[ Page 4991 ]

CONTENTS

Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 43). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4991

Mr. Lauk –– 4991

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4994

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4994

Mr. Reynolds –– 4995

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4995

Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 43). Committee stage.

On section 16 4997

Mr. Lauk

Third reading –– 4997

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 46). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4997

Mr. Rose –– 4999

Mr. Lea –– 5000

Hon, Mr. Chabot 5001

Division –– 5001

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 46). Committee stage.

On section I –– 5001

Mr. Davis

Third reading –– 5001

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 38). Committee stage.

On section 2 –– 5001

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading –– 5003

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 37) Committee stage.

Third reading –– 5003

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today are some friends of mine from Cowichan: Jan Broadland, who is a newly elected member of the Cowichan School Board, together with her husband Ken and their children Lori and Dean. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

COMMODITY CONTRACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to move second reading of the Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985. This act corrects a number of defects in the original and unproclaimed Commodity Contract Act, an act that was passed some years ago but was never proclaimed because of deficiencies within it. Those deficiencies included inadequate regulation-making powers, a number of definitional problems and the problem of recognizing out-of-province exchanges. For example, the definition of "commodity contract" now includes, with these amendments, commodity options, commodity futures contracts and commodity futures options. This legislation, as amended, enables the superintendent of brokers to recognize out-of-province exchanges where adequate safeguards already exist. As a result, contracts traded on such exchanges will not require approval by the superintendent. But British Columbians trading on these exchanges will still be protected by the other jurisdiction's regulations that meet our superintendent's standards. However, Mr. Speaker, where a registrant wishes to trade in a commodity contract on an exchange that is not recognized, that person can still submit the actual contract to the B.C. superintendent for approval. For trading on an exchange within the province, both the exchange and the form of contract must be approved by the superintendent. In addition, the superintendent is given the power to prohibit any person, including registrants, from trading in specified contracts on specified exchanges.

With these amendments we can be sure that regulatory controls exist in every conceivable situation in which B.C. investors deal in the commodities market. As soon as the act is amended we will circulate draft regulations to the industries affected for their comment.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, our commodity contract legislation requires registration of persons who deal with the public in these transactions, sets out an approval process for the types of contracts used in these trades and ensures that investors are protected by adequate safeguards when dealing in commodity markets anywhere in the world.

In my opinion these amendments and the proclamation of the contract act as amended is a positive, important and useful addition to our strategy for confidence in the marketplace by the investor. It is a useful addition to our securities regulatory system in this province.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I expect that this morning will be the last time that the government benches will applaud me in the course of the debate.

In 1978 this House passed a bill called the Commodity Contract Act. With or without deficiencies, it may have, and probably would have, prevented what one of the city newspapers has called "the tragic tale of a commodity nightmare" in the city of Vancouver. It's the story of investment in British Columbia and the responsibility of this government in its role to regulate the kinds of investments we're talking about that has discredited the Vancouver Stock Exchange around the world. The Vancouver Stock Exchange has one of the poorest reputations in North America, if not the poorest.

[10:15]

I want to describe to you what has occurred in that eight years to affect not only the credibility of that exchange vis-à-vis commodity trading but also the total image of that stock exchange affected by the scandals, if you like, with respect to commodity trading and other forms of share trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

When I was asked by the leader of our party to take on the responsibility of reviewing this minister's role vis-à-vis securities and corporations, I called several stockbrokers to find out why it had, if not the poorest, then one of the poorest reputations in North America as a stock exchange. One of them told me — rather candidly, I thought — that whenever an investor was seeking original advice about how to invest a certain amount of money on the exchange, he said: "Buy shares that are traded in Toronto, and if you're going to invest in a share that's listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, pick the one that looks the highest price in the morning and short it. Shorting means you sell a share you don't have, because you're gambling that it's going to go down during the day. That is the kind of confidence that senior brokers have in their own stock exchange in the city of Vancouver

In this province people are holding liquid savings of $36 billion, according to Statistics Canada. All the right-wing politicians, especially the Tories in Ottawa, go around beating the drum about how much we need capital — foreign capital to further alienate the economy of Canada, to further sell it off to American investors. Yet we have in liquid savings in British Columbia alone $36 billion.

The Premier is at the first ministers' conference and he has this sort of Mickey Mouse proposal of a tax credit for investing in Canadian shares. We don't know what he's talking about, and no one else does either. He's talking apple pie. It's like waving the flag and saying: "Let's give incentives to investors." There is nothing in those three pages. If that's the best the Premier can do in representing us at the first ministers' conference, why doesn't he just send someone else and forget about it? Stay in Palm Springs. That proposal is vague; it's an embarrassment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm somewhat confused. I'm very impressed with the in-depth knowledge that the member for Vancouver Centre has about the stock exchange, but I understand that this bill refers to commodity trading. I haven't heard him talk about that yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member has strayed somewhat from the principle of Bill

[ Page 4992 ]

43, the bill before us. If we could maintain relevance to the Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985, it would be most appreciated by the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LAUK: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that advice, and I thank the Minister of Forests for bringing my attention to it. I want to explain to you and him and the House that it is my view that the reason this bill has been delayed — it's been needed for eight years and longer — is very nature of the stock exchange itself. The government has not had the practice in adequately regulating this stock exchange, and that's caused part of the problem.

The idea of regulating the commodity exchange and the stock exchange more closely is to attract and not to discourage investment. You and 1, Mr. Speaker, may not have much in savings — heaven knows I don't; I'm only guessing about yours, and you don't have to make any disclosure — but what we do have.... It may be an attractive option for us to look at our local stock exchange or commodity exchange — it's the same thing — and ask advice, but the brokers themselves cannot confidently advise you to invest in shares and commodities that are traded in our own exchange, That's what I'm saying. Why else do you think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is bringing in this bill? Somewhere along the line someone — I have a feeling that that someone is rather close to him right now — has forced him to realize that it's not a discouragement of investment; it's an attraction of investment. People who have charge of moneys in trust, such as some professionals and brokers I know who give advice on investment, can confidently tell their clients: things are much better on the Vancouver Stock Exchange; the information you get is more reliable; the superintendent of brokers has more regulations to make sure that information is reliable; and the investment can be made, not without risk, but at least based on a fair judgement of facts that you could generally rely on.

Do you know that you're much better off putting quarters into those one-armed bandits down in Las Vegas? You've got a much better chance down there. You've got a much better chance and a fairer chance of making money at the track. I'm not going to usurp other people's expertise in that area who may be in this House, but I think there's at least one member I know in this chamber who would agree that you've got a much better chance at the race-track than you do in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Proof positive. I've seen the hon. member to whom I'm obliquely referring come in with a new tie occasionally on Monday mornings. We know.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a shame. Perhaps part of the reason — certainly not even the major reason — that there's so much in savings rather than in investment in this province is that the people of this province cannot trust their own stock exchange. It's manipulative. The manipulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is notorious around this whole continent.

