1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Eckardt commission report. MR. Lauk –– 4115

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

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

Mr. Barber –– 4119

Royal assent to bills

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

Mr. Barber –– 4122

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 4127

Mrs. Dailly –– 4128

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4130

Mr. Cocke –– 4131

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4132

Mt. Mitchell –– 4133

Mr. Mussallem –– 4134

Ms. Brown –– 4136

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 4138

Division on second reading –– 4139

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

Hewitt)

section 37 4139

Ms. Brown

section 38 –– 4140

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to

section 38 –– 4140

Mrs. Wallace

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

Third reading –– 4141

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

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4141

Mr. Howard –– 4141

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 4141

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4142

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4142

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

Hon. Mrs. Jordan –– 4142

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

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4142

Appendix –– 4142

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some visitors in the gallery

today, but I can't, because everyone is not in his seat, and I think

that these visitors should come to the attention of all members.

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

HON. MR. McGEER:

Perhaps in the interval the first member for Vancouver Centre will be

able to remember their names, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to

introduce in the members' gallery and ask the members to welcome Mr.

and Mrs. Bob Sloan and their daughter Allison, who are here from

California. Mr. Sloan is paying his first visit to Canada, and I know

the members will want to be on their very best behaviour this afternoon.

MR. LAUK:

On behalf of the official opposition I would also like to welcome Mr.

and Mrs. Sloan and their daughter Allison. I hope that their visit to

British Columbia is an enjoyable one.

This is a very

beautiful province, Mr. Speaker, and it always gives me great pride to

be able to stand and welcome visitors from the United States and other

countries. As everyone knows, apart from the partisan differences that

occur from time to time in this Legislature, we are unanimously agreed

that this province has a wealth of opportunity and enjoyment for

tourists, and in spite of the government that now prevails the province

is still a very welcome place for tourists. So I again would like to

welcome Mr. and Mrs. Bob Sloan and their daughter Allison, who I

understand are from California. (Laughter.]

California, as

you know, Mr. Speaker, is to the south of us, and we are very, very

happy to have visitors from there because, you know, many of our own

people visit California. The Premier, I understand, is in Palm Springs

today, so it's an exchange visit and we're very happy. I'm sure that

all hon. members will join both the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications and myself in a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Bob

Sloan and their daughter Allison.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Now the good doctor is fully aware of the reason why we are very glad

there is a doctor in the House. For the hon. members' joviality,

conviviality and many other things, the hon. Premier is in Winnipeg at

the Premiers' conference, not in Palm Springs. Once again we have

misinformation contributed by the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, is the hon. House Leader prepared to table

evidence that the Premier is in Winnipeg, and will he submit to an

examination before the public accounts committee on that subject?

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming some

visitors from Westville, Indiana: Cy and Anna-mae McCollup, and their

daughter Marion Gilbert who is a British Columbian.

Oral Questions

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Did the investigation

of the Attorney-General into the Eckardt affair reveal that boundary

maps prepared by the legal surveys branch of the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing — I think it was then in the Ministry of Environment

— for the Eckardt report, and still in the possession of that branch,

are different from the maps and/or legal descriptions that appear in

the report tabled in this House on June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, Mr. Speaker. The inquiry disclosed that the legal surveys branch,

which is a part of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, prepared

written legal descriptions of the metes and bounds of various

constituencies. The maps were prepared by the mapping division of the

Ministry of Environment.

MR. LAUK: Did the

investigation disclose that those legal descriptions prepared by that

legal surveys branch are different from the final legal descriptions

tabled in the House on June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously didn't listen when I read the report

from the Deputy Attorney-General on this subject which makes it

abundantly clear that with regard to the ridings in the greater

Vancouver area the metes and bounds descriptions for those ridings were

prepared by Mrs. Robbins, who is a cartographer in the office of the

chief electoral officer, and who is an expert in such matters.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm that the legal descriptions prepared

by the surveys branch are being held — those prepared by that branch —

in a sealed envelope in a safe at that branch, and that they contain

signatures of civil servants who were involved in preparing the

original maps and/or legal descriptions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that, although members of the press upon

whom I place reliance have advised me that that is the case.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm that the legal descriptions held at

the land survey branch are different with respect only to changes in

the boundaries of Vancouver–Little Mountain?

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I understand that the surveyor-general, in whose possession or on whose

authority these documents have been deposited, had indicated that he

would release them on the instructions of the Attorney-General. If he

wishes to communicate with me about the matter, I'd-be happy to give

him that authority.

[ Page 4116 ]

MR. LAUK:

Will the Attorney-General table those original legal descriptions and

maps in the Legislature in accordance with the views just expressed by

those civil servants?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker,

the member continues to insert the word "maps." It is my understanding

that there are no maps which are so kept in an envelope.

MR. LAUK:

Well, if the legal descriptions are different, the maps are different.

Perhaps you can track down the maps too. Will the Attorney-General

table the legal descriptions in the Legislature?

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

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

According

to Vi Barton's notes, she was told that Dan Campbell was in the Laurel

Point Inn room during the appropriate times mentioned in the Vogel

report. Was this statement confirmed or denied by Dan Campbell, or by

commission staff other than Miss Barton?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In the course of the inquiry it was disclosed that the only persons of

which I have knowledge who were in the hotel room were Mrs. Robbins,

Miss Sutherland, and at some period of time commissioner Eckardt and

Mrs. McCarthy.

MR. LAUK: On another day in this House

the Attorney-General indicated that Mrs. Barton's statement and the

allegations made by her were thoroughly canvassed. As a matter of fact

it is reported the Attorney-General claims that that was the reason for

the lengthy time taken to investigate this matter. With that in mind,

did the interview with Mr. Campbell, on the point of whether he was at

the Laurel Point Inn room, reveal that he was or was not — in his words?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I have just responded to the member by telling him who was ascertained

to have been in that hotel room, as a result of the inquiry. I assume

he means in Laurel Point on June 19, 1978.

MR. LAUK:

Did the interview with Mr. Campbell disclose that there was a meeting

which included Dan Campbell in a room in the Laurel Point Inn on any

other date?

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The dates in question with regard to these matters were the dates from

June 16 to June 20. Whether there were meetings at any other time

during 1978, 1977, 1976 in hotel rooms, unconnected with the matter, I

have no knowledge.

MR. LAUK: One would think that the

Attorney-General would be interested in disclosing all of the facts

relevant to these allegations. I've heard of justice being blind, but

not necessarily with blinkers on.

Did your officers take

statements from the dinner guests of the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts, to confirm or deny who

was present in that dining room on that occasion?

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

MR. LAUK: Did both those persons confirm that Mr. Dan Campbell was nowhere

to be seen by them on that evening?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The inquiry made of Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts dealt with the evening in

question, their association with Mrs. McCarthy, and their whereabouts

on that evening. I don't even know whether Dr. and Mrs. McRoberts know

Mr. Campbell.

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

Did

Evelyn Robbins deny having the conversation with Vi Barton, as

indicated in Barton's statement on December 5, where Robbins is

reported as having said: "She said she had been interviewed for two

hours the day before by the press. She said: 'I'm so afraid for Grace

McCarthy. She might lose her job.' "

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

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

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

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

Did

the investigation reveal that civil servants in the Economic

Development statistics branch were working overtime, June 18 to June

20, 1978, as indicated in Mrs. Barton's statement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It is my recollection that staff of the central statistics branch of

Economic Development worked overtime during several days in that week,

and certainly on the 19th they were working until the evening.

MR. LAUK:

Were statements taken from the staff of the Economic Development

statistics branch, canvassing what aspects of the report they were

working on?

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

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

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

[ Page

4117 ]

them, Mr. Speaker — to deal with the question of population statistics associated

with the various constituencies in the province.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm that in at least one of the statements

from those staff members there was an indication that they were working

on something other than — or in addition to — population tables?

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

MR. LAUK:

I'll ask this question of the Minister of Human Resources, if I may.

Can the minister inform the House where she was resident in Victoria in

the months of March, April, May and June of 1978?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, not wanting to do other than to see that the rules of

question period are followed, I find it very difficult to allow that

question in any way as being a responsibility of the minister. Possibly

the member could rephrase the question so that it would be in order.

MR. LAUK:

Well, I'll ask the question of the Attorney-General. Did the

investigation reveal that the residence of the Minister of Human

Resources during the months of March, April, May and June of 1978 was

in Victoria?

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

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Attorney-General, according to Vi Barton's statement, and I'll

quote it: "Up until that time" — and this was referred to by Mrs.

Barton as being June 17 or 16, when the report was apparently

completed, in her eyes — "he" — Larry Eckardt — "was wholly dependent

on his staff. Why would he get so independent at the last minute? The

fact that he relied so heavily on his staff and then made changes

himself bothers me. How could he have made changes in the maps without

telling anyone? Because it would have to be put in the report." In view

of this statement and the fact that, according to the Vogel report,

Eckardt made decisions regarding the Vancouver boundaries on Sunday,

June 18, 1978, did Eckardt have contact with the Minister of Human

Resources directly or indirectly on June 17 or 18?

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

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General support that answer with the written evidence

of denials of the Minister of Human Resources, Larry Eckardt, and

members of the Ministry of Human Resources staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and the commissioner were

interviewed in the course of the inquiry, and it was from those

interviews that I gave that answer.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General has repeatedly said that the statements

of Mrs. Barton and Miss Tamoto have not been substantiated. Is the Attorney-General

confident that both the statements of Barton and Tamoto in all material matters

are untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the question is argumentative. The member uses the word

"material", and that is subject to differing

interpretations by people.

MR. LAUK:

With respect to both Barton's and Tamoto's statements that Susan

Thomson and Evelyn Robbins made certain statements about interference

with the commission, is the Attorney-General confident that those

statements by Barton and Tamoto are untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, of course Susan Thomson swore a declaration with respect

to this matter which is before this House, but with respect to the

interviews of both Susan Thomson and Mrs. Robbins, they both deny any

interference with the work of the commission.

