, is amended by striking out "person representative" and substituting "personal representative".

By adding the following after section 82:

"Small Claim Act Amendments

"82.1 section 5 of the Small Claim Act, R.S.B.C 1979, c. 387, is repealed and the following substituted:

"Removal into County Court

"5. (1) Where the debt or damages claimed in an action brought in the court amounts to $300 or more, and it appears to the County Court of the county where the defendant resides or carries on business that the case should be tried in the County Court, and the County Court by order so directs, the action may be removed from the court into the County Court on terms as to costs previously incurred or other terms as the County Court making the order thinks fit, and all proceedings shall be transferred by the Court to the registrar of the County Court.

"(2) The County Court may also in a similar manner remove into the County Court an action in which the defendant claims a set-off or counterclaim for debt exceeding $2 000, or sets up a counterclaim for damages exceeding $2 000.

"82.2 section 21 (3) is amended by striking out "The matter" and substituting "A matter under subsection (2) ".