1979 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 209 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Alert Bay hospital inquiry. Mr. Gabelmann –– 209

Uranium and thorium mining permits.

Mr. Skelly –– 211

Orders of the Day

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 4).

Committee

stage –– 212

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Mair

Mr. Mussallem

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Barber

Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Mr. Lea

Mr. King

Report and third reading –– 226

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act,

1979 (Bill 12).

Committee stage –– 226

Mr. Levi

Mr. Barber

Mr. Leggatt

Ms. Brown

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications annual

report as at March 1978. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 233

Air services branch records as at March, 1979. Hon. Mr.

Fraser –– 233

B.C. Petroleum Corporation financial statements as at

December 29, 1978. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 234

B.C. Railway financial statements as at December 29,

1978. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 234

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed today it has come to my

attention that in the introduction of guests to our House, who, by the

way, are always welcome here, our speeches are becoming longer and

longer. I'm sure that is not your intention, and I'm sure a word to the

wise is sufficient. Are there introductions for today?

MR. BARBER: I have no speech but I do have a rather long

list, if you'I forgive it. I'd like to introduce to the House today a

number of people in the building trades who were on the steps of the

Legislature earlier making their point that they're out of work and

they want work. Their names include Leo Tessier, Maryann Borges, Robert

Williams, Ken Rowell, Gordon Jolly, John Schibli, Doug Page, Ron

Lindley and Richard Plasquet among others. I ask the House to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from the

town of Hope, in Yale-Lillooet, is His Lordship Mayor Keith Gardner and

Holly Fugeta. They're accompanied by Mr. Antonio Arreaga from

Guatemala. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, continuing from my colleague I have

a list of unemployed building tradesmen visiting the House today. I'd

like the House to join me in welcoming Messrs. Lazarovicz, Wagner, De

Castre, Nix, Webb, Boivert, McMurray and Jones, representing the 40

percent unemployed building trades of Victoria.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to

the House today some friends of mine from the bread basket of British

Columbia, Central Fraser Valley. They are Mr. and Mrs. Giesbrecht and

their children, Jodi, Michael and Robert. Would the members please

extend a warm welcome.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, visiting the capital today — I had the

pleasure of speaking to these students earlier on today — from a new

part of the riding of Surrey, the city of Cloverdale, we've got 27

students from Cloverdale Catholic School accompanied by their two

teaching Sisters. I hope the House will welcome those students and

those two teaching Sisters.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have a guest in the House from

Kamloops which gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the 11-year

service to my constituency in the House of Commons by the Hon. Len

Marchand. With us today is his long-time executive assistant, Mr. Jim

Davidson. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. LORIMER: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

the Ottawa Board of Education Band, which is visiting the McPherson

Park School in Burnaby. Accompanying them are Mr. and Mrs. Christianson

and Michael Staples of Ottawa, and Mr. and Mrs. Maitland of Burnaby.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

House to welcome a group of students who are unable to be with us at

the opening of this session, but I hope we'll be able to have space

sometime during the session. They are a positive young group of

students from the Windsor Secondary School in North Vancouver, and I

would ask the House to welcome them and their teacher, Mr. Ron

Henderson.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I trust your initial remarks were no

reflection on my remarks of yesterday in introducing my former coach

from Sabin High School in Portland, Oregon. I'd like to be much more

brief today in introducing some more of my friends from Portland,

Oregon. They are not from Sabin High but from Jefferson High School,

where they attended during the mid-forties. They are Ray Proctor and

Dorothea Craig. They are visiting the chambers today, and such places

as Butchart Gardens and Metchosin Heights. Those of you on the other

side of the House may be familiar with that particular parcel of land

that I have been trying to sell to the government for years. They won't

buy, and now I'm stuck with it. My Social Credit partner and I are

going broke together. [Laughter.] In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to welcome these friends who are with us today.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome a friend of

all of us in the House and British Columbia. He has led the action

against the creation of the Trident missile system which will be

located to the south of us in Bangor, Washington. I'd like to welcome

to the House Jim Douglas from Bremerton, Washington.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the mild reprimand that you

gave to the members earlier today was not as a result of my

introduction yesterday of an important head of a household. On behalf

of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who is not able to

be here today, I would like to introduce three visitors from her

constituency. Would the House join me in welcoming Ivy Burke and Doris

and Robert McEwan.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are two people left

in the gallery who have not yet been introduced, and they are the

administrator of the city of Langley, Dave Christensen, and Mr. W.G.

Duckworth, the mayor of Langley, the fastest-growing city in Canada. I

would like you all to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ALERT BAY HOSPITAL INQUIRY

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question I would like to ask of the

Minister of Health. Does the minister agree that for the Alert Bay

medical inquiry to be successful, it must have full community support?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you have a question of urgent public

business to do with my ministry? Ask me a question about my ministry

and I'll tell you.

MR. GABELMANN: May I repeat the question in another way?