MR. LAUK:

Whether there was interference or not, on the question of whether Susan

Thomson or Evelyn Robbins made statements that there was interference,

as alleged by Barton and Tamoto, is the Attorney-General, through his

investigation, satisfied and confident that those allegations of

statements by Robbins and Thomson were untrue?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, that requires a decision by the Attorney-General on a

matter on which he is not qualified to make a decision. The facts are

that the statements were made and their contents resulted in an inquiry

for the purposes of ascertaining whether there was any factual basis

for those statements. If there was misunderstanding as between

individuals as to what was said or not said. that is a matter of no

concern to me. It was the implications of those statements, the

suggestions that there were improprieties. Careful examination was made

into that aspect, and such improprieties were found not to have existed.

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

Leave granted.

APPLICATION FOR NORTH

DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Speaker, on August 11 the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) asked a

question with reference to a neighbourhood pub in north Delta. The

member stated:

In his answer to a question, the minister

indicated that Mr. Pridie was before the Delta municipal council and

that because his proposal was a ramshackle affair Mr. Pridie was twice

unanimously turned down by the council. Mr. Pridie has since denied

that allegation.

In addition, the member said:

Far

from suffering the opposition of municipal officials, Mr. Pridie has

produced a letter, dated September 15, 1977, from the Delta municipal

clerk to the liquor licensing director, in which Mr. Priche is advised:

"The Delta municipal council has no objection to the establishment of

the proposed neighbourhood pub in the northern portion of the Kennedy

shopping centre located at 88th Avenue and 120th Street in this

municipality."

[ Page 4118 ]

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

response to that question, I have received correspondence from Alderman

Lois Jackson, former alderman A.M. Schmand, former alderman Don Porter,

former mayor Tom Goode and former alderman William Reid, all of whom

were members of the council during the period of time when

consideration was given to Mr. Pridie's application. Mr. Speaker, I

would like to read the letter, addressed to me and dated August 15,

1980:

"We hear reports from the Legislature

that Mike Pridie's pub licence application is under discussion, and we

note that the press is interpreting his reminiscences as fact. We

therefore thought we ought to give you the facts as best we remember

them and to state our intentions in the actions we took at the time.

"First

of all, some background. The council of the day disagreed with the

officials of the liquor administration branch with respect to several

of their policies. Our experience with pubs located in shopping centres

had been highly satisfactory, although the LAB was quite opposed to

such locations. We were concerned that the one-mile limit was a

meaningless idea in the urban context, and we were convinced that

limiting seating to 65 would reduce the capital investment because of

the limited returns, thereby reducing the extent of the kitchen

facilities and emphasizing the drinking aspects out of proportion '

"It

is important that you not interpret council's concern with these

aspects as support for Mike Pridie's ideas. As a politician, you will

appreciate that there are different ways of saying no, and that we had

no wish to rub Mr. Pridie's nose in our rejection of his request. In

retrospect, while it would not have been kind to say 'get lost,' these

words would have given him less encouragement.

"For

example, on December 22, 1975 — Minute Report 507/8 — council endorsed

Mr. Al Wawryk's pub proposal as follows: 'that approval in principle be

given to the company's proposal.' Similar wording, with the additional

phrase 'endorse an application to be made for a liquor licence, and

that the LAB be so advised,' was used to support the unsuccessful

application of Mr. Hamilton for a pub in Ladner — minutes report,

January 10, 1977. Even council's rejection of a pub on the Metcalfe

property at Boundary Bay held out more for the proponent: that a

committee of council members be appointed to meet with the owners of

the subject property to discuss alternative land uses — minutes report

550, November 22, 1976. No such support was extended to Mr. Pridie.

"Mr.

Pridic appealed to council for approval in principle for a pub on March

14, 1977. Council discussed it on March 28 — minutes report 146. The

motion was to forward a copy of his letter to the LAB. The intent of

most members of council was to reject the proposal. At that time

Kennedy Heights shopping centre was deteriorating, and the addition of

a pub was expected to attract toughs from neighbouring municipalities.

Concern was therefore expressed for the location near the adjacent

Catholic school. In addition, Mr. Pridie was known to most members of

the council, but council members did not have sufficient confidence in

his management abilities to risk support for his proposal. At this

time, moreover, Mr. Pridie did not have a specific property in mind.

"The

matter was raised at council again on May 2, 1977 — minutes report 217

— because of a copy of a letter from the LAB refusing Mr. Pridie's

request. Council voted to 'receive the correspondence and let Mr.

Pridie be advised of the refusal.' This was the second time that

council turned down his request.

"Mr. Pridie

wrote council again on May 31, and this was discussed on June 6, 1977 —

minutes report 260. Council voted 'that a copy of the refusal received

from the minister be forwarded to Mr. Pridie.' This was council's third

refusal.

"Mr. Pridie wrote council again on

June 22, and appeared as a delegation on June 27, 1977 — minutes report

307/8. Concerns were expressed about the proximity to the school and

about traffic, and council referred the matter to the planning

department and the traffic and safety committee. On July 25, 1977 —

minutes report 352 — council received a report from the traffic and

safety committee, and voted to advise the LAB that council had no

objection to the proposed pub, but to request the LAB to contact, and

obtain comments from, the operators of St. Angela Academy.

"Making

reference to our earlier remarks about other pub applications, this was

hardly strong support for Mr. Pridie. We confess that each of us

supported the motion only on the sure and certain expectation that the

LAB would not reverse its refusal of Mr. Pridie's application, and

knowing that the concerns of Rev. Franks of the Immaculate Conception

parish would be addressed by the minister.

"Another

letter of information was sent by Mr. Pridie on September 14, 1977. On

February 28, 1978, he asked for a letter to be forwarded to the LAB,

and on March 2 he advised council of his intent to appeal the decision

to the minister. Council 'received' this letter on March 6, 1978 —

minutes report 99 — and subsequently voted to ask why Mr. Pridie's

application was refused. We cannot construe council's actions as being

supportive of Mr. Pridie's application.

"Subsequently

the Olma brothers made application and received approval for a complete

redevelopment of the Kennedy Heights shopping centre, to demolish the

older buildings and put new life into the area. Their application for a

pub licence next to the shopping centre on the site of the dwelling

formerly used as the NDP campaign office received strong support,

because it was to be located next to a revitalized shopping centre and

to be operated by people in whom members of council had great

confidence. The previous concerns were therefore dispelled.

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

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

[ Page 4119 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Before calling the bill, I would like to draw to the attention of the

House that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be within the

precincts close to 3 p.m. We will request a short recess at that time.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that gives office space a vote. This is a

bill which undermines the democratic tradition and principle of one

man, one vote. This is a bill which has virtually no popular support

and virtually no editorial support. This is a bill which the minister

himself has freely confessed he dreamed up and which does not in fact

represent the legitimate or even the expressed opinions of electors in

British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Bill

54 is, to put it plainly, a disgusting bill, and it should be

withdrawn. I ask the minister to indicate at this point if he is

prepared to withdraw the bill.

Interjection.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

MR. BARBER:

I know. Does the minister wish to rise on a point of order and indicate

whether or not the government is prepared to withdraw this bill?

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

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

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

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

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

The

first is that it offends deeply against the principle of one man, one

vote. This bill now creates a special caste of citizens who are

entitled to two votes or more on the basis of property. This is a bill

which creates a special class of privilege which will be entitled to

two votes or more on the basis of property. This is a bill which does

more to remind people of a class system that should have been abandoned

years ago than any other piece of legislation we've seen in this

session. This is a bill which pays homage to property and thereby

reduces the importance of citizenship being the one and only criterion

upon which the franchise shall be granted. This is a bill which says

that if you rent a piece of property, you are entitled to another vote.

The

minister offers the half-hearted defence, parenthetically, that you are

only entitled to one vote in one municipality. This is a ridiculous and

absolutely unacceptable excuse for such a disgusting principle as the

bill enunciates. The minister would then have to confess that if you

own 120 different pieces of property in 120 different municipalities,

you get 120 votes.

The bill makes it perfectly clear that

Social Credit no longer believes in the principle of one person, one

vote. They are creating a special class of privilege based on the

ownership of property. On that basis they are granting extra votes. A

case can further be made that these extra votes will largely be

exercised by the friends of Social Credit; that's a different argument,

which I'll get to in a moment.

I pointed out earlier that this bill has virtually no editorial support anywhere in the province. The Vancouver Province

newspaper, to its credit. has now run three editorials attacking this

bill; the most recent ran this morning. It's entitled "Potty Idea

Justified by Talk of Flower Pots." It reads as follows:

"Now

we know why Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm wants to give

businessmen who rent their corporate premises an extra vote in civic

politics. They must have a say in whether their block should have

flower pots along the way to make the premises look a little brighter. "

Parenthetically,

let me add that that's what the minister himself offered as one absurd

explanation for this insupportable and unsupported bill.

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

MR. BARBER:

We believe the editorial and the people. Clearly they do not support

you here. Who do you follow — the editorials and the people or your own

ridiculous political instincts?

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

MR. BARBER: The editorial continues:

"The

way to have flower pots apparently is to make them an issue in local

government elections. The candidate who really wants to impress the

businessmen who contribute to the municipal well being should be in

favour of flowerpots' Flowerpots would be good not only for the

business'men but also the municipality because presumably they would

attract more business, make the property more valuable, and thereby

broaden the tax base.

"For all this to come about, the business renter

[ Page 4120 ]

should have a vote in the municipality where he operates, even

if he also has a vote in another municipality where he happens to live. He should

have that vote, just as the owner who rents it to him has that vote.

"This

may mean that the renter will actually have two votes, one in his

residential community and one where he operates his business, just as

the owner of the rented property may also have two votes, while the

rest of us must be satisfied with one. There's nothing wrong with that,

according to Mr. Vander Zalm. In fact, he says there's something wrong

if he doesn't.

"In case anyone thinks this is

a rather fanciful

interpretation of the minister's argument, listen to

what he said: 'We have a situation now that if a business block wanted

to put flower pots along their block and pay for it themselves, the

business tenants who in actual fact are paying taxes through their rent

would not have a say, and that is wrong.' "

Is that the best

argument the government can put up in favour of this disgusting bill,

that it's necessary to give votes for flower pots?

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

MR. BARBER: Disgusting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: It is a disgusting bill.

