[ Page 9137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Commercial Appeals Commission Act (Bill 43). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9137

Mr. Levi –– 9137

Mr. Howard –– 9138

Mr. Lorimer –– 9142

Mr. Lauk –– 9142

Constitution Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 80). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9146

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to proceeding today, the Chair has had a chance to review the Blues from yesterday. It would appear that during the appointment of the Deputy Speaker the Chair inadvertently did not call for the question, and although the motion was ordered it properly should be placed again. The motion was that William Bruce Strachan, Esq., member for Prince George South, be appointed Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly, moved by Hon. G.B. Gardom, seconded by Mr. Howard. Therefore, hon. members, I will call that question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the Warren Commission report.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 43.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: In moving second reading of Bill 43, Commercial Appeals Commission Act, I just want to make a few comments. As members know, the bill was first introduced in the Legislature on May 21. The primary purpose is to streamline and make uniform the appeals process which presently exists in a number of acts administered by my ministry. At this time appeals under the many statutes administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are heard by a body known as the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, which was established under the authority of the Securities Act.

I believe that citizens should have the right to appeal decisions made by officials of my ministry. We have included appeal provisions in many of our statutes. It was convenient to refer these appeals to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. The process has, I can say, been very effective. In fact, it is this very success of the process which has led to this particular bill being introduced, which formalizes the appeal process while avoiding the formality and the cost associated with court actions.

While the appeal process rests as it does now under the authority of the Securities Act, it can be confusing to people wishing to appeal decisions under such statutes as the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Insurance Act, Company Act, Motor Dealer Act, Real Estate Act, Credit Union Act and the Travel Agents Act.

What this bill proposes is a new act designed specifically to accommodate appeals under the statutes I have mentioned. It is a companion piece to the proposed Securities Act, which I will be bringing before this Legislature at a later date and which will make provision for the establishment of a securities commission. At the time that happens we will do away with the present Corporate and Financial Services Commission, but in the transition the Corporate and Financial Services Commission will remain to hear appeals under the Securities Act, Investment Contract Act and Commodity Contract Act. The Commercial Appeals Commission Act, the bill before us now, not only eliminates much of the red tape but also streamlines the appeal process. It ensures that citizens making appeals will have a prompt, simple, clear and inexpensive method of doing so.

The commission will achieve a higher profile as an expert commercial appeals tribunal by taking its creation out of the Securities Act and placing it in its own statute. Because of the special corporate, commercial expertise of the commission's membership, its speed and efficiency of operation will, I believe, better serve the interests of citizens affected by the decisions of public officials under the acts which will fall under the commission's purview. The commission is not a body that requires substantial staff or capital development expenditures. To begin with, the members will be engaged on a per diem basis, and these appointments will not substantially increase the operating costs, but will enable the commission to recruit seasoned commercial business experience when needed.

The new act provides for an establishment of panels of the commission when required, which means that out of the numbers of commissioners there could be smaller panels that could hear appeals. It also sets out, Mr. Speaker, the uniform procedure for appeals under the several acts concerned, from which the appeals will be heard. With the provision for establishing panels of three or more members, as I mentioned before, separate appeals can, when necessary, be heard at the same time, which of course speeds up the process, and I'm sure is appreciated by the business community.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we see this piece of legislation as beneficial to citizens wishing to appeal decisions of ministry officials. The creation of the Commercial Appeals Commission permits consistent appeal rights, which is not the case under the current system. It has an added benefit: it permits the present Corporate and Financial Services Commission to apply consistent and rational rules to all of its hearings.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would mention that in order to complete this new piece of legislation there are consequential amendments required for several existing statutes, and members will see those statutes mentioned in the back of the bill. These amendments are designed to clearly establish the commission as the appropriate appeal body. With those comments, I will move second reading of Bill 43.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to congratulate the minister on his appointment; however, I might give him some unsolicited advice. The first thing he should do in this ministry is to go to the Premier and ask him if he can have a copy of the minefield that lays around the ministry. He's the fourth minister they've had in the the past 72 months.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What section of the bill is that under?

MR. LEVI: They keep getting blown up. I've been the critic for six years, and he's the fourth minister I've had to face. There's a rat hole in that department, and everybody keeps disappearing down it. I think we might tell the minister that he has an average life expectancy of 18 months, but I think it's going to be shortened to about six days.

In respect to the bill, I think the first thing the minister should have pointed out about the bill, in all candour, is that if

[ Page 9138 ]

you look at the number of acts this bill covers in terms of appeals, it will give you an idea of how far the government has stuck its nose into the business community. That's one of the sad parts about a piece of legislation like this.

Ever since the government has been in, they've brought in a number of acts which have attempted to regulate the private sector, albeit that the private sector didn't really seek to regulate itself. But what we have at the moment is the government very much involved in seeing that the private sector does the things it's supposed to do within the act. Then, of course, there are the various appeal systems.

The minister didn't explain too much to us about why it was that they removed the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, which was assuming some of these functions at one time, particularly in relation to the Securities Act and the Mortgage Brokers Act. That was one of the finest bodies of administrative law, I think they call it, in the province. They had several very excellent people who worked on that. But unfortunately in the past six years the present government has really allowed that kind of commission to deteriorate.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The former Attorney-General keeps saying: "No." Whenever he says no, you know you're on the right track.

That commission was on its way to setting down some very interesting procedures, particularly in respect to securities and mortgage brokers. Presumably they would have had something to say about the real estate industry as well, but it was allowed to fall into disuse. I recall that some years ago, when the commission was first set up, there was a man named Leon Getz on it who did some extremely interesting work which laid down some of the basic policy indicators for some changes in the Securities Act.

The present bill is certainly to be supported, because it allows an appeal process in a variety of areas. But it has to be an indicator to the government, and to any government that comes in afterwards, that it is not the role of the government to keep intervening in the marketplace, and this very much exemplifies the marketplace. Somehow we have to get the marketplace operators to regulate themselves, because they are the first people who say that the government is sticking its nose in, and it's quite true. I don't quite know how we do that. I know that last year when we were looking at the real estate amendments in respect to the flipping, we had expected that the real estate industry would have done something itself. But it didn't. I suppose this bill can serve as a reminder to people that as long as they don't keep their own house in order the government is going to have to do it. Mr. Speaker, we will support the legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that it is a pleasure to see you officially and legally in your place as Deputy Speaker. There were moments yesterday when I was sure you felt you didn't have that full endorsement of the House in terms of your position. Today is another day. We're dealing in a much more delightful way with things, probably.