Would the minister agree that for the inquiry

[ Page 210 ]

committee that he has put together to be

successful, it should have full community support and the trust of the

community that it is making inquiries in?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GABELMANN: I take that as an answer, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question: is the minister prepared to appoint a

neutral, community-supported chairman in place of the current chairman?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I don't

have the opportunity to do that. The committee is not, as the member

suggests, one of my making. It is a hospital committee of the British

Columbia Medical Association. However, it is chaired by a member of the

Ministry of Health, a senior staff official who is responding to a

request made last February by St. George's Hospital at Alert Bay. The

chairman of the board requested that the hospital committee come to

Alert Bay and conduct an inquiry into the operation of the hospital and

concurrently, because it would be impossible not to, the delivery of

health care in the Alert Bay area.

We agreed to that request immediately. However, we were then advised

by the coroner who was conducting an inquest that it would be

inappropriate for the ministry or anyone else to be holding an inquiry

while the inquest was being conducted, and we agreed that the inquiry

would be held off until some time after that inquest was held, and

that's been done. We have now agreed that we will honour the original

request from the hospital board to immediately begin an inquiry which

is based on one simple premise — and that is that we're there to help

the community get the best possible health-care delivery it can.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that no member in this House will attempt to

turn the proceedings of that rather time-honoured system of studying

problems in hospitals. That committee has been in operation for ten

years now, and each time it has had to go to work it has done an

admirable job of sorting out the issues and coming up with some

answers, and I don't want anything else but that to happen. It's with

that situation in mind that the chairman of that committee has my full

support.

MR. GABELMANN: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I

would like the minister to tell this House whether or not he agrees the

situation in Alert Bay is somewhat different than situations that that

committee has had to inquire into in recent years.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that every

situation will have differences. It's very difficult, however, to

determine what those exact differences will be until the committee has

had the chance to do its investigation, to interview the community

representatives and to report back to the bodies to which it is

responsible — and it will do that post-haste.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is

the minister prepared to reconsider that position in light of the fact

that more than half of the people in the community are not prepared to

participate with the committee the way it is now structured?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I can't reconsider what will happen

— and I would hope that what the member has told me will not happen,

that those people who have some input into the delivery of health-care

problems in the community will take the full opportunity to meet with

the committee and put forward that input in the freest way possible.

I might add that I would ask that member, who is the member of the

Legislative Assembly for that area, to urge, as a responsible member of

this House, that each of his constituents take advantage of that

opportunity which is now before them.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, I have consulted with my constituents, and what they want is a

proper committee that's representative of all people. Is the minister

prepared to add consumers of health care in that area to that

committee, using his offices to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it is not customary

to ask into the future activities of a ministry. This is a rather grey

area, and the question is: is he prepared? Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking about some future

policy; I'm asking whether he is prepared now, in this question period.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. I've answered your questions.

MR. GABELMANN: On a further supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister if he would encourage the

chairperson of this committee to allow cross-examination in the conduct

of this inquiry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we're running into an

interesting situation here. On the one hand the member for North Island

is insisting that I appoint what he calls an impartial, neutral

chairman; on the other hand he's asking me to instruct the chairman on

how to conduct the inquiry. I won't do that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister

a slightly different question. Does he intend to make certain that the

hospital at Alert Bay will be staffed with additional medical doctors

immediately?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the hospitals in this

province are not staffed with medical doctors. The member for North

Island obviously is not aware of the situation that exists in his own

community. The doctor who was the subject of some inquiry at Alert Bay

was not an employee of the hospital. He is a private physician who

operates as a private fee-for-service entrepreneur in his medical

practice, and he has, up until this point, privileges with St. George's

Hospital at Alert Bay and rents office space from that hospital. It's

not an employee-employer relationship in Alert Bay. I have no power to

enter into that kind of a relationship on behalf of a hospital which

has its own board of management and runs its own affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: There is another member seeking the floor.

Perhaps this line of questioning can terminate. This is the last

question.

[ Page 211 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in light of the serious nature of

the problems in that remote area as well as in other remote areas in

this province, and following up on a question asked by the second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) some days ago, does the minister intend

now to release the report to this House of the so-called "Black

commission" so that we can have further information and further

evidence and get to a speedy resolution of this problem?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, as the member indicates. I

already answered that question just a couple of days ago to another

member. The answer hasn't changed. The answer is the same. I'd just

like to point out….

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well. how many times do you need the

answer? Read Hansard .

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary,

assuming I get an answer. When does the minister intend to release the

Black report?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've already answered that question.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

URANIUM AND THORIUM MINING PERMITS

MR. SKELLY: This question is directed to the Minister of

Environment. Is his ministry consulted on environmental and fish and

wildlife impacts prior to the granting of surface and exploration

permits for the mining of uranium and thorium in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MAIR: In general, Mr. Member, or in specific terms?

MR. SKELLY: In general, I suppose.

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member, if he is asking

whether we are consulted before somebody takes a Geiger counter around,

or stakes a claim, or looks at property, or something like that, the

answer is no.

MR. SKELLY: Before a permit for surface exploration is

granted by the Atomic Energy Control Board, through the Ministry of

Mines.