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

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

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

MR. BARBER: Does the Speaker consider it unparliamentary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Yes. Hon. member, I'm not asking you to withdraw it; I'm just simply

pointing out that in my opinion it is an offence against the House to

refer to business of the House in that manner; I would consider it that

way.

The hon. minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would like your advice on this. Certainly the problem in

reading from an editorial is that it may not be a quote, as was the

case in this particular editorial. It wasn't a quote of mine, even

though perhaps it might have been in quotation marks. The member is

reading from a newspaper article, and certainly that leaves some doubt

as to its validity in this whole debate. I ask you to rule on that.

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The point is well taken. The member has indicated to the House and for

the record that he is reading from an editorial. I accept that point.

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

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

The editorial goes on to say:

"There will be some amendments to his plan. He won't

say what they are exactly 'but we want to tighten (them) up to allow business

tenants a vote.' "As we said earlier in these columns, we thought Anglo-Saxon

practice had got rid of the rotten borough system and given the vote to people

rather than property. Clearly we have misunderstood the march of time."

The Province editorial ends sardonically.

There are many

other editorials that we can and will read into the record. These are

editorials put forward by newspapers which traditionally have supported

Social Credit but in this instance will not and cannot. These are

editorials put forward by newspapers that have traditionally opposed

the New Democratic Party at election time, but now find common ground

with us. They find this common ground because they know and we know —

and because the people of British Columbia know most certainly — that

this bill is an attempt to take the province of British Columbia back

to the sixteenth century, when property and the ownership of property

had all the say and ordinary people had little or none.

This

bill is an offence against the principle of one person, one vote. A

special class, a special system, a special caste and a special

privilege are now being given to the tenants of office space; Bill 54

gives office space a vote. Wherein ties the sensibility? Wherein lies

the humanity? In what sense can you possibly describe office space as a

human being? In what sense can you possibly construe that office space

is entitled to an opinion and a vote? Mr. Speaker, the government's

usual reply is, well, it is the tenants of the office space who will

have a vote. The government, of course, misrepresents the facts; the

tenants already have a vote, if they bother to register in the

municipalities wherein they live.

Who could be and should be

entitled to more than one vote in one place? The one place is where

they live by choice. Now if they care so much to have a vote in another

municipality, let them move to that municipality. If a resident of

White Rock, concerned about the government of Vancouver city, cares so

much to be able to exercise a vote, let him move to Vancouver. We have

no prohibitions against that; he would be most welcome to do it. But

why should the business renter in Vancouver who lives in White Rock

insist that he enjoy not only the privilege of living in that beautiful

suburban community but also the unearned, undeserved and undemocratic

privilege of having an extra vote somewhere where he does not live?

This is an anti-democratic bill which betrays the anti-democratic

instincts of Social Credit.

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

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

[ Page 4121 ]

MR. BARBER:

We've got a lot more. My colleague from Burnaby will shortly be reading

into the record at some length the history of the attempts of free

people to become enfranchised on the basis of their citizenship and not

on the basis of their ownership of property.

You bet we've

been doing research; you bet we've been finding out why it is that

Social Credit wants to return to the disgraceful system, known in the

United Kingdom as rotten boroughs, whereby absentee landlords are given

the privilege of extra votes and extra power that they have not earned,

do not deserve and which for a century in the United Kingdom corrupted

the political process of that nation.

In our system no one

needs more than one vote; no human being needs more than one vote. It

may be the case that Social Credit would like to have more than one

vote for its supporters, and that is most certainly what they've done

here. But I'll get to that attempt to gerrymander the voters' list

itself in a little while.

But the first and most redeeming

argument against this bill is that it corrupts and diminishes and

denies the great principle of one man, one vote. Social Credit is now

creating a special class of people who get two votes or more because

they rent property. Now maybe in twentieth century Iran that sort of

tyranny is acceptable; maybe in sixteenth century England that system

of votes, courtesy of property, was acceptable; and maybe in the

southern United States the modern representation of it in the

discredited poll tax system was also acceptable to certain people

afraid of the free expression of the democratic will of all the people,

but in British Columbia it is not acceptable and has not been for many

years.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that Social Credit

has been typically sneaky in its attempts to bring this in. Let me

illustrate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again I

would advise you that the language should not be unparliamentary,

should not allude to dishonourable intentions of other members, and I'm

sure the member is well aware of what unparliamentary language is. The

member continues.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, that is also unacceptable. We have a tradition of

parliament here where all members are honourable members, and that

protects all of us in the House. I would just ask the member to

continue on....

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

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the precedent and the long tradition of parliament has

been that if a member is in any way defamed by the enunciations of the

member speaking, that is to be withdrawn. If, on the other hand, a

party or a group is mentioned — providing the term is within reason —

then it's never been asked to be withdrawn. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has a

very short tradition here, which will become even shorter, I'm sure,

will have some kind of an argument around that one.

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

The

only point I was trying to make to the House at the time was the fact

that unparliamentary language and unparliamentary expressions are to be

avoided by all hon. members, whether or not they refer to a party, a

person or a document. The Chair feels that we do have certain standards

of language that have to be maintained. That was my only comment to the

hon. first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Had

Social Credit the courage of its coalition convictions, they would have

brought in this bill when they brought in two others during the regime

of Mr. Curtis, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but they've done

it step by step.

They did not have the courage to

reintroduce the ancient and discredited system — known as "rotten

boroughs" in the United Kingdom — all at once. But rather, now, in this

the third step in the last four and a half years, we see what their

agenda has been all along.

On two previous occasions they

reversed the force of history and went back to allowing property to

have a vote. They did that under the regime of the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis. Now they're doing it in the third stage

this year. and I suppose they hoped that by delaying it until the end

of the session no one would notice.

But it is typical of

Social Credit that they would attempt to do it in this fashion without

being plain and straightforward about their motives and reasons.

Clearly,

the solitary purpose of this bill is to allow the owners, and now the

tenants, of property to have an extra say and an extra voice — an extra

vote. Does anyone deny that property currently — rented or owned — has

a voice? Well, of course they do. They appear at public hearings. They

receive notice of rezoning bylaws. They write letters to the mayor and

letters to the editor, They stand up. They speak. They're recognized.

They are heard. No one, least of all us, wants to deny the democratic

expression to any person for any reason at all. They are not denied a

voice currently, and they will not be, at least not by our side of the

House.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, sir.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, a short recess would be in order at this time. I believe

His Honour is in the immediate premises. Possibly if members could

retain their places, we could just proceed within the next few moments.

[ Page 4122 ]

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

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Land Amendment Act, 1980

Transpo 86 Corporation Act

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980

Revised Statutes Correction Act, 1980

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1980

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act

Mines Act

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980

Business Licence Act

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1980

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1980

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

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARBER:

We're debating a bill that gives office space a vote, and thereby

diminishes the worth of individual votes that human beings have. We're

debating a bill that has five especially offensive aspects, five

especially primitive arguments put forward by the government.

The

first one is that it offends against the great principle of one person,

one vote. It now gives a vote to people on the basis of their rental of

office space. It does not do so on the basis of any other criterion

save that solitary one. That is, to say the least, an extremely

backward one, and we oppose it as strongly as we are able.

The

second reason why this bill cannot be supported is because the

government has put forward a false argument in its favour. The

government says that the reason we have to support it is because of the

principle of no taxation without representation. It is a hollow,

contradictory argument; it is inconsistent and false. Let me

illustrate. Mac-Blo pays far more in provincial taxes than it does in

local, far more in federal corporate taxes than it does in local. Would

even the most fanatical Socred argue that Mac-Blo should have a vote

provincially or federally? Even the most wingy Socred realizes that she

or he would be laughed out of court if they tried to propose that

Mac-Blo be given a provincial or federal vote, but by the logic — such

as it is — of the government's own position they must believe that,

because after all they don't believe in taxation with representation.

If Mac-Blo is entitled to a civic vote, the same logic that gives them

that requires they be entitled to a provincial and a federal vote as

well. If not, why then does the government draw an artificial line and

say they may only have a civic vote and not a provincial vote? This

government is empowered to grant a provincial vote to Mac-Blo, but they

won't do it because they know it would be an even more ridiculous

spectacle than they have already made of themselves.

cannot take seriously the old canard about no taxation without

representation, because the argument is itself incomplete, unless the

government is prepared to go all the way and give Mac-Blo and every

other corporate owner and every other piece of property that pays

provincial taxes a provincial vote. They won't, because even these guys

aren't that clownish, even they won't take such a risk with their

reputation — although they've blown their reputation in countless other

fields since 1975.

If they really believed in the principle

of no taxation without representation, they would then have to call

into account the status of all of those persons who pay no taxes. I

refer to persons in receipt of social assistance who do not pay taxes,

and I refer to those persons who are senior and retired and do not pay

taxes, either property or personal and income. We have many citizens in

this province who pay none of the taxes that the minister himself

referred to in his opening remarks. They don't pay any of those taxes

at all. Would Social Credit propose to deny them the vote? Why not?

Their own argument would suggest so, because apparently they believe in

the old canard: no taxation without representation. If they believe

that property is entitled to a vote because it pay taxes, would they

then argue that human beings who do not pay taxes are disentitled?

You

know, the old Socreds in the sixteenth century in the United Kingdom

apparently believed that. We can trace the philosophical ancestry of

these disgraceful arguments. Those who opposed the abolition of the

rotten-borough system and those who opposed the abolition of the poll

tax made the same arguments that these people make today. Those

arguments are and were false. They deny the fact that the whole

architecture of democracy rests on a very simple foundation: one man,

one vote, period — not one man, one vote; one piece of property, two

votes.

The whole architecture of our system resting on that

simple foundation is corrupted when we try to establish a special class

of privilege that has extra votes, extra power and an extra status that

more ordinary folks are denied. We ask rhetorically: if Mac-Blo pays

provincial taxes, why shouldn't Mac-Blo have a provincial vote? If some

people pay no taxes, why should they have any vote at all? If the

minister means his own argument, he has got to realize that this bill

does not in fact make material his own case. If the Socreds were

serious they would give the vote to Mac-Blo and deny it to the poor.

You see, the poor don't pay taxes and presumably aren't entitled.