This bill could be identified, I suppose, as a job-creation bill in that it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — and that's the cabinet, as we know — the authority to appoint the commission contemplated under this bill without restriction as to the number of members that may be on such a commission. It could be one hundred, two hundred, a dozen, whatever number the Lieutenant-Governor feels is appropriate to serve the interests of those who may be associated with Social Credit and desire to be appointed to the high office of commercial appeals commissioner. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the bill also contemplates the question of tenure and says the appointment shall be for terms not exceeding five years. Now I know what part of the argument will be with respect to that: we need flexibility and continuity of attitude on the part of at least some of the commissioners. So it would permit appointments of one, two, three, four and five years so that there can be a rollover and new commissioners coming on the job, while those who had some experience in the function of the commission still stay in office and carry with them the expertise that they have learned during their term of office and are able to pass that expertise on to the newcomers to the commission. But the fact is that an appointment to the commission for a term not exceeding five years contemplates at least one five-year tenure and maybe more, depending on what the government feels is appropriate to serve the interests — as it perceives them — of those whom it seeks to appoint to the commission.

Now this isn't a new concept in legislation, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the origin of it, and the place in which it was developed to the ultimate — in patronage terms — is Ottawa. This is legislation in terms of the mechanics and the appointment of the members of the commission which is refined to the ultimate degree by Prime Minister Trudeau. This is obviously Trudeau-oriented legislation — Liberal-Ottawa type of legislation — which gives to the government, as the government in Ottawa gave to itself, the ultimate authority to appoint its friends to its various boards and commissions that function under federal legislation. This is identical.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The muttering or whatever it is of one of the gentlemen opposite.... I didn't hear him, fortunately.

However, that's what this legislation is in essence — not with respect to whether there's a necessity of having a procedure of appeal from decisions made under the various acts mentioned in the latter part of the bill under subsequent clauses; not whether there's necessity of having some kind of appeal procedure outside of the provisions of those particular acts, appeals that I understand now go to the courts of the province. But the question is whether we should be endorsing in this Legislature a provision in a bill which has served in the past in its essence to result in nothing but crass, partisan patronage in the appointments. That's what has happened in Ottawa. It happened in Ottawa under Prime Minister Trudeau and under those who are in his cabinet and have been for varying periods, and even under his predecessors in office. The legislation passed by the House of Commons over quite a number of years is identical with the bill we now have before us. The rationale was the same.

The argument that I used to listen to and to which we used to object and still object was that, oh, we need to have this flexibility; we need to have this authority; the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council hasn't got the time, the government hasn't got the time to meet parliament and deal with these matters on an ongoing basis; we've got to have this overriding centralizing authority on the part of cabinet to appoint people to boards and commissions. In theory it sounded fine. In practice, as one member of this House will be able to attest — a member who is now conferring with the new Minister of

[ Page 9139 ]

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — it degenerated into serving the interests of the Liberal Party. In practice, for as long as this government stays in office — and heaven forbid that it should be much longer.... I can perceive that so long as this party has power in this province, given what it has done before, the appointments will I be on the basis of party allegiance and not on the basis of any expertise or knowledge in the area of listening to appeals. That's a regrettable move so far as I'm concerned.

There is a better way. There's a more open and a more public way to make these appointments and to set up this commission. We embarked upon that procedure twice, I understand, in recent times in this Legislature. I was not here at the time. One was the process of choosing the auditor general through a committee of the Legislature, as I am advised. The other was the process of choosing ombudsmen, who admittedly are officers of the Legislature and appointed by the Legislature. But the procedure for finding the individuals appointed to those offices was by way of a committee of this Legislature: members of this Legislature meeting, listening to those who applied for those offices, examining them, examining their criteria to see if they met the qualifications for the job, whether they didn't and so on and finally coming down to choose somebody to serve those particular offices of ombudsman and auditor-general.

I want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that process would be far preferable to the process contemplated in this particular bill, which leaves these appointments to the government to decide on whatever basis it decides. I'm making no allegations about what they're going to do. What I'm talking about is in the extended period of time, because I have seen this happen in another jurisdiction called Canada, where it has degenerated into serving the Liberal Party; the appointments have degenerated into paying off the friends — like a Senate appointment. Friends of the government in Ottawa get appointed to the Senate. We have a Senate here, too, in the form of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but that's beside the point. I'm just saying as an aside that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is really a senator in our structure here, because he serves no useful function as Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. But in Ottawa, they pay....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

MR. HOWARD: Spoken like a true senator. That's what a senator would say. The full extent of the minister's contribution to the debate in this House is "humbug!"

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember Hazen Argue?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I remember Hazen Argue. Hazen Argue is now a senator. Hazen Argue is one of those persons with whom I have been associated over the years on a party basis. He saw fit to abandon what he identified at one time as principles and put his arms around the person he hated, Lester Pearson, and said: "Yes, I love you, Lester Pearson. Reform the senate by putting me in it." From that moment on, perhaps the ex-Minister of Education will appreciate that I have had not one word to say to Hazen Argue. He divorced himself from what he espoused at one time and became a senator.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To all members of the House: could we return to the bill.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seriously, there has been quite a bit of straying from the principle of the bill by many members of the House. We can return to debate now.

MR. HOWARD: I was, as you know, Mr. Speaker, attracted off on those side comments by interruptions, if you will note, Mr. Speaker, from members in the House who are Liberals. They're the people who are doing the interrupting. When I start talking about the Trudeau Liberal government in Ottawa and how it has misused its authority under the legislation in Ottawa to pay off its friends, who are the people who jump up and object? The ex-Minister of Education, a Liberal. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), a sellout Liberal, and the Minister of Universities, Science, Communications and tenure-seeking are Liberals. They're the ones who object. No wonder, because we're talking about Liberal policy here. Liberal policy is to appoint their friends to office.

If the Liberals on the other side of the House.... I don't know about that gentleman who used to wear the tricornered hat, whether he's a Liberal or not. I don't think so. I think he's a true-blue Social Crediter, which makes me wonder what he's doing there.

When we start talking about the way in which the Trudeau Liberal government in Ottawa has misused its office, who objects?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The learned doctor who just said it was the NDP who put them in there objects — the learned doctor from Point Grey who still pays his dues to the Liberal Party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that if he's going to heckle, he at least do it from his own chair, or leave the assembly. I'll ask all hon. members, including the member now taking his place in debate, to return to the principle of the bill. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: The point I was making before I was so rudely interrupted by the Liberals opposite was that the foundation of this legislation, insofar as the commission and appointment of the commission is concerned — that's contemplated as a principal part of this bill — is based upon Trudeau Liberal policy, precisely and exactly. The result in Ottawa has been....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Protect me, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. KEMPF: You've been in Smithers lately. It won't fly; you know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) please come to order. The member for Skeena continues in debate, uninterrupted.

