[ Page 9297 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Technical training courses. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Student loans. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Cuts in school programs. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Oakalla women inmates. Mrs. Dailly –– 9298

Release of dangerous offenders. Mr. Levi –– 9298

Resolution 34. (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9299

Mr. Cocke –– 9300

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9300

Mr. King –– 9302

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9303

Mr. Barber –– 9304

Mr. Davis –– 9305

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 9306

Mr. Lauk –– 9308

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9308

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On section 2 (continued) –– 9309

Mr. Barber

Mrs. Jordan

On section 5 as amended –– 9311

Hon. Mr. Williams

On section 6 9312

Mr. Gabelmann

Division on third reading –– 9312

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2) –– 1982 (Bill 76). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 2 –– 9312

Ms. Brown

On section 14 –– 9312

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Waterland

On section 18 –– 9313

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Hon. Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Third reading

Ministry Of Energy, Mines And Petroleum Resources Amendment Act. 1982 (Bill 77).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Third reading –– 9316

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 75). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 9316

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9317

Appendix –– 9319

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: There are two gentlemen in the gallery I would like the House to recognize. The first is an old friend who is a regular visitor to the gallery, Cyril Shelford, a former member of the House. The gentleman with Cyril is Mr. Jack Butterworth, president of the B.C. Hotels Association who is in Victoria today to meet with a number of cabinet ministers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting Victoria today, all the way from Castricurn in Holland, is Mr. Hein Groot. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting in the galleries today is Dr. Jan Cioe, who is a psychology instructor at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, and president for this year of the College-Institute Educators Association of B.C. I would ask all hon. members to give Dr. Cioe a nice warm welcome.

Oral Questions

TECHNICAL TRAINING COURSES

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Education. On August 7 of this year the then Minister of Education stated: "We have been unable to train and educate enough skilled people to satisfy our needs. We must begin to educate and train our own people to an extent hitherto unrealized in this province." Can the new minister advise the House of the number of students turned away from technical training courses at our colleges as a result of course closures at a time of record enrolment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Last Saturday I had the pleasure of opening one of the greatest facilities in the province, a beautiful college in the city of Cranbrook. The people.of Cranbrook are extremely proud that we've been able to make this almost ten million dollar facility available to them. The enrolment is super-good, as it is in all colleges throughout the whole province. I must commend all of the college boards and faculties for doing such an excellent job in answering our request for restraint in such a positive manner. I cannot give the exact number; I will take that portion of the question on notice. But I can assure the hon. member that we as British Columbians should be real proud of the opportunity provided our young people.

MR. LAUK: By golly, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all members of the House are pleased to hear that the Minister of Education is opening up colleges and shutting down courses. The logic of that escapes me.

In view of the fact that in British Columbia there is a 22 percent to 23 percent unemployment rate among our young people, forcing them to scramble for training programs which are not there, has the minister decided that it is cheaper to import skilled labour from outside the province than to train our own?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In response to an offhand remark made when the question was put, I want to reiterate that we do not shut down courses. We have continually requested that school boards negotiate with teachers to ensure that not only that would this not happen, but that we would avoid layoffs at every opportunity. We have every trust and confidence that those school boards which have not been able to respond positively as yet, which have taken an approach much like the one expressed by the opposition — a rather negative one — will come around and meet the challenge they face, which other districts have met. We in British Columbia, and certainly the Ministry of Education, will do all we can, and we will continue to move very positively to ensure that job opportunities, or the training for such, are available.

STUDENT LOANS

MR. LAUK: I take it, by that answer, that he has indicated it is cheaper to import skilled labour than to train our own.

More than one week after classes had begun, thousands of college and university students who qualified for student loans and grants have yet to be advised whether they will receive this provincial aid, which they were guaranteed in legislation and regulations. Why has the government refused to release these funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry if I didn't answer the first question completely. There may be times when there is an advantage to an import — as he refers to it — resident, than possibly someone locally. An example is when we're asking someone for advice on banking. I would not turn to the hon. member for that sort of advice; I would sooner refer to an import.

The grant program has been announced. The hon. member, who is supposedly the critic for education and who should, one would trust, do his homework, obviously isn't aware of how the grant program is administered. I will gladly give him a written response so that he will remember for next time.

CUTS IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS

MR. LAUK: Thousands of students are waiting for the loans and grants that they qualified for. Last year, well ahead of this time, they had received them. I don't know whether the memo that the minister is talking about should come to me or to himself.

A last question to the minister. A recent survey of school trustees shows that school programs, especially those for disabled children, are being chopped this year. Has the minister any suggestions for these disabled children — and for their parents — who will not be receiving an education this year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if there's a district in the-province discontinuing classes for the disabled or the slow learners when other options are available to them — they seem to be supporting a political effort motivated by the NDP — I will certainly make available our investigators to review all of the material to ensure that this doesn't happen. There's no need for a school district to discontinue classes or programs for the handicapped or the slow learner. There's no need at all, unless they want to play politics.

[ Page 9298 ]

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary, the minister has stated that he wants school districts to cut back their budgets. He doesn't want them to cut off special-needs courses. He doesn't want them to cut off other kinds of courses, nor the core curriculum. What is there left that the minister is suggesting they cut off? They have to cut off some of these courses, and I'm asking the minister: as a result of his imposed arbitrary, across-the-board cutbacks — and some school districts have more disabled students than others — what does he suggest these disabled students and parents do? These kids are not going to get an education this year. What do you suggest?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the case of my own constituency, Surrey, the school board has sent out 90 layoff notices. I understand, though I haven't got all the details yet, that they're also proposing to cut into several programs. The alternative is a 2 percent rollback by the teachers of their 17 1/2 percent increase, or the giving up of two professional days. I believe that by far the majority of teachers in this province are very reasonable people who would much prefer that option to layoffs and the cutting of programs. I am pleased to say that the school board in Surrey is reviewing their decision, and I would hope that the NDP will keep their politics out of it.

OAKALLA WOMEN INMATES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that plans are being made to decentralize Oakalla, and also, I understand, to place the present women inmates, and some from the federal prison in Kingston, into Burnaby North, and also to send the other male inmates into the other municipality of Surrey, the area of Coquitlam-Moody and the downtown area of Vancouver.... I wonder if the Attorney-General could confirm whether the information I have is correct.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the decision has not been made to decentralize Oakalla. The decision has been made to phase out Oakalla completely and to replace it with modern facilities. That 70- or 80-year-old facility does not meet any standards, certainly not those of the United Nations with respect to facilities for the incarceration of prisoners.

With regard to where the facilities will be located, one unit is in downtown Vancouver, and that unit will be opened in January 1983; one unit is planned for the city of Port Coquitlam; one unit is planned for the municipality of Maple Ridge. The location of the new facilities for women prisoners has not yet been settled and awaits the completion of engineering studies. We have one preferred site, which I believe is in North Burnaby, but we are not certain whether that site is suitable to receive the facilities. The last site is also not yet decided. We are looking at a number of prospective sites in the lower mainland.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

MR. LEVI: During the Attorney-General's estimates, Mr. Speaker, I asked him whether his officials were advised by the penitentiary people of the impending release of dangerous offenders. I am not now discussing the Claude St. Louis case which was publicized last week. Is the minister prepared to give the House an undertaking that he will petition the Solicitor-General, Mr. Kaplan, that provincial governments be advised of the impending release of dangerous offenders, so that we do not have a repeat of the Olson and the Kocurek cases and other horrors that we have had in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the release of prisoners under mandatory supervision is, as the member knows, a matter of statutory responsibility, and an attempt on the part of the federal corrections service to intercede in that regard is currently a challenge before the courts. I therefore do not wish to comment upon that matter, because it is clearly sub judice.

With respect specifically to the matter of pre-advance notice of the release of so-called dangerous offenders, that requires a judgment on the part of the persons who make the release. Indeed, quite obviously the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has himself made a judgment, and I am not certain that his judgment is one which would stand any appropriate test. In the Criminal Code of Canada we do have a definition of "dangerous offender." I'm not certain that that definition would necessarily apply to the persons the member has named.

With respect to mandatory supervision, a considerable time ago the Ministry of the Attorney-General raised with the Solicitor-General the need for a reconsideration of the legislation that provides for mandatory supervision and the basis upon which the National Parole Board makes its decisions.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, that's the most unadulterated matter of cock I've ever heard from anybody who is the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: I am not suggesting that he interfere with any legislation. There was a practice in this province, not 15 years ago, that the Attorney-General's department was advised of the impending release of dangerous criminals. All I'm saying to you is: go speak with your colleague in Ottawa and say we cannot have a situation where people who are dangerous offenders suddenly appear on the street and then slip through the net. That's all I'm asking you to do. Nobody's talking about interfering with mandatory parole. Go talk to him and be advised; know who's coming on the street. That's why I'm asking for the undertaking — that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Give us that undertaking, and the people out there will feel a lot better protected than they feel now, I can assure you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have had occasion to protect the people of this province against certain people, and we will continue to discharge that responsibility under the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Implicit in the member's argumentative statement, I assume, is a question. He should recognize that there is very little value in giving an undertaking that I will ask the Solicitor-General to inform us about actions that he proposes to take. It is much more positive and therefore more of an assurance to the citizens of this province that we take action to make sure that the Solicitor-General

[ Page 9299 ]

changes the laws of this country so people are not released on mandatory supervision.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members are familiar with the rules of this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney-General will come to order. Question period is concluded. Any further outbreaks of this type will result in immediate ejection from this chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to move Motion 29 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move resolution 34 standing under my name on the order paper. First of all, I would like to read this resolution:

"Be it resolved that, as the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an amendment to the constitution of Canada may be initiated by the Legislative Assembly of a province, we the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia hereby authorize the Governor-General to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows: '7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,' and urge that the Legislative Assemblies of all other provinces and the Senate and the House of Commons pass similar resolutions."

In speaking to this resolution I would make a plea to all members on both sides of the House to put aside their partisan differences and unite in a common cause: to additionally secure a basic principle of democracy in Canada.

Throughout history democracy has been based upon and has thrived upon four basic rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security of the person and the right to property. These rights are the four equal cornerstones on which true freedom is built. Remove one of those cornerstones and one impairs the freedom of the individual.

Canada is still in the process of constitutional evolution. In that process surely all Canadians have to be committed to further secure, in these troubled times, those four cornerstones against the very turbulent winds of change that all the nations of the western world are now facing daily. It is true that we inherited from Britain these basic principles heralded from the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, more than seven centuries ago.

Mr. Speaker, blessed indeed is the fact that our heritage, our democratic system, our rules of law, which flowed from that historic event, and also our principles of freedom are based upon these same cornerstones: the four inalienable rights of life, liberty, security of the person and of property, all of which have granted us the opportunity to build and become one of the most respected, fair-minded and envied nations in the world.

As I said, Canada is in the process of fundamental change, and a major part of this change was the further securing of our freedoms in a written constitution guaranteeing for every Canadian the continuation of his and her heritage of freedom: the ground rules, which together with the vigilance of our citizens, the accountability of government, the independence of our judiciary, the freedom of the press and the rule of law will govern all of our present laws and all of our future laws.

The germane point is this: our constitution today guarantees three of our basic rights — to life, liberty and security of the person — but still lacks the fourth, a guarantee to the right of property. That all Canadians have such a right is undeniable. It flows from our heritage — our heritage through emigration, and also through British common law.

Our heritage through emigration falls into two distinct patterns. There are those who came to the new world from democratic countries where the right to property was an integral part of freedom, and they had every belief that this right would continue in Canada. Then there are those who came to our country because it offered a freedom, including the right to property, which in many cases they were denied in their native lands. They too had every belief that this right would be found and continue to be found — and I emphasize those words "continue to be found" — in Canada.