There

is a third aspect to this bill which offends us. I dealt with it

earlier today; I'll deal with it again now. Everyone knows about

Gracie's Finger. Everyone knows about the Eckardt report. Everyone

knows what it means to gerrymander electoral boundaries. Everyone knows

that Ross Thatcher tried to get away with it in Saskatchewan and

failed. Everyone knows that state legislatures in the United States

have tried to get away with it and have sometimes succeeded.

[ Page 4123 ]

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

MR. BARBER: Name the point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate hearing from the member as to

how he relates his arguments to this particular bill. To get into

electoral boundaries and such does not relate to the bill. I think it

is taking valuable time of the Legislature. I would prefer to hear

about the bill. I would ask that you call him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs has some validity. The member now discussing the principle of

the bill should contain himself specifically to that principle.

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

Everyone

knows what it means to rig the electoral boundaries. Under Bill 54 we

now know what it means to rig the voters' list. Let me observe again:

courtesy of Bill 54, overnight and artificially, a whole new class of

electors is being created that never existed before. Courtesy of Bill

54 the electors' list will be altered radically in the province of

British Columbia for the purposes of local elections. We are now

looking at a 1980s form of gerrymandering, and thus the analogy, Mr.

Speaker,

It is a matter of public record that the Socred

machine has controlled local government in this province for 30 years.

They have used local government as a farm team and have promoted their

supposedly best people — including the former mayor of Surrey, who now

sits as Minister of Municipal Affairs — to higher office. Social Credit

has always used local government as a device to get its provincial

members elected.

One of the reasons this bill offends us is

because of the clear attempt to gerrymander the outcome of civic

elections in this province from the day Bill 54 becomes law.

Let

me point out again that we would have heard screams opposite if the New

Democrats had attempted to give every registered trade unionist in the

province two votes.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARBER:

It should be noted that the member who just interrupted, the Minister

of Transportation, was the Socred mayor of a town in British Columbia

for 20 years, and president of the UBCM.

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

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members! Again, if the first member for Victoria would address the

Chair and other members afford him the opportunity to express his

remarks without interruption....

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

It's

clear and understandable that the Socreds are so sensitive about this

issue because the Socred machine is losing its grip. Non-Socreds are

being elected to local governments across the province.

What

does Social Credit do in reply? They rig the voters' lists in their

favour. They can't win honestly in civic elections anymore. They are

losing the grip that Social Credit has always had on local government.

They've

put up a pretence from time to time, and they stand up solemnly and

tell us: "Local government isn't partisan. Gosh, when I ran as mayor of

Surrey, I wasn't a member of a political party. I wasn't supporting

anyone else. I was just running as an independent." "when I was the

mayor from Quesnel, I wasn't a member of the Social Credit Party; I was

an independent," or "when I was the mayor of Saanich, I wasn't the

member of Social Credit..." — or then the Liberals, and previously

Action Canada, and later the Progressive Conservatives. It's hard to

keep track of the Minister of Finance. When he was the mayor of Saanich

he might have tried to persuade us that he was an independent with no

party affiliation.

When all of those people were involved in

local office, they tried to maintain the fiction that local government

was non-partisan, and so were they. Unfortunately for the Socreds, the

fiction is coming to an end. Fortunately for good government, the

Socred machine is also coming to an end in local government, and

authentic independents and representatives of other political points of

view, including those of the New Democratic Party, have become

successfully involved in running for and winning local office in the

last five and ten years.

What is the hysterical and frenzied

response of Social Credit to that political change? A new kind of

gerrymandering: they rig the voters' list. They don't need to bother

rigging the electoral boundaries; they'll save that for provincial

affairs. What's going on here is that they have created, artificially

and overnight, a brand-new class of electors that never previously

existed and which represents: surprise! surprise! — "The Business Point

Of View."

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

HON. MR. FRASER: Is that right?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

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

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

[ Page 4124 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARBER:

It has certainly been the happy case, since the second Socred

government was re-elected in 1975, that they have begun losing some of

their small business support. That's a good thing and we encourage it.

But the fact remains that by and large business identifies with the

private enterprise party called Social Credit, and tends to identify

somewhat less with the mixed economy of public and private enterprise

called the New Democratic Party.

Who does this benefit, Mr.

Speaker? In Vancouver, for instance would you expect that 10,000 more

votes for business would benefit Mike Harcourt, a former New Democrat

provincial candidate and now candidate for mayor? Well, not likely.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. This member is misinforming this

House. It has nothing to do with the city of Vancouver, and he knows

it. I'd like to make that clear.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The first member for Victoria continues on the principle of the bill

before us. While that does allow some latitude.... Carry on.

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

Clearly

10,000 new votes on this basis in Vancouver would likely not benefit

Mr. Harcourt, who is honest and openly a New Democrat. However, it's

just possible that it might benefit Mr. Volrich or even Mr. Zlotnik.

Why is that possible? Well, because the people who rent commercial

space tend to be businessmen, because businessmen tend to vote Social

Credit, and because Mr. Zlotnik and Mr. Volrich are, to say the least,

not New Democrats and tend themselves — one can easily see from their

statements — to support this administration.

Now

fortunately, Mr. Volrich, to his credit, has repudiated this attempt to

rig the Vancouver election in his favour and has denied an amendment to

the Vancouver Charter. That's a good thing — and I'll get to it in a

moment. But the point remains that the self-evident political agenda of

Social Credit is to shore up the Socred civic machine because it's in

trouble. Let me illustrate again how it's in trouble. We observed the

horror and the disarray in Social Credit ranks and among Socred

supporters when the New Democratic Party in its most recent convention

passed a resolution which establishes the means whereby openly,

publicly and without fiction — unlike the Socred operation — people may

run as New Democrats in local elections. Now whether or not many or any

will choose to do so is a moot point at this point, but the fact

remains that our party has had the guts, the courage and the candour to

be open about the way in which it chooses to be involved in local

government.

Social Credit would have us believe that they

are never involved in local elections and local campaigns. Of course,

that's patent nonsense, and they know it. They've been involved for 30

years; they've been involved running it their way for 30 years, and now

that it's running against them they don't like it. Now that non-Socreds

are getting involved and in some cases taking majorities, they get

hysterical, they panic, and they bring in a bill like this, the

political purpose of which is to add a new class of electors who, they

expect, will vote Social Credit. There is no other rational

explanation, because we already have the word of the minister that no

one asked him to bring this bill forward. He didn't get petitions

signed: "Your friendly office space at 1147 East Georgia." He didn't

get letters from office space at 941 Fort Street in Victoria asking to

have a vote. The minister has clearly admitted and confessed that it

was dreamed up in the cabinet room....

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

MR. BARBER:

The minister says they pay taxes. That's right. So does Mac-Blo. Are

you going to give Mac-Blo a provincial vote? They pay more provincial

taxes.

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

MR. BARBER:

Tell Sam Bawlf that. We out-worked and out-organized Sam Bawlf, and we

dumped him. However, that's a separate matter, Mr. Speaker.

This

is an attempt to predict beneficially the outcome of civic elections in

favour of the creaky and fading Socred machine — that's what it means.

There

is a fourth argument against this bill. It is the question of voting

rights for tenants. The government once again falsifies the case and

misstates the history of the matter. Under the old Socreds, tenants,

who are also human beings, were denied a vote in civic elections. In my

own provincial riding 64 percent of the electors are tenants. My own

riding roughly corresponding with the boundaries of Victoria city, I

expect we could as well calculate that 60 to 65 percent, of the human

beings are tenants. Under the old Socreds, every single one of those

people was denied a vote. Why was that? Well, because they weren't part

of the privileged class; they didn't own property but rather they lived

in apartments, or rented their accommodation in some form or other.

Thanks to the New Democrat administration the local franchise was

extended to all citizens, not on the issue of whether or not they paid

taxes directly or indirectly, but on the issue of their citizenship.

For the New Democratic Party the issue was not ownership, it was

citizenship, and that's why the franchise was extended to tenants, whom

we call human beings. Now what does this group want to do? They want to

extend it to tenants called office space. Even the most anthropomorphic

imagination — I'll explain to the minister what that means afterwards,

but the gallery knows....

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

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

Even

such literary licence couldn't possibly imagine that office space

suddenly took on human form, human character, and human animation.

Office space, Mr. Speaker, ain't human; it is space. That's all there

is to it. It does not have an opinion; it does not get born or die; it

ordinarily doesn't feel things. In a democracy, other than British

Columbia, it wouldn't count. But in B.C. it counts, because office

space is going to get a vote, thanks to Social Credit.

[ Page 4125 ]

The

fourth reason we oppose this is because the government had deliberately

misstated the case made when we were in office and during that period

when we extended the franchise to tenants who were human beings.

Additional arguments can be made about the fact that tenants in

apartment buildings indirectly pay property taxes; you bet they do. The

taxes the owners of those buildings pay is tacked on to the rent that

the tenants pay. Of course, they pay property taxes, but, you see,

that's not the question for us. We don't want to take the vote away

from any citizens, whether or not they pay taxes. As far as I'm

concerned, if I were to discover that the mother of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs was below the poverty line and did not pay any taxes

at all, I wouldn't want to take her vote away. If she happened to be a

tenant, I wouldn't want her to lose the vote either. You see, we

believe that the test in a democracy is citizenship, not ownership. For

us on this. side of the House it's a very simple question. It has been

a consistent principle for years and years.

I imagine that

if the Socreds thought they could get away with it they would revoke

the franchise we gave to tenants in 1973. You see, tenants ain't

property, and human tenants ain't office space; therefore, according to

the absurd logic of Social Credit, they don't deserve a vote.

The

issue, the test, the criterion, the only measure of voter participation

in a democracy should not be property; it must be humanity. That's the

only issue.

There are further arguments, equally deceptive,

misleading, and false, coming from the government benches. They would

have us believe that because property pays taxes, property deserves a

vote. They are not prepared to follow their own argument so as to give

Mac-Blo a vote provincially or federally. They know darn well that if

their argument were consistent and not a tautology, like this one is,

they would have to award Mac-Blo a vote, but they won't do that; they

don't have the guts, philosophically. Mind you, no coalition ever did

have philosophical guts, which is why it's a coalition and not a party.

However, that's a separate matter too.