We have to find out, for example, about companies that have shares not only listed on our stock exchange but in other stock exchanges in North America.... We have to find out the real financial facts of those companies — sometimes our own Crown corporations — through the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. We don't have that information in Canada. We don't have that information in British Columbia. It's a scandalous state of affairs that investors in Canada have to look to the regulations of the United States to find out about the real financial situation of its own companies, in its own jurisdiction. That's bush league and embarrassing, and if we expect to have people confidently investing in corporations in British Columbia, that's got to change.

In 1978 this bill was passed. It was never proclaimed. Futures traders moved into British Columbia relatively uncontrolled. The new regulations in the United States seared the worst of the types up here. This was open country for them. This was like Dodge City. The sheriff was powerless. It was gun slinging territory. Anything goes in Vancouver. And they moved up here. They packed their little carpetbags. They came up....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hired a lawyer.

MR. LAUK: Hired a Socred lawyer, that's right. They came up here and opened up shop.

The superintendent of brokers, as a civil servant, had the courage to speak out and say: "For goodness' sake, give us the regulations. At least we should have the power to license them." I should say so! But the government did not act. The barn door was still wide open, and the Yankee traders were wringing their hands and licking their chops. Well, I don't mean to make fun of the situation, Mr. Speaker.

No gold in the glitter, do you remember that? Now I wouldn't want to suggest that the minister finally moved after local investors lost $2 million or $3 million — I wouldn't want to suggest that. Would that have been the 2-by-4 in the forehead that drew the minister's attention to the problem? That was the crack on the forehead heard round the world.

Here we have in the commodities situation, where it really is the story of the widows and orphans. It really is the people that had the $10,000, $12,000 and $13,000 in savings, and bought some gold, and had these unlicensed, unregulated traders trading in and out of their accounts without their knowledge and express written permission. That resulted in substantial personal losses of their lifetime savings, and all the while the minister sat like Marie Antoinette, doing his needlepoint, when the bill was just there to be proclaimed at the next cabinet meeting.

Eight years this minister had to close the barn door, and now the horses are gone, the cattle is gone, the sheep are gone, the pigs are gone, and the hay is gone. There is nothing left in the barn, and here we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs come in and close the barn door. It's a classic case.

I want to know from the minister why there have been these unreasonable delays. Investigations were made in the King Lung Commodities Ltd. scandal. It's a subsidiary of Continental King Lung Group, founded in Hong Kong in 1974, which moved into our jurisdiction — bush country, easy pickings.

Subsequent investigations indicated that the information on their brochures and prospectuses, if you want to give them that kind of title, were in many cases critically false in substantial areas. It was a fraud. It was an advertent, deliberate deception of little investors in British Columbia.

All too often we've heard of, and even had confirmed, that people can make money on the stock exchange if they've got inside information. I'm not talking about insider trading; I'm talking about inside information. That's the only way to make your investment in British Columbia. When a stock exchange has got that kind of reputation, nobody in his right mind is going to invest in shares in that stock. There's more

[ Page 4993 ]

control over the shares than there is over commodities — until, hopefully, this bill is passed. Now it's taken them eight years to not proclaim the Commodities Act that was passed in 1978. How long is it going to take them to proclaim Bill 43?

[1030]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What did you say? "Quick as we can." Is that eight years? Four years? One month? I think we're entitled.... We're not ordinarily entitled to ask whether the Crown is going to proclaim a bill within a certain period of time, but I think the people of British Columbia have a right to know if they're going to proclaim this bill within two, three or four weeks. If it's days, I'd like to hear the minister stand up and say so, because the longer you wait, the longer the people with that $36 billion are going to keep on sitting on it.

The superintendent of brokers begged the minister. I would speculate that the assistant deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is now on the floor of the House, was the one taking the heat with respect to this. I expect he would have had words with the minister over the years. What was the problem? Can we call the assistant deputy minister to the bar of the House and have him tell us about the eight years of pain and suffering that he's gone through in begging this heartless minister to proclaim this act?

The newspapers covered the King Lung story fairly clearly — what the investigation showed, and how much people were losing. I would commend everybody to have a look at that and understand what those investors had to go through. I can't find something comparable to compare it to. I guess it's almost like putting your money in a savings account at the going interest rate, then showing up a couple of months later to take your money out for a down payment on a car or house, and having the bank manager say: "I'm sorry, we took that money and invested it in a bad loan in a comer store that went broke. We've lost it." That's the closest analogy I can draw. No trust situation there. No confidence at all. No reliance that your original investment was sound.

Of course, they have private lawsuits pending. Far be it from me to criticize the effectiveness of the common law with respect to enforcing these kinds of contracts. I have a feeling that they're going to win their case when the trial comes up in a year and a half, but they'll have a judgement they could paper their bathroom wall with. Who are they going to collect it from? That's the trouble: they post no bonds; they don't have to have assets. They don't have to have those roots that make us have confidence in other people when we make contracts with them. I think we should remove that atmosphere of our stock exchange, as an investment milieu, being an open country, a crapshoot, make it one that's solid, where people can invest with the confidence — there's always a risk in that kind of investment, but invest in confidence — that the information they are officially told by their agents and the commodities companies is investigated and supported to some extent in the regulations by the supervision of the government. A free market in shares and commodities is not a good open market system without regulation. It's a crapshoot where the dice are loaded. It's not even as fair as your average dice game, because the dice are loaded.

I think that the only way to describe the government's inaction in eight years and longer is gross negligence. The inactivity of the minister is totally inexcusable. Here is a minister and a government arguing that they defend the little guy, the little investor and the small businessman in the province of British Columbia, and they've turned their backs consistently on those people. I want to know why. The excuse that the minister gave when he opened debate is not acceptable. He said that we didn't have the powers for regulations; the definitions were poor. Those are pretty weak-kneed excuses, Mr, Speaker. It's worse than that; it's no excuse at all. I want to know the real reason why the minister did not turn his mind to this situation. I want to know what was going on in this government for eight years while persons were losing their life's savings in these kinds of investments.

From 1978 — almost eight years....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll take off my shoes in a moment.

I would like very much for the government to take what I'm saying a little more seriously. I enjoy good humour as well as anyone else, but the people who have lost this kind of money.... It's inexcusable. The minister has to have a better explanation than saying: "Our definition problems were there. We couldn't define 'contract.' We had to expand it to include contract options, futures, futures options and so on." Gee, that was a big problem; that took almost eight years to figure out. Those excuses are not excuses at all. The minister owes an explanation not only to the people who lost fortunes as a result of the lack of regulations, who were virtually defrauded of their savings, but also for no other motivation than to set the record straight so that confidence in that kind of an investment community can be rebuilt.