Our heritage through the law is equally undeniable. Everybody has heard the expression, a man's house is his castle. I understand the earliest attribution for this phrase was the Latin poet Persius, shortly after the time of Christ, A.D. 34 to 62. Later on we have the words of Sir Edward Coke, who was a major influence in the development of English law in 1605, who said: "The house of everyone is to him his castle." In 1760, in the House of Commons, there was the elegant statement of William Pitt: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through, the storms may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold." Then we have the sentiments of one of the original justices of the United States Supreme Court and signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence, James Wilson, when he stated: "The right of private property is founded in the nature of men and things. What belongs to no one is wasted by everyone. What belongs to one man in particular is the object of his economy and care. Exclusive property prevents disorder and promotes peace."

We also find United States President Madison, saying at the beginning of the 19th century, "The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to the property, when acquired, a right to protection as a social right." Pope Leo XIII expressed it thusly in 1891: "Every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the significance of this right has been constantly reaffirmed throughout history in the courts and in the common and statute law of the United Kingdom, from whom we inherited our laws, and subsequently in Canada. It was reaffirmed in our country in 1960 in the Canadian Bill of Rights, where the words are found; "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property." I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for that right to be finally confirmed and entrenched as a cornerstone of our democracy and inserted into the constitution of Canada, along with its present rights to life, liberty and security of person.

[ Page 9300 ]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing novel, unique or new concerning this proposal. Similar measures are found in the constitutions of some two dozen nations throughout the world, as well as in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. It's found further in the constitutional amendment which was introduced as Bill C-60 by the federal government in 1978. It was further proposed for inclusion during the joint Senate and House of Commons committee within its deliberations in January, 1981, but that committee reversed its position and set the measure aside. Surely now it can proceed. The right to property — one of the four cornerstones of democratic freedom — has to be constitutionally guaranteed to all Canadians. That is fair, correct and most necessary. It indeed reflects the way of life of Canadians and it reflects the Canadian aspirations. It must be put in place without delay.

Under our new constitution, Mr. Speaker, a province can take an initiative for constitutional amendment. This is the first such Canadian initiative since Her Majesty proclaimed our constitution in Ottawa last April 17. I would urge all members of the House today to unite in this common front and common cause to give unanimous support to this very highly important and historically significant resolution.

In moving the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I will close with a quotation from the words of a renowned United States ambassador, Joseph H. Choate, who said this: "The preservation of the rights of private property was the very keystone of the arch upon which all civilized governments rest." I say, Mr. Speaker, honour those words, respect those sentiments, and support this resolution. I so move.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in this debate following our sunshine minister. For a number of years before becoming a part of the coalition, that minister was a member of the opposition who kept talking about letting the sunshine in. He had a lot to say about our expropriation laws in this province, as did his seatmate, the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), both of whom have been Attorneys-General for some time. I haven't seen any relief with respect to our expropriation laws. I think they are absolutely horrendous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're coming.

MR. COCKE: They've been coming for years. Yes, we can support this resolution — it's motherhood — but the fact of the matter is: what has that crowd over there been doing? The ombudsman, Mr. Speaker.... Mr. Speaker, am I offending your hearing?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not exactly into a totally wide-ranging debate. We are on....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're talking about property rights. I'm talking about property rights, and I think from that standpoint — it's wide ranging — to at least include the discussion of expropriation.... Because, Mr. Speaker, that's part and parcel of the whole question.

I listened to that speaker, that Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who was the Attorney-General and who had all the opportunity in the world whilst he was the Attorney-General — as has his great friend sitting beside him, the now Attorney- General; they have done absolutely nothing to provide relief in this province for those people confronted with our horrendous expropriation laws. Hydro is a law unto itself Hydro still has the right to grab property whether they need it or not. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, debating an issue that says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." I say that the principles of fundamental justice have been offended by that government, and offended particularly by the Highways Ministry, because they've got the broadest, most sweeping expropriation laws that one could ever find. Most jurisdictions in Canada are far better than we are with respect to providing people with compensation, fair play and arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, our expropriation acts in this province are not fair. The minister says that they're going to be changed, but my good heavens, how long does it take to have them changed?

I had the audacity to put forward a resolution in this House, and they didn't want to discuss it, because it was with respect to the Cuthbert case, a case that hung for 13 years — people who had been deprived of property and justice. It was very straightforward; the ombudsman came down with a report and said that that was the case. I therefore put forward a resolution asking that the House adopt the ombudsman's report. The government got a little nervous at that point, because they didn't want to debate my motion. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had a deathbed repentance and, arbitrarily and on his own — and I was glad — accepted the ombudsman's report and restored their property rights to them.

Mr. Speaker, that government has been in power in this province for all but three years and four months of the last 32 years. At long last I see relief at the end of the tunnel. They're going down the tube just as sure as faith, and I'll tell you why.

All of a sudden we see deathbed repentance. We see relief for this, cash for that suddenly coming in. The people in this province have good reason not to believe them, and the people are saying: "We have before us just another bit of deathbed repentance."

Of course we'll support it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the member for New Westminster in response to this very important motion. He called it motherhood. Perhaps it's because that member and the other 25 over there, who have not been attending to public affairs on the policy side or the issues of this country or this province for the last three and a half years, have been sleeping, and once again he has been caught short and is now going to embarrass himself, his caucus and their provincial and national parties.

This motion represents the words contained in a motion for inclusion in the new constitution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Joe Clark, and agreed to by the federal government on a Friday. They were taken out on the Monday at the insistence of the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa, who said he would withdraw his support for the unilateral action of the Trudeau government if it contained the amendment that would guarantee property rights to the people of this country. This is the very amendment which was so important to Mr. Broadbent that he threatened to withdraw his support for Prime Minister Trudeau's unilateral action. It became a national story. Yet that little group over there has

[ Page 9301 ]

been so oblivious of the debate in this country that once again, in their complete ignorance....

The member for New Westminster has embarrassed himself. He calls it motherhood. He says they'll support it. Talk about a deathbed repentance! That member, fearful that the public will find out what he truly thinks and what his party stands for, what they've been saying nationally, what they had withdrawn from the proposals on the constitution — a matter of public record....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a withdrawal from the Premier. I can understand why he's upset. But what he said about the member for New Westminster is unparliamentary. He said that the member for New Westminster said something in this House, but that it wasn't his real motivation. I believe that is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to interrupt another member's speech on a point of order that is not a point of order is in itself unparliamentary. If the member addressed has taken offence to a remark.... Certainly the Chair did not find that so. If the member himself takes offence to a remark, I'm sure he can so inform the Chair. But the Chair finds that that in no way would qualify as an unparliamentary remark.

MR. LEA: Then just how would you call to order someone who has imputed an improper motive? That's what the Premier was doing. It's pure and simple; it's under our standing orders. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be incumbent upon you to ask the Premier to withdraw that remark, or ask him whether, indeed, he did mean it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the Premier, an hon. member has claimed that a motive other than that expressed has been imputed. If so, was any improper motive imputed?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I would consider an improper motive — from my philosophical viewpoint — might not be considered improper by them. If they are offended by my strong defence of property rights, then I certainly withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: The Premier has no special rights in this House. He is equal to us as members of this Legislature, and what Mr. Speaker asks him to do is the same as asking any other member. I asked for a withdrawal. You asked to have it clarified and he has done that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Premier make the necessary withdrawal?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I certainly did.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now if I could go on, property rights are fundamental to the beliefs of most Canadians. Certainly most Canadians would be frightened if they felt those property rights were attacked. I remember the debate very well on the constitution. I remember the shock that many of us felt when the agreement by the Trudeau government to accept the Conservative motion of a Friday night was withdrawn on the Monday because the New Democratic Party in parliament had told the Trudeau government that they would lose their alliance. They could no longer support the unilateral action of the Trudeau government, which at that time was pressing forward on the constitutional front in a number of ways unacceptable to this government and to many Canadians. Thankfully, they were stopped.

So the Trudeau government, once again bowing to the New Democratic Party in the federal parliament, withdrew these fundamental property rights, worded today in this motion as they were proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Clark. Now that the constitution has taken on a more structured form, now that we are listing rights and are observing not the common law, which we had for our constitution, but have gone to a written constitution listing those rights.... I think many Canadians felt that, while property was not questioned before, they had the right to property. The very fact that the New Democratic Party made this a major point in that debate, and had these very words withdrawn, made them frightened. Our government has contacted all other governments. We will proceed to put this on the constitutional agenda. It must be there.

The constitutional debate was one in which I heard the same giggles, the same nervous laughter from the New Democratic Party opposition as I am hearing today. When it gets to a matter of principle, they stand up and make these inane speeches. Let me tell you that putting rights in the constitution is important, and putting property rights in the constitution, now that it has taken that form, is important to me, our party, our government and our people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phony!

HON. MR. BENNETT: If that member for New Westminster (Mr Cocke) or.... I can't really tell which of the members just yelled: "Phony." I'll tell you who is phony. I have witnessed debates in this House before. I have some great quotes on property rights. I have one from Hansard for September 24, 1973, attributed to a member, Colin Gabelmann. He said: "It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned." That's what he said then. In Hansard for February 1, 1973, Ms. Karen Sanford said: "I personally feel that land and land use are far too important to be left to the whims of the marketplace." In Homemaker's Magazine for May 12, 1974, page 12, Ms. Rosemary Brown said: "I don't believe in private ownership of land. It's a myth that we can own anything."

Given those statements from the leading members of the New Democratic Party caucus in this Legislature — not those who are only used to vote but the leading members of thought and opinion in that party — and given the action of the leader of the federal New Democrats, Ed Broadbent, in forcing the Trudeau government, with a majority in the House of Commons, but needing their alliance if they were to have any chance of unilaterally forcing through constitutional changes that were unacceptable.... They made the House Leader withdraw at that time the section that had been proposed by Mr. Clark.

Interjections.

[ Page 9302 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster says: "Why are you upset?" I think every Canadian is upset by that member and by their attitude towards important things in this country.

I support this motion. I'm surprised that somebody would treat an item as important as the constitution as "motherhood," as suggested by the member for New Westminster. I believe it should be in the constitution. I see no reason why it became a major tactic for support to have that withdrawn. Only members who support the party federally and the leader who made that move and had it withdrawn can answer that question. I don't know why he did it. Only you can answer that. But I can tell you why we want to have this constitutional amendment. We think it belongs with the other rights for our Canadian citizens. I think it's fundamental that while constitutional talks are upcoming we should put on the record as British Columbia always has, seriously viewing our constitution and the debate that surrounded it — those items that we think are important to the Canadian nation and the Canadian people. Our government has urged our colleagues in other governments across this country to support the motion. Now we're asking the New Democratic Party members in this Legislature to reverse the position of their federal party, and I await the vote. I support the motion.

MR. LEA: So do we.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's amazing how they say they've changed their position before we've voted. It does seem funny to me that on every major initiative this government is now introducing we now have the me-too gang. They voted with the government on every single bill we've introduced or passed this sitting. Now they want to say "me too" again. I wonder if you perceive, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that somehow they don't want to get into any controversy on issues. But this most important issue, which — when the members stop giggling and laughing — will be treated in a serious manner.... I would like to hear them individually state why they support it and at the same time send a message to their federal leader. Not one of them spoke up on the tactic of Ed Broadbent and the federal NDP when they had this withdrawn from the constitution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's because you didn't even know what was happening in this country. That's what's wrong with you. You're so busy playing silly party politics you're afraid to stand up on national or provincial issues. You were afraid — when it counted. You think it may be to your political advantage today — oh, you're willing to stand up now — but where were you when it counted?

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion.