HON. MR. MAIR: Before any search for uranium in the manner

that the member is referring to takes place, it goes before the Atomic

Energy Control Board of Canada, which is my understanding. I'm not

certain, to be quite frank, whether they consult with the fish and

wildlife branch, but I'I take that aspect of the question as notice and

come back to the House with an answer.

MR. SKELLY: I have a new question on a specific permit. With

respect to the uranium and thorium surface exploration permit number

MX19/79, issued on April 17 to Lacana Mining Co. for the Upper Adams

River area, an area that is very sensitive to fishery values, was this

ministry consulted?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as

notice.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment if

he has written any memos to his colleague, the Minister of Energy.

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), expressing an opinion

that there should be no surface disruption through uranium mining

exploration prior to an evaluation from his ministry. As quoted in the

papers, he has the opinion that no surface disruption should take

place. Has he contacted his fellow minister with that opinion, or has

he just expressed it to the world at large?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order; the

second

part is not in order.

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, the second part was so

long that I forgot what the first part was.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I could recall it for the minister. The

question had to do with communications with the Minister of Mines

regarding surface disruption.

HON. MR. MAIR: I certainly maintain excellent communications

with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, et cetera, and I certainly

have discussed this and many other matters affecting our two ministries

from time to time. Whether or not I have written any specific memos, I

cannot recall; but if the member wishes me to go back, I will find out.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, is it the

minister's intention to establish a policy that no surface disruption

should take place as an extension of his expressed opinion as quoted

in a prominent newspaper'?

HON. MR. MAIR: We have an independent commission sitting with

the widest possible terms of reference to look into the entire question

of uranium mining. We will of course, take that report when it comes to

the government, and we will consider it. Government policy will be

announced at that time. I am not in the position to make statements as

to government policy in this regard. I therefore cannot, and will not,

do so.

MR. BARRETT: On the basis of the minister's statement, would

the minister inform the Colonist newspaper that they have obviously

misquoted him when they state it is your inclination that we should

look at stopping what I call "disruptive exploration" — that is, when

you actually disrupt the soil and the ore? If the policy of the

government has not indeed been made then the newspaper is obviously

misquoting the minister about his inclination. He himself said today,

as I heard him that he's waiting for the inquiry to finish before he

even has an inclination.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the purpose of

question period, number one, is not to make statements or speeches.

Second, it is not in order to inquire into whether or not media reports

are accurate.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you ruling

that media reports are so inaccurate we can't use them as a basis of

questioning the ministers?

[ Page 212 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order either.

MR. BARRETT: It's a ruling.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I observe that at no time during the

Leader of the Opposition's questions did I hear him ask me what my

inclinations were. Had he, I would have told him that I would tell him

some other time, but that's not a matter of government policy, and I

don't think I'm called upon to give him my inclinations today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to

public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 4. Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 5.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in

the Journals of the House.

section 5.

MR. HANSON: In my discussion yesterday it was the contention

of many of my colleagues that this legislation was hastily drafted and

poorly conceived, and the more you read

section 5(d)(1), the

definition of "amount contributed…." It means a contribution for political

purposes to a recognized provincial political party or candidate.

The crux of the remarks of my colleague from North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) yesterday is that this

section of the bill does not define

what a political party is, and enables this legislation to provide for

contributions to individual candidates. In other words, one person

could appear and give a large sum to a single individual.

What I want to talk about briefly now, Mr. Chairman, is what I

regard as a serious question of conflict of interest in this

legislation. That is under

section 5(d)(4), whereby the

Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council — that is, the cabinet, the Social

Credit government cabinet — may make regulations for the purposes of

this section. My charge that this is a serious conflict of interest is

based on the following. The cabinet will be able to make regulations

requiring the keeping of records and the return of receipts. Now

everyone here knows that this

section will allow for a tax credit to

come off the federal tax. But a receipt will be forwarded to the

province, indicating the amount contributed to a political party by a

particular individual.

In other words, for all contributors to political parties, no matter

whether they are Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit or

NDP, these receipts would be returned here, presumably to the Ministry

of Finance, and they would be tabulated in terms of records to check

them against the amounts credited in income tax. The politicians

presently holding office would have access to all of the information

regarding provincial political contributions. I think that is a serious

conflict of interest.

You have politicians regulating political contributions and keeping

records of political contributions at their own level of government. I

think it is very, very serious. I think it is one more of a number of

reasons why this bill should be withdrawn. I think that if any of the

government members look carefully at this, they will have to admit in

all honesty that what it states is that a political body, the

Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council, the provincial government cabinet —

Social Credit cabinet — will be able to call upon the lists of

political contributors. There is no guarantee within this legislation,

within this section, of confidentiality. The list could be put on tape

for the B.C. Systems Corporation, and could be accessible to any

minister, as any minister can ask for documentation to come forward

from within the ministry.

If this

section is under the purview of the Minister of Finance,

then the Minister of Finance or the Provincial Secretary could call

upon those records. I think it is extremely dangerous that any

political party in government would have access to confidential

information on political contributions in this province. As you know,

computers can cross-reference political contributions by occupation,

age, constituency or political affiliation. It would be very, very

interesting for political scientists, but very, very dangerous for

politicians. I would again ask that the government withdraw this

section.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) makes a good point in terms of unilateral, one-sided disclosure.