Let's hypothesize for

a moment, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes no reference whatever to the

amount, to the size, to the physical space that is required to be

determined as a commercial tenancy and then made eligible for a vote.

What if, for instance, the Social Credit Party decided to sublease its

building on Commercial Street — or is it Main Street; I've forgotten

which it is — in Vancouver.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Neither.

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

Let's

pretend that Social Credit owned an office building and it had 1,000

square feet. If Social Credit wished, under this vote they could sublet

one square foot each to a thousand different commercial tenants. Then

each of those tenants would now have a vote as a commercial tenant in

the building owned by Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

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

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Then when you take your place in debate prove it so, but until you can,

the case remains clearly this: there is no legislative prohibition

anywhere in this bill to prevent that from happening. In fact, there is

no legal definition anywhere at all of the minimum space required in

order to have a vote. Presumably you could take the case even further:

a square inch could have a vote if it were a registered tenancy. What

the heck, if you were renting to dwarfs, mental or otherwise, gosh, the

Social Credit office space could provide lots of room and lots of

votes, especially if they rent it to their own supporters.

The

fact remains that this, in a practical and legislative way, is a

provision that is vastly open to abuse. There isn't a word in sections

2, 3 and 4 in this bill that relate at all to the issue of what

qualifies as office space, what shall be determined to be a commercial

tenancy, and how many persons may subdivide a commercial lease and

sublet that space and thereby get a vote. The government has got to

realize that it has created an incredible loophole here, through which

unscrupulous persons could easily pass in order to command an enormous

number of votes, and thereby even more despicably gerrymander municipal

elections in this province. We have had out legal office examine this

case since the bill first came down. We can find no legislative

prohibition against the Social Credit Party subdividing a thousand feet

of its space and leasing one square foot each to a thousand different

tenants and each of those commercial tenants being given a vote.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Dishonest.

MR. BARBER: Of course it would be dishonest.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're dishonest.

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

Interjections,

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

The

issue of tenant enfranchisement is a very special case. and a very

important one in the field of what shall constitute the democratic

people. It is our position that property does not constitute the

democratic people. It is our position that rented property does not

constitute the democratic people. Those great people in this democratic

system are defined as such by the fact that they are alive, they are

Canadians and they are entitled. That's all there is to it. We do not

grant them a vote on the basis of how much they earn, or how much they

own. We don't give them a vote on the basis of how much wealth they

inherit, or how much office space they rent. That is not the issue, or

at least it should not be in a mature democracy. But this immature

coalition opposite thinks it can turn the clock back to the days of the

rotten boroughs, the poll tax and the disfranchisement of the great

majority of our people.

My colleagues will, in the hours to

come, be reading from texts which illustrate the profound and moving

struggle of human beings to liberate themselves from the notion that

property has the vote and persons who don't own it have none. The

people of England fought a great civil war in part on that issue. Who

shall govern parliament, who shall have a say, a vote, and have

standing in that system as men and women? Well, of course, women didn't

have any at all in this country until the First World War, but that's

another issue. It

[ Page 4126 ]

does,

however, reflect the traditional bias that establishment political

parties have always had against extending the franchise in an

authentically democratic way. My colleague, Ms. Brown, will be dealing

with that at some time in the near future.

The point remains

that when we were in office, tenants were not granted the vote, because

they paid property taxes indirectly. It is an ancillary argument, but

not the most important argument. Our case is that they were granted the

vote because they were citizens, because they were affected, touched,

and their lives shaped by government — locally, provincially and

federally. It is on that basis that they are granted the vote.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

would observe as well that the Socreds have turned the clock back in

another field. During our administration we also gave the people the

power to vote directly in regional government elections. It was our

position that if you are affected by regional government you should

have a regional government vote. No, that's not the Socred position.

Unfortunately, in the last few years this group opposite has once again

denied a regional franchise. Instead, they allow only indirect election

of persons who must win another office first before they can win

regional office. That too will be changed when the New Democrats are

re-elected at the next general election in this province. I offer it as

an analogy of the many ways in which Social Credit seeks to return to

the dark undemocratic days when ownership was the first test and

citizenship was no test at all of your eligibility to vote.

The

fifth and final argument we have against this bill is that in many

mechanical ways the general application of it has now been made

inoperable. Why is this? It is because of the home-rule traditions

which have always held that Vancouver city will not have its charter

amended contrary to its express wish. Vancouver city is currently, of

course, the largest metropolitan district in the province. It has the

largest number of commercial tenancies of any district in the province.

What a ridiculous situation will now result! Everywhere in B.C., except

the most populous community, office space will have a vote, business

will have two votes, and somehow it's going to work. There will be a

mess on polling day when it comes to sorting out — if the Vancouver

Charter is not amended — who is and is not entitled to vote, as a

business person renting commercial office space. Why is it a mess?

Because Jack Volrich, Mike Harcourt and the other members of Vancouver

council have had the guts and the good judgment to say no to this most

improper piece of legislation and the ordinarily consequential

amendment to the Vancouver Charter that would follow after we amended

the Municipal Act.

Precisely because Vancouver has said no —

as have so many others in local government — to this ridiculous bill,

it is now being made largely inoperable. It will lead to chaos on

election day in the lower mainland. It will lead to the most confusing,

confused and irreparably nonsensical situation that we've seen in local

government for many years. The question of who is and is not entitled

to vote — precisely because Vancouver council has had the courage to

say no to Social Credit — will muck up ballot box after ballot box this

November.

Any law of this order, if it's to be rational, has to be a law of general

application. The problem is that this law — thank God — may not be generally

applied until the Vancouver Charter is amended, because Vancouver goes by its

own rules and is not governed by the Municipal Act. And that's how it should

be. It's a very special place, it has special authority, and we support

the home-rule tradition. But the point is that as long as Vancouver holds out,

the bill is an administrative mess. Maybe it's just that Social Credit likes

messing around. We know about the Heroin Treatment Act, Brannan Lake, the Eckardt

commission, dirty tricks, Seaboard, the Princess Marguerite, doubling the ferry

rates, killing tourism. We know that Social Credit likes wallowing in messes

of its own creation. The problem is that this mess this time is an unacceptable

creation. Let me read what the Vancouver Sun had to say on the same matter on

August 15. "Double Trouble" they called the editorial. It says:

"The

provincial government's proposed amendment to the Municipal Act to give

commercial renters the vote is feudal and should be abandoned.

"Fortunately,

it almost certainly cannot be extended to the city of Vancouver in time

for this year's election, even if it is forced through the Legislature.

"What's

objectionable about this amendment is that it would give some people

more than one vote in municipal elections, and in municipalities to

which they do not owe any responsibility.

"But

it doesn't have to happen, even if the Legislature does approve the

change in the Municipal Act, because the amendment provides that the

franchise would not be extended unless proclaimed by the cabinet. But

that is not a discretion we would like to see the cabinet enjoy.

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

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

"To do so would require more legislation, an amendment to

the Vancouver Charter, under which the city conducts its business aloof from

the Municipal Act. That may be planned, but it is doubtful if it could be implemented

before registration for voting in this year's Vancouver municipal election

closes on August 21.

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

"In

any event, the alleged beneficiary of the business vote the government

misguidedly wants to confer on renters, Mayor Jack Volrich, says he is

absolutely opposed to the idea. And what's more, he has no intention of

asking the provincial government to change the Vancouver Charter, a

prerequisite. Good for him.

"There should not,

as the mayor says, be one voting law for some municipalities and a

different one for others, although the city council was not prepared to

go on record to that effect. Of course, it is up to each municipality

to state its own opinion, but Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander

Zalm says there was no pressure, and implies no consultation, in

advance of the change, which he should withdraw."

The Vancouver Sun

printed an editorial on its editorial pages written by Marjorie

Nichols. The title of it was: "Throwback to the Dark Ages." It will be

read by one of my colleagues shortly.

[ Page 4127 ]

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

" 'In the first place, I don't need that kind of

help from anyone, thank you,' Volrich said. 'I'm confident of being

re-elected in Vancouver by a wide margin.

" 'Secondly, and most importantly, I don't agree

with the legislation. We had corporate votes in Vancouver some years ago, and

I was one of those who urged that the situation be changed.

'I believe in the principle of one man, one vote, and I don't think

that any one person should have two votes or more votes under any

circumstances.' "

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

Mr.

Speaker, the bill will create administrative chaos on election day. It

creates a double vote in most parts of the province and a double

standard in one. It will apply everywhere but downtown Vancouver. Now

Vancouver is certainly big enough that this is a significant exception,

and thus we lead a debate on the issue. But the point is, if the bill

cannot be found to have general application, then it is flawed in law.

If a bill does not have a principle of general application when it

comes to the enfranchisement of office space, then it is clumsy in its

execution. And "clumsy" is being charitable.

If Vancouver

says no and everyone else has to go along with it, how can the law be

administered? The minister will reply: "Oh, but that's always been the

case. The Vancouver Charter has always allowed these exceptions." But

it has not been the case, with respect, in reply to that inevitable

argument, as we see in this bill today, making a new case that never

before existed.

It is true that from time to time property

has had a vote in this province. It is true that in Vancouver from time

to time, under the charter, property has had a vote, and those

provisions have been consistent with those in the Municipal Act, more

largely.

But it will now be a unique and unprecedented

circumstance which finds that office space has a vote, thereby

diminishing the value of all other votes by debasing the currency of

those votes — except in Vancouver, until the charter is amended. And

it's likely that the charter will not be amended this session, because

the mayor of Vancouver says no, to his undying credit.

That

being the case, how on earth can the government proceed with the act?

How can you do it when Vancouver, which has the highest number of

commercial tenancies of any district in the province, says no? How can

you make the act equitable and fair across the board if Vancouver city

is excluded?

The government is in a box of its own making.

They were found out. It was readily understood who this bill was

intended to benefit. The intended beneficiary stood up and said: "No,

not me. I want no part of it. I don't need that kind of help from

anyone." Bully for him. Let him get re-elected on his own merits. Let

him not be re-elected because the voters' list has been rigged. Good

for Mr. Volrich. Good for Mr. Harcourt, his principal opponent, who

took the same position for the same reasons. Good for the both of them.