MR. KING: I have some heard some convoluted arguments in my life, but I think that one had to take the cake. Never in my experience in the House, Mr. Speaker, have I seen such an adverse and bitter reaction from a government introducing a motion upon the advice that the opposition will indeed support that motion. The Premier seemed to be very disappointed, and I can understand why. I think the Premier likes to go around the province telling tales about the position of the New Democratic Party, and when he's impaled on the horns of his own petard by having that issue put to a vote in the House, he cannot abide the truth.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's interesting that he should blame the federal New Democratic Party. I don't propose to deal with that for long, except to say that the Premier of the province of British Columbia was the chief provincial spokesman for all the Premiers of Canada relating to the negotiation of the contents of Canada's new constitution. If it was indeed an important matter of principle to him that property rights should be enshrined in the constitution, why did he collapse and abdicate against what he claims was a minority group that held the rest to ransom? That argument does not hold water, Mr. Speaker. If in fact he was so concerned about having this kind of provision in the federal constitution, he should have insisted, as the chairman of the Premiers of Canada, that it be retained in the constitution. I think the Premier is trying to politicize an issue on which he sought to gain partisan advantage rather than accepting in good conscience that this House is apparently united in the motion before it.

My colleague the member for New Westminster raised the question of whether the government's conduct and the laws on the statute books administered by this government conform and are consistent with the concept of property rights, and I think that's a valid thing to do. I can tell you that I come from an area of the province that has been disrupted in a major fashion, like no other area, as a result of expropriation flowing from British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's arbitrary conduct respecting the Arrow reservoir, the Mica Dam and now the Revelstoke Dam. We have lost hundreds of thousands of acres of private land.

Do I have to tell this House again the horror stories of British Columbia Hydro officials, under the statutes presided over by this government, under the mandate of this government, entering upon property and burning buildings before any expropriation was completed, over the protests of the little citizens of this province? Do I have to remind the House of the property seized — not expropriated but seized — under the auspices of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, far in excess of the needs for the reservoir? And then ultimately, when it was found to be surplus to Hydro's needs, it was not returned to that citizen; nay, it was placed on the real estate market so that Hydro could speculate with that private land which had been seized from its owners, all under the laws presided over by Social Credit. There are cases where B.C. Hydro profiteered on land they had seized from private citizens and sold at an increase of 1,000 percent. And the government comes forward altruistically today and says: "Oh, aren't we wonderful. We're putting a motion on the order paper to state that we believe in private property rights."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we support the sentiment. But I personally would be far more impressed if they brought forward an equitable expropriation law that guaranteed natural justice to all the people in respect of their land holdings and the other commodities under their control. I have spoken on innumerable occasions in this Legislature about the basic ingredients of a fair expropriation act to guarantee natural justice to the citizens of the province; basically, that is to ensure that Hydro or any other agency of the Crown, any other bureaucratic monstrosity which is the creature of this government, should first of all have to justify the public need for the land they are

[ Page 9303 ]

seeking to expropriate. They should have to guarantee that persons defending a fair price for that property — once it is established that it is needed for public convenience — should not have imposed upon them a heavy cost to defend that which is theirs and which they seek to retain, rather than having to face a battery of legal experts retained by Hydro, and a battery of soil analysts, hydrologists and other technical people who are there to demonstrate that Hydro is indeed offering a fair price when it's in fact bargain basement. There is absolutely no way that the private citizen can afford to argue with Hydro when an array of talent of that kind is lined up against him.

The final insult and indignity is that the individual who is suffering at the hands of this bureaucratic monstrosity is in fact providing the public funds that buy all of the technical expertise being used against him. If you believed in property rights, in fair play and natural justice for the citizens of the province of British Columbia, you wouldn't bring forward a self-serving motion. You would change the law to protect that citizen in a statutory fashion. That's why I think it's a bit hypocritical of the government to get up in this self-serving way with this motion of intention, rather than any statutory change.

Other things are necessary in a fair expropriation act. Failing agreement, as I indicated, Hydro — or whatever the expropriation agency, whether the Highways ministry, B.C. Hydro or any other agency of government — should provide equitable representation to that landowner to protect what is his, at no cost. Failing agreement, there should be a fair system of arbitration at no cost to the landowner to defend what is rightfully his in the first instance. Many people on this side of the House have advocated that for years. I have seen the greatest abuse of citizens in this province at the hands of B.C. Hydro that one could imagine. One would not believe that that kind of heavy-handed trammelling of individual rights could take place in the province of British Columbia. I do not exaggerate when I say that representatives of that agency have entered onto private property, bulldozed down buildings and put them to the torch because the owner of that land would not come to an agreement with them, and they didn't bother to wait for the nicety of expropriation to gain the legal authority. Talk about abuse! Talk about contempt for individual rights, much less property rights! That is the epitome, Mr. Speaker.

While we certainly support this motion, which is a statement of intent, I would be far more impressed if the government would bring the statutory provisions of the Highways ministry, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, and the many other expropriation rights that exist under provincial statute, into one consolidated form, guaranteeing the elementary provisions of natural justice to the citizens of the province of British Columbia. That would be far more meaningful than this statement of good intentions on the eve of whatever this government is planning within the next month, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's a bit of a charade for the Premier to get in high dudgeon and take such offence at the fact that we support this motion of pale intent by this government.

HON. MR CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which I thing is an important one to put on the constitutional agenda for resolution in this country. I think the enjoyment of property is a very important principle for people in this country, which has been recognized. But it has not been put into the constitution, and it needs to be there.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talks about fair expropriation laws in this province. I know he's made several speeches about it. He made speeches about it before he became a cabinet minister. He was always making speeches about fair expropriation laws, but he fails to tell the people of this province that they were government. I know it was a long time ago, and it was for a short period of time, but you had three and a third years to bring in what you considered to be necessary as far as fair expropriation laws are concerned, and you failed miserably. You'd rather make speeches than do anything about it. That's typical of a socialist.

I think everybody knows where the federal NDP stands, where Broadbent stands, as far as property rights are concerned, I don't think it's a secret to any Canadian in this country as to where the NDP stands on property rights. We know very well where they stand. The Premier touched very briefly this afternoon on a speech made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I think it's important for the record, especially under this resolution, that the full contents of his speech be put on the record during this very important debate on this resolution. I think this is the most appropriate place to put this on the record that I've ever seen. Here is that member for North Island speaking in the Legislature in September 1973 when they were government. He said:

It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned. I believe it is going to take us decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this society — and I have it too — that we all think we have to own a chunk of land, and until we own that chunk of land, until we own a house, we've actually not made it. We've got to reverse that philosophy, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting that this government will have the time to be able to do that.

He was talking about a socialist government. He was a backbencher in the socialist government, attempting to influence them to remove property rights from people in this province.

I think it's a thing that has to happen throughout North America over a great many years. I think that it's important that people begin to talk about the fact that there is no real difference between land and air, and we would think it absurd and insane if air were owned privately. I think it's the same situation for land. He was saying that in 1973, and I've never seen him deny it or reverse his position against the private ownership of land. I guess I shouldn't be amazed by the NDP this afternoon and the position they're taking on this. When it comes to political expediency they desert their principles very quickly, Mr. Speaker, and that's what they're doing today. They're flip-flopping, they're deserting their political principles against the private ownership of land because they're fearful of the electorate of this province. They're frightened for their political hides. That's why, time and again, on other pieces of legislation that have been put before this House in the last couple of days, the NDP have supported the government: they're fearful of their political hides. I'll tell you, they're certainly deserting their principles. They're deserting the many statements they've made against the private ownership of land in the past if they support this resolution. I'll tell you, the NDP have come full circle with this flip-flop in their support of what I consider to be a first-class resolution that should be strongly supported in this Legislature, but I never thought that I'd see the NDP flip-flop like they have in recent months, recent weeks and recent days.

[ Page 9304 ]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, one can imagine the discussion they had in the Socred caucus. "Let's put forward something," they said, "that would embarrass the New Democrats, something that they couldn't possibly vote for, and something that was connected with an issue of motherhood." I can imagine the member for the tiny riding of Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was one of those who said: "We'll catch them out on this one. We'll force them, we'll embarrass them, we'll cause a fight, and we'll make it impossible for them. They'll have to vote against it." As usual the MA for the tiny riding of Columbia River once again has misjudged politics and principle both. Once again he's demonstrated that the curiously psychotic nature of the coalition is one which holds up arguments that they believe are worthwhile but which they couldn't for a moment tolerate having the New Democrats support. You see, they think that if it's good, we therefore, as New Democrats, must be opposed to it. They believe, in that curiously psycho way of theirs, that if it's worthwhile, democratic socialists have to be against it. They're wrong about that, just as they're wrong about us. The member for Columbia River is wrong virtually all of the time. He is often wrong, but never in doubt; it's one of the tragedies of his personal political reputation that that is the case. Often wrong, but never in doubt is the member for Columbia River.

The Socred argument today has attempted once again to paint a false face on the New Democrat view of private property, the ownership and enjoyment of same. The member for the tiny riding of Columbia River has never bothered quoting any of my speeches during the last seven years in municipal affairs, when I have argued vigorously and repeatedly in favour of private property rights, private ownership of one's home, and the ability of citizen taxpayers to govern land use in their municipalities without the heavy hand of Social Credit — the centralist and statist hand, especially that of a notorious Minister of Municipal Affairs — interfering in their right to do that.

The Socreds, speaking generally and referring to no one by name, have told lies about us before. Let me illustrate briefly. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you were there in 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a standing principle that a comment made about a group of people can sometimes be deemed not unparliamentary. But I will caution the member that in any debate in the House, one should temper one's language and use moderate language. I'm sure the hon. first member for Victoria has the skill and capability to use parliamentary language at all times.

MR. BARBER: I use the word "lies" precisely, specifically and without reference to any individual.

You, Mr. Speaker, were in Prince George in 1974 when the then president of Social Credit said that the New Democratic Party government had created a secret police force with guns, bullets, warehouses and uniforms — although that was a particular bit of madness. What would a secret police force be doing wearing uniforms? However, that was her madness. And went on to say that New Democrats, having created the secret police force, proposed to take over the government of British Columbia by force if necessary. That was precisely, and without naming the individual, a lie. There never was a secret police force. There is not now. We would never create such a monstrosity, and we would never claim that our adversaries would either. It is utterly beyond them, as it was beyond us. But New Democrats have had lies told about them before, and that was one of the lies.

Lie number two, just as easily refuted, is that New Democrats apparently want to steal all the land, put it in a sack, take it over to Victoria and dump it behind the Parliament buildings somewhere. That kind of rubbish was also spread around; that lie was told. The word precisely is "lie." A lie is a statement upon which cannot be ascertained any basis of fact beneath it. There was none then; there is none now to the claim that New Democrats — in regard in that instance to the ALR, today in regard to this motion — are opposed to the ownership of land or property, and the benefits that derive therefrom.

The reason the Premier was so ill-tempered in his remarks is because he thought, in his wonderfully juvenile main-street Kelowna way, that he could somehow snooker us into voting against a not-so-cunningly-worded motion regarding property rights, but he failed to deal with two issues. First of all, he failed to recognize the utter hypocrisy of his own government's position. They've been in office 27 years out of the last 30, and what have they done to deal with the issue of property rights, the problems of expropriation and the related guarantees that must be found in statute law, and currently are not, in regard to the Hydro Act, Water Act, Highway Act, and on and on. At least 11 separate statutes touch on the question of expropriation. We were in office three years; they've been in office 27 years.

The first issue that the Premier failed to deal with, recognize and anticipate is the demonstrable hypocrisy of Social Credit members standing up and pretending now to care about property, when their own government has abused it more severely than any other in the history of this province. The Premier's second problem, and the second explanation for his ill temper today, is the fact that he failed to deal with the truth that our party has for years and years defended the notion that individuals must be protected from the abuses of the state. It was our party, not certain Socred blackshirts in Alberta, that defended the right of Canadians of Japanese origin to continue to own property during World War II. It was our party that defended the rights of Canadians native to this country — Indians — to vote in elections and not be subject to the abuses of the state. It was our party that defended the rights of those same Indian Canadians to own property in the first place. From its roots in the great labour, socialist, Christian and intellectual movements of the late nineteenth century.... Those four powerhouses of social democratic philosophy — the Christians, the intellectuals, the labourers and all the reformers, agrarian and otherwise, who came together in common bond on fundamentally Christian principles, fundamental Christian beliefs — have for years and years always stood to protect the individual against the abuses of the state.