I think what we're really looking at, of course, is the government's

objective to keeping an election promise to the donors to the Socred

campaign.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Get off that kick.

[ Page 213 ]

MR. COCKE: How could we otherwise look at this proposition?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's for every party, you dummy.

MR. COCKE: "It's for every party. you dummy," the minister

says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister to

withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. In fact, perhaps Hansard

could….

MR. COCKE: What you need around here is a vacuum cleaner for

Hansard when the minister is sitting in his seat.

Mr. Chairman, they're back-dating it to April 2. The reason for the

rush is obviously to do with what I've just said. Otherwise it would

have come into this House in tandem with a number of items that are

required to clean up our Provincial Elections Act and Income Tax Act.

For instance, we would have had a public disclosure section, which is

why there can be very little argument with the federal income tax

deduction for political donations. The public have access to major

contributors, anyone contributing over $100 to a political party. But

there is no disclosure here. Disclosure is only made available to the

government, and that does not make it even-handed at all.

Under the present circumstances what would happen if a Crown

corporation, under the direction of the government, made a political

contribution? It would be very difficult for the opposition to find

out about it. It's something to think about. When sloppy legislation

like this comes in, it's very difficult for the opposition to sit back

and say: "Hosanna, it's fair. It's for all political parties." It's

rubbish, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the Minister of Finance to get up and tell us how much

benefit accrues to other political parties in this province as a result

of this particular piece of legislation. It wasn't legislation under

active consideration by this House until we reconvened. If the Social

Credit Party organization maintained the records that are necessary to

fulfil the demands of regulations which we don't even know yet — we've

got the minister's rough draft of some orders-in council — it could be

that there would not be an even treatment of other political parties —

that is, the contributors to those parties that could have gained from

this legislation.

I just think it's unusual and unorthodox, and I cannot support this

particular

section of Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: When it comes to examining legislation of this

nature that involves an aspect of the democratic political process, I

think it readily brings to mind the fact that contributions to

political candidates or parties for tax purposes are only a very small

part of the whole mechanism. It seems to me that the government.

obviously having spent some time prior to the opening of the last

session of the Legislature, chose deliberately to ignore other

important aspects of the political process. The general public must be

able to examine what goes on, not up front in terms of election

campaigns — we can see that — but in the totality of things behind the

scenes.

We have a question which has been debated and argued in this

province and in other parts of this nation for many, many years. We

have the argument that it is necessary for the general public to be

able to put into proper context the position of a political party or of

a candidate disclosing to the general public the source of that party's

funds or that candidate's funds so that the general public can have

some idea as to whom that political party or that candidate might be

attached to, might be beholden to, might owe a debt to. And I'm not

getting into the bribery/promise aspect of things, but just the normal

osmotic relationship that exists between political parties and

candidates and other elements, economic largely.

It has been generally accepted, except by members opposite, that it

is a valuable part of our democratic process for the general public to

know where candidates and parties get their money — not whether or not

those who contribute on that narrow base can deduct it from their

income tax, but where they get the money. What's the source of

revenue? Who pays the bills? Who says, for argument's sake — as it is

possible to say — in the course of a telephone conversation: "Look, I

made a certain contribution to your party or to your electoral return

as a candidate. I would like you to give some consideration to this

proposition'"? That goes on. That does happen.

In the absence of any provision being proposed now by government to

deal with that question of a disclosure of sources of income so

everybody in the province can see who's paying the piper, in the

absence of an exhibition of that type of honesty on the part of

government. I think this particular clause should certainly not be

supported.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It wouldn't be included in this Act anyway.

MR. HOWARD: I think the minister said something that there's

a disclosure aspect in this. I didn't understand what he said. There's

nothing that I can see anywhere that says that's going to happen.

That's one very important aspect of political process reform that needs

to take place in this province.

The second one deals with a limitation upon expenditures. It has

been considered in other jurisdictions. It has been considered in this

province as well, and talked about, that there needs to be some

compression placed upon the amount of money that a political party or a

candidate can spend, recognizing that excessive amounts of money can be

used to buy excessive amounts of advertising time, can be used to buy

services from people and can be used, in effect, to unduly influence

the voters. Maybe that's not saying very much for the thought processes

of people who are voters, but that point of view has been argued and it

has been recognized as being a valuable one.

Political parties who these days find that inflation is eating up

their funds as well as it’s eating up everybody else's funds may want,

for self-preservation purposes if nothing else, to place a limitation

upon amounts of money that can be expended during an election campaign.

Again, I think, in the absence of any legislative form here that

says that that's a necessary part of electoral reform, the clause can't

be supported because it only deals with one minor part of the totality

of things which are necessary.

[ Page 214 ]

It may be that the arguments that we are putting forward now will be

responded to favourably by government. If so, then perhaps our

arguments do have weight and merit to them. But what seems

inappropriate to me is that the government, already having spent many

hours examining this question, was only able to come with a small facet

of it and not to touch upon the larger aspects of electoral reform.