[ Page 9140 ]

MR. HOWARD: I'm certainly pleased to see that you're in office legally, and thus able to protect me from these vicious onslaughts opposite.

I need again to point out, because I get interrupted by the sensitivity of the Liberal members opposite about these matters and the flow of the conversation gets impeded, that the appointment of the members of the commission is being contemplated to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That's the cabinet. That's the government. That's the Premier and those who are closely closeted with him in the narrow confines of the cabinet room, where the doors are locked, the blinds are drawn, and nobody can see or hear what's going on inside that cabinet room — nobody except those who are in there. I'm sure, in my own mind, that even many who are there don't hear what's happening. But that's where the decisions are made. That's where the decisions will be made with respect to the appointment of these commissioners.

Given the history of the party that now forms the government in this province — the Liberal-Social Credit coalition party — I perceive that it will be doing, for as long as it remains in office — and I hope that's the shortest possible period of time we could contemplate — exactly what the Trudeau Liberal government has done in Ottawa: appoint its friends to the commission. It's done not on the basis of merit, not on the basis of experience, not on the basis of understanding or perception about what it is they're seeking to do, but on the basis of which party they belong to. At some time, jobs for the boys will be the order of the day. Maybe it won't be immediately. Maybe it won't be today; maybe not as soon as this bill is passed. But at some time, so long as this crowd stays in office, that's what will happen, and that's offensive.

I was arguing for a different approach: that this is not a good approach to make. We've seen that when it comes into practice, regardless of the good intentions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).... And he has good intentions. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) was just saying that during the short period of time in which he's had the function as critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he's seen four ministers come and go. So this newly appointed minister may not be there for very long. They may get somebody else as the minister, someone who will take a different stance. I'm not questioning the integrity or the good intentions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What I'm saying to him is that it is wrong, in principle, to continue along the road that the Liberal Party in Ottawa embarked upon some years ago. We objected to it there, and we object to it here as well.

Establish, if you want.... I submit that at this point we don't need to establish a special committee. Legislative committees are in existence right now; committees exist in number and name; they have members on them. The only standing committees of the Legislature that have met are the committee on standing orders and private bills and the committee on public accounts and economic affairs. I excluded the committee on Crown corporations because it is established, initially, by legislation and exists for the lifetime of the parliament. But it meets. I would venture to bet that it won't meet so long as there are two Social Credit member vacancies.

MR. KEMPF: That's not true. You've already got your notice of the meeting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whatever anyone has said just recently has really nothing to do with this bill. The hon. member for Skeena will continue on the principle of the bill. Discussion of another corporation or another committee is really not in order at this point.

MR. HOWARD: I was arguing for an alternative, which is the only reason I raised the committees. I had to ensure that it was accurate, and identify the committees.

But we do have committees of this legislature. This might be subject matter for the committee on labour and justice. After all, justice is inherent in our attitude towards the appeal procedure, and an appeal procedure is contemplated, under certain acts, to this commission which is sought to be established. We say justice is dealt by the appeal procedure. We have a committee of this legislature on labour and justice, one which has never met so long as I've been here. Excuse me, I apologize; it had one meeting, called by the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson) a couple of sessions ago to elect the chairperson, who happened to be the member for Delta. And that was it. It hasn't seen the light of day since that.

I put this to the minister as a suggestion. The committee on labour and justice already exists. It has members. It has named a convener, who hasn't done anything yet. We're dealing with the matter of justice, which is appeal. If a person is not satisfied with a decision made under any one of the acts enumerated later on, such as the Society Act, the Motor Dealer Act, the Company Act, the Insurance Act and so on, he seeks justice. So he launches an appeal and says: "I don't like those decisions." The appeal is going to go to the commission which is to be appointed by the cabinet.

Why not refer that selection to a committee of this Legislature so that in full public view the committee can, as other committees have done with respect to choosing other people, examine the merits or otherwise of individuals who may be proposed for membership on the commission? The committee of the Legislature representing all parties then comes back and says: "Here are the people that we suggest should be on this particular commission." I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that's a much more sensible and respectful way to establish the members of this particular commission. It is much more sensible than the process of the government's insisting that it act in secret where none of the general public can see, hear, understand, or appreciate what rationale might exist for appointing certain persons to the commission; the only thing the general public hears afterwards is an announcement that certain people are going to be members of a particular commission. I say democracy and justice are better served by way of an alternative proposal, though reference to a committee of this Legislature to examine and to make recommendations with respect to who might be on the commission. I don't know if the minister will accept that, but I hope he will. I hope that when he closes the debate he'll have some thoughts to express about that general proposition.

I also want to put forward the idea that establishing a commission of a broad nature to hear appeals from.... I don't know how many other acts are in here; I haven't counted them — a dozen or something like that. Establishing a commission to hear appeals of decisions made under a dozen separate pieces of legislation that vary in their complexity and their impact from things like the Company Act.... It probably has existed nearly as long as any act on our statute books, and has been refined over the years. It has set up a whole range of structures for operation under the

[ Page 9141 ]

Company Act. Such things as decisions under the Society Act.... The Society Act operates in an entirely different manner than the Company Act. The Company Act exists for people and groups to become organized as companies in order to engage in business or entrepreneurial activities to make profit. People who organize under the Society Act largely organize to serve the public good, to serve a social purpose. There are as many objectives of societies as there are societies. I submit that establishing a commission to hear appeals launched pursuant to the Society Act, where a group of ordinary citizens combine themselves together to form a society to serve a public and a socially good purpose — whatever they perceive that might be.... It is entirely different than a group of people organized under the Company Act. To encompass the appeal structure from these two extremes of organized institutions in our legal structure under our law in the province is really more centralizing of power and authority than can be perceived at the moment. It's going to require different attitudes on the part of the members of the commission. I submit it will end up with conflicting or confusing decisions under the appeal procedure contemplated here. It is likely to result in far more subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal of the province than is the case now of launching appeals under those particular acts that are enumerated in this bill.

As it functions now, if some decisions are made that require someone to launch an appeal under the Companies Act, they take the procedure that's permitted in court. But they're dealing with a particular piece of legislation that has a particular philosophy to it and is well identified and well formed. People who are involved in activities under the Companies Act understand what it is. It's more precise. Because they're talking in terms internally of proceeding on a legal basis, they usually will sort out the legal complications beforehand, rather than launch what a court might term as a frivolous appeal. In this procedure here, with the wide diversity of interests that are involved — the Credit Reporting Act, the Credit Union Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Society Act, the Real Estate Act, the Mortgage Brokers Act, the Motor Dealers Act, everybody being in one bag is going to result, I would submit, in a rather confused set of rulings with respect to the appeal so launched, and may well result because of that in more appeals to the courts than we have now.