We vote for this motion because we can find no wrong in it. It states a simple principle, one to which we've adhered for decades. The only thing we find wrong about it is the conduct of the debate. In British Columbia we are the victims of a Premier who degrades virtually every debate he enters. This Premier, degrading virtually every debate in which he participates, continues once again to demonstrate the utter shallowness, the absolute triviality, the incredible superficiality of what he tells us is his philosophy. Today, suddenly, just a few days before a general election, he is a defender of property rights. He doesn't mention that Social Credit, in power for 27 years, has undermined those rights more viciously than any

[ Page 9305 ]

other administration ever could or would. The Premier stands up and poses as a bit of a philosopher and tells us that it is somehow contrary to his philosophy to accept arguments he claims were made in Ottawa some time ago.

The Premier and his government will be recorded in history as being the most mean-spirited and petty-minded administration we have ever suffered. It's certainly true that they are cunning politicians. We freely grant to them that they are cunning political adversaries. But there is something so mean-spirited, so little-spirited, so small, about their so-called philosophy that we do resent just a little, just a few days before an election is to be called, a motion like this. It's not that the content is objectionable, but that the presentation of it is so phony, so entirely crass and political.

This motion is an admission of seven years of failure of the government headed by the current Premier. This motion is a clear agreement that for seven years they have failed utterly to deliver on a promise they made in 1975. I remember an advertisement that came out in my own riding. It was half a page, and it promised, among other things, a uniform expropriation law in British Columbia, to be enacted — if I recall correctly — within the first session. I don't have it here now, but I'll go and get it. I kept all those promises that the Socreds made. I've kept a really careful record of how many they've kept and how many they've broken.

The Premier, who in his small-minded and mean-spirited way degrades virtually every debate he enters, has done it again today. In 1975 he signed an ad: "Your friend, Bill." He said he would do something about expropriation; he would do it well and he would do it quickly. Seven years later he's done nothing but this motion. He is in fact so ungracious about the fact that we're going to support it that he throws his little tantrum here on the floor and gets whisked out of the House by his handlers.

We will support the motion, because we support the principle. Our party, when it was the CCF, and our party today, has fought for years to guarantee that the individual shall not be abused or diminished by the state. Our record on human rights is the finest in the country. We are and have been prouder of that than almost any other thing. We don't take a back seat to anyone in our commitment to protecting individuals, be it in their human rights or their property rights, or be it in the exercise of any complex or combination of the two. We have everything to be proud of, nothing to be ashamed of, and of course we support the motion. We will do so unanimously. The completely ungracious way in which the Premier greeted that news reveals more about his small mindedness and political agenda than it substantiates about his so-called philosophy.

Barbara Ward, now deceased, an author, scholar, journalist, a woman with whom I once had the honour of spending a day — I got to know her well, to the extent that you can get to know anyone well in a day, as intensely and excitingly as she presented ideas in that day — once said that in her view the ownership of one's own home is a safeguard of liberty. The sense of commitment to family, to neighbourhood, to the extended neighbourhood of a city and the planet, the sense of commitment, obligation, tradition and of being bound to something that works for you, like owning your own home, is, the late Barbara Ward argued, a safeguard of liberty, because it is hard to take it away. If you try to do it, they're going to fight back. That's a good thing. It is a fine thing, a principle we can and do support. It is a principle we have long supported and will happily support today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members that this can be a heated debate, but personal allusions directed at another hon. member of the House are quite unparliamentary. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

MR. DAVIS: This resolution, in my view, is important; it's historic, really. It can have important consequences. This resolution isn't phony, as one member said; it's not crass. Even the timing is right. The fundamental reason is this: we now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We've only had it for a few months. We obtained it this spring when it was proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth in Ottawa. From that moment onward we've had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms; not before, at any time in our history. We have not only a charter but a formula; we have a process whereby the charter can be improved or changed. Here today we have an opportunity to pass a resolution which will start that process. That process itself has to be tested, but I hope in this case it will work. If this resolution passes all legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, it will change the charter.

New charter, new ball game. Until this spring the ball game was quite different. The powers of the provinces were listed; the powers of the federal government were listed. The first and greatest power of the provinces was property and civil rights. The provinces, quite rightly, down through the years have opposed the inclusion of property in some legislation which would be federal in nature. Now we have a charter. A charter is legislation approved not by a single legislature or singly by the Parliament of Canada but by them collectively; and in order to change it we have to have a collective resolution. Seven or eight provinces and the Parliament of Canada will have to agree to the resolution, and if it is approved by those legislatures and by Parliament it will become part of our national — and indeed provincial, plural — Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So we're departing on a new course. For a province, of its own volition, to say that the individual's right to own property should be enshrined in this charter, which is a unique law, above all other law, is an important concession by a province. British Columbia, I hope this afternoon, unanimously will agree that this right should be enshrined in the law above all other laws. And British Columbia, within limits at least, will have given up — as a province, as a single legislature, as a single government — the right to control the individual's property. I think that is very important; it's precedent-setting, certainly in this country. A resolution to that effect is a resolution which should cause our other provinces, and certainly the federal government, to sit up and take notice.

So I think it's important. It's a move that I heartily endorse. I believe members on both sides of the House have agreed that now that we have a charter it should include life, liberty, and among other things, very importantly, the individual's right to own property.

Now remember that this takes from the province its exclusive control over property. The old British North America Act gave that exclusively to the provinces, and not to the national government. That power now, in some measure at least, will be surrendered if this resolution is adopted by seven or eight other legislatures and by the federal government. What does it do? It limits the power of future governments, be they Social Credit or New Democratic or some other designation, to have exclusive control over property. It

[ Page 9306 ]

limits their power to deal roughly, crassly or unfairly with people in areas such as expropriation.

I certainly would agree that our expropriation law is a long way out of date; we have far too many statutes dealing with expropriation. We need a single law dealing with expropriation, a law somewhat similar to the federal law passed roughly ten years ago dealing with federal expropriation. Nevertheless, by passing this resolution today, and with similar passages across the country and in Ottawa, we limit the power of governments, provincial and federal, to expropriate.

It will be interesting to see what the inclusion of property rights in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms does to certain other matters like zoning. Zoning can be a form of expropriation. Indeed, it can be expropriation under another name, in another guise. What does it do in areas like rent control? What does it do in other areas: property taxes, death duties, capital gains tax? I assume our law in those areas won't be changed much. But there could well be challenges under the heading of property if the individual's right to property is included as an inalienable right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

This is an important step; it certainly is an important resolution. The sequence of steps is laid out for all to see. This legislature passes a resolution to this effect. Seven or eight other legislatures pass ft. The House of Commons is faced then with the requisite number of provincial approvals. Will it or will it not pass it? I understand the Conservative Party is certainly in favour of including it in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Initially the Trudeau government had it included. I would think a majority of MPs would approve it, and it's in the charter. We will have amended our charter; we'll have done the impossible — at least it's very difficult in other countries like the United States to change their Bill of Rights. We will have changed our bill of rights; we'll have corrected it; we'll have made it certainly much more authoritatively a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that deals with all the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Certainly a charter which doesn't deal with property doesn't deal with all the rights and freedoms of the individual. It can't. Property is difficult to define. Property is more than real estate, more than acreage, more than buildings. As one hon. member opposite said, it can be your home, your residence, your clothing, your right arm, or knowledge that you have obtained. That is your property for you to exploit or do otherwise with as you wish. At some point it's property; at some point in that long list of properties it's intimate, it's individualistic, it relates to the individual.

Our other laws will have to be tested as to their reasonableness relative to the individual's right of property. Now obviously one individual's right to property can impinge on another individual's right of property. They may be squabbling over the same piece of property. So this doesn't say that one individual has unlimited right to property. There's common property, there's public property, and there are rivers and oceans. There's obviously property in the physical sense, which extends beyond the reach of the individual in any reasonable democratic society. Reasonableness will emerge in the testing of the legislation.

I personally am very much for the inclusion of the individual's right to property in our Canadian charter. I know that this government is also, now that we have a charter. I'm told — I listen and I hear — that the opposition is, and that's fine. It'll be interesting to see what happens, Mr. Speaker, when this resolution is passed, when it proceeds to the other legislatures and to Ottawa to see what they do about it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief, but I wanted to respond to some of the comments that have been made so far regarding this resolution, which I strongly support and which British Columbia has strongly supported since the first days of the constitutional debate in Canada, through the government, at least, but perhaps not on the opposite side of the House. I think it's extremely important that the people of British Columbia understand why the New Democratic Party is willing to vote in this Legislature in favour of this resolution. In fact, what they're trying to do is to crawl out of a very deep hole which they've dug for themselves over the years by their public statements, particularly outside of this Legislature.

I'd like to comment on the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) who gave such a stirring defence of the NDP's protection of property rights. He talks about people telling lies and about the positions that the NDP has taken in the past. I guess the question I'd like to ask, Mr. Speaker, is: is it true that the member for North Island (Mr. Gablemann) did not say that land can no longer by owned privately? Maybe we should look at it differently. Did he not say that?

MR. GABELMANN: I said a lot of dumb things ten years ago.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I hope that gets on the record in Hansard. Let it be recorded that the member for North Island said: "I said a lot of dumb things ten years ago." But he admits that he said it, and he still believes in it. Is it not true...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the Minister of Labour, I'll just ask you to discontinue for a second. The hon. member for North Island can participate if he wishes. I would appreciate it if people don't heckle. Also, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is heckling, and he's not even in his place, which is most unparliamentary.

The Speaker's list indicates that there are still a lot of speakers who are left. Members who have not yet spoken in debate will be allowed their chance if they wish.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make is that despite what the first member for Victoria might say, the members opposite — a number of them — have made very clear statements in this province that they do not believe in the private ownership of land. They don't deny that, but to come back here and vote in favour of a resolution supporting the private ownership of land is hypocrisy at its very worst. But if they can live with their conscience, going against their own philosophy in that way, I guess that's okay, and it's not really our business.

I do get disturbed by the kinds of attitudes, particularly of the first member for Victoria, who mocks, who makes fun of, for instance, the riding of Columbia River, sneering down his nose at everybody who doesn't live in Victoria. He talks about the tiny little riding of Columbia River — which is, incidentally, 11,000 square miles, compared to Victoria, which is probably 11 square miles. Every time he sneers

[ Page 9307 ]

about members from North Peace River, about members from Kelowna, and about members from Langley....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! That's not on the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it's in direct response to the things that the first member for Victoria mentioned about land ownership around this province and the enjoyment of property rights through the Canadian constitution. Mr. Speaker, that member continually looks down his nose at anybody who doesn't play a flute in the Victoria Symphony Orchestra. He demeans all British Columbians who live outside of the big city — every one of them — with his attitude.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about making political promises through ads in the newspapers, as the first member for Victoria talked about. He said he kept all his ads. I kept all of yours, and I remember the famous ad that you put in the paper about $25 car insurance as your major election promise in 1972 or 1975 — which election was that? Where did it ever come from?

Mr. Speaker, everybody in British Columbia believes in the enjoyment of property rights. Everybody dreams of owning his own home, regardless of his age or where he lives in British Columbia. One of the good things that we have going for us in British Columbia is that we do enjoy a very high level of home ownership. I think over 60 percent of the citizens of British Columbia own their own homes. I would believe that to be much higher than many other areas of the world. It is fundamental to our freedoms. Maybe we get apprehensive a little too often about whether or not those freedoms are in jeopardy, but nevertheless the citizens in British Columbia are apprehensive about those principles and they want those rights protected in Canada's new charter.