There's the question to be determined as to whether or not in the

course of assisting or in the course of restricting, in view of the

undue influences that money and power brokers can have on political

parties that there should be some payment out of the public treasury

toward the costs of conducting a campaign to ensure that if that takes

place, and you restrict on the other side the amount of contributions

that can flow into political parties and into the coffers for

individual candidates…. There is a question of whether you should

examine the question of disclosure and make sure that the sources of

funds are disclosed, and place a charge upon the public purse to bring

the whole thing into some equitable balance in order that we might see

something a little more decent and honourable in the course of our

political processes in this province.

The bill in this clause is barren of any indication that those

subject matters were even thought about. I myself dislike that others

have expressed this thought earlier. I myself dislike it immensely, and

I think it's an intrusion of a magnitude that should not be contained

within a piece of legislation dealing with electoral matters.

It is an intrusion in subclause 4 of part of clause 5 for the

cabinet to arrogate onto itself the determination as to what are going

to be the records that should be kept; to have a group which is

politically oriented make determinations about the question of the

return of receipts, the subject matter covered by my confrere, the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), and for the cabinet to take

unto itself the determination about restricting or otherwise qualifying

the meaning of the amount contributed.

It would seem to me that in a piece of legislation of this nature,

which is not like other pieces of legislation, to be administered by a

department and a group of public servants…. To administer a matter of

public policy, it's a question of electoral reform of any subject

matter that belongs to all the Legislature and not just simply to one

part of it. It would seem that if the government really had had a sense

of what is democratic, really had a sense of propriety about the manner

of doing things, they would not have come to the Legislature with a

clause of this nature that says: "Here is only one part of our

electoral process, as it's going to be dealt with, and insofar as

deciding some of it, the cabinet is going to keep that decision unto

itself and establish it by way of regulation."

That is a wrong basis upon which to approach electoral reform. I

know there have been arguments. We've just had — I'm not casting a

reflection on it, Mr. Chairman — a vote a moment ago about the

effective date of this particular proposal. That decision has been

made. We know what the effective date is going to be.

Because of the need that exists to look at this whole question of

electoral reform in a broad public concept, and not as a matter of

peculiar partisan political mechanisms, would the minister be agreeable

to keeping in mind that the same effective date is going to apply,

whether this bill is passed in this session or passed sometime later in

the fall? What does it matter in terms of the effective date? Would the

minister be agreeable to committing his government — and this

Legislature would certainly go along with it, I'm sure — to establish a

legislative committee to examine the whole question of reform of our

electoral processes as we have discussed them here or as they need to

be enlarged to encompass the Elections Act itself, in terms of the

democratic processes of voting? Would he give that subject matter to a

committee of this House to listen to presentations and to come back

later on with an all-encompassing proposal that can be examined in its

totality, and take a step toward bringing some common sense to prevail

in terms of reforming the political and electoral processes in this

province? Do that; hold off this particular clause. It's not going to

put anyone at a disadvantage if it comes into effect this week or next

week or next month, or if it is passed by the Legislature, say, in the

fall or at some other time.

There's no disadvantage whatever. We know what the effective date is

going to be. There won't be any disagreement about that; the committee

made a determination on that matter. Draft the legislation in such a

way truly to serve the interests of democracy in this province and not

just to serve the interests of the cabinet in one respect, insofar as

regulations are concerned, or to serve a particular political concept

about election expenses in the total frame of things. If the minister

could give us that kind of assurance and make that commitment, I'm sure

he would stand head and shoulders above any of his colleagues in terms

of making a contribution to democracy in this province, and he'd find

unanimity in the House if he were to make such a proposal.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is a

simple amendment to the Income Tax Act only for the province, which

therefore can deal only with the objective of this, which is to provide

some tax benefit for all candidates in British Columbia. The members

have asked for all sorts of electoral reform. A lot of these have been

dealt with by the Eckardt commission. Reference has been made to the

requirements for disclosure of the source of funds and all these other

matters relating to elections which have been a matter of public debate

for years. They could not, in any event, be dealt with in a simple

amendment to the Income Tax Act, so we should really direct our

thinking toward that matter in this particular instance. As you're

aware, we're all now familiar with the Eckardt commission and the other

recommendations which, if implemented, would require amendments to the

Provincial Elections Act and other Acts of this Legislature.

So what we're looking at here is trying to provide a benefit for the

costly business of running election campaigns, which every person in

this Legislature is fully familiar with. I think the people of this

province are now familiar with the fact that it is a costly business to

ask people to put their names forward for candidacy and be exposed to

the tremendous expense of this. This is simply a gesture on behalf of

all of the taxpayers toward making it a little easier for all

candidates to put themselves forward for office. I think we should all

support this amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the debate and some of the

statements that have been made outside of the House following the

debate on this

section and on this bill by members of the opposite side

seemed to indicate that there has been some devious suggestion by our

Minister of

[ Page 215 ]

Finance in some way to give some special deal to members of this

particular political party to which we belong on this side of the

House. I would like the House to be reminded that all political

parties, with the exception of our party, have had in this province

over some time an opportunity for the collection of political funds

which have had the tax deduction for some contributions on the federal

situation.