Centralization appears to be a philosophy of this government. Look at the various pieces of legislation that have gone through this House during this parliament alone. We'll see that this government is committed to the idea of centralizing control and dominating things from here in Victoria, rather than having the authority and the control rest in the hands of the people who are basically affected by the particular pieces of legislation. That's another grave concern that I have about consolidating everything in the hands of one group of people. When it gets to the point of that one group of people — namely, the commissioners — being appointed on the basis of politics, rather than understanding and experience, then the whole matter will be compounded even more than that.

Another item I want to deal with relates to a provision in the bill with respect to regulations. In order to make the reference, I need to transgress the rules very slightly and make reference specifically to a portion that we might more appropriately deal with in committee. I think I need to do it in order to put it in context. I only do it for that purpose. There's a provision in the bill that says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations setting fees for filing an appeal. I want to object to that on the basis of past experience that we have seen with respect to this government. Take the question of appeals under the Pesticide Control Act, which is administered within the Ministry of Environment. A pulpmill, for argument's sake, in order to inject into the atmosphere whatever it is they inject out of their smokestacks, or to inject into the watercourses the effluent from the mill. are in fact, polluting the air, the water or the land, or all of them. They need a permit to pollute. That's the essence of what our law is here. So the pulpmill or other industrial undertaking applies for a permit to pollute. A group such as the Forest Service will apply for a permit to use a pesticide. There's no fee charged for the pollution permits that are issued. They just apply for it and they get it. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) outlined this very extensively and very properly and very carefully in various speeches that he has made in this Legislature. It costs nothing to get a permit to pollute. It costs the taxpayers a lot to issue the permit and to conduct the examination and do the detailed examination, etc., as to what is being applied to and then to issue the permit. That takes money, but it doesn't cost anything to get it. But when an appeal is launched against an application for a permit to pollute or spray herbicides, then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has set a fee. Whether that fee is still in existence or not, I don't know, because there was quite a howl of protest about it. It said that anybody who wanted to appeal the application or decision to issue a permit to pollute had to do so by appealing to the Pesticide Control Appeal Board and had to pay a fee for each and every appeal launched. So the person who got the permit to pollute didn't pay anything, but the individual who wanted to appeal had to pay money. In other words, the deck was stacked in favour of the polluter. That's one example of the attitude of this government towards fees.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's also the fact that within the last year, specifically and particularly last fall, this government embarked upon a program of increasing every fee and licence it could possibly conceive existed, which was a tax burden on the general public. It increased water licence fees. Just to give you an example of what that meant in terms of the results of an insensitive government's decision about fees, the increase in that water licence fee, so I am told, cost Cominco the equivalent of a full month's wages for all of the employees working in Trail. That's jobs for one month for all the employees in Trail gone because the government increased the fees. Cominco's only response was to shut down for a month. The people who paid it were not Cominco; they were the workers thrown out of work because of an insensitive government increasing fees.

That's what this particular bill says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations setting fees for filing an appeal." Given the history of this government and its attitude towards fees and licences, I can very easily perceive that they will set the fees so high that they will become a deterrent to appeal, That possibility exists. Much better to set the fee right out in the act here.

These are a few thoughts I had to state about this. There are a couple of other items that require a little more detailed examination before I proceed further. Therefore I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[ Page 9142 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

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

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the honoured position of Speaker. I'm convinced that you'll enjoy it thoroughly. I hope that you have great success.

I also want to congratulate the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It's a great loss to the agricultural community. I've been advised by the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) that the farmers are indeed quite happy with the change. The consumers haven't yet been heard from. We'll have to wait a little while to see if they're happy about the changes that have taken place.

This bill before us is, of course, a very important bill. I want to say a few words about it. This bill is another indication of interference by this government into the affairs of the private enterprise system. It's a shocking performance. More and more legislation has gone through, indicating the heavy hand of state control of centralization in Victoria, and of decision-making in areas where the government should remain aloof. Sweeping, uncontrolled powers have been taken over by this government's bureaucracy-building.

It's interesting to note that in this particular bill they refer to commissioners in the plural, but in dealing with the Constitution Act they prefer a one-man commission rather than a multi-person commission, as in this particular bill.

This new commission is taking over some of the responsibilities of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission, which previously handled these appeals. When the minister winds up the debate I would like the minister to advise us as to how many appeals were lodged with this other board, the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. How many appeals were lodged with that commission with reference to the separate acts referred to here — Credit Reporting Act, Company Act, Credit Union Act and so on? I'd like to know how many appeals were handled by that particular commission last year. It seems very likely that this is merely empire-building by this ministry in order to have its own commission look after the very few appeals that will come before it from these particular acts. In my opinion, it's a complete waste of money. It's not going to add anything to the services provided, due to the fact that those appeals are handled elsewhere at the present time. Maybe the minister can advise how many appeals we're talking about, to be handled by this commission. The added cost of this commission, at a time of economic problems in the province, seems an inappropriate expenditure of public funds. I believe that this is strictly a matter of the ministry wanting to have complete control of the appeal process with reference to the responsibilities of this ministry. If the Corporate and Financial Services Commission is in fact unable to handle the few appeals that come to it from these particular acts, maybe the minister could advise.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre — on Bill 43.

MR. LAUK: I was talking to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and just trying to demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, an example of what this bill would provide. In one of the sections of the bill it would allow this appeal commission to hold hearings in private.

The local constabulary reported that the new Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) was seen late last night with a lamp, looking through Beacon Hill park, and he was heard to shout: "Florence, where are you Florence?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We're on Bill 43.

MR. LAUK: Of course he was taken into protective custody and brought back to the home.

Mr. Speaker, I'm most ill-equipped to be speaking on this bill. It was not my intention to rise in debate this morning. However, I would like to first of all convey my best wishes and congratulations on your elevation to the Chair. I know that although your tenure — it is reported — may be short, it will be an exciting and historic one for this chamber, I am sure. I don't want you to get the impression that yesterday was an example of what is in store for you during this session. However, if you did get that impression, that would be a safe conclusion for you to draw. I heard someone say that it was a very short honeymoon indeed.

Now to the bill, the Commercial Appeals Commission Act. I wonder how many people have read this bill. The minister who introduced this bill, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), has introduced the Commercial Appeals Commission Act. This is the same minister....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know these interruptions are something I'm not used to, Mr. Speaker, and they are very difficult for me to deal with. I'm trying to collect my thoughts and deliver a speech on a bill which I'm sure everybody has read.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has introduced this bill. This is the minister who recently said that we've got to return to the principle of buyer beware. I think, to a certain extent, it's very timely that he made that statement so all the public of British Columbia could realize

[ Page 9143 ]

that this government is going to move away from the protection of the consumer, the purchaser and the person entering into contracts with commercial merchants, business people and companies, and that they will have the responsibility of being cautious about such dealings.