While the minister is at it, what is he going to do about the stock exchange? What is he going to do about Black Tuesday, where millions of dollars were gone within hours of the stock exchange.... Why wasn't that stock frozen? Did he talk to his superintendent? The government is now indicating that it's going to give more power to a stock exchange that will allow that to happen. The registration of dealers and other types on the floor are going to be left to the stock exchange, He's now throwing up his hands further and saying that the stock exchange should be governing more of itself. It's inexcusable. That's not getting the government off our backs. That is stepping aside while the vultures get on the people's backs without government protection or regulation. There's a difference. We want the government off our backs and onto the backs of the vultures on Howe Street.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, they are their friends.

MR. LAUK: Is that the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't had tighter regulations on Howe Street? Is it the friends that they have on Howe Street? I would find it difficult to believe that a government would be so crass, so cynical, as not to bring in a commodities bill for eight years while people lost their fortunes.

Of course we're going to vote for Bill 43, but we would like the minister to indicate how soon it can be proclaimed and how fast we can see these regulations in place.

There's another thing that I want to say. While my happy-go-lucky friend, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — and I mean that with greatest respect — is bouncing around reducing the civil service, I wonder if you and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can't have a close look at Rupert Bullock's operation. He is understaffed.

[ Page 4994 ]

I don't think you have adequately provided the kind of people who are going to be needed to enforce this bill and to adequately....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, don't hire Pezim for. Well, maybe you should.

AN HON. MEMBER: It takes a thief to catch one.

MR. LAUK: I would never say that in public — never outside the House. Even junior counsel is aware that you'd never say that outside the House.

But I will say that I would like to see the government take a sober look at the staffing of Mr. Bullock's department, because I think that he is understaffed. I don't think they are providing him with the money to attract the skilled investigators that are required to bring up the confidence of that exchange. It's no good having the Premier going to the first ministers' conference with some wishy-washy idea of investment attraction from those liquid savings accounts. In what? In a stock exchange and a commodity exchange that has no confidence?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. They will have tax incentives to invest in corporate shares out of the Toronto Stock Exchange but not under the VSE, because no one has confidence in it. So before he brings in his tax incentive for investment, let's clean up Howe Street. Let's work together to clean it up, because all British Columbians, with those tremendous amounts of savings, could be attracted into the marketplace. They will generate jobs, because, with a tight stock exchange and commodity exchange, people will build their confidence in investing in it. They will be able to rely on the information — not without risk. Nothing is without risk or a price, but they'll have confidence they have a reasonable chance based on the information they receive. That money will start coming out of savings accounts and will be circulating into the economy. Jobs will be created. Taxes will be collected.

But first things first. Give Rupert Bullock some staff and give him a free hand in there to clean it up. Have the assistant deputy minister spend full time down.... He should have an office down there. Let him flash his badge around the floors down there. Let's clean up that place and build up the confidence that I think is required, so that....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You'd do a lot worse — and you have — than have the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) advising you on how to clean up Howe Street.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that's best just ignored.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Exactly. Personal reflections are most unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we must never look a gift horse in the mouth. Even though I have described as gross negligence the move of the government as closing the barn door after all the livestock have left — a lot of people have suffered because of the inactivity, the lethargy, the downright laziness of this government for eight years — even though I've said all that and will probably say it again, we support this bill, and we hope for its speedy passage and quick proclamation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just spoken has indicated that the opposition will be supporting this bill, as will I. The member was wrong again, however, when he said that nobody on this side of the House would agree with what he said. I did, and I believe that the member had some excellent points that not just the government and the public but also the stock exchange itself should take extremely seriously.

[10:45]

This legislation is overdue. We vote for it because it's needed. But let it be said that the stock exchange in Vancouver does not have the reputation that it should have or that senior stock exchanges in other cities in Canada have. Perhaps the point is well taken that the government should police it much more vigorously, that the legislation should be much tougher. But by the same token the stock exchange has its own methods and its own abilities to clean up its act if it so desires. The best we can do in this House, I believe, is simply to say that if the stock exchange enjoys a reputation less than it would wish to have, it has itself to blame. As far as investors in British Columbia, with their savings, are concerned, they have equal access to the senior exchanges of the world. They can invest in Wall Street. They can invest in the senior stock exchanges in Canada. Should they choose to invest through the Vancouver Stock Exchange, they should know by the words of members on both sides of this House that they're taking their own risks in doing so. The protections they receive from the Vancouver Stock Exchange are not equivalent to what they would receive elsewhere. The risks are greater. Therefore, if they sustain losses — as the member has just said, life savings — they should know the risks they assume before they start. They should know that the policing is not the same as it is at senior exchanges, and one can only say beware.

But the member is right. This bill, while overdue, deserves to be supported. Certainly, as a member of the government, my support can be counted on, and I'm glad that the opposition is going to support the bill and has made the statements that they've made.

MR. D'ARCY: For the last two years, as the minister knows, we in the opposition have been asking for this kind of bill. I want to make the point that the need for this bill is not just the urgency of protecting innocent investors from unreasonable risk, as has been pointed out by both the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

One of the major concerns has been the credibility of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the entire Vancouver and B.C. brokerage community. There have been over the years large amounts of money earned in British Columbia which have not been traded or invested through BC brokerage houses. It's been traded on other exchanges, on other boards. Even companies that are listed on the Vancouver Exchange.... People in British Columbia in many cases have

[ Page 4995 ]

traded in those companies on other exchanges, whether it be in Toronto, Calgary, New York, or wherever it is.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great deal of brokerage activity in British Columbia over the years because of a lack of confidence in the Vancouver investment community. This has primarily had to do with the commodities market; it has not been a problem with what I shall perhaps carefully call legitimate brokerage houses. The major brokerage houses — the Midland Dohertys, the Loewen Ondaatje McCutcheons, the C.M. Olivers, and so on — there's no problem with them, and never has been. They have set their own rules and standards, and they have regulated themselves.

The problem has been with the boiler-room operations. That is why we need regulation: not because we need the heavy hand of government on the legitimate brokerage houses, but because we need to catch the sharks. They are the ones who have been making many British Columbians — large and small investors — have no confidence in the Vancouver brokerage community and causing them to take their money elsewhere.

The other member for Point Grey is making a lot of noise and I do appreciate it.

Apart from the issue of protecting the savings and investments of British Columbians from unreasonable risk — as has been pointed out, there is always risk when you invest, and there should be — there is the more important question of, for the first time in the history of BC, establishing this province in its rightful role as a major investment centre in North America, and keeping that brokerage activity within British Columbia. We need the economic activity, and I think this bill — it's way overdue — is going to ensure that that confidence is slowly but steadily going to build in the brokerage houses and stock exchanges in British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to start off by saying I certainly agree with a number of the comments made by the member for Rossland-Trail. But I would also say that I think there's another side to this whole issue, and I congratulate the minister for bringing forth this bill.