If everybody believes that, and I believe that most people in British Columbia do, then why don't we have them in our charter? That's a curious matter. We all believe in those fundamental opportunities for dreams and hopes and the opportunity to own our own home. Why aren't they there? Well, they are not there because of a very infamous coalition, an infamous partnership which the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of Canada formed during the debate on the constitution. We saw, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party was willing to give our citizens' rights away with regard to property ownership, and we fought against that. We lost the fight in the first instance, but we want to win it in the long run. That's the reason this proposal is before this Legislature today. It's not to give just British Columbians the enjoyment of property rights, but every Canadian, because every Canadian deserves it. The NDP fought against that when they coalesced with the Liberal government, the Trudeau government, and made sure it was taken out of the original charter. At the same time they were going to give Quebec and Ontario the right of veto over the rest of Canada. We fought against that one; we won that one; and we re going to win this one as well.

MR. SKELLY: We're with you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member says: "We're with you." Well, why weren't you with us when we needed you? Why weren't you with us when we had the chance to have it in the charter? Who backed taking out the constitutional amendment that dealt with property rights?

It was Lorne Nystrom who fought a passionate battle to have it taken out of the charter — Lorne Nystrom, the NDP member. He was on the committee, the final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the federal New Democratic Party convention not long ago, who backed the national leader, Ed Broadbent, in his version of the constitution? Well, according to reports from the convention, it was nobody but Allan Blakeney and Dave Barrett, the leader of the British Columbia New Democratic Party, aligning themselves with the Trudeau Liberals to take property rights out of the charter, and they won. And they've won that in the past as well, because I remember that coalition and that uneasy alliance; that unholy partnership has gone back a long time. I remember reading in Hansard of 1974 — and I just happen to have a copy of it — where the hon. Mr. Barrett, who was then Premier of the province, said: "The NDP has been the balance of power and kept the Liberals in office, extracting a number of commitments that they thought were worthwhile." They've been doing it since 1974 and they'll continue to do it for their own crass and personal political motives. The NDP joined with the Trudeau Liberals to get the charter of property rights out of the constitution. Why didn't you help us then, instead of hypocritically standing up in this House and voting for it today because you don't have the nerve to vote any other way — here, at least.

You believe in it today because you have to stand up in this House and vote, and you don't have the nerve to vote with your principles and your conscience. You don't have the nerve. Sure, there wouldn't be any expropriation in this province if that party was in power again, because they don't want the private ownership of land, so there would be nothing to expropriate.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talks about the stirring speeches he made over the years about a new expropriation law. He was a minister of the Crown for over three years. Where was that shining new expropriation law that he was telling cabinet about? Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, you were a member of cabinet. Why didn't you support him when he asked for an expropriation law? You should have supported him, and you should be ashamed of yourself because you didn't — or at least you didn't carry enough clout with the rest of your colleagues who don't believe in the ownership of land. Maybe that's it, Mr. Speaker. They didn't have enough clout with their colleagues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please. I'll just advise the hon. Minister of Labour, as I have advised other members of the House, that personal allusions in debate are quite unparliamentary. I'm sure we have the richness of vocabulary to state our point well without making personal allusions. Further, I'll ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) not to interrupt.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wouldn't make personal allusions. I'm talking about the history of this province. It's well written for everybody to read. It's known that the NDP was the government in this province for more than three years. They had the opportunity to pass an expropriation law. They talked a lot but they never did it. On a number of occasions a number of their members said they did not believe in the private ownership of land — including the one who is pointing his finger at me.

[ Page 9308 ]

The only message I would give in regard to this vote is to ask the citizens of British Columbia to be very careful and not to listen to the way they speak or vote in here, but listen to them at their conventions and in their public speeches, and then remember that if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, there's a pretty darned good chance it's a duck.

MR. LAUK: I'll spend even less time than the Minister of Labour, but hopefully with a bit more content. The Minister of Labour has risen in his place on this resolution and made some pretty wild allegations. He's desperately angry. He was hoping for a simple black-and-white situation for an election. That's why the government has proposed this rather cynical election gimmick of a resolution.

We're talking about the original charter of rights. It was the Premier of this province who gleefully agreed to the property rights section being taken out. He signed it and smiled all the way home. He gave up and walked away. He gave up because he didn't even have the resolve to argue for property rights. Any pathetic attempt by the Minister of Labour to rewrite history will be regarded by the people of this province in a very skeptical way to say the very most for his speech.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. members. The hon. member for Alberni has been interrupting quite a bit. I will ask the hon. member to please not interrupt any more. It's quite unparliamentary, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. LAUK: It was this very Premier who wholeheartedly agreed to do Trudeau's bidding with respect to the so-called restraint program, and he introduced his own version of it. But it was strictly Trudeau's suggestion to the Premier of this province. It was Trudeau's suggestions all the way along, and Trudeau's acceptance of some of the Premier's suggestions, that have got us into this Social Credit-created depression in the first place.

In 1978 the Premier of this province went back to Ottawa and gave a speech to the ministerial conference there, saying that the only way to deal with inflation is to raise interest rates. In 1979 he was warned in this House. He was warned in 1980. He was warned in 1981 about the recession coming, and he threw up his hands and said: "I'm not doing anything about it." This is the person who on the constitutional debate went back and tried to create this great big splash of the Premier of British Columbia taking a hard stand with the federal government. As soon as he saw Trudeau he melted before this charismatic figure. He just fell to his knees in front of this great champion, Trudeau, and he became enslaved to Trudeau. He is Trudeau's slave today. He is the one who has assisted Trudeau step by step in the disaster that created the recession, which is affecting British Columbia worse than almost any other province in the country — the Socred-fed recession.

Contrast that with the argument of the Minister of Labour, who argues that it was the NDP in coalition that got the property rights out. It was the Premier of this province of British Columbia who folded his tent, who made a sleazy backroom deal to get rid of the property rights section and crawled back to the capital, Victoria, and sheepishly told us: "Oh, well, we wouldn't have got a constitution otherwise."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's what he said. "We wouldn't have got a constitution otherwise." What nonsense! Any attempt to rewrite history will not convince the people of this province. They read the papers. They know what happened. You can't rewrite it now simply because you're going on the hustings. You can't have a deathbed repentance two days before an election writ, and say: "Oh, my goodness, we've reformed." Nonsense! Talk about hypocrisy! I remember 1975, talking about property rights. Do you remember that? "Work with Bill, and own your own home." That was 1975.

MR. LEA: How do you like the program so far?

MR. LAUK: "Work with Bill" — how do you like it so far? I wonder how those 300,000 unemployed in the province of British Columbia like it so far. "Own your own home"! Tens of thousands of people have had to sell at a loss, or have had their homes foreclosed under the Social Credit-established depression in this province, and they're talking about property rights. This hypocrisy of standing up and saying: "Look, we're going to give you, enshrined in the federal constitution Mr. Speaker, to heighten the hypocrisy of this resolution.... Everybody knows their constitutional law — with the exception of the Hon. Barney Rubble — and constitutional law in this country is that the sovereign Province of British Columbia is the government in charge and in control and with total jurisdiction over property rights. So why this resolution? Why not a bill of rights for property owners in the province of British Columbia? Why? Because they are being hypocritical about it; they don't want rights for property owners in this province.

They've caused an economic situation that has created foreclosures and has people selling at great loss homes that they owned for many years. They bring in this phony resolution, saying, "Oh, we're going to go across the country, perhaps after the election" — wink and a nudge — "and we're going to get back part of the Charter of Rights." They can bring in a bill tomorrow supporting property rights in this province and have the unanimous support of this House because they have the sovereign jurisdiction over property rights. It's ultimate hypocrisy, it's an election gimmick, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so sleazy as to bring in that kind of resolution at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make a few comments. I'm not going to dwell at length upon the statements of the last speaker; most of his sentiments really are undeserving of a reply. I would like to mention to him, and to all hon. members, that this proposal is not for a federal government, it's not for the provincial government, it's not for regional government, it's not for municipal government, but it's for every Canadian. That's the object of this proposal: to amend the constitution to provide the right to the enjoyment of property for every Canadian right across the land.

They are hectoring us, Mr. Speaker, for advancing it. I haven't seen any of their motions or recommendations to proceed with this whatsoever.

[ Page 9309 ]

MR. LAUK: A provincial bill of rights.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm getting a little chattering across the floor now on the point that was made by the last speaker about a provincial bill of rights. I think he was the only person foolish enough to come up with that statement today. I'll tell you why. What we wish to have here, sir, is something for all of Canada; we don't wish to have a checkerboard rights situation — a different right in Alberta, a different right in Manitoba, a different right in Saskatchewan and in B.C. The object of this exercise is to see that we will have a provision that will apply from sea to sea in our country. I think it's most apparent, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has missed the point in the debate. This is the beginning of an amendment to change our constitution, to bring into being that which is understood to be existing today in our country, but which is not entrenched. That's exactly what it is.

They're hectoring us for the process. They're talking a bit about expropriation. Expropriation is something that I'd like to make a few remarks about too before I sit down. I have to say this: the official opposition sat on the Clyne commission and on the Law Reform Commission. The official opposition did not see fit to bring any sort of amendments whatsoever to expropriation laws, which badly need change in our province. I'm the first person to admit that, and I'm the first person to advocate that we have to see that that change is brought about.

I would mention, when I'm talking about fair compensation and fair expropriation laws, that in this session this administration did take one step forward, and that was with the provisions that were brought in concerning the Urban Transit Authority. I'm not saying that they were a perfect solution. I'm saying one thing: it is a step forward, and it was brought forth not only with the intention of just assisting that Authority with its endeavours, but also of having a sample of some of the proposals that exist across the country become present in B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Fair expropriation laws are needed in the province of British Columbia. The point was made, and well made indeed, by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). We agree with that. I would say that those provisions are being worked upon at the present time. There's no way that we're abdicating our responsibility for dealing with that, but we are accepting it. I will say, yes, you will be very shortly seeing proposals for new and better expropriation and fair compensation laws.

I wish to make one final point before sitting down. The effect of this resolution also would be to ensure that expropriation laws would be fair throughout the whole of Canada if a similar resolution were to be passed by the requisite number of other provinces — seven in number, 50 percent of the population — the Senate and the House of Commons. All expropriation laws, federal or provincial, would be subject to the higher law of the constitution. I'm not going to reiterate the remarks that I made in opening this debate, but I would say that I am glad to see that the opposition is supporting what we are proposing today in British Columbia, because the strength of a unanimous resolution will have a greater impact upon Canadians throughout the whole of our country, and indeed upon the administrations in other provinces and the federal administration. I so move, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Since the 34th motion has passed, I ask leave to withdraw motions 31 and 32.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: I believe it's more appropriate under this section than any other to ask now the question of the minister: do you contemplate, or have you decided, that the owners of 99-year leaseholds will be entitled to apply for benefits? They've been asking me, and it's a contentious issue. We had some success previously in amending the Home Owner Grant Act to make sure that they were entitled, because the government did then finally accept that it is in fact home ownership, like any other form. What I wonder is whether or not home ownership, in this form, will entitle persons owning 99-year leases to apply for the loans under the program.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to that question is yes — and condominiums and mobile homes. We're trying to make the program eligible to all forms of home ownership. That is one of the reasons that — if I could take this opportunity to also respond to some other comments that were made earlier — section 2(f) has been in there. We want to have the flexibility, without having to come back to the Legislature with a particular situation that may not have been covered in those terms, or just by lack of definition. That is one of the main reasons we discussed these sections at considerable length and tried to provide the greatest flexibility to make certain that we could cover any and all forms of home ownership.