I wonder if the minister was also, in some way, giving some cryptic advice to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier of this province with respect to this new mortgage bond they're putting forward. I wonder if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is advising all British Columbians to be very cautious and aware of the pitfalls of this new offering of the government of British Columbia.

I wonder if under this bill there wouldn't be some provision whereby there could be an appeal. I understand that there would be some appeals. What about appeals that would have to do with the responsibilities of the Securities Commission during the time of the BCRIC sale, for example? We had the Premier of this province get up and tell us that we should be buying BCRIC shares; a Premier of a province touting shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick to the bill.

MR. LAUK: This is under the Securities Commission appeals.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if that Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), as he now is, could only learn after 25 years to get up and introduce a bill properly in the House, instead of delaying the House for an entire afternoon, he wouldn't be talking this morning. As a matter of fact, I'm wondering why he would even have the nerve to come into this House after that disgraceful, incompetent performance yesterday. He has a complete lack of understanding of the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on Bill 43. I would ask the member if he could begin to relate some of his remarks to the bill presently before us.

MR. LAUK: I was talking about the Securities Commission before I was interrupted by the Provincial Secretary, who is not even in his own seat, let alone in his right mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think upon reflection the member would care to withdraw the remark.

MR. LAUK: I certainly will. I've known that minister for a number of years, and the mind I find him in this morning is the one I've always found him in.

The Securities Commission was not involved when the government announced in 1979, as an election gimmick, five free shares to all British Columbians, and also the offer to purchase. In keeping with this new motif of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I wonder if he would publish a pamphlet warning all British Columbians, before they purchase these new home-mortgage bonds issued by the government, to read the fine print very carefully. I think it would only be fair that those people, if they were once again cheated and duped into the purchase of bonds which are really the new version of BCRIC shares for a 1982 election, be aware of the deception and gimmickry of the Social Credit administration.

Wouldn't it be nice indeed if we could have had the Securities Commission involved in those days and today? Where is the government's prospectus? Has the government followed the regulations that private issuers of securities have to follow? I know the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) is very aware of the stringent regulations that private issuers of securities have to follow. Does the government follow its own regulations? The answer is no. A few days before the election in 1979, they issued BCRIC shares, made fraudulent statements to the public as a government and deceived them into thinking they were getting something for nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again I must advise the member that we must be cautious and parliamentary in our remarks in this chamber. More importantly, hon. member, we must address ourselves to what is currently before us. By any stretch of the imagination, it would be very difficult for the Chair in any way to relate the member's comments to the bill that is presently before us. I'm sure that the member would agree with that. Now we'll discuss the actual bill.

MR. LAUK: There are appeal provisions here. The Mortgage Brokers Act and Real Estate Act amendments and other amendments come before the new commission proposed for appeal. That was why I was drawing in the Securities Commission. Is Mr. Speaker ruling that the Securities Commission does not come under the Commercial Appeals Commission Act? Is that the Speaker's ruling? If it's not, then I'll continue on and point out that under the Securities Commission.... I find it amusing that there's so much chatter over there, but nobody has yet risen to their feet to object, under standing orders, so I'll carry on, Mr. Speaker.

Here we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs using the phrase "buyer beware." He says the pendulum swung too much in favour of the purchaser. We should ask the minister if it has swung too much in favour of the purchaser of mortgages who has to buy mortgages under a usurious federal law and is being penalized by high interest rates. He can't even retire the principal of his mortgage without great penalty to the banks. The banks are making great profits as a result of these unfortunate mortgage laws that we have in this country. Should they beware of the banks? Where else are they going to get the money? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the appeal provisions here under the Securities Commission will not allow any ordinary citizen to get redress and to get a remedy for being duped into purchasing BCRIC shares in 1979. Once again, the government has launched a campaign of deception for the people of British Columbia. These new bonds have become BCRIC 11: a sequel; an election gimmick to suck people into voting for this administration in the forthcoming fall election. The bill itself is a further encroachment upon private business by a government that quite hypocritically says they represent the free enterprise system and the small businessman and business generally in the province. Indeed, they represent business; they represent the big major corporations and the major banks of the country, but they don't represent the ordinary businessman. They represent the huge corporations and conglomerates. They represent the financial and banking community of Canada. They will rush to its defence at every opportunity. There's a complicity between this government

[ Page 9144 ]

and the banks and between this government and the major corporations of this country. This act has nothing to do with those major corporations. It is an attempt further to encroach upon the freedom of smaller and medium business in this province. It is a further expansion of that stifling bureaucracy, and a further intention of expanding the civil service.

It seems that on the one hand this government will say that they want to cut back on bureaucracy, and on the other they bring in legislation that only increases it. On the one hand they argue that they want to cut red tape for small businessmen in the province, and on the other they bring in legislation that increases red tape.

What about expertise? What is the expertise of the board that the minister is going to appoint under this legislation? If we look at the history of this administration and see who they have appointed — take the Public Utilities Commission, for example — political hacks and friends have been appointed from time to time. They pay off their friends with jobs for the boys, and the Public Utilities Commission sometimes has jobs for the girls. It seems to me that it's another avenue through which the government can appoint its own partisan friends and hacks at public expense to public boards and bodies. What expertise is being demanded? There's none in the bill. There's no guarantee that political hacks and those who are drowning in the public trough won't be appointed to this commission.

What about the independence of such an appeal tribunal? We see none. It comes under the jurisdiction of the government. It's not an independent appeal tribunal. It seems to be another attempt to control and centralize power with the provincial government; to interfere with the free-market system and stifle the incentive of small business in this province, drowning small business in red tape and bureaucracy. It would seem appropriate, in this time of economic recession, not to be dealing with further bureaucratic measures to stifle small business incentive in this province. We should be bringing in legislation and programs to launch a recovery for ordinary people in B.C. We have practically the highest unemployment rate in the country, the lowest economic activity in the country and the most inept government in the country in that it cannot create any jobs whatsoever. Oh, pardon me; there's an attempt by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to create seven new jobs at great expense to the province with no benefit to the province whatsoever, through the Electoral Act that he brought in to create more seats in Social Credit territory, as has been said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you killing time?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm killing a government and it's about time. It's difficult to kill a government that says: "This year we're going to play by these rules, and next year, if we're going to lose by those rules, we'll change them." They change the rules every year, and that is a serious attack on democracy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will have ample time for a discussion on another matter that is currently before the House, but at this time we are on Bill 43.

MR. LAUK: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm advising the member.

MR. LAUK: The Speaker is ruling that we're on Bill 43. Is that what you're ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The member is well aware of what we are discussing at this time and he's well aware of the limits of debate under that particular subject.