If you're talking about the Vancouver Stock Exchange — which fits into this bill — I think the overwhelming majority of stockbrokers and companies that deal with the Vancouver Stock Exchange would agree with the member's comments that they don't want the sharks and thieves. I think all of the companies that he mentioned are good reliable companies, and all of the companies that trade on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are governed by the same people as those companies are. If any of the other ones are doing things they shouldn't be doing, I would be the first to agree — as I know would every member of this House and of the community — that they should be prosecuted and that we should get rid of them.

But the Vancouver Stock Exchange doesn't have the reputation that I have heard here this morning from some of the members. We might read of some of those things in the media. I listened to all the comments of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank); he made quotes like: "Nobody has confidence in the Vancouver Stock Exchange." He also kept on using the words "Howe Street"; I think he should know — it's in his own constituency — that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is now on Granville Street and hasn't been on Howe Street for a couple of years. That old image of Howe Street has disappeared.

He said: "Do not trust the Vancouver Stock Exchange."

MR. LAUK: They still make deals on the street corners and in the delis.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure that when the member's fighting for his election campaigns, he meets in the delis of downtown Vancouver. They are some of the greatest places to meet. Business people make deals in restaurants and other places too; you don't have to be in the office of your stock broker to make a deal.

But he talked about the dice being loaded, Mr. Speaker, and manipulations. Well, certainly this bill is being brought in to stop that type of thing.

There are some things you don't hear about in the Vancouver Stock Exchange — and they talk about British Columbians. Well in excess of 50 percent of the money invested through the Vancouver Stock Exchange is from people outside the province of British Columbia, who have confidence in our exchange as the best exchange in the world for speculative mining stocks and new industries. You can't argue with that point. The money that comes through that stock exchange.... If you want to look at just the past couple of years, the Hemlo gold strike in Ontario was financed through companies on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The largest gold find in the world in the last 20 years was financed through small investors in British Columbia, who have made a good return on their investment. The second member for Vancouver Centre says nobody has made money in Vancouver. I would suggest to that member that if you were to invest all your money in lottery tickets and the race track, you'd lose a lot more than if you invest your money in the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

MR. REYNOLDS: He doesn't think that's true, Mr Speaker, but I'd be willing to place a little wager. He can give his money to our friend over there who goes to the race track, I'll give my money to a stockbroker, and we'll see who has the most left at the end of a year. I can't wait for him to put up his money.

I had to stand up and speak on behalf of this bill, because I wanted to show support for those thousands of people who work in British Columbia in our brokerage industry and in the stock exchange, and for the great job they're doing promoting speculative industries. That's our stock exchange. We're never going to be New York or Toronto; I hope we never are. There's a need in this world for an exchange that promotes new and small companies. That's what we should be doing in British Columbia. We should be talking about it in a positive manner. Sure, the member can find cases — he quotes them out of the newspapers — and do you know why? Because they were charged and convicted in this province by a very good policing agency that looks after our exchange. Nothing is perfect — we're improving it all the time. This bill is another improvement that will bring more confidence around the world in our stock exchange. Mr. Speaker, it is a good exchange; it does a good job. It has winners, it has losers, but that's the business you're in when you play the stock exchange.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have had somewhat of an overlap in the debate, and you have been

[ Page 4996 ]

kind enough to allow it to go a little beyond the Commodity Contract Amendment Act. Comments have been made on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and matters related to the Securities Act. I thank you for giving us that flexibility, because the debate has been excellent. Certainly many points have been raised.

The member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct with regard to the original Commodity Contract Act being passed in 1978 but not proclaimed. The time delay has been considerable, and since we were in government prior to 1978, possibly I could apologize to the member across the floor in that maybe we should have moved quicker. However, the member also recognizes that there are many people who deal in commodities, and at the present time they are, even without this act, under regulation. The investment dealers who operate on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are regulated by the Securities Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and those are the reputable dealers that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) comments on.

Many trades and commodities are made in recognized commodity exchanges — Winnipeg, Chicago, around the world — which also have regulations that protect, to a reasonable extent, investors when they deal in this fairly high risk area. So those are already reputable people involved in trading of commodities. It's the very few who have operated in that unregulated area that this bill really addresses.

The amendments to this bill clean up the original 1978 Commodity Act, and when that legislation is proclaimed as amended, these regulation will be put into place. When the legislation is effective, we will be able to catch those few who have in the past caused a problem.

I had wanted to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that the stock exchange is not on Howe Street, it's on Granville, but that was taken away from me by my colleague, the member for West Vancouver (Mr. Reynolds). The member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct that there's a tremendous amount of savings in this province. I've made a number of speeches since I've been Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that we have to bring back investor confidence. We have to free up some of those savings accounts and provide them an opportunity to invest, whether it be in securities or commodities. Put up some risk capital to stimulate the economic activity in the province, rather than putting it in a bank account to earn interest. You really don't get the economic benefits that you would if you were investing. These amendments will provide protections which hopefully will improve confidence in the marketplace, and some investors will be prepared to free up some of those savings.

I want to talk for a moment on some of the concerns expressed by a number of speakers in the House about the image of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I can tell you that the board of that exchange has itself passed a number of regulations which have tightened up the activity. They've put into place disciplinary actions; they have made the names of those offenders public so that people can be aware. If members who trade on the exchange have not lived up to the rules of the game, they are fined and their names made public. The superintendent has done a number of things to ensure more confidence for the investor. He has told those people in the junior companies that before they go public they have got to have a greater amount in primary investment. I think it went from $25,000 up to $100,000 of primary invested funds before the stock goes public. They have to spend more money on development of their product through the company or exploration. We've increased the minimum amount of the value of the share from 15 cents to 25 cents before it gets on the stock exchange itself. Those are things done within the system.

[11:00]

I think it's important that we have on record the concern that the members of the Vancouver Stock Exchange have about their image and what they have done and what the superintendent's office has done to improve that image, and what we are doing by amending this legislation dealing with commodities.

It's fair to say that investment in commodities, commodity futures, commodity future options, etc. is a gamble. It's a high-risk area, but at the same time, with regulations such as those we'll be able to provide now, we will at least establish fair rules of the game, recognizing the possible risk, because we are now going to ensure the commodity traders are qualified and licensed, and of course we're going to be approving the type of commodity contract through the superintendent's office.

The member for Vancouver Centre said: "How long before proclamation?" In my opening remarks I mentioned that once we proceed with this legislation we're going to circulate draft regulations to an industry committee and get their feedback, to ensure that we've got everything covered. Then of course things would be put into place, and we would at that time be proclaiming the legislation.