Either of them, no doubt, would serve as a fine mayor in the major city

of this province. Not so good for the minister, who is deaf to public

opinion, blind to public interest, ignorant of the public history. Not

so good for Social Credit, which is going to find itself attacked and

attacked, and attacked again, for this retrograde law that should never

have been introduced in the first place.

We're going to

speak for some length yet on the bill, Mr. Speaker. Let it never be

said that the NDP is made up of weaklings who don't fight stupid, bad,

reactionary laws. We're made up of tough people who have tough

convictions. Those convictions and principles argue simply this: you

must not be allowed to defraud the electors ever, at any time, for any

reason. Thus we go on at such length about the Eckardt report. Thus we

go on at such length about Bill 54. Why is the principle of one human

being, one vote not good enough for Social Credit? What's wrong with

that principle? Why should property have a vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us all over again.

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

This

bill is an offence against a hard-fought and a hard-won principle of

liberty. This bill will be a mess administratively, because Vancouver

council says no to its application in that community.

This

bill and the minister's arguments totally misrepresent the notion of

"no taxation without representation." This bill misstates the case, as

did the minister in his own opening remarks as to why the New Democrats

awarded the franchise to human beings called tenants. This bill is, in

a word, unacceptable. It is unacceptable, and you should withdraw it.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I didn't know if I'd ever get an opportunity to say anything with that

member for Victoria carrying on with all his presumptive ideas. He and

his party have certainly brought party politics into civic government

for the first time ever. The NDP are going to run candidates as NDP,

and he tries to cover that decision up by saying that we have done the

same. Our party has never run candidates as Social Credit in any civic

election in this province. They are now getting quite brash and bold,

and I predict that none of them will win, because they've got that tag

on them. That's what I predict in this province.

Regarding

this legislation here, he is very upset about the fact that a certain

type of tenant is going to get a vote — not two votes, one vote. That's

what this amendment calls for, and I don't see that they are any

different than a tenant in a apartment block. I am referring to a

tenant, as an example, in a shopping centre. They pay taxes. So does

the tenant in the apartment block. Why shouldn't they have a say?

That's what this amendment gives them — that say. Otherwise the only

person that has a vote where you have 40 or 50 shops in a shopping

centre is the owner of the development or the shopping centre itself.

have an example in my own riding. I know that this member for Victoria

has never been there, but I just opened a shopping centre in my own

riding — $10 million. Are you saying that they are entitled to one vote

when there are 40 shops in that shopping centre? I suggest to you that

what you're really frightened of is democracy. That's what you're

afraid of. That's why you're all excited — because it'll give the

tenants in that shopping centre a vote each. That's 40 votes, and

what's wrong with that?

What I want to say to the

opposition, and particularly to this member for Victoria being so

presumptive, and also some members of the media that I won't name, but

to the media generally.... Who are they to say how these peo-

[ Page 4128 ]

ple

are going to vote? I think they have a lot of damned nerve to say how

people are going to vote. You're very presumptive, and are assuming a

lot, aren't you? How do you know how they're going to vote? All your

arguments are based on the fact that their vote is not going to go your

way, the way you want it. I think you've got a lot of nerve, and you

should apologize to these people for assuming how they're going to

vote. You haven't got a clue. What are you making these kinds of

statements for?

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

HON. MR. FRASER . I want to deal with this bill here. You're

being very presumptive, and so are members of the press that assume how

they're going to vote. You have no idea how they're going to vote, and

neither have I. So what are you saying, standing up there and making

wild statements about the fact they're all going to vote one way or

another?

The

other thing that this member said was the fact that he tried to get

trade unionists in there, again being presumptive that you've got all

the trade union votes. Don't get carried away, Mr. Member. We wouldn't

be the government if we didn't get some of their vote, and don't ever

forget that.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, all this member is afraid of

is democracy. I never thought I'd stand in this Legislature and see

that party putting up an argument on the basis of fear of democracy;

that's what you're afraid of.

Another thing — this member

was forever bringing Vancouver city into his debate. I tried to bring

it to order, but it didn't happen. But I want to emphasize to this

House that this amendment doesn't affect the city of Vancouver. It

affects all the rest of the municipalities in this province, but it has

no effect on the city of Vancouver. Again, I suggest to you that all

he's doing, and he did in all his debate, is just muddying up the

waters. That's all he is doing when he pulls in the city of Vancouver.

I'm

really absolutely amazed at the fact that that party, and that member

particulary, is afraid of democracy. These people that we're talking

about giving this vote to pay taxes, as I said before, just like an

apartment owner. Therefore why shouldn't they have a say in how the

place is governed? I would say that if they weren't so inept as a

party, they have as much chance of getting these people to vote their

way as anybody else has. Get off your backside and work on it; that's

all you have to do. You're saying that they're not going to vote for

you. Certainly they won't if you don't get out and do a little work and

ask them to.

What I can't buy is the fact that any elected

person can get up — including the press — and state how a certain

segment of our society is going to vote. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker,

they have no idea how they're going to vote on any issue at any time. I

fully support this amendment, and I also hope that it'll be effective

for the 1980 municipal elections.

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

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that anyone who is in the gallery today would think

that they are taken back, almost in a time machine, to a debate that

took place in the British House of Commons in 1832, the start of the

first major reforms in suffrage.

What do you think the

debate was then? One person, one vote. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it

unbelievable that we are faced here with a government that is actually

bringing in legislation that was fought against by thousands of elected

members of the British House of Parliament. And they won. To think that

this minister is standing here, in this House, wanting to take us back

to the debates of 1832, back to the times when it depended on how much

money you had, and how much property you had, and that determined how

many votes you had.

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the interjection if I may. I've been

listening to it all afternoon. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) —

and I'd like to have him designated for Hansard

— has been suggesting all afternoon that I happen to have two votes.

Anyone in the province of British Columbia who does reside in two

places, and does own property in one, does have the opportunity to vote

in two places. May I say that is something that the NDP rejects, and

did reject when the Social Credit government initiated it. That is

something that I have never taken the option on, because I do not think

it is correct. One person, one vote, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to get

that clear. I hope that that member over there does not find it

necessary to use that what I consider rather unnecessary interjection,

which adds nothing to the debate except to show that he has no

understanding whatsoever of the basic principle of this discussion in

which we are taking place today.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the

Blues, which are now available. At the conclusion of the speech made

this morning by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), he said: "There is also a

section to deal with unsightly

premises. This certainly is all very positive, Mr. Speaker, and I would

hope that we might have good support and quick passage of an excellent

piece of legislation."

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

"When

a member is at liberty to make a motion, he may speak in favour of it

before he actually proposes it. But a speech is only allowed upon the

understanding, first, that he speaks to the motion; and secondly, that

he concludes by proposing his motion formally."

We have no

motion to put this into for second reading of the bill before us at

this time. That was the 16th Edition of Sir Erskine May, page 406.

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

"On a day ordered for second reading, the

short title of the bill is printed as on the Orders of the Day,

and when it is called, the member in charge rises to explain and

recommend the provisions of this bill, and concludes his speech by

moving that it be 'now read a second time' or, he may say 'now' without

rising and reserve his speech for a later moment in the debate."

Mr.

Speaker, also, the third edition of Gilbert Campion, on putting the

question, on page 172: "The moment at which the question is proposed is

at the conclusion of the speech by the mover, or the seconder when a

seconder is required."

[ Page 4129 ]

So,

Mr. Speaker, we have a case of déjà vu. The only precedent that I know

of in this House where such a matter occurred before was on Friday,

September 16, 1977, when the House proceeded to Public Bills and

Orders, and an order was called for the reading of Bill 65, called the

Community Resources Board Amendment Act, 1977. A debate arose upon a

point of order being raised by the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Minister of

Human Resources, that he had inadvertently failed to move second

reading of Bill 65 at the conclusion of his speech. The minister asked

leave to do so. Leave was not granted. Having gone over the Hansard

of the day, the Speaker was unable to resolve the matter. The House

adjourned, with the member who had the floor — on no motion — being the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) at that time.

We have

heard a dissertation from the minister; we have heard a splendid speech

from the first member for Victoria. The hon. member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) now holds the floor but there is no motion before this

House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On the same point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I opened my remarks by moving second reading and I,

of course, again, will conclude with it at the end of the debate in my

final words. I could repeat it again, but I opened my remarks with

"second reading."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the

order was called on second reading. The hon. minister has indicated

that he did move it. The point of order of the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is well taken. I will reserve decision on

this for the moment, and the debate will continue with the hon. member

for Burnaby North on Bill 54.

MR. NICOLSON: On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you tell us what the order of

business is which is presently being debated? I agree that the member

for Burnaby North has the floor, but there is no motion.

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

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it was not moved at the conclusion

of the speech. I have cited eminent authorities — Sir Erskine May and

Gilbert Campion — on this, which are very strong on the point that the

motion must be moved at the conclusion of the speech. And it was not.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On the same point of order, the Speaker called for the second reading

of Bill 39, and that was followed by the hon. House Leader saying: "I

call second reading of Bill 54." I stood in my place and I said: "Mr.

Speaker, I am very happy to move second reading of Bill 54. I would

like to say a few words in advance of anyone else wishing to comment on

this very popular, very positive, very excellent piece of legislation. "

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

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, if Mr. Speaker is reading the Blues that I sent up

to him, in the introduction the member said that he would be pleased to

move second reading. However, as I have pointed out, I would draw upon

the emphasis in Gilbert Campion:

"On the day

ordered for second reading, the

short title of the bill is printed as

one of the orders of the day, and when it is called the member in

charge rises to explain and recommend provisions of his bill, and

concludes his speech by moving it be now read a second time — or he may

say now."

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

"Proposal of a question on the motion. When a member is

at liberty to make a motion, he may speak in favour of it before he actually

proposes; but a speech is only allowed upon understanding first that he speaks

to the motion, and secondly that he concludes by proposing his motion formally.