MR. LAUK: And this member, being so well aware, is cognizant of the fact that the Speaker would not interrupt him further. After all, I'm well aware, as you say, of what the debate is about.

I want to get back to the independence of this appeal commission. The government is creating another board on which to place their own political hacks. In addition, there's no provision here for the independence of that board. Will it be interfered with by government? We know this government likes to interfere with its own commissions and boards on a frequent basis. It uses those boards. Even school boards, which are supposed to be independently elected — and are — are interfered with and manipulated at the central level. So we know that this commission will not be independent. It's another way to blockade access to the courts to some extent, and it should not be argued that appeals to the courts are a bad thing. So often in this Legislature members stand up and start arguing that appeal to the ordinary judicial system is a bad thing. It sometimes deals with matters much more quickly, efficiently, judiciously and fairly than bureaucratic administrative tribunals established by the government to carry out its own purposes.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the Warren Commission had been an independent tribunal, as an example. Wouldn't it have been nice if Derril Warren, that lawyer from Kelowna in his 16-piece suit, headed a commission appointed by this Legislature, a permanent commission that could take evidence and lay its report upon the table in this House, and not play lackey and willing servant to Bennett's government? It's just another example of how it's desirable, if we're going to appoint particularly appeal tribunals like this one, and electoral reform commissions, that they be appointed by the Legislature at the will of the Legislature for tenure.

Tenure: that brings me to another issue. It says in his bill that the members of this commission will be appointed for five years. That's all. Oh, not exceeding five years; the members will be appointed for a period not exceeding five years. But it's at the whim of the government. I'm not sure about tenure. There's been a lot of discussion of it lately. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been very concerned about tenure. I understand that every morning he calls up Dr. Kenny and asks him whether he's still got tenure at UBC. I suppose that's the kind of tenure we shouldn't have for this kind of commission. Mr. Speaker, you know the Minister of Universities, Canada's best-known welfare recipient, the man who has never made a private-enterprise dollar in his whole life. He's survived his entire career on research grants and salaries from the public purse, most recently for impersonating a Crown minister. I say "impersonating" advisedly, because obviously his heart isn't here. If he has to call the president of UBC every morning to check up on his future, his concerns lie elsewhere. I really do hope that Dr. Kenny threatens to withdraw that minister's tenure at the university so that maybe we can get him back to the university where he belongs, in his laboratory. I'd much sooner have him in a

[ Page 9145 ]

laboratory that we set up for him than have him working here, trying to make us into a laboratory.

But that's tenure: five years at the pleasure of the Crown for the members of this appeal commission. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have this Legislature appoint this appeal tribunal and have tenure set by this Legislature on a definite basis, not at the pleasure of the Crown? It seems that that would be the more appropriate way to go.

The other objection I have to this Commercial Appeals Commission Act is that it quite hypocritically states in section 14(1) that it wants open hearings. I stray onto the specific section to raise the principle of it. But in subsection (2) it states that where the commission thinks it would be harmful to either party it can hold hearings in private. That power is not granted to the courts. The courts can order that some evidence not be published. It is a fundamental attack on our judicial system to hold the hearings in private,

The Star Chamber, in English history, was established to deal with equity appeals; in other words, appeals as to fairness from the ordinary courts. The courts were strapped, making decisions based on narrow legal points. Sometimes — very often — justice was not done. So the king established the Star Chamber. At first it was open and dealt fairly with appeals from ordinary law courts, and it tried to do justice. Subsequently it was used to enforce the Crown's view of religious and political bigotry and prejudice. They held their hearings in private. They interviewed their witnesses on the rack, on Procrustean beds and with the thumbscrew. They were able to get away with it for generations because it was in private. The odd victim that would stagger out into freedom and report to his fellow citizens what had occurred would not be believed because it was not publicly verified; it was in private.

It seems to me that there should be no provision for private hearings of any appeal tribunal set up by this Legislature or any other legislature in the British Commonwealth. It flies in the face of ancient tradition protecting hard-fought for and hard-won rights for individuals. Appeals should be heard in public. Section 14 is reprehensible. It is really characteristic of the kind of attitude this government displays on other matters.

I want to repeat what has been said by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the setting of fees provided for in this bill has been used by this government in similar legislation to prevent legitimate appeals under the Pollution Control Act. It has established its character, if you like, that they will set sufficiently high appeals to discourage legitimate appeals from ordinary citizens who, in a community minded and spirited way, wish to defend the environment against unreasonable attacks by either private industry or the government itself. The setting of those fees can be used as weapon to prevent democratic and legal action. It should not be there. The fees should be established by the Legislature in a minimum way, if at all. There should be an appeal from setting fees to ordinary courts as being a prevention of democratic rights. Indeed, that section may well be struck down for that purpose under the new Constitution of Canada.

I want to repeat what has been said by other members and by myself earlier. The bureaucracy of this government and the tendency of it to intrude into and invade the business community wherever it can is not helpful. The minister has indicated that he's not interested in protecting buyers and ordinary citizens. What's it there for? It's an unwarranted intrusion into the business community. It's to set up further bureaucratic morass and to stifle, drown and slow down business activity in this community. That's what they're doing to the entire economy.

They were warned in 1979, 1980 and 1981 about the economic recession. They were told that the revenues would drop off drastically, that they would be in a short position as far as cash flow is concerned, and that they would not be able to provide the services that government in the province is committed to provide. They were warned. They ignored the advice. Now they throw up their hands and say: "How were we to know about the world recession? There's nothing we can do about it now." If there's nothing they can do about it, they should be getting out of office. That's the first point I should make. The second point is that they were warned. They were just blind, ignorant and foolish about the future of this province. They lived from day to day as politicians. Their every move is the crass and base move of a person who strives only to remain in office and not to do good service for the community.

What's the purpose of this bill then? It's not to achieve any other purpose except unwarranted intrusion, a further stifling of the economy, and the completion of the package of disaster that they brought upon this province: the highest unemployment rate in Canada and the slowest economic advancement in Canada.

The future looks pretty glum as well. No steps are being taken. Gimmicks are being proposed. Lies and hypocrisy are being foisted upon the public of British Columbia in the vain and desperate hope of regaining electoral power. When they've done all of that and find they cannot win an election, they'll bring in a bill with the stroke of the pen to ensure their victory. The kind of cynicism and hypocrisy that is is beyond description.

The other point I want to make is the fact that they can take evidence not under oath. I don't believe that an oath is that sacrosanct in a court. As far as I'm concerned, when I give evidence it will be the truth in a court of law and I will never bear false witness. That's fine. It seems to me, though, that it's an unnecessary distinction to draw in this kind of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I think the minister had better be careful about what accusations he's hurling across the floor of this chamber. A word to the wise — and in your case, a word to you.