MR. COCKE: Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that the member for New

Westminster, although I didn't hear his remark, is protesting in some

way either that some political parties in our province on a provincial

basis do not get some kind of a benefit, or that some of the federal

parties do not.

MR. COCKE: Right.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But as I understand the federal

legislation, Mr. Chairman, those members of a political party in the

province of British Columbia that have a liaison with a federal party

are able to collect for the federal cause.

It's interesting to note that throughout this discussion on this

bill in the past few hours we have been accused on this side of the

House of trying to do something which the party opposite has had on a

federal basis the option of doing, yet somehow or another in this

debate they seem to feel that their provincial members — those who sit

in this House don't want that same kind of opportunity.

I'm sure that the members opposite on the provincial side of the New

Democratic Party and those members outside of this House who aspired to

public office on the provincial scene who are not sitting in this House

at the present time, but have just gone through a provincial election,

would not collectively as a party condone the idea of a provincial

member taking a benefit through federal legislation. In fact I would

think that you would say that wasn't possible for your party to do. Is

that correct, Mr. Member for New Westminster, that you really should

not, as a provincial party, take a benefit that is provided through

federal legislation to the federal parties — whether they be NDP,

Liberal, Conservative or whatever? I would interpret, on your behalf,

that that would not be possible through federal legislation. I think it

was debated yesterday that two members from Victoria had even

advertised the fact that there was a possibility of having a tax

benefit if one would contribute to the NDP party provincially.

Mr. Chairman, although it was not written into the record yesterday,

I would like to, if I may, read into the record a letter that was dated

April 9, to which my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) made some

reference yesterday, but which was not read into the record in detail.

I would like to do so at this point in time because it has reference to

this clause and it has reference to the debate from the members

opposite.

During this past provincial campaign a letter dated April 9, from

6953 Kingsway, Burnaby. and signed by Mr. Norm Nichols, whose home

address is 1775 Kentwood, Burnaby, was addressed to the teachers in

Burnaby-Edmonds. Aside from the fact that using a mailing list of

members of the BCTF for political purposes is questionable in itself,

may I please repeat the letter to the House? It shows quite clearly

that members of the political party opposite have requested the people

in Burnaby-Edmonds to give to a political party through the federal

machinery, in order to benefit the provincial machinery of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think one of the members opposite said:

"It's all the same, isn't it?" Because it's all the same under that

federal legislation, and because they have both a provincial party and

a federal party, they think it is all right for them to take that

advantage for their party, an adventure they don't want any political

party in this province but their own to share. That's really what their

argument has been this past day.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, let me just continue with the letter:

"Dear Teacher in Burnaby-Edmonds:

"As you know. Rosemary was 'gerrymandered' out of

her riding by the Socreds. and is now seeking election in the

constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. Running a campaign in a new riding is

an expensive business. In addition. the calling of a provincial

election while the federal campaign is in progress means that the

individual contributors upon whom Rosemary has relied so heavily in the

past are going to find it very difficult to help her as generously as

they did before. Nonetheless, it is a job that must be done if Rosemary

is to carry on her very valuable work.

"Fortunately, changes in the federal income tax

legislation do help. Income tax credits are available to individuals as

follows: 75 percent of the first $100 of total contribution; 50 percent

of the next $450 of total contribution; 33-1/3 percent of total

contributions exceeding $550 of the total. Allowable federal political

contribution tax credit is $500 maximum. The tax credit is allowable

for federal contributions only, so to be eligible cheques should be

made payable to the New Democratic Party. Any such contribution will be

shared 25 percent to the federal NDP, 15 percent to the provincial NDP,

and 60 percent to Rosemary's campaign.

"In other words, donations work out like this: cheque

from you, $50; tax credit to you, $37; to Rosemary's campaign. $30.

Cheque from you $100; tax credit to you, $75; to Rosemary’s campaign,

$60. Cheque from you, $150; tax credit to you, $100; to Rosemary's

campaign, $90. Cheque from you, $250; tax credit to you, $150; to

Rosemary's campaign; $150. Cheque from you, $550; tax credit to you,

$350; to Rosemary’s campaign, $330.

"The above comments apply to donations for which you are seeking a

tax credit. If no such credit is desired, contributions could be made

directly to 'Rosemary Brown Campaign.'

"All donations should be made as soon as possible to

Rosemary Brown Campaign, Burnaby-Edmonds NDP, 6953 Kingsway, Burnaby,

B.C., or please phone us at 522-9913, or 522-9801, and we will arrange

to pick it up.

[ Page 216 ]

"Having Rosemary in Victoria is important to all of

us, so please give generously.

Yours sincerely,

Norm L. Nichols,

Kentworth,

Burnaby, B.C."

Those opposite have tried to read into the record some form of

deviousness on the part of our minister in bringing forward this

legislation. The member who has just sat down talked about decency and

honour. May I say that's a very shallow phrase in the face of the

letter which I have just read. A member of this House used federal

legislation during the election campaign and intimated it was for a

federal cause when the purpose of it was for a provincial member

running in the last provincial election.