Another matter raised by other members is that the bill is vague. I think that we can safely say that the intent of the bill is very clear in the announcements that have been made so far and the particulars that are being prepared. Those details are being spelled out. One of the objectives we had in preparing this bill, after considerable discussion, was to keep it as simple and clear as possible, so that we could deal with situations that came up. For instance, there are definitions which may take on slight variations. What is a principal residence? The member for Victoria raised a question about the 99-year lease. There might be slight variations on mobile homes, because we have terms such as "manufactured homes" and "relocatable homes" — whether they are on pads or in mobile parks. We wanted the flexibility to deal with those. Condominiums, agreements for sale — we wanted the ability to deal with anything that, in effect, definitely constitutes a principal residence and home ownership. We want this program to apply to all homeowners who

[ Page 9310 ]

are properly eligible. Had we gone the definition route, as I think other members pointed out, it would have been quite an onerous task to try to work in definitions that would cover any and every possible situation. So rather than take a chance on missing some of these opportunities to assist people in home ownership, we preferred to take the possible flak of not have everything defined and spelled out in the bill.

I'd also like to respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) that I have been in contact with the mortgage company in Kamloops since we last met this morning and there are some extenuating circumstances, as they say; but they have assured me they will send me a full report on the situation, and we will do whatever we can to help.

There were some questions raised asking if people will be better off at the end of this program than they are now. I think it's safe to say that anyone will be better off then than they are now, if they are in a difficult situation now. If you take the worst-case scenario which some of the members of the opposition seem to prefer to take, then these people are in the worst case now. At the worst, they will be no worse off three or four years down the road. In the meantime, they would have had some money to help them through these times and would have had that money interest-free to assist them in going through these difficult times. Naturally we don't accept that premise that things are going to be worse in 1985. We fully believe that it's going to be a much better situation. The economy will have recovered because of world conditions and because of government.

MS. SANFORD: A new government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to remind that member that yesterday the argument from the NDP was that they are going to be government and that things will be worse in 1985. I think I pointed out that I would like to stick with the argument that we are going to be government next and that things are going to be much better in 1985. I would repeat: if you want to stick with your argument, please do. I'm quite prepared to stick with my argument. I'm glad that member has invited me to stick with my argument, because my argument is that we are going to remain in government and things are going to get much better.

MR. BARBER: They couldn't get much worse.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, they could if there was an NDP government in this province, because they certainly got worse in a very short time the last time they were in power.

I think that fairly well answers all those who have expressed their concerns on this, except for one. One member has said that people may qualify for our assistance program by taking out a mortgage. I guess my only answer there is that unless they actually hold a mortgage they are not eligible for this program. If people choose to invest or put up their home for security in order to take out a loan at current rates and spend that money, we feel that's their prerogative — we like freedom of choice — and that it will stimulate the economy.

I would think that fairly well answers all the concerns that were expressed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't have much opportunity to discuss this section in detail when we were in second reading, and there are a few points I would like to put on the record.

The minister has stated that he brought in the legislation, in the broadest context possible, in order to keep the whole program as simple as possible and, I would add, in order to make any unforeseen complications and their correction as simple as possible. So often well-designed legislation develops complications which are contrary to the spirit of the bill and the intent of the various sections, such as that here in section 2. These complications can't be corrected until such time as the Legislature is recalled or called and we have to go through the lengthy procedures of rewriting or amending the legislation. In the designing of the regulations as outlined in section 2, we do away with that complication. In a bill such as this, which is a limited program having a very specific objective, it would seem most reasonable and responsible to provide for the regulations and the carrying out of the program in such a way that any complications can be amended very quickly. I'm sure most members would applaud that.

The section also makes reference to the multiplicity of opportunities for home ownership. We notice that section 2(b) says you may fix "the maximum amount of assistance that a homeowner may receive under the program, " and that does allow flexibility. If interest rates go down during the program's existence, then the minister with his staff will, through regulations and approval of cabinet, have an opportunity to adjust those interest assistance programs in keeping with the interest rates of the time. That's an important section.

I think section 2 (c), which prescribes "the application of the program to each class or type of security instrument," is well placed, in that during the introduction of the program there are bound to be areas where securities not now thought of might well and properly come into play. It brings up the whole question of land and the right to own land. That is covered philosophically very much in section 2. Of course, the government has made it very clear that it believes in the right for the opportunity, wherever possible, for citizens to own their own homes. Contrary to the opposition, we feel that should be basically on their own land. This bill and this section assist a broad spectrum of people in that ability.

Through these sections, the program will be of assistance to young people and first-home buyers, along with existing programs, and will add to their opportunity at this difficult time to take advantage of their prudence. No one can enter into home ownership without having been prudent and saved a certain amount of capital to assist with that purchase, but it has been made much more difficult at this time. Therefore the flexibility in this section will aid young people. It will aid people who already own their own homes and who might be struggling under existing mortgages at a high interest rate which was predicated on an expected wage increase, which is not now forthcoming because the marketplace has been drastically affected by economic circumstances in Canada, in our province and in the world, as well as perhaps those in the professional civil service — of whom we think so much — who might have been anticipating a larger wage increase than is now possible. This will be of great assistance to them if they now find themselves in the position of being over committed to their mortgages. The flexibility in section 2 will be of great assistance to the senior citizens who may have owned their own home at one time but who have not been eligible in many provinces for new-home assistance programs. Through this bill they will have the opportunity to re-enter the area of individual land ownership and home ownership. Along with

[ Page 9311 ]

all the other members of this House, Mr. Chairman, I know that this also pleases you and your constituents.

The flexibility of the regulations will provide the opportunity for individuals to increase the capital payment on their mortgages, by having a breather from the interest on their loans.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, the member's remarks are completely out of order. She is attempting in committee stage to give a speech that she failed to give in second reading. It is an abuse of the rules and our ears to have to listen to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The Chair will remind all hon. members of standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I will commend that to members of the committee.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will be most mindful of your words. I listened with great interest to the complaint of the first member for Victoria. I realize that what I have to say in the Legislature on behalf of the citizens of the North Okanagan is perhaps not of interest to him. I would advise him that after 16 years of support from those people, I think it certainly has been of interest to them.

Back to the bill. Section 2(d) says: "...fixing the terms and conditions on which money advanced under the program is to be repaid." I believe that must outline very fully the opportunity for condominiums. Of course, this bill does include the right to own land with a condominium — not own a condominium, as happens so often in socialist countries, where people are allowed to own their own home, but that does not include the right to own land.

This section brings to mind the words of Pope Pius XII in a radio broadcast in 1944, which, I think, outlined the philosophy of many people — certainly the citizens of British Columbia. He was addressing himself to land ownership and home ownership, and he said: "Private property is a natural fruit of labour, a product of intense activity of man, acquired through his energetic determination to ensure and develop with his own strength his own existence and that of his family" — that is home ownership — "and to create for himself and his own an existence of just freedom, not only economic but also political, cultural and religious."

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, the member has been giving in committee stage a speech she failed to give in second reading. The remarks she's making have been very well made by the minister, in any case, and we already believe him. The member for Okanagan North is currently reflecting on a vote we just took. That vote on the motion dealing with private property rights passed unanimously. It is not permissible to reflect on a vote just taken. Her debate is completely out of order. I ask if you would once again try to have the debate restricted in duration and content to that which is before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, the point of order is well taken. The hon. member for Okanagan North must be relevant.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of reflecting on a previous vote, nor would I presume to do so in this House. Just because that member does not really like to see the freedoms and privileges of this House exercised, because it doesn't appeal to him particularly, is no reason for me to discontinue my debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not allowed to enter into debate on points of order. The hon. first member for Victoria has made his point of order, and for the second time I will cite standing order 61(2), which commends to us that speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I'm sure the hon. member for North Okanagan can continue being strictly relevant to the section before us.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I do feel that when we are looking at the flexibilities and the simplistic approach that can be brought into existence to relieve our own citizens of red tape and confusion, and what is sometimes called the runaround, trying to introduce this assistance at this time is important, does reflect the philosophy of this government and does emphasize this government's efforts to assist all citizens in the opportunity to own their own homes and not to lose their homes in this time of economic restraint when we are seeing some extremely harsh results of the marketplace.

I think it's important, when we look at the intent of these sections, to recognize that this intent and this philosophy falls into place with the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 17(l), says everyone has the right to own property — I m sure they mean property in its broadest term, which is a home — alone as well as in association with others. They go on to say, and this is most significant to this section: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Section 2(d), "fixing the terms and conditions on which money advanced under this program is to be repaid, " falls in very clearly with that. So we hope through this section and this bill, Mr. Chairman, that people in British Columbia, citizens who have worked hard to own their own homes and who are being affected so severely, with the economic situation and the high interest rates that have beset this country, will not be arbitrarily deprived of their property. That's the purpose of the bill and the purpose of this section. I'm sure all members will enthusiastically support it.

Sections 2 to 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In current mortgage transactions it is not unusual these days to have six-month mortgages, open and closed — mortgages of a very short term. Can the minister indicate whether or not, in the circumstances that a person has one of those very short-term mortgages, they're still eligible under the provisions of this section for the program?

[ Page 9312 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, people will be eligible even if they have short-term mortgages, but because the payment schedule may be considerably higher than on the basis on which we calculated, there is a $300 per month cap on what is available in the form of assistance. I don't know if that fully answers the minister's question. In renewal of mortgages, interest rates will be calculated at least every year. If there are six-month mortgages of variable rates in effect, that will be averaged out over the year and will be dealt with in that form.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: A brief question on section 6, Mr. Chairman. How much?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount will, of course, vary according to how many people apply, what the mortgage interest rates are, and what assistance is handed out in this first year, until March 31, 1983.

We're estimating that in the first year we're probably looking at getting about $200 million to $300 million out. The money will progressively increase as a number of mortgages come in. I would think that by about March 1983 we'll be looking at perhaps a maximum of about $150 million that will be out.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

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

Leave granted.

Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 76: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise you and the members of the committee that standing in my name on the order paper are amendments to sections 2, 8 and 9 of this bill — namely, that they be deleted. I did that in order that it would be properly drawn to the attention of the men at the table. However, I am aware that the appropriate procedure in this House is that in the deletion of an entire section, the appropriate action is to negative the section. Therefore in calling the section I wish it to be clear that we will be voting no on section 2. By way of explanation, with respect to these three sections, since earlier this year we amended the Court Rules Act, these three sections are no longer required.

MS. BROWN: I'm disappointed that the minister is withdrawing them, because I thought they were pretty good sections myself. However, can I gather from his explanation that the act already has entrenched in it that the chief judge of the provincial court must be consulted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In order that there be no misunderstanding, may I say that amending legislation that we brought in earlier requires that the rules be prepared after the consultation that is mentioned here, so that is already covered in another statute.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

Section 2 negatived.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

Sections 8 and 9 negatived.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. KING: I presume that this is kind of a housekeeping amendment, but I would appreciate it if the Minister of Forests would explain precisely what the intent of this amendment is. In terms of establishing a research council, I presume the amendment is to accommodate participation by one or more logging contractors. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is right. The present legislation requires that the minister shall establish a Forest Research Council. To that we're adding that the minister shall also establish "one or more contractor clause advisory committees." The present legislation is permissive where it says "may." It has been found to be a success, so we are making it an obligatory thing on the part of the government.

[ Page 9313 ]

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved..

On section 18.

MR. HANSON: This particular amendment to the Trespass Act is a victory for this side of the House. It is a victory for the recreationists, the fishermen and the hunters of this province who waged a concerted campaign against the heavy-handed Social Credit government that was going to deny public access to our own Crown lands in this province. That minister stood in this House on a number of occasions and said that access to the public had not changed, that the public was guaranteed access and so on. This amendment is a testament to the fact that he misled the House — not deliberately misled, but he did mislead the House. This amendment has had to be made to secure access for recreationists, fishermen and hunters in this province to around 650,000 acres of Crown land in this province.