If you have a section that allows an appeal tribunal to accept evidence not under oath, it gives the impression to those who will be practising and appearing before this board that there are two kinds of evidence that you can give to the board. One kind is true and the other kind is not. There's only one kind of evidence. It's got to be the truth. The facts presented to such a board must be true in every particular, to the best of the ability of the witness.

Either have the evidence sworn or not sworn. As I said, it won't make any difference. But to define a difference like that in the actual codification of the law of practice in front of such a board may encourage people who are not too bright to think that there's a difference between one kind of evidence and the other, The other thing is that whenever you have such a tribunal, the procedures for conducting a hearing and appeal should be clearly set out before the Legislature so there

[ Page 9146 ]

can be no move that would be considered by an applicant before such a board.

On the whole, it's a good bill. It's a good attempt to try to rectify a problem in the commercial and business sector. With respect to the positive aspects of this bill, I wish to continue my speech at the next sitting of the House. I therefore move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CHABOT: I certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of Bill 80, Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, a piece of legislation which has its roots in our common belief that fair representation is an important cornerstone of our democracy. I don't think that it's necessary....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has heard several words being called which would at best be described as unparliamentary, and certainly not acceptable in this chamber. I must advise members that while there may be very active discussion and debate, we are all obligated to remind ourselves that at all times only parliamentary language is to be used in this chamber. I would ask all members to remember, even in the heat of debate, those specific guidelines that bind us all.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I do not think members need to be reminded....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I wonder if Your Honour would advise the House what these words are that you are talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: I would be very pleased to so advise the member if I hear the words mentioned again, hon. member. I use it as a general guideline and ask members to bear that in mind.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Since the last redistribution commission we had in the province there has been a tremendous growth in population. However, this growth, coupled with the geography of British Columbia, compelled my colleague down at the far end, from Vancouver–Little Mountain, the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Wolfe), to call for a report into electoral representation.

The work carried out by Commissioner Derril Warren in the past two and one half months is to be applauded as he has been candid and practical in his three recommendations — recommendations that are presented to this House as an amendment to the Constitution Act, Bill 80. The main emphasis of Bill 80 is to give our fellow British Columbians the equitable representation that is their right.

As the former Provincial Secretary pointed out when he announced the commission on June 23, British Columbia has one MLA for every 48,000 people, twice as many residents as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. British Columbia, with a population of 2,744,467 people, according to the 1981 census, has 57 members representing an average of 48,148 people. Manitoba, with a population of 1,026,241 people, slightly less than a third of British Columbia's, has 57 MLAs, each representing 18,004 people. Saskatchewan, with a population of 968,897, has 65 MLAs, each representing an average of 14, 906 people. Alberta, with a population of 2,237,724, half a million people less than British Columbia, has 79 MLAs, representing an average population of 28,325 per member. To repeat, in British Columbia each MLA in this House represents an average of 48,148 people. While that figure is a province-wide average, there are 18 electoral districts in B.C. that have more than 50,000 residents per member.

The commissioner's recommendation that one additional member of the Legislative Assembly be authorized for Surrey, Richmond, Okanagan South, Kamloops, Delta, Cariboo and North Peace River is a reflection of those figures, as well as of the geography of our province and the increasing demands placed on MLAs by our constituents. You cannot serve your constituents properly if your resources and time are stretched too thin, a fact that makes increased representation both timely and effective. That is the short-term solution, Mr. Speaker. The long term will be served by the creation of a full-time, three-member electoral commission to consider electoral matters and make recommendations. The commission will be appointed by resolution of the Legislature and will submit its reports to the Speaker. But as the commissioner points out in his report, the reallocation of boundary lines will require time, and that must be a task assigned to the permanent electoral commission. Until that task is completed, interim measures must be taken to ensure more equitable and effective representation for the people of British Columbia.

There are those who question the timing of calling for seven new MLAs, in some instances for partisan reasons, in some instances because of the fear of the electorate...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but most particularly....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Mr. Minister. Hon. members, if we are to have any kind of reasoned debate in this chamber, whichever member is speaking should be allowed the courtesy of making his points. We will all have an opportunity to make our points, but if we all make them at the same time only chaos can result.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in ordinary debate on an ordinary bill that's been introduced to this House for the benefit of the community in British Columbia, that kind of an admonition from the Chair is always well received. In the case where a bill, which is designed to attack the democratic system and the very foundations of democracy....

Interjections.

[ Page 9147 ]

MR. LAUK: I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair should recognize that in the face of that direct attack members on this side of the House are so disgusted and repulsed by the actual legislation itself that feelings are quite high. I ask Mr. Speaker to take that into account.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Nonetheless, we are bound not only by rules of debate but by courtesy in the explanation of points of view. That is in fact why we are here, and if we are not able to hear points of view, then certainly our function in this place is of little value to anyone. I would ask all members to bear that in mind, as we will all have an opportunity to take our place in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the member for Vancouver Centre should feel....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I must bring this matter to your attention. I've checked again just now, and the bell did not ring in the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I should bring to your attention at the first opportunity that no longer can we depend on the members being on this floor unless we take steps to check their offices. I beg your indulgence, should I request that, that it be allowed.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. For the information of all members, there were other complaints yesterday as well. The matter is being looked into, and certainly will require some very strong action. I hope the House will bear with us while this matter, once again, is resolved. I thank the member for bringing that to the attention of the Chair.

MR. LAUK: On the same point, there have been a number of complaints over some considerable period of time, certainly last session, with respect to the bells in various offices, mostly from the ministers involved. It seems to me that it would be appropriate for the Speaker to consider, on the Chair's own motion, that an all-party committee be established to effectively investigate and report back to this House why these complaints are continuing. That committee should be made up of an equal number of members from both parties so we could know that the report back to the House would be a fair and judicial one. It seems to me that the complaints, if true, are a most serious breach of privilege, and prevent some hon. members from attending to their duties in the House. I know that the bells do not ring in Vancouver where the Premier is spending most of his time politicking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has very clearly made his point. The Chair appreciates the remarks, and will undertake to look into that matter immediately.

MR. LAUK: Does the Speaker wish a recess to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: No, thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted, there are those who question the appointment of seven new MLAs, particularly during a period of restraint. 1, for one, do not believe that democracy should be hinged to convenience. No, it is not convenient to allocate further expenditure for new MLAs. Democracy is never convenient; it was never intended to be. You cannot put a price on fair representation or the right of individuals....