It is all very well for members opposite to want just some selfish

advantage for their party which they don't want to share with other

members of this House, but it is not really democracy in action in any

sense of the word. The kind of discussion which is emanating from that

side of the House on this bill is….

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could you inform

the House whether it's polite to read other people's mail?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to gain the floor

by a spurious point of order is, in itself, a violation of our standing

orders. All members should be aware of their responsibility when

seeking the floor to make such points of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Before I complete my remarks on this

bill, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you ask the member for Prince Rupert to

withdraw the imputation contained within the remark he has just made in

the false way in which he gained the floor for a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert has been asked to

withdraw the remark….

MR. LEA: Well, obviously then if it's not someone else's

mail, it's her mail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not the question for debate.

MR. LEA: What is the question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been asked to withdraw the remark….

MR. LEA: What remark did I make?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not for the Chair to remind

people what they have said. You were just asked to withdraw. Other

members have been asked to withdraw and I ask you to withdraw the

remark that the member found offensive.

MR. LEA: What I want to know is what the minister takes

objection to, and if I find that I should withdraw, I will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nonetheless, the Chair asked you to withdraw

the remarks. The Chair asks you to withdraw the remarks.

MR. LEA: What remarks, Mr. Chairman? What were they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask you to withdraw, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for Prince Rupert has been on

record in this House as quoting mail which has been stolen from

offices, and it's quite interesting that he should make that imputation

to another hon. member of this House. If he doesn't wish to make the

usual withdrawal that is given for hon. members of this House, then

that's on his head and it doesn't bother me.

Whether it should be written in an electoral reform bill, as the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, or in a finance bill, as it is in

this case, has been clearly demonstrated by the Minister of Finance.

I'm very pleased to support the Minister of Finance in the bill before

us today and this clause that is before us at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Listening to the Minister of Human Resources,

I've come to the conclusion that Social Credit cabinet ministers must

go through a training course designed to teach them how to distort what

other people say. I'm not going to bother myself with any reference to

the hon. minister withdrawing anything. I don't think it makes any

difference whether she does or not. The imputation is in her mind and

in her remarks, and let it stay there. She did make a reference to my

earlier remarks, saying that when I talk about having some decency and

honesty in dealing with electoral matters, in dealing with this

particular bill, those remarks were shallow. That is a complete

fabrication and distortion of the force of what I was saying.

In my remarks on this particular clause, similar to those made on

second reading of the bill, I talked about the need to expand into

other areas of electoral reform. I disagreed with the provision in the

bill which gave the cabinet the right unto itself to make political

decisions and determinations affecting other political parties, a

matter touched on by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

Earlier references were made — although not by me at the committee

stage — to the question of how you determine what a bona fide political

party is. The whole structure of this clause is inappropriately worded

and reflects sloppy thinking on the part of the cabinet, and I

indicated that I, for one — and others in this party as well — could

not support this particular clause in the absence of any declaration to

deal with the broad spectrum of electoral reform. For the hon. minister

to classify that declaration as shallow is, I think, not very well

meaning on her part.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder the now Minister of

Human Resources lost the portfolio of Provincial Secretary, because she

doesn't even understand the Provincial Elections Act, let alone the

federal Elections Act or the Income Tax Act. I notice that she left the

chamber. But just so that we can put the record straight I would just

like to say this. She said that we don't want to share the opportunity

that we have as a party in getting income tax

[ Page 217 ]

exemption for donations made. That is patently untrue. My suggestion

was — and my colleagues' suggestions were as follows — why was this Act

not formally introduced, brought into second reading, then committee

stage and, finally, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor before you went

into an election, if you wanted to use it? Instead of that, it is a

promise held out; it is a carrot — introduced, withheld and nothing

positive done.

Now let me describe what occurs federally. We are one party,

federally and provincially. When we make donations, we make donations

to that one party, and the party has an agreement that those donations

are distributed in such a way that the whole party benefits, federally

and provincially. So is it any wonder, Mr. Chairman, that we do have…?

MR. BARBER: They can't understand it.

MR. COCKE: It is very difficult to understand, and

particularly for someone who doesn't even understand the Act that she

supervised for three and a half years.

Now, Mr. Chairman, why is it that the Liberals and the Conservatives

haven't access to their federal counterparts? It's a decision made by

their federal counterparts, that's all. You see, in order for a

provincial wing of a federal party to take advantage of the Act, which

applies to all citizens of Canada, it has to have a provincial agent

within each jurisdiction. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not so

direct. Therefore they have no provincial

section as far as that

federal Act is concerned. That's all, pure and simple. Now is there any

particular reason why, as Canadian citizens in a Canadian party, we

should not take advantage of

an Act for all of Canada? I get so furious

when I hear an insipid discussion like the one we heard from the

Minister of Human Resources, who got up in this House and admonished us

for taking advantage of

an Act that was made for all citizens in this

country. By virtue of manipulation, these other parties have not agreed

to do what was rightfully in the best interests of political donors.

Then we have to take flak from that minister, and then she dashes out

of the House, knowing full well that she is going to be shot down in

flames.