The fishermen, hunters and other recreationists throughout the province were universally outraged that the past practices were to be changed in the new Crown grazing lease that was brought in by the previous minister. That minister wrote letters to the newspaper trying to discredit the legitimate claims that we were making that the past practice was being changed and that ranchers now felt that the provisions of the Wildlife Act that had allowed for access were no longer relevant, and that the Trespass Act and the Land Act took precedence over the Wildlife Act, and that the public was going to be denied the recreational attributes of their own land. I am pleased to see that an amendment has come forward which will now ensure that hunters, fishermen and other recreationists will be allowed legitimate access onto Crown land, providing that cattle are not present foraging on that particular land, which was the past practice. That previous minister stood in his place and said: "It is only 2 1/2 percent of the grazing land of this province. What's 650,000 acres of Crown land?" Well, we say that we fought for public access to this land, and it is a victory of the hunters and fishermen around this province that refused to be bullied by that big, heavy-handed minister over there.

I think that the people of this province should pay tribute to the Outdoor Recreational Council members, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and all of those recreation, hooking and angling clubs that fought and persisted in trying to secure and maintain the tradition in this province of multiple use, of integrated use of our valuable Crown lands.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this section. I think it should be made clear that it was never intended to exclude hunters and fishermen from Crown lands. Unfortunately, because of possible legal technicalities and interrelationships between one act and another, the second member for Victoria chose — for political purposes — to make all the possible hay he could out of that before the matter could be corrected. I believe that that member certainly distorted the picture. In checking into existing legislation and past practices on grazing leases, we found that the legal right of hunters and fishermen of access to grazing leases was not that well assured; it was just never challenged.

With the change in the legislation under the Grazing Act, we did build in — this was, of course, before I took over this portfolio — the absolute legal right of people to designate trails across that land; in other words, access across the land had been assured all along under these grazing leases. We even had a provision in the grazing lease that the Crown had the right, retroactively, to establish any access across those lands in cases where a trail had been missed in the original submission. We also had the fact that the Forests ministry would require a management plan for any of the leases that were granted or were renewed. I should make that clear. There have been no new grazing leases granted. So, in effect, the outdoors people had better assured access, more definite access, across the lands. This amendment is to clear up any misconception that they would not be allowed access onto the land. I know I'm not that well versed in the legal technicalities, but we feel that this will remove that fear, which was foisted on the people of this province by the second member for Victoria, even though it was never intended.

With this amendment, we now have the grazing leases in place, so that the ranchers, who have to do some long-term planning, will have those rights for collateral. I certainly think they are entitled to that, because we cannot have a viable ranching industry in this province if we do not have some sort of guarantee that they can do some long-term planning. Because of the recent acts and policies of the government, we have better access through the land and we have the retroactive power in case we've missed anything. Now we have this assured access. So we have been able to fully satisfy both factions in our society.

I might point out, too, that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, through my staff, is reaching an agreement with the cattlemen and the B.C. Wildlife Federation to get together to try to outline codes of conduct so that we can assure the ranchers they're not going to willy-nilly have vandalism and cattle destroyed. We're going to try to do that in the only way it really can be done: by agreeing to a code of conduct and by self-enforcement by the hunting fraternity and the outdoorsmen. There is no law that can be passed in this province to stop some idiot from cutting a fence and shooting a cow. Only enforcement can do that. For instance, we know now that these people should not do that. So we're hoping to do that by a cooperative effort. We've taken steps to move in that direction and get a code of conduct to get these people working together for a common purpose for the benefit of all in this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to question the minister on the wording of this particular amendment. He says it gives access to those who wish to hunt and fish. In the recreation community are many people, many families, who go camping and wish to get onto Crown land. They are bona fide recreationists. They're not in possession of a fishing licence; they may not be in possession of a hunting licence and a gun. Why should they be denied the right as laid down in statute? The statute says you can only cross it if you're hunting or fishing. There are many horse clubs that go on trail rides. They are organized, properly supervised, and they do cross grazing lands and go onto Crown land. These are bona fide recreationists. To lay into statute that they can only go in to hunt or to fish is I think wrong. As a policeman — and as the Attorney-General will say — you can only go with the wording that is in the law, and the act lays out that you have to either hunt or fish. There should be some thought into the legislation that where it is a bona fide type of recreation, where the person is going there.... He's not trespassing willy-nilly if they are going somewhere and if they are part of the recreational community.

[ Page 9314 ]

I believe the wording should be corrected. I think being specific like they are is going to ham-string people. If someone wants to be harassed.... All they have to say is, "Where's your hunting licence?" or "Where's your fishing licence?" If they're not in possession of that, families can be kicked off and recreational groups such as trail riders can be denied access. I believe the minister intends to open it up and have some control, which I understand, but you can't do that without the proper wording. I don't want to see a play on words in the legal end of it. I really would ask the government to look at the wording and rewrite it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I think the opposition members are unfortunately looking at worst possible scenarios: that everybody is intent on keeping everybody off the land, and so on. The trail riders, the rock collectors and so on have not been a problem to the cattlemen's associations. Again, if we included in this section a complete list, there's always the danger of leaving someone out. And the list could be endless, because there are endless types of outdoor recreational use. With permission of the owner, there is no need for a law to allow them on the land. The cattlemen's associations assure us they're not trying to keep these people off the land. The other groups we are talking about, some of which we have contacted, say they have absolutely no reservations about instructing their people, or asking their people, to ask permission. So there really is not a problem, unless you choose to make it one by lengthening the wording of the legislation. There really is not a problem there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a couple of words on this amendment to the Trespass Act.

I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the second member for Victoria in connection with this amendment. He is correct that only 2.5 percent of all the grazing rights held in this province are held under grazing lease; that 97.5 percent of all the grazing in British Columbia is held under other forms of tenure, primarily licences and grazing permits. He attempted to convey, during the period that I was Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, the impression that we were issuing new grazing leases, and that this new grazing lease conferred additional benefits on the lessee. What is essentially being done with this small percentage of grazing lands held under leases is to renew the existing leases. There was never any question of new leases being issued. I was assured by legal advisers to my ministry that the new lease, even though the wording had been changed, continued to provide the kind of access that was available under the old lease. On numerous occasions I attempted to clarify the false information being conveyed by the second member for Victoria about the question of access to grazing leases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Provincial Secretary if he's imputing any dishonourable motive to another member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not. He attempted to fuzz up the issue of access. He attempted to confuse the people of this province about their legitimate rights of access. This amendment to the Trespass Act before us now is essentially to clarify the confusion created in the minds of some people by the second member for Victoria. This clarifies it once and for all: essentially there is no difference between the former grazing lease and the new one; access will continue to be available as in the past. If there's a misunderstanding about interpretation of the new grazing lease, this amendment clarifies that. It removes the doubt in the minds of people about access; it removes the confusion created by the second member for Victoria. It's a positive step, and one which I strongly support.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, having listened to both the minister and the critic and the former minister, I have to smile when the former minister gets up and says that you have to bring in legislation to clarify something, when a ministerial statement would have done so. What are we doing here? The fact is that the member for Victoria has done a first-class job for the people of this province, and that minister knows it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's a twister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'll ask the hon. Provincial Secretary to withdraw the term he just used. Did the hon. member impute any dishonourable motive to another member.?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, did you want me to say a couple of words?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, just withdraw or state that you did not impute any.... The minister agrees that no dishonourable motive was imputed to another member, is that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pardon? What was the point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That there was no dishonourable motive imputed to another....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I just said he was a twister; he twists facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, just withdraw the term.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you're going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the hon. Provincial Secretary....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That has been an acceptable term in this parliament for years and years, and now you've reached the point where we can no longer say anything in this House. You allowed members across the way to say that I was misleading the House. It was acceptable that I "mislead the House" unless they had said I was doing it deliberately. I don't think there's anything offensive about what I've said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has simply asked the hon. Provincial Secretary if he imputed any dishonourable motive. The Provincial Secretary said no, he had not. The Chair was satisfied with that. However, a further comment did offend the Chair and parliamentary practice, and I would simply ask the minister to withdraw the term. A simple statement, "I withdraw," will suffice and we can carry on with debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is the Chairman offended?

[ Page 9315 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is offended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Chairman is offended. Well, whatever offends the Chairman I withdraw.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments as one of the ministers involved in the discussion with the cattlemen of this province in dealing with the grazing leases. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who is responsible for the Grazing Act, and I dealt with this problem over a period of time and came to a resolution with all parties concerned. There is some need for clarification, primarily because that second member for Victoria made those erroneous statements and, I would suggest, went on a truly political program in regard to sending out statements, articles and letters to the editor throughout the interior of this province, misleading the people in the interior of this province — the cattlemen, the people in Fish and Wildlife, those people who wish to enter the land for hiking, as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) said. He was saying that we were denying access. But the point I want to make perfectly clear to this House, so that member won't go out tonight or tomorrow and send out more letters saying that he won the battle, that he had the government change its mind....

I want to point out that under the old Wildlife Act, in dealing with enclosed land and hunting, the section stated: "No person shall, without the consent of the owner or occupier or lessee, hunt over or trap in or on land enclosed" etc. Under subsection (5) it says: "This section does not apply to a person who enters for the purpose of hunting within the boundaries of a grazing lease on Crown land when the grazing lease is not occupied by domestic stock." Under the Trespass Act, the section says: "No offence is committed in subsection (1) where ... no livestock within the meaning of the Livestock Act are at large on the land." Those two sections are quite similar in meaning. The point which I think must be brought home to hunters and fishermen of this province who are on grazing leases is that if we want to ensure that the cattlemen of this province do have tenure and security and protection for their livestock, there must be a responsibility by the hunter or fisherman — but primarily the hunter, because you can't shoot a cow with a fishing rod....

I think it's quite proper that we look at a code of conduct for the people who go onto land used for grazing to ensure that they make every effort to find out whether or not there is stock on that land under a grazing lease. I feel that the one way they can make that effort is probably doing the rancher the favour, if you will, of contacting that rancher and asking: "Can I go on your land to hunt? Can I enter your grazing lease?" That may be somewhat difficult at times, but I think that a responsible hunter may well make the effort to contact the rancher involved and seek permission, or at least assurance, that there is not livestock on that grazing lease when the person is hunting. As I read it, that's what the section 1n the Trespass Act amendment really means: he should ensure that there is no livestock on that grazing lease at the time he hunts. I think the amendment to the Trespass Act is in order, if you consider what was in the old Wildlife Act and the intent of that section.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm pleased that so many members have taken their place in this debate on my bill. I think it clarifies some aspects of this particular amendment. I trust that the people who have a chance to read these debates will recognize precisely what is being done. As the members have pointed out, especially the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, (Mr. Mitchell), this amendment is limited to people who are hunting and fishing and who, therefore, are in possession of a valid licence for either of those purposes. This does not excuse any other persons who are seeking recreation from trespassing on these grazing leases.

You may wonder why this decision has been made. People who hold grazing leases and who have cattle at large are entitled to be protected. Also, in many respects, those people who have these grazing leases undertake projects for range improvement, and at some times of the year it is inappropriate to have any person who might wish to go across those lands. With modern recreational vehicles, four-wheel drives, trail bikes and the like, incredible damage can be done to the few precious acres of grazing land that we have by people who unthinkingly go across those lands, often not recognizing that they're held under lease for grazing purposes. Aside altogether from damage to fences and other works that may be in place, aside altogether from the fact that valuable cattle may be seriously affected by such conduct, it is nonetheless carried out. However, as other members have suggested, equestrians and people who wish to cross these lands to have access to lakes, rivers or other Crown lands will find that if they approach the rancher who holds the lease, and will abide by some very simple rules — using existing trails, taking proper care to ensure that gates are closed, and the like — they'll have no difficulty getting the necessary protection.