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek your guidance. The Provincial Secretary, in speaking, has referred to the report which is factually in error. The commissioner, Mr. Warren, in his introduction, stated that the statistician, Mr. Braem, was instructed to develop a model, using population and geography, which could be uniformly applied to each existing electoral district. It has not been uniformly applied.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the second member for Victoria is not in essence a point of order, but certainly would be appropriate during his debate. I must caution members that interruption of the person speaking does little to enhance the process of debate. I would certainly commend that to all members.

MR. HANSON: I stand on a point of order because the minister is misleading the House. The formula has not been uniformly applied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, points of order must be relevant to actual, specific points of order. Differing opinions on any matter before the House certainly do not always or in essence constitute a point of order. On the same matter, the second member for Victoria.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw! Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I have one point of order, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ask that member to withdraw that I was misleading this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a point of order from the second member for Victoria, and then I will hear the point of order from the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask your guidance. The Provincial Secretary is in a conflict of interests, because his own riding would be annulled with the Warren report. The population statistics, the formula upon which the redistribution is based, would deny that member a seat, and that is why he's forcing it through this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That is not a point of order and would be better canvassed in debate or by a possible separate motion or whatever. But certainly it is not a point of order. Firstly, I must recognize the Provincial Secretary. Inasmuch as the Chair indicated that it would hear the point of order raised by the minister before recognizing the member, would he allow the courtesy of hearing the first point of order. Then I will recognize the member.

[ Page 9148 ]

MR. LAUK: With respect, when a ruling is made by the Chair and is immediately challenged, that has to be put to the House forthwith. I can't extend a courtesy I'm not empowered to extend.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? The ayes have it. A division is called.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the....

Interjections:

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the member for Dewdney.

MR. NICOLSON: You can't.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Dealing with the mechanism of the division, I draw to your attention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I recognize the member for Dewdney, there is a very complicated and complex situation regarding the Chair recognizing a member during a division. Clearly, the authorities indicate that there is discretion on the part of the Chair to recognize, but it's a very unclear situation in some regards. In this particular instance, hon. members, I am going to first call for the vote, and then if there are points of order, I will hear them at that time.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division.

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 24

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, I am dealing now with the mechanism of the division. If this House is going to demand that a vote be taken regardless of whether the members have been notified or not when the time limit has been reached, it is a negation of democracy regardless of what the rules are. I'm saying to you now that if I stand in my place as the government Whip and tell you that one member is in the precincts but not here to vote, I must insist that I be allowed to go and find him or come back and report. Until such time, the vote must not be taken. That has been done before in this House, in the session before this one, and I believe that we have plenty of proof that this is necessary. I draw your attention to this very troublesome fact: already today there are three offices I know of where the bells did not ring. Now that could defeat a government. I have to oppose this division very strongly.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing further speakers, may I advise the House that I am informed the electrical foreman for the building will again be checking at the noon recess today to see if the particular problem can be resolved.

On the point of order raised by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), that too will be given due consideration.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, this gives rise to the question discussed before, which Mr. Speaker has taken under advisement. The House must have clear evidence before it of how the division bells are working, and it must be non-partisan evidence. We can't have a report from the government Whip dictating to this House our procedures on divisions. How do we know that ministers aren't scooting off to Vancouver or to meetings, using lack of hearing the division bells as an excuse for their absence in the House to try and negate a vote on division? We've got to have a nonpartisan committee investigating these matters.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the point of order that you deferred while the challenge to the Chair was underway, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is a little testy this morning. He made an unparliamentary remark to the effect that I was misleading the House, and I wish you'd have him withdraw that remark. I find that very offensive, especially coming from that member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been asked to have withdrawn a remark which the member finds offensive. I would ask the member if he would, as requested, withdraw the remark which another member has found offensive.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I must inquire of the second member for Victoria if he was attributing any improper motive to the minister in his remark.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)....

MR. SPEAKER: I am simply asking the member if he was attributing an improper motive to another hon. member of this chamber.

I will deal with this matter first and then I will hear the other members. At this time the Chair is addressing a very important issue and I would like to deal with this matter until I have finished with what is presently before us.

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling.

[ Page 9149 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I am dealing with one point of order at a time. The member has been here long enough to know that one point of order is dealt with first, and then we go to a second point of order.

I must again ask the second member for Victoria this question: did he attribute an improper motive to another hon. member of this House?

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary may be misleading the House inadvertently. Without knowledge, he may be misleading this House. He is misleading this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask again: is the member suggesting an improper motive by another hon. member of this Chamber?

MR. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary indicated he had not read the mathematics of the report. He may be doing it inadvertently.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Now I will hear the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I'm disturbed that the Speaker has demanded of the second member for Victoria an answer to the question: is he implying any improper motive to the minister? I know of no authority for the Speaker to ask that particular question of the hon. member for Victoria at that stage, and I object to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The situation presently before us, hon. members, is that the word in itself has not always been ruled unparliamentary if it has a connotation. For that reason the Chair must determine whether an improper motive has been attributed to another hon. member. Clearly that is not the case with the statement of the second member for Victoria, and on that the matter rests.

MR. HALL: I've been troubled for some time over the use of the word "misleading." I found to my surprise, on returning here in 1979, that there were occasions when, for instance, chairmen of committees were jumping on members who used the word "misleading." But for many years the word had been used without any problem whatsoever in this House. It's only when the word "misleading" is used in conjunction with the word "deliberate" that disciplinary proceedings flowed. I see the nodding of heads of members who have been in the House for some time. I would ask the Speaker to look at that. It seems to me that oftentimes we are misled in this House for a whole range of reasons, and therefore for a whole range of motives. To say more than that would probably be out of order. It seems to me that I will oftentimes make statements which I hope are offensive to people on the other side of the House; otherwise I wouldn't be saying them. It's what and how it's said, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, to ask people to withdraw a word just because somebody on the other side of the House finds it offensive is no reason to have it withdrawn at all. One has to seek what is behind the words.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Again, that is precisely why the Chair must make the inquiry to see that that is particularly the case that is before us. Again, the word "deliberate" is really the key to that particular action.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I think I must join other hon. members who have raised this question of the use of the word "misleading." I think Your Honour has now dealt with it properly, which is, I think, the way Your Honour should have dealt with it in the first place. The member for Victoria did not use the word "deliberately." That should have been the key to Your Honour not to get involved in this spurious point of order raised by the Provincial Secretary. I submit that you should not have gone further. It's just a guide to the future when those words are used. I'm sure Your Honour will follow it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you didn't deal with the guidance I sought from you. We have a report that is factually in error.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The decision on that was challenged. The decision of the Chair was upheld and the matter is closed. You are, in fact, reflecting on a vote at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. LAUK: May I speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not debatable, hon. member, so it would be very difficult to speak on it. The question is adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.