The member for Vancouver Centre also mentioned about increasing staff in the superintendent's office. I appreciate his comments. It certainly has been a concern to me, and I will certainly use his comments when I go before Treasury Board to see whether or not we can get additional staff members at that time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) says maybe I shouldn't use the member for Vancouver Centre as support, and maybe I will get them. I'll have to keep that in mind.

I think the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has made some very good points. He says that funds have been traded on other exchanges. Certainly we shouldn't be attacking the established brokers, who are reputable people involved in either the stock exchange or commodity transactions, etc. What we're after here is the "sharks" who do from time to time take advantage. With this type of legislation we'll be able to do a better job of protecting the investor and certainly identifying those sharks and dealing with them.

Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to answer most of the questions that have been raised. I appreciate the comments of all members of the House, both in opposition and on the government benches. What they're really saying is that we have an opportunity here to play a part in the economic development of British Columbia. If we have a proper, well-run stock exchange, where you have proper regulation and legislation in place, we will attract investment in British Columbia. We will free some of those savings now sitting idle in bank accounts, and that can only assist in the development and improvement of the quality of living in the province. With those comments, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4997 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at this time.

Leave granted.

Bill 43, Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

COMMODITY CONTRACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. LAUK: My copy of the bill is confusing. It wouldn't be the first time.

I have a question to ask. There's one minor problem with the whole bill that bothers me. I wish it were a little bit tougher all around, but the thing that really causes me concern that I'd ask the minister to give some assurances on is that section 16 of these proposed amendments has a loophole potentially big enough to drive King Lung through, if you like. Any class of commodity contract, person or intended trade can be exempted. I'd like to have some assurances that the regulations are going to be such that that's just not going to happen in the kind of King Lung situation where 200 small investors lost almost $2.5 million because of this.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but I would like to have some indication under this section. It says that the superintendent can exempt this class of contract. Under what basis — somebody calling him up at two in the morning and saying: "Hey, how about a break?" I know that's not the case, but we should have some indication.

HON. MR. HEWITT. Mr. Speaker, from that section it would, in my opinion, be.... Where it could be a class of contract exempted, it might be identified as one of a contract accepted on another exchange. In other words, he is satisfied that he's approved the other exchange, and thereby approves the contracts that it's traded on in that other exchange, which automatically says that we'll accept that contract here: "You don't have to go through the procedure of having it approved. Therefore I exempt it."

MR. LAUK: Is that the only situation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That would be the situation as I understand it, Mr. Member. If you want to make a further comment, I can say I'd follow that up and make sure that is the only situation.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Edgar may have that.

While the minister is conferring, it seems to me that if that's the only situation, then there should be regulations promulgated for that. Is the minister contemplating actual regulations so that we'll know what predictability there is in having contracts exempted or not exempted?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I think the regulations would say that contracts have to be approved by the superintendent unless he has been given approval, you might say, of an exchange elsewhere and, therefore, its contracts. On this particular section, it does state that the superintendent would have to be satisfied that in making the exemption it will not be prejudicial to the public interest. He may impose terms and conditions with regard to that contract. So he has that authority, and if he felt that an exemption would be prejudicial, then he wouldn't make it.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister.

The last point that I wish to make is that I would request that the superintendent.... I know that he's understaffed and hasn't got the time, but perhaps we have to make the time so that circulars with respect to his views about what kind of contracts these will be, what prejudice he's looking at.... It's like jurisprudence, if you like: build up that body of judgement from the superintendent where the trade can predict when an exemption is possible or not. Predictability, it seems to me, in this field of investment is very important.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the member's comments, and I would certainly make sure that we do address the concerns that he's expressed at this time.

Sections 16 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 43, Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CHABOT: Bill 46, the Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, makes provision for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in British Columbia — a tradition that's been in the House of Commons for many years, at least 30 years. Other governments in this country also have parliamentary secretaries. In fact, there are six governments in Canada that make provision for parliamentary secretaries. The legislation dealing with this suggests that there is the ability to appoint up to ten parliamentary secretaries in British Columbia. I'm not suggesting for a moment that there will be ten appointed. I'm not suggesting there will be one, but the provision is there for parliamentary secretaries in case the need arises.

[ Page 4998 ]

The bill also addresses the issue of the Legislative Library, which has a split jurisdiction between the Speaker and the Provincial Secretary. I know that the Speaker has been working for some considerable time to have the Legislative Library under his jurisdiction, and this legislation essentially provides for that. I'm not sad about that, because I think it created a problem with two.... Having it under one jurisdiction is, I think, the proper way.

The bill also makes provision for a capital city allowance, which would be available to members of this assembly at a rate of $60 per day for a maximum of 50 days to a maximum of $3,000, with the exception of the five seats in greater Victoria, whose members would get a capital city allowance of $30 a day to a maximum of $1,500. There are only two jurisdictions in this country that do not have capital city allowances. They are Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. I guess everyone knows how small Prince Edward Island is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know. So that's basically the reason there's no capital city allowance there. So essentially what we're doing is catching up with other jurisdictions. I think it's important that we look at the kind of capital city allowances being made available to members of the Legislative Assembly here in British Columbia and make comparisons with what is available in other provinces, many of which don't have a maximum.

First of all, Newfoundland pays its members $59.40 per day when the House is sitting. Prince Edward Island, as I said before, has none. Nova Scotia pays its members up to $50 per day while the House is sitting. New Brunswick pays $45 for accommodation and $35 for meals on days the House is sitting. Ministers are not eligible in New Brunswick. The province of Quebec pays $7,500 per year capital city allowance, the Premier is provided with an apartment in government buildings and the Speaker — and I'm glad the Speaker is not here today — is provided with apartments in the legislative buildings. Members may rent or buy accommodation, with the allowance based on rental value. In the province of Ontario — last revised on April 1, 1984 — there's up to $9,371 for members and $10,371 for ministers and party leaders. Again, the Speaker is provided with an apartment in the legislative building and members may rent or buy accommodation in the capital of Ontario. Manitoba pays $40 per day when the House is sitting. Again, the Speaker is provided with an apartment in the legislative buildings of Manitoba. Saskatchewan pays $52 per day for Regina members and $84 per day for other members while the House is sitting. This includes the Speaker and is tied to the industrial composite index. The province of Alberta pays $75 per day when House is sitting. They also pay $75 per day to a maximum of 24 days per year when the House is not sitting. That includes the Speaker. The Northwest Territories pays $125 in non-accountable allowances per day when the House is sitting. Members, again, may rent or buy. In the Yukon actual expenses for accommodation are paid, plus $35 per day for meals when the House is sitting, with no maximum excluding ministers — up to a maximum of $4,400 per year when the House is not sitting, available to all members from ridings outside Whitehorse.

[11:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So you see from that list of capital city allowances that other jurisdictions give substantially more than what we're proposing in this particular bill.