I would also like to say at this time that we will be looking very carefully at the arrangements worked out between the cattlemen's associations and the fish and wildlife people with regard to the establishment of a code of conduct. If we find that licensed hunters and fishermen are abusing the right they will have when this legislation is passed, then we may need to reconsider this decision and impose some further restrictions. I hope that wouldn't be necessary. In many instances there is a desire on the part of the rancher to have hunters use the lands in the area, because quite often they are hunting a species of animal that is against the best interests of the cattleman — wolves and bears, to name a couple. I can assure the members, the cattlemen's associations and the hunters that if there is abuse, or if there is further dispute with respect to establishing a code of conduct, the government may have to look at some additional legislation. I trust that won't be necessary. In my view, these two groups, who have justification for the proper use of land, the careful use of land, would be better served working out their own arrangements than they would in depending upon the gentle ministrations of government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I listened with a great deal of interest to the Attorney-General's words. I'm very pleased to hear them, because these do-gooder, armchair specialists from the socialist opposition over there are always standing up in this Legislature and espousing the rights of individuals. What we need to start talking about in this House are the responsibilities that people have along with those rights. You would never hear a socialist talk about the responsibilities of a citizen. No. all they want to talk about is rights.

[ Page 9316 ]

I come from an area where the farmer has a few rights too, and not necessarily only on Crown land. These do-gooder socialists over there, these armchair specialists from the city, should for once realize that there are farmers out there whose buildings and feeding troughs are shot up. A lot of damage is done by hunters. It's time everybody in this great province of ours, including those do-gooder, armchair specialist socialists over there, started talking about.... Sure, people have rights. People also have responsibilities, and the hunters and fishermen who enter on farming land in this province have a responsibility. You would never hear a socialist talk about a person having a responsibility. Oh, they're great torch-bearers for those who have rights to this and rights to that.

I'm speaking here for the rights of the farming community, the ranchers in this province, the hard workers who are trying, by the sweat of their brows, to feed all those armchair specialists, those do-gooder socialists. I'm speaking for the rights of the cattle ranchers, the pioneers who opened up this great province. They have rights too, and they also fulfil their responsibility. Those do-gooder socialists never talk about.... Oh, there's another one over there, from Coquitlam-Moody.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could return, hon. member, to section 18, the Trespass Act amendments.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to put in these few words about the responsibility. You'll never hear a socialist talk about responsibility. They're always talking about armchair city specialists and rights.

MR. NICOLSON: I, too, would like to speak about the right to bear arms, the traditional right of people in this province which this minister has canvassed. But speaking about pioneers, I want to ask the minister if he sent Jimmy Martel a birthday card on his hundredth birthday.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This section is required only for one very, very small group of people that may have violated.... They don't represent the normal hunter and fisherman who have absolutely no difficulty with the ranching community at all. We're including this in the legislation so that it's perfectly clear. Every year every one of us in this House will have the same problem with the hunter who shoots a cow. No matter how extensive our program of firearms training, of restrictions on licences, we'll still have that. I don't think it ever has happened where a fisherman has had a problem. He may have left the gate open. It's unfortunate that we even have to put it into legislation, but we do have to. I would ask all members to assist in passing the section.

Sections 18 to 31 inclusive 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. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that the amendments were only the deletion of three sections, and were adequately explained, with leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 76, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM
RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 77; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 77, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 9317 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, Bill 81 is, I believe, one of the more important pieces of legislation to have been introduced in this calendar year. The bill is another significant step in the broadly based and very carefully considered program of restraint announced by the Premier on February 18 this year. It relates in many ways to Bill 28 and the compensation stabilization program, which, as we know, was debated and approved in our spring session and has received wide support among British Columbians in all sectors.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, looking at Orders of the Day I don't find the title of this bill printed under second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would refer the member for Nelson-Creston to Orders of the Day, No. 126, page 13, "Second reading, Bill 81, Rate Increase Restraint Act, " printed in the name of the Minister of Finance. That is this afternoon's Orders of the Day.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps the minister would clarify this. Was that bill introduced this morning?

MR. SPEAKER: It would have to be a point of order to gain the floor.

MR. LEGGATT: It is a point of order. I want the minister to clarify how you can introduce a bill in the morning and commence second reading in the afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not for me to advise the member. The motion with respect to this particular bill was that it be placed on orders of the day for the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: As far as the Chair is concerned, Orders of the Day are printed and before us. Nonetheless, I will undertake to look into the matter, and at the same time I will allow the debate to continue.

MR. LEA: If I recall correctly, I thought the motion passed was: "...at the next sitting of the House after today."

MR. SPEAKER: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Minister of Finance was very clear this morning when he made the motion that it would be the next sitting. He did not say "after today."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. That seems to be the recollection of the Chair. Nonetheless, I will take a look at the matter and allow debate to continue at this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I should point out to members, in view of the points of order — and I trust I'm not out of order-in mentioning this — that Hansard Blues for this morning's sitting showed the traditional motion, "next sitting after today," but quite clearly the motion was to place the bill on orders of the day at the next sitting of the House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, at this time the Chair would have to regard the remarks of the minister as a continuing point of order. I will so do. At the conclusion of those remarks on the point of order, I will then entertain the point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any confusion, I wanted, on that point of order, to make the situation very clear. I did indicate for members what the Blues show. I am quite satisfied that the actual tape of Hansard would show that the motion was as I indicated earlier on the point.

MR. LAUK: Two points, Mr. Speaker. Hansard's verbatim accounts of what goes on this chamber are usually taken as being accurate. Secondly, even if the minister did move "at the next sitting," the ordinary motion is "the next sitting after today." A motion otherwise would have been out of order. I'm sure Mr. Speaker would have ruled it out of order according to our standing orders. Second reading must be at the next sitting after the day of introduction.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, if Mr. Speaker were to rule that the government members said what they say they said — and I don't really doubt that that's what they said — it would put us in an awkward position in the future, because we would have no way of knowing for sure, unless we go by the recorded record of Hansard. First of all, I don't doubt what the hon. minister is saying, except that if we don't go by Hansard then we will forever be in these hassles of whoever is government saying: "But we meant to say something else." I think we do have to go by the written record.

MR. SPEAKER: I must advise members that the Blues are not the final copy. Further, the minister has stated that the motion was made as he indicated, and the word of an hon. member of this chamber must be given its due consideration. Also, hon. members, I must confess that it is the recollection of the Chair that the motion was made as indicated by the minister. I grant that leave was not asked. But, hon. members, when no objection is taken leave is implied. It's a long-standing tradition of this House, hon. members. These are not rules that are being made up. When no exception is taken, hon. members, leave is implied. It is not only a rule of this House, but a long-standing tradition of parliament.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, standing order 81 says: "Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed."

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention also to the practice of this House that when a bill is amended in committee, leave is asked if it is to be given a third reading on the same day that it is amended and reported from committee. The manner in which the motion was given — and I accept the word of an hon. member — was apparently that the bill be read a second

[ Page 9318 ]

time at the next sitting, but that is out of order. It offends standing order 81. It is the duty of the Chair to note when procedures do not follow the practice of the House, and therefore to point out to the minister that leave would be required if you were to do this, because it was unprecedented.

I cannot recall more than one case where the latter part of standing order 81 was used, when the matter was considered urgent and it was given three readings in one day. Other than that one, I cannot recall such a motion ever being presented that a bill be given second reading on the same day that it was given first reading and introduced.

It's my contention that standing order 81 is quite clear. It is the duty of the Chair to point out to a minister who might wish to do this that leave would have to be sought in the first instance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the decision or ruling of the Chair is....

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, standing order 81 is a standing order of the House. It's not a question of the Speaker saying: "I didn't notice what the motion was, and therefore I could not enforce a standing order." The Speaker noticed what the motion was. He noticed it was a motion in breach of standing order 81, yet, with respect, I'd say that the Speaker did not enforce the standing order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The procedure is correct,

MR. LAUK: The procedure is not correct. There can be no breach of standing orders without a specific appeal to the House to suspend the rules of order and debate second reading on the same day. That leave of the House was not granted or sought, and therefore the motion to debate this bill on second reading must, as a matter of course, be presumed to be in order and therefore debated on the following day.

The Speaker says "long-standing practice"; this is the first time that this has ever happened without leave. It's the first time in my ten years in this Legislature that it has ever happened. I don't know of any other instance. If that could be pointed out, I would be delighted. But leave must be granted. Leave was neither sought nor granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. On the same point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to accept the comments from the Chair with respect to what was said earlier today. I can appreciate that the members opposite would like a little more time to consider this. It is not essential that this be dealt with this afternoon. However, I do point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think Hansard takes.... I'm confident that they would show precisely what I said. However, I move that the....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I regret that in the middle of a point of order, I cannot accept the motion until I have ruled on the point. There seems to be some question. The ruling of the Chair will be that the Chair is faced with Orders of the Day, which clearly state.... Also, I have received information that the actual tape reads "at the next sitting." Nonetheless, hon. members, I will undertake to bring something back to the House on this.

On that particular point of order, the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. LEGGATT: If your position is that you are reserving your judgment and allowing the debate to continue, that would in fact be a violation of standing order 81. In this particular instance the debate must be adjourned at this point, because standing order 81 is very clear that "every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed. After the second reading it shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day." The standing orders are very clear, and the reason for that is very clear: you should not have a bill introduced into this House and then embark on a second reading debate on the same day — those traditions go back into parliamentary history from the beginnings of parliament in England — except by leave, and when leave is not asked it is not given.

You cannot assume leave is given when no leave is requested of the House. That's a very clear parliamentary principle, Mr. Speaker, and, with the greatest respect, you have no choice in this particular matter. In terms of the precedents and in terms of the standing orders, it is wrong, wrong, wrong that any bill be introduced without leave; and then to introduce first reading, and have second reading go ahead without leave on the same day is completely against all.....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has heard sufficient comment on the question. We could carry this on indefinitely.

MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll deal with one point of order at a time. Then, if the member has a further one, I will hear him at that time.

Hon. members, the House has been asked already — in fact, it has been placed on the order paper — to deal with the matter. The Chair cannot take action otherwise than is on the order paper, which is the instructions of the House. To do otherwise would be a breach of the rules. I shall undertake to look into this matter and bring a full report back.

Again, I would point out that if members review the procedures of today itself, you will see that when leave has not been granted that action has been taken by the House. Certainly we have ample precedent on that in this chamber.

On a new point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: On a new point of order, first of all, I'd ask that you not allow the minister to adjourn this debate. That in itself would set a precedent that in fact it was here properly before your ruling.

Secondly, I think we are embarking on a dangerous course. At some time there may be a government that wishes, for its own purpose, to get a bill or an act through the House all in one day — such as Bill 80. I really believe that this could be a ploy to set us up for Bill 80 on one day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly we're now passing into a matter of debate, and we're not on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm just using, as an example, the dangers of the path we're now travelling. Maybe the government isn't doing it purposely, but it would sure suit their purpose if they wanted to do it that way. That is true. If this is allowed to happen, then the government could bring in

[ Page 9319 ]

Bill 80 and ram it through in one day, as they see fit. I think that's what it's all about.

MR. SPEAKER: That's fine, hon. member. You've made your point.

Earlier today, Bill 77 was committed to committee and was discussed in committee this afternoon, on the same day. Leave was not granted, hon. members.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I think this makes the very point that I tried to make earlier. It is the duty of the Chair not to guess at what is the pleasure of the House. If he feels that the House wants to take some expedient course of action, the Chair then asks if it is the intention of the House to grant leave. The Chair, I assume, has familiarized itself with the red book, the rules of this House, and obviously knows that when somebody moves that we proceed from one stage to another, we are not obeying the rules of the House. I would hope, and it's my very firmly held conviction, that it is for that reason that someone occupies the chair. I say that out of respect for that chair. I hope the person who occupies it has familiarized himself with these rules so that when such a breach takes place. standing order 81 is automatically at hand, and at least the will of the House is asked for.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, debate on the matter is concluded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a very short introduction.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

79 The Hon. A. J. Brummet to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 79) intituled Homeowner Interest Assistance Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 5, in subsection (5) by deleting "legal".