Even when notice of motion is not required, the motion should be placed in print

or writing in the Speaker's hands except in the event of informality in

the form of a motion. "

So,

Mr. Speaker, both are quite clear that upon conclusion of a speech the

member is to move second reading. One might excuse such an oversight

but this is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are

now entering into debate. You have made your citations. I have

indicated that it is a tradition of.... The hon. Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I think the member for Nelson-Creston reads very well and I think he's

absolutely correct. However, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has not

concluded his speech yet. He will conclude his speech upon closing the

debate, and he will move at that time. He has introduced the bill and

moved its second reading, and he will close debate by formally moving

at the conclusion of his speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member, the tradition of this House is that a bill can be moved at the

beginning or closing of the minister's speech introducing second

reading. The Blues indicate to me that the hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs did move second reading of Bill 54; it is now before me in

print. The bill is before the House now.

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

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

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

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm simply citing references, Mr. Speaker. I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to Hansard of September 16, 1977. I would point out that on this very point of order pages in Hansard

were consumed and it was not resolved. Indeed, it carried over to

September 19, 1977, at which time I believe the House Leader grabbed

the floor. But today the member for Burnaby North has the floor. Mr.

Speaker has said that it's a practice of this House. Well, it

[ Page 4130 ]

was

certainly not the practice of the House that day when such a question

consumed, as I say, pages and pages and led to the adjournment of the

House because the Chair was unable to deal with the question and the

conundrum caused by the failure of a member to propose a motion.

would suggest a remedy. I would suggest that we go on to the next order

of business, that this be a dropped order and reintroduced by

substantive motion. When there is a dropped order, Mr. Speaker, there

is a way of reintroducing it by substantive motion; I submit that that

is the correct manner in which we will have to proceed.

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

MRS. DAILLY:

I want to make a correction in my earlier remarks. I referred to

interjections by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) ; it was the

Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

I was discussing

and attempting to articulate further some of the concerns the

opposition has with this very medieval, archaic piece of legislation

which the Social Credit government has placed before us today. I

mentioned earlier that it could only come from a medieval mind, Mr.

Speaker. For those who have studied political history at all and have

gone back to the famous debates in the British House of Commons,

starting in 1832, I know that they will be as concerned as we in the

opposition are, that in 1980 we are having to stand here and debate

something that was debated thoroughly in the middle of the nineteenth

century.

It's interesting to note that the Social Credit

Party members of the House here are very similar to the ruling classes

of that period, who fought so hard to reject the principle of one

person, one vote. They have had to live with and accept something which

most right-thinking people would never question today. Obviously the

Social Credit government has never been satisfied with the principle of

equality when it comes to voting. So here in 1980 they are sneaking

into this House — at the end of summer when they hope the general

public isn't aware of the implications of this bill — an amendment to

the Municipal Act which is going to destroy this basic principle that

many people fought for, the principle of one person, one vote.

seems to point out something which is concerning many people in the

province of British Columbia. It's becoming more apparent every day

that the basis for legislation and rule by that government is the

premise that what is good for the Social Credit Party is going to be

good for the government of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we reject

that. Every piece of legislation, and the actions of this government

since they came to office, point out very clearly that what is

important to the Social Credit Party comes first, not what is important

to the average citizen. Mr. Speaker, we repudiate that concept.

What

they have brought here in this bill is a very underhanded attempt to

ensure that in municipal elections they may be able to buttress up some

of their very, very weak support in the municipalities across the

province. Their strength has been going down locally and so they have

actually, Mr. Speaker, decided to tamper with the franchise that has

been given to all the people of this province for many years — to

tamper with it for their own base political purposes.

Mr.

Speaker, the whole principle of universal suffrage was fought for, as

I've said before, over the years; and, you know, it is sad to say that

even past the original fights in the 1830s plural voting was maintained

in some countries and even in parts of Great Britain. But in 1948 in

Great Britain the very idea of any form of plural voting was repugnant

to the members of the House of Commons in Britain. Yet here in 1980 we

are faced with this kind of legislation. I am sure that people who have

just arrived in this gallery in the last few minutes would wonder what

we're debating.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a party

that I consider is ruthless in its attempts to maintain power. They

have shown us that they're willing to tamper with basic principles to

maintain votes. I find it offensive. I know that the people of the

province of British Columbia find it offensive. We have no intention of

just sitting here quietly without putting up a strong fight, which has

been started off and led so ably by our critic in municipal affairs.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, if this terrible, frightening legislation is passed in this

Legislature, I know that each one of us will make it a very special

purpose of ours to inform the people of British Columbia that we have

an exceptionally dangerous government running this province. A

government that would tamper with the franchise is a dangerous

government, and I reject that kind of government; the people of British

Columbia will reject it. Despite your manoeuvrings, despite your

intentions to use legislation and other means to gain votes for

yourselves, I can tell you now you will not succeed. The people of

British Columbia want honesty in government; they want to maintain

their basic right to vote; they do not believe in giving an extra vote

to someone simply because he happens to rent a business in another

municipality.

There is one final thing. No, we cannot

predict how people will vote — I understand that — but the point is

that if you're giving votes to a businessman who happens to rent

premises in a municipality where he does not raise his family, where he

does not live, for you really think that that particular voter is going

to put the interest of children — for example, services to children —

ahead of his tax bill? You know, they should be ashamed of themselves,

Mr. Speaker. It goes beyond their own need for political power and

maintaining it. They are also not showing any concern for what the very

serious results could be. I would predict that some very serious things

could happen in municipalities, where needed services could go right

down the drain because of an imbalance in voting — they're trying to

create an imbalance in voting.

I can't speak any more

strongly than I have this afternoon to say we reject this. This

government has taken us down a dark road, back several hundred years,

Mr. Speaker. All I can say is: the sooner they are removed from office

so that the province of British Columbia does not have to be faced with

this kind of legislation, the better.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments. The member for Burnaby North

touched on this. Madam Member, I have property in the municipality I

live in and I rent an apartment in Victoria; I pay rent for that

apartment in Victoria. I have the right to register and to vote where I

own property and I have the right to vote in the municipality where I

rent — that's in the act and we passed

[ Page 4131 ]

that

legislation, as you so said. But what is so bad about that? Because of

the fact that I pay rent in an apartment block and contribute to the

taxation of the municipality in which I pay that rent, should I not be

able to vote for a person to represent me in that municipality where

I'm renting? Is that so wrong?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

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

Madam Member, because there is one thing that your party seems to

forget. What you forget is the fact that government doesn't print

money; government is a vehicle to get money from the producer or the

taxpayer to take that money and to provide people's services. What's so

wrong with the person who is contributing that money having a vote?

Good gracious, what's so wrong about a businessman who lives in Saanich

who has a $100,000 home and happens to have a garden shop in Esquimalt

possibly, or a dry-cleaning shop in Victoria, and pays rent and

contributes to the coffers of the city of Victoria, or the municipality

of Esquimalt, or whatever...? What's so wrong with him being able to

say: "I cast my vote for that man to represent me and to administer my

tax dollar, whether it be via property tax or via rent. The rent that I

pay contributes to the taxes that my landlord pays."

You attack the businessman, and I'm just amazed at the people who've

been going around this province talking about their impact on the small businessman

and the fact that they represent the small businessman. You're attacking

every small businessman who operates his store in Victoria or in a shopping

centre, and your disfranchising him because he lives outside the area where

his shop is. We're not talking about the big store, the big operation; there

are a lot of little businessmen who work hard, a proprietorship.

MR. HOWARD: Stop twisting the truth.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Member, I'm not sure about twisting the truth; I think your side of

the House has done that all afternoon. When you want to speak I'm sure

the Speaker will allow you to rise and spout your usual.... I won't

call it garbage, but it's pretty close to it.

However, the

point I'm making is that there are two sides to the role in a

municipality: the person who pays the tax dollar, and how those tax

dollars are used. The vehicle is the city council and the

administration to provide public service to the people of that

community, who are the tenants and the taxpayers who contribute to the

coffers of the community. I don't see anything wrong with a businessman

being able to vote for a representative in the community.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

They seem to look at this as

something we're doing to benefit the Social Credit Party. These are

municipal elections, and it's one vote in one municipality. I can't own

property and rent a store in the same municipality and vote twice. I

can only vote once in one municipality, but if I happen to live in one

and work in the other I can still have that one vote in that

municipality, whether I live in it or work in it. I think the Minister

of Highways made mention of there being no benefit to the Social Credit

Party; we're talking municipal politics and municipal elections. We're

attempting to do here the same as is done for a person like myself.

Because they keep me down here for so long because the session is so

long, I have an opportunity to have a voice in casting a vote for

somebody in the municipality in which I rent, and I also have the

opportunity to vote where I own property. I don't see anything wrong

with this. The act at the present time indicates that a person can have

a vote where he owns property and where he rents it. A small

businessman, a proprietor of a business, a person who contributes to

taxation in a municipality through his rent — I see nothing wrong with

that. I'm quite prepared to support this amendment.

MR. COCKE:

I'm sure that that's the debater that I would want working for me if I

wanted to lose for sure. They're the most specious arguments I've ever

heard in support of this bill. In the first place he spoke on a bill

that we passed in this House — and certainly I voted against that one

some time ago — in terms of tenancy and where that member can vote. He

has two votes according to a bill that we passed here in 1977. What

we're talking about here is a bill that provides the entitlement for

business people, for anyone renting business premises, to vote within a

municipality. That doesn't happen to be anyone for the most part; that

happens to be a corporate vote, and they know it.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

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

MR. COCKE:

Yes, the bill indicates that very thing. The bill indicates that if a

business person or a business rents property, they or their agent will

vote.

What I have to say is that when you go beyond the one

person, one vote you are then prevailing upon democracy. In 1975 I

watched a group who at that time used an insignia. It was a seagull.

Frankly, I thought the seagull — a very pretty bird, but a scavenger

nonetheless — was an appropriate insignia. But they used it to try to

provide evidence that they would come forward with more freedoms. What

they've done is curtailed those freedoms, in their acts, in this House,

in this act, and in so many of the other acts.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

was very proud and pleased when I saw that the mayor of New Westminster

— which city is actually not covered by its own charter, and therefore

will be affected by this act — came out in opposition to this bill.

The

small business people in the shopping centres, that I heard about.... I

happened to take a tour through Guildford just recently, and the small

business people in Guildford, for instance....