This bill does not provide for pay increases. The last pay increase was provided to members of this assembly in January 1982. Since that time there has been an arbitrary legislative reduction of 10 percent to the pay of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, which is substantially different from what takes place in other jurisdictions. There have been increases in 1984.... Unfortunately I do not have the figures for the previous years of 1982 and 1983, but when one looks at what has transpired in 1984 in pay increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly in other jurisdictions, including the sessional indemnity plus the tax-free allowance, there have been pay increases of between 4 and 7.2 percent in other jurisdictions while members of this assembly took a 10 percent pay cut in 1982 and have not had an increase since that time.

Getting back to travel allowances, Mr. Speaker, there is no municipal council or school board — their representatives — who are not given full expenses when they travel. Public servants in this province also are given accommodation and meal allowances when they travel. It's a recognition which is not given to members of this assembly. I think the capital city allowance being proposed here is a reasonable amount and is a far cry from the kind of allowances available in other provinces of this country.

Mr. Speaker, you might also want to look at the kinds of expenses allowed to other Members of the Legislative Assembly for travelling within their constituencies. It's substantially larger than what is allowed to members of this assembly. Also, the ability to travel throughout the province is there in other provinces; it's not here. Your travel allowance is from the capital city to your constituency. While you're in your constituency you have a maximum of $1,650 travel allowance, which is one of the lowest travel allowances in this country.

To give you an example, Mr. Speaker, I keep an automobile at Cranbrook. I just got my notice from ICBC for insurance, and the insurance alone on that vehicle is $450. The vehicle is a pickup truck. It sits in Cranbrook and waits for me. I have over $5,000 invested in the vehicle. Then after I deduct the $450 for my insurance, $1,200 a year is left for travel allowance. Certainly that is frugal on the allowances for members of this assembly as far as the government is concerned, especially when I examine the kinds of allowances that are available to other members of legislative assemblies across this country.

I think that people fail to take into consideration the fact that most members of this assembly must maintain two homes, one in their constituency and one in Victoria. I'm in that situation, and I know the costs involved in the maintaining of two homes. There's no one else in the province I'm aware of who is obligated to maintain two homes. If they are, they are compensated. That's not the situation with members of this assembly.

There are also provisions in this legislation for improvements to pensions for members of this assembly. After having examined the kind of pension provisions that are available to other members.... They are not the highest; they are average. There are many other pension provisions in this country that are substantially higher than are available in British Columbia.

[ Page 4999 ]

There is no provision for severance allowances here, which are available in other jurisdictions, and I'm not suggesting there should be, Mr. Speaker. In Nova Scotia there is a severance pay allowance of one-quarter of the sessional indemnity; half of the sessional indemnity in Ontario; half of all indemnities in the House of Commons, which is a substantial severance pay. Certainly being a member of this assembly disrupts one's normal employment. It disrupts one's life and one's opportunities of promotions or making more money. There is one severance allowance here which is extremely excessive; that's the province of Quebec, where a formula based on two times the monthly salary for each year of service is available to members when they leave the assembly by either resigning, losing the nomination or being defeated at the polls. If I had that severance formula for all the years I have been in this assembly there would be $150,000 that the taxpayers of this province would have to pay for my leaving politics by one method or another. I'm not recommending that we have a severance allowance, even though they have one in other provincial jurisdictions and in the federal government.

I think this bill addresses many of the inequities that are prevalent here in British Columbia. I move second reading,

MR. ROSE: I am not going to speak at length on this bill. Much of the statistical material and comparisons to other legislatures have been covered quite adequately by the Provincial Secretary. I don't think there's much to be gained by repeating it here.

I would just like to remind the House that this material in this bill and amendments to the Constitution Act were part and parcel of the unanimous report accepted and voted on by this House. It resulted from the report in which there were six Social Credit members and three New Democratic Party members; three of the Social Credit members were cabinet ministers.

I don't think that it could be described as the most popular piece of legislation that ever came down the legislative pipes. But I would like to tell the House a little bit about my experience in these matters.

In the federal House, where I once was honoured to serve, I have gone through, I think, two pay and pension increases, one in 1970 and another I believe in 1981. Now 1970 was a year of tremendous promise and great affluence and good times, and '81 was almost as good. But I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker: there was never a good time to raise or change the allowances or enhance the position of an MLA, according to some members of the public. There never is the right time. It doesn't matter whether times are good or times are poor. The people who stand up and say that perhaps it is time to do something about it are probably going to receive all kinds of criticism in the press.

I don't believe that we should have this onerous task of doing this for ourselves. I think it should be an outside commission that makes up its mind about these matters and studies and makes comparisons, because there is really something unseemly about voting oneself a raise. As I say, I've been through it twice before.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think, though, that criticism about it in the media without the bases of comparison so aptly demonstrated by the Provincial Secretary — unfair criticism in many cases, without looking at what happens in other jurisdictions — doesn't do anything to enhance the public's respect for democracy. The snout-in-the-public-trough attitudes towards MLAs or MPs or whatever demeans the office and demeans democracy. I've been in it since 1968, or 1966 if I count my municipal experience. I've met a lot of politicians, and I would say that 98 percent of them work very hard, and regardless of the differences in attitudes and philosophies, they are men and women with a strong service drive. If you want to make money, don't come into politics.

I would like to say that I'm supporting this bill because I believe that the ability and capacity to hold office should not be a function of your wealth. I think that once upon a time politics was the preserve of lords and ladies and rich men who were all perhaps retired corporate lawyers who had independent incomes. These people, while certainly able, were not truly representative of the community.

We want to have people elected who can come here without undue personal sacrifice. There's always some sacrifice. We want it to be as representative as possible of the constituency out there. We want people from all walks of life here, and we don't want to deny certain people, because of salary limitations or whatever, the right to serve in the legislative councils of this province or of our country.

So that's why we feel that adequate pensions and adequate indemnities are vital and necessary. What's more, they serve democracy. So we're very anxious for that to maintain what we regard as an adequate kind of benefit without being unduly greedy.

I want to tell you something else. The Provincial Secretary mentioned that accommodation allowances are available in just about every jurisdiction with the exception of Prince Edward Island. Well, I don't know how many people have been to Prince Edward Island. It's got 120,000 people. Charlottetown is right in the middle of it. You can drive from either end of it to Charlottetown in two hours. That's on a bad day. So perhaps there isn't quite the same need for living allowances there. As far as travel allowance is concerned, we've got people here representing thousands of square miles. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) represents people scattered over thousands of square miles; similarly, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and other members. In order to reach many of those communities you have to take a plane or go by boat or dog team, even.

[11:30]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Or snowshoes, yes.

I don't mean that to suggest that in order to serve and make contact with the people on a personal level, $2,400 a year for in-constituency travel is excessive. I think it's only reasonable and decent, because I can get around my riding from one end to the other of it in half an hour. So in saying that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't get $2,400. As a matter of fact, there is no increase in the travel allowance, except for the rural and remote ridings, and I think it's justly deserved.

I'm not going to say very much about pensions. I'm not entitled to one here. I'd have to serve seven years. I came in

[ Page 5000 ]

as a late-bloomer. But I'll tell you that if it weren't for a reasonably good federal pension, I wouldn't be able to be here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. ROSE: Because I won't get one here. I hope that people realize that the people here are probably serving here in their maximum earning years. It's the maximum earning years when they contribute to a pension. I taught at UBC for eleven years, and since I was elected, if it hadn't been for the federal pension, I would have had no pension rights whatsoever. So I think that it's only fair to look upon what a person gives up by assuming this job, not that there aren't massive personal rewards. They're not monetary rewards, however; they are personal rewards coming from serving one's constituents.

Just to correct the member and to elaborate on what he said about severance pay, we're not having any severance pay here, as the Provincial Secretary said. In Ottawa, where it comes to half the indemnity, it only applies if you're not pensionable. I think something else should be noted about pensions, especially in the federal House — I'm not sure what it is here — but most of the members in the federal House never qualify for a pension because the average length of serving in the federal House of Commons is less than six years. So nobody can say that the majority of people get a pension just because they happen to be an MP. That's not true.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Yes, well.... I mean, class tells.

I just want to use one statistic from the source: "Canadian Legislatures: The 1984 Comparative Study." It goes through all the various provinces and considers what the per capita spending is on the legislatures in terms of how much we spend on a legislature per capita: Ontario, $4.09; Quebec, $9.11; BC, $2.77 — the lowest in Canada. We rank tenth in legislative expenditures as a percent of general expenditures on the legislature.

MR. LAUK: That's not news.

MR. ROSE: Of course not. That doesn't slam anybody.

I want to finish up by saying this. It would be very easy for me to say at my age and with my white hair that perhaps I don't need this as much as someone else. and, therefore, I could be a hypocrite and vote against it. In the two other years in the federal House that I've cited, I know people voted against it because they knew it was coming in and they knew they could vote against it and then take the money and run. I think that if somebody wants and feels he deserves and needs the allowances — remember, there is no pay hike in here — that he should have the courage to stand up and say so; and if he intends to take the money, vote for it.

I want to close by saying this: even though I've received unaccustomed applause from the other side for this speech, I don't expect to get an academy award for this. But I will say that I think that if you believe something is reasonable and right, you should support it. I think this is reasonable and right, and so I am going to vote in favour of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA; Mr. Speaker, I agree with all of the remarks made by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody and the Provincial Secretary. I should tell you that there have been people who are supporting me politically contact me and say: "This is your chance, Graham, to stand apart from the other two parties and come out looking like a hero." This is not the time to do that sort of thing. This is not a political football we're playing with here.

If I had not entered politics and stayed where I was, I would now be facing a 25-year plus pension with the CBC. I found it ironic to watch one reporter from CBC criticizing the pay package for MLAs. I'd be making more money at CBC, and I'd be getting a bigger pension at CBC if I had stayed.

AN HON. MEMBER: And working less.

MR. LEA: We went on a slowdown strike one time for a month, and nobody noticed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was standing by an elevator when I was working for CBC, and I looked down, and there was a snail on the floor beside me. So I stepped on it, and the guy says: "That's a terrible thing to do. Why did you step on the snail?" I said. "Well, it's been following me around all day."

But I think we, in this House, also have ourselves to blame a little for the kind of criticism that we get. You know, it's too easy for different political parties to attack the other political party for short-term gain and long-term pain for every one of us. You know, we see the Premier going on a holiday, and it's criticized. We see the Leader of the Opposition going on a holiday, and it's criticized. It's almost as though if you're a Member of the Legislative Assembly, you have to sneak away on a holiday because you're not supposed to take one.

AN HON. MEMBER: We only work 87 days a year — didn't you know that?

MR. LEA: That is another point, Mr. Member. To take our pay and divide it into the number of days the Legislative Assembly sits is not what I consider to be a very good way of looking at it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this legislation. But I should also like to reiterate another thing that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said. There is no good time for legislators to give themselves a pay raise, an allowance raise or any other kind of raise. I agree with the hon. member of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition that the only way we can do it so that not only will justice be done but also will appear to be done is to move the benefits, the pay and the staffing of Legislative Assembly members to an independent commission. That's the only way to go. You know, I could say that selfishly, because I know we'd be getting a lot more money if we were to do that, and we'd be getting more staff, and we'd be getting more expense allowance.

One final point that I think is very unfair is that whenever they show how much we get, they say: "Here's the wage, and here's the expense allowance." It would be like going to a television reporter and saying: "We'd like to show you how much this television reporter made for the last year. Here's his wage, and here's the expense allowance he got, and that's what they're getting." We all know, when we go home, that the expense allowance doesn't put any food on the table. It

[ Page 5001 ]

doesn't buy children's shoes. It doesn't help pay the mortgage. It doesn't do any of those things. I think sometimes people forget that legislators have families, that we have to pay the bills, that we are people and that we are fellow citizens.

Mr Speaker, I am proud to take my place in this Legislative Assembly today to back the other 56 members of this Legislative Assembly and say that I support this legislation. But at the same time, we should never do it again. We should have legislation in this House that takes these matters outside of this House to an independent body. Within that legislation there should also be a provision that says that if that independent commission wants to bring in a recommendation of upping our allowance, we should have no more say about it; if they want to down our allowance, we have no more say about it. Within that legislation should be a provision that that independent commission's say is final; their decision is final and we, as legislators, have to live with it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to reiterate one point, I think, and that is the decrease in salaries that the members were afforded through legislation in 1982. Had there been that kind of leadership in the school system, that kind of leadership in the health system of British Columbia, we wouldn't be facing the kind of restraint programs that we've had in British Columbia in the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the members of this assembly have shown great restraint in the last three years, and based on that, I think the legislation that is before us is fair and reasonable. I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 46 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I don't like section 1 in this bill. I'm opposed to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries in this small House. The cabinet, in my view, is big enough already: 19 out of 57 members in this Legislature form the executive. This bill provides for the appointment of 10 pseudo cabinet ministers. This would bring the executive and shadow executive to 29, and with the Whip, an effective majority in this chamber.

The government already has the exclusive power of the purse. It controls the administration. Adding ten parliamentary secretaries would give it voting control of this Legislature. I question therefore whether this move is democratic or parliamentary. The appointees certainly won't be secretaries. I therefore question this section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: As I said in second reading of this bill, there are six other governments in this country that have this provision for parliamentary secretaries. There is nothing here suggesting that parliamentary secretaries will be appointed. The legislation is permissive. It suggests there can be up to ten appointed, but that does not necessarily mean that any will be appointed. We'll take the member's remarks into consideration.