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

MR. COCKE:

Leonard Friesen is probably one of the few small businessmen left in

there. When you go in there you see Tip Top Tailors, and they have two

other outfits in there that would appear to be small business people,

but they are actually subsidiaries of Woolco — four outfits in there,

all different names....

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

[ Page 4132 ]

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

Mr.

Speaker, the minister has put forward

an act that is

an act of

aggression against democracy. It really is. It's a stupid move by a

stupid, arrogant government which will defeat itself — which will

defeat itself in the way it has acted in this province. It is

counterproductive.

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

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

Mr.

Speaker, the wisdom in this province is that they've done wrong. Now

why didn't they back away from it? They didn't back away from it

because of their arrogance and their sheer stupidity. When one person,

one vote is the consensus of a democracy, the basis of a democracy....

People have fought for those democracies, and then they want to turn

the calendar back and they say: "You don't have it all right." Well, as

far as we're concerned, we have absolutely no position other than to be

in total opposition to this most misguided piece of legislation.

I'm

very sorry that this legislation was put forward by a person who should

know better, by a person who was involved in municipal politics for

some time — a person who knows perfectly well that when you provide for

more than their just share of the vote, some people will take advantage

in a way that is not going to be to the common advantage. It is just as

clear as day follows night.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what's the

point? His old friend Muni Evers can't get through to him. Jack

Volrich, the mayor of Vancouver, can't get through to him. All these

people have an appreciation of the democratic process at the

municipality level. They don't, and on that basis the sooner we're rid

of them the better off the province will be.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'll be very brief. The matter of one person, one vote will be dealt

with more fully, I'm sure, by the minister when he closes debate. I

just wanted to deal with one aspect of the debate entered into by the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), in which he indicated in some

way that municipal councils around the province served as — in his

words — farm teams for the Social Credit Party, and in some way

indicated that there was something wrong, something immoral, something

antidemocratic about members serving on municipal councils and then

progressing — if that's the right word — on to provincial government or

provincial opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think that that's an

honourable way to serve your community — to serve on a local or

municipal council, a local hospital board or school board. As one who

has, I don't apologize for being either a Socred or a former member of

a city council. I have a feeling that in the scheme of the democratic

process that's a pretty good progression in terms of people who wish to

serve their community and continue to serve their community in many

different ways. I don't know of any members opposite who have ever

served their community in that way. If I'm wrong, then I'll stand

corrected, but as I go down the list I don't see any who have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mrs. Dailly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that on this side of the House the member

for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) was a proud member of a school

board in Prince George; the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was mayor of

a community in north central British Columbia; the member for Saanich

and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was the mayor of one of the Victoria

communities for, I think, ten years and served on council as well; the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) served on the

West Vancouver municipal council; the first member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) served long and well, and very proudly,

on the Vancouver Parks Board; the first member for Surrey, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), was the mayor of Surrey;

the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) served on council

in Penticton; the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

served on council in Prince George; the member for Columbia River (Hon.

Mr. Chabot) served on municipal council; the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head (Hon. Mr. Smith) was the mayor of Oak Bay, who served well and

proudly. I happened to serve, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very proud of that

service to the community.

The one member who was maligned in

the debate by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the member

for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), is entering into his 31st year of

service to this province — 20 years as the mayor of Cariboo....

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, apart from the fact that the minister is making my

point perfectly about local government being a farm team for Social

Credit...

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

MR. BARBER: ...the

minister wrongly and falsely says that I maligned the member for

Cariboo. That is completely untrue; that is absolutely false. I ask him

to withdraw it as unparliamentary and offensive.

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

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

It's

interesting that that member stands here in his pious way, with his

vacuous speeches. He's the most vain member of this chamber. Once

anyone contradicts anything he may say, he gets up immediately and has

to defend his honour. He is giggling Charlie; he chuckles nervously

over there sitting in his seat, because he knows his arguments are

stupid and don't make any sense. Well, the public is learning about

chuckling Charlie, Mr. Speaker. He's an insufferable egotist. Even his

own members walk out of this chamber with their faces red with anger

because they can't stand his speeches either.

The Minister

of Highways served this province for 20 years as the mayor of Cariboo,

and he's been in this House since 1969, with a proud record of service

to this province.

[ Page 4133 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to close by saying there are many ways of serving

the public. The first member for Victoria has chosen, up until now at

least, to serve the public only if he could get a government grant in

order to serve. Others, like those I've mentioned, do it because they

believe in their community and because they love their province; they

don't do it for money.

MR. HANSON: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources said regarding the speeches of my colleague from

Victoria — who is probably one of the hardest-working MLAs who has ever

been in this House....

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

MR. HANSON:

I ask the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources to withdraw

the remark that members of this House exit from this chamber because of

the speeches of that member. We happen to enjoy the speeches very much,

and we're proud of those speeches.

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

MR. MITCHELL:

I rise in a very odd kind of situation. I rise on this amendment,

asking this House to reject this amendment that is going to give me a

vote, According to the amendment.... I have a constituency office that

I rent in Langford, and because of that constituency office I get a

vote in Langford.

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

MR. MITCHELL:

Well, I do.

section 36 is amended by adding "or tenant in occupation"

after "owner." Read what

section 36 says. A person who qualifies under

section 35, except for residents in the municipality, and who is the

owner or tenant in occupation gets a vote.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL:

No, I don't. I don't live in Langford, I live in Esquimalt. But because

I rent an office in Langford, according to your amendment, I get a vote.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL:

It's a regional district, and I get a vote in a regional district. Mr.

Speaker, will you ask this gentleman from Housing to keep order? When

he wants to get up and debate the motion he can.

According

to this amendment I get a vote in Langford, and under the main

section

of that bill I also get a vote in Sooke because I own property in

Sooke. According to this bill I can vote for the regional director in

Sooke and I can vote for the regional director in Langford.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

first member for Victoria, in his argument, said that Social Credit

could sublet their office in Vancouver. I share an office in Langford

with the Member of Parliament for that area, Jim Manly. As a tenant he

gets a vote in the Langford area. Not only does he get a vote in the

Langford area, but he shares an office in Duncan, so he gets a vote in

Duncan. He also rents an office in Ladysmith, and by your amendment he

gets a vote in Ladysmith.

This sort of legislation leads to

chaos — bringing in amendments without any sense and without any sense

of democracy. In a democracy one gets a vote as a person; one gets a

right to express one's opinions, and one participates as a person,

regardless of where one spends money or where one rents. I support the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) when he argues that if he is

renting an apartment in Victoria he should have a right to vote in

Victoria because he is living in Victoria, but I oppose his right to

vote anywhere else solely because he owns property. Maybe it's wrong

that I should stand here and ask this House not to give me three votes.

I say that I should only have one vote, and that one vote should be

where I reside, regardless of where I own or rent.

What

really bothers me is that the minister, in his opening address to the

House, said that no one petitioned them for this extra vote. He said no

one wrote letters, no one made presentations for the right to vote two

or three or four times. This was the idea of the government, he said. I

want to bring to the minister's attention that some people have

petitioned his ministry for the right to participate in elections. I'd

like to read into the record a letter to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs from the trustees of the Sooke fire protection district:

Department of Municipal Affairs,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Sir:

"The

trustees of the Sooke fire protection district are concerned that

owners of mobile homes, living in a mobile-home park or on a leased

lot, are paying taxes but are not eligible to vote under the terms of

our letters patent. They resolve to request that clause" — I'm not sure

if it's 8 or 5 — "of the letters patent be amended to read: 'The

persons qualified to vote at the elections of trustees shall be

Canadian citizens who are 19 years of age or older, are entitled to be

registered as voters under the Provincial Elections Act, and are owners

of land or improvements in the tract here before described. The persons

qualified to be candidates at the said election shall be the persons

qualified as aforesaid to vote and their spouses.'

"Could

you advise us if this wording would be suitable and what procedure the

fire district would take to have the letters patent amended.

F.C. Richardson,

Secretary."

What

was the answer of that same Ministry of Municipal Affairs, headed by

that same minister who brought in this amendment to give people two or

three votes — people I know — in the province of British Columbia? What

did the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have to say to people who are

paying taxes into a fire district when all they asked for was an

opportunity to participate in the affairs of that improvement district?

This is their reply, dated February 4, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Richardson:

"Subject: voting eligibility, mobile-home owners, leaseholders, Sooke Fire Protection District.

"Further to your letter of December 21, 1979, and subsequent telephone conversations with Mr.

[ Page 4134 ]

McCrimmon of this ministry in connection with the above-noted

matter, we would advise that this ministry is not prepared at this time to consider

the alteration of voting eligibility requirements as they relate to improvement

districts. We would also mention that we are not aware of any other improvement

districts which have had their letters patent amended so as to alter voter eligibility

requirements in the manner proposed.

"However, voter eligibility qualifications as presently

provided in the Water Act for improvement districts are currently under consideration

along with other legislation with a view to bringing such requirements more

in line with those presently applicable to municipalities. As such, the proposal

of the trustees of the Sooke Fire Protection District will be placed on file

and will be given every consideration should amendments to applicable legislation

be provided for in the future."

These

are people who are paying taxes today. Each month they are taxed in

their rent but they have been denied the opportunity to participate in

a community water protection district that is giving fire protection to

that area. If the municipal department maintains that because a person

is paying taxes he should have the right to vote, then give him the

vote. Here you are saying that if you are paying rent you have the

right to vote, but if you are paying taxes in a fire protection

district and you're leasing property and you have improvements like a

mobile home, you do not have the right to vote.

I say that

we have the right to one vote for each person — not two, three, four or

five — in the province of British Columbia. I say that the right to

vote in a municipal election should be restricted to where you live and

only to where you live. Democracy has been built throughout the world

on where a person resides, not on the wealth or property that he owns.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to support this excellent Bill 54. I

cannot let it pass without first remarking on the remarks of the hon.

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I hope she did not intend a

statement of derision when she referred to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) saying: "We have now

heard from a 17th-century mind." I prefer to think that member, for

whom I have considerable respect, did not intend that in a derisive

way. It is to the minds of the 17th century that civilization owes its

greatest applause — to Adam Smith, the greatest economist ever known;

to Cromwell, the father of parliament; to Luther.

MR. BARBER: Cromwell was a dictator.