Sections I to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 46, Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 38.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. SMITH. Since we dealt with this bill in second reading, Mr. Chairman, I've met with a number of projectionists in the presence of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the member for North Island (Mr, Gabelmann). We heard their concerns at length. I think all the members generally agreed that from the standpoint of fire safety, the legislation cannot be challenged, because there isn't a fire safety element any more in projectionists' licensing.

But there were some other concerns — well, not fire concerns — of some legitimacy as to the comfort factor of having projectionists — and also as to some need to address the fact that there are a number of licensed projectionists in this province, both union and non-union, who have these credentials — who have gone through a period of apprenticeship, and who are concerned, of course, that if there's a deregulation of that credential anyone, without any training or experience, would be able to replace them. So what I'm going to do is try to address that matter; I'll ask that the sections of the Fire Services Act be passed, but that it be my

[ Page 5002 ]

advice to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that they not be proclaimed until we have fully explored some way to at least have a modicum of testing or training for projectionists, if that can be worked out in a manner that's agreeable and not too bureaucratic. That's the route that I'm going to go, so I'll be recommending that we not immediately proclaim. But from the fire safety point of view, it appears that the amendments are in order.

MR. LAUK: First of all, I want to express the opposition's appreciation for the Attorney-General's willingness to hear the projectionists, and also to hear opposition points of view. With that in mind, the opposition has not achieved every thing it wanted — then again, we aren't the government — but I want to express my appreciation and my confidence that on this occasion the Attorney-Generals is giving good advice to Her Majesty's government.

With respect to the fire services content, I won't abandon my strident speech in second reading, where I was trying to bring to the attention of the government that there were safety features attached; but I will, after consultation with the projectionists for a more thorough explanation of the problem, realize that the primary issue is a labour relations issue involving people who have historically been licensed. To delicense, if you like, that group would seem — if it were done right away — a little like an unwarranted interference of the government into a labour relations situation. So I am pleased that the minister is recommending delay until notice to the projectionists that they will either be delicensed or relicensed in some other capacity.

I fully recommend to the government and, I hope, expect that a fire safety component to their retraining be there, although it's not officially under the Fire Services Act, because there is evidence to my satisfaction that this traditional exceptional service provided by projectionists should be continued in the public good. But as I say, I agree with the Attorney-General that it is primarily a labour relations or employee status problem.

One suggestion that has been made that I want to ask the government to consider once again is perhaps to have the film classifier in some way provide this kind of service. We're talking about less than 200 projectionists who are so far licensed. It seems to me that that figure is not so high as to unduly burden the film classifier's office. I would like to see a relicensing under some other provision, rather than a delicensing, take place. In that way, then, these projectionists will still have their status, and will be able to not drastically change their situation at the bargaining table, which I think is fair.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, I just want first of all to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Attorney-Generals for the method in which we've proceeded to discuss this whole question following second reading. It was a civilized way to deal with what was a serious issue for a lot of people. It doesn't often happen in this Legislature that we have the opportunity for government and opposition to sit down with concerned parties and have a discussion together. One of the things it leads to, Mr. Chairman, incidentally, is shorter debate, I might add. A lot of the things that we might have said are now not necessary. I will admit, too, that some of the things we might have said may not have been correct.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm only speaking for myself, Mr. Chairman.

As a result of that kind of process, a more intelligent resolution is possible.

I do want to make a couple of comments. I'm not entirely satisfied that the fire safety aspects are as clear-cut as they might appear to be from what the Attorney-General said. I suspect that if this fireproof film that I have in my hand were to come in close contact with one of these struck matches — which I won't do in here — we would have a little fire. The suggestions were made that this new modern film in fact is fireproof, but I don't intend to strike the match, because this stuff will burn readily — if not explosively, then certainly quite readily — and is a danger. If we're going to have the kind of atmosphere we have in theatres, then I suspect we need to have somebody in the theatre other than someone selling popcorn — someone who has some training and skills at handling emergency situations that can occur. We went through these discussions, and the Attorney-General certainly well knows the concerns.

What would have happened with this section would have been an automatic delicensing inadvertently without having considered the question of whether or not there should be licensing or some form of educational requirements for projectionists. I am delighted that the Attorney-Generals has decided to deal with that issue first, prior to the proclamation of these sections. I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Centre that the logical place for licensing is under the classification officer's jurisdiction.

[11:00]

The final thing I'd like to say is that I think there are 371 licensed projectionists in British Columbia now. Two hundred and forty-one are non-union, and there have been some difficulties in making contact with those people to determine how they feel about this kind of legislation. I would urge the Attorney-General to find some way to reach those people prior to the discussion so that they can be involved in the discussion about what kind of licensing procedures should be established.

MR. LAUK: By way of addendum, perhaps you could just confirm this or not. In my investigation under this section, I came across the names of two lawyers who were involved historically, and I think somewhat currently — Mr. Archibald and Mr. Jordan — in deregulation advice and so on to the government. What disturbs me there is that although I have every confidence in the professional independence and ability of these men, the appearance of some conflict with respect to these sections became apparent to me. I recalled that if they were involved in recommending in these deregulation sections.... I'm informed that Mr. Archibald was representing Famous Players in contract negotiations during their labour negotiations. Although I'm satisfied with the Attorney-General's explanation for this deregulation, that appearance of conflict is bothersome to the parties, I thought that it should be drawn to the Attorney-General's attention.

1 think Mr. Jordan as well.... Well, there is some appearance of involvement with these gentlemen representing Famous Players. If there is a conflict of interest in this kind of deregulation situation, then it should be disclosed. If my facts are correct, then perhaps we'll just leave it on the record at that.

[ Page 5003 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: We haven't hired either Mr. Jordan or Mr. Archibald in relation to this matter, and my advice on this bill has come to me from the fire commissioner. Now that I've agreed to examine the labour relations aspect of this, it may be appropriate to explore matters with representatives of both the majors. That's what I certainly will be doing, but the advice on this is fire commission advice, and we haven't hired counsel to advise us on this. Very extensive briefing material has been fire-related, and it's on the basis of that that I brought this forward. I recognize that it does have a labour relations spinoff, and it's for that reason that we had the meeting.

If we can address that special training component and leave some form of certification or licensing which is not a cumbersome one, which doesn't involve a thousand hours, but involves some practical experience and an examination.... I don't think we're far apart — or not really apart at all on this. That's what I would propose to do. I guess in doing that, I'll have to talk to the industry and also to an even broader spectrum of projectionists.

Sections 2 to 13 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. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 38, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 35, Public Service Act.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I believe that in our galleries are some students and their instructor Linda Cummings from the Native Communications Society of BC, who are visiting the precinct for the second time. I don't see them but I know they're up there someplace, and I'd ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 35, the Chair recognizes the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're in committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was advised we were in second reading.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON, MR. CHABOT: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 51 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 37, Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:15 p.m.