Mr. Chairman, where does that minister do her best job? I'll tell

you where she does: on a platform where there is nobody around to argue

back. Remember how she went around from 1972 to 1975 pretending that we

had a secret police force, and all the rest of it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are straying somewhat from the

bill.

MR. COCKE: Straying a little bit from this bill, Mr.

Chairman, but suggesting….

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Shame? That minister went around this province

telling falsehoods for three and a half years. Who are you directing

shame at?

Mr. Chairman, no wonder, in light of what she just said, they

removed her as Provincial Secretary. However, I feel very sad about

those people who are recipients of her present service.

MR. LORIMER: I don't intend to go into the retroactivity of

this bill. I want to say, though, that the Minister of Human Resources

was correct when she pointed out that we on this side of the House were

able to take advantage of the federal Income Tax Act and they were

unable to.

I would like to see the Social Credit Party get advantages of income

tax deductions for political donations. The retroactivity of this bill,

though, is, in my opinion, and as has been expressed before, most

unfortunate.

Under our standing orders,

section 18 states: "No member is entitled

to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest,

and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed." Now on

bills or votes in which the advantages go universally to all, then it

is permissible to vote. But in this particular bill, it has been

explained by both sides of the House that the advantages are to those

who have made donations to the Social Credit Party and that therefore

the advantages in this bill are not universal and that those benefiting

are those who have made donations. I would suggest that any member who

has made a donation and intends to take advantage of this bill is

unable to vote in this vote. There's no question in my mind that our

standing orders are quite clear on this.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we could get a ruling from you as to how

members should vote or whether members can vote on this bill and take

advantage of the provisions therein on the clear case where this is not

of universal advantage to all members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not make a ruling on a

hypothetical question.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your own back bench, your own

members, the members of your own caucus are making it difficult for me

to hear. Would you please proceed.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, I understand that and I'I try and hush them

up, Mr. Chairman.

The question I pose is the question of standing order 18 on page 4

in my copy, which states that no member is entitled to vote upon any

question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of

any member so interested shall be disallowed.

Now I think it has been practice over many years that where there is

a universal advantage to all, then a person may vote. But where the

advantages are not universally obtained by all members of the House,

then there is obviously direct pecuniary interest to any person who has

given a donation. The Social Credit Party, in my opinion, not being

able to claim under the federal statute, will likely make application

for benefits under this Act.

What I am suggesting is that if they vote. I presume that they are

advising us or intending not to make any application for benefits under

the Income Tax Act. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling on

this before we vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, members of this House must

go by their own consciences as to how they may wish to vote on standing

order 18. I would refer you to Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition,

page 399, wherein it

[ Page 218 ]

indicates, for example, where members of the executive council are

allowed to vote on what is, in fact, their own salary as it passes

through estimates. The same type of ruling would apply.

If any member of this House feels that they are in violation of

section 18 of standing orders, then it would be up to them to conduct

themselves appropriately.

MR. LORIMER: I would point out that what I'm talking about is

the standing rules, not a question of conscience. In my opinion,

they're set out here to control and direct the conduct of this House.

The second thing, the question of salary doesn't, in my humble

opinion, apply at all. The question of salary is a universal benefit to

all, and as such it has been held for a long period of time that that

may well be voted upon. Here there is an advantage to one side of the

House but not to the other, due to the fact that the other side of the

House has that advantage already through federal legislation and the

government side has not seen fit to take advantage of the federal

provisions which apply to everyone in Canada. So it's not a universal

benefit to all members of this House; it's a benefit to one group in

this House. I suggest that those people who are intending to take

advantage of the regulations under this bill — if they vote in the vote

that's coming up — are undoubtedly disallowing their claims under the

Income Tax Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not a point of order, and

prior to recognizing your point of order I would like to read to you

from page 399 of Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, on which this

standing order 18 is based. It goes as follows:

"Personal interest in votes on questions of public

policy.

"The only instance to be found in the Journals

in which vote of a member has been disallowed upon a question of public

policy is the case of the votes of three members given in the session

of 1892 in favour of the grant in aid of a preliminary survey for a

railway from the coast to Lake Victoria in Nyanza, which had been

undertaken on behalf of the government by the British East Africa

Company, in which two of the members in question were directors and

shareholders and the third was a shareholder."

That is a specific case

involving a specific member, and in each case members of this House

must decide on their own specific instance, and so decide when they're

voting. Now you are asking me to make a ruling from the chair as to

whether it applies to members; but it's for the members to decide for

themselves. All members of this House are honourable members.

MR. LORIMER: I would suggest with respect, Mr. Chairman, that

the analogy that you have presented is one of a conflict of interest,

and not one of a pecuniary interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your argument does not come within the grounds

section 18, and that's my ruling.

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, the superior edition of

May, which is the seventeenth, has this to say at page 435: "In the

Commons it is a rule that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest

in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it" — so it isn't a matter

for individual members; it's up to the Chair — "but, in order to

operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and

personal, and not merely of a general or remote character."

Mr. Chairman, we have members in this House who have undoubtedly,

out of the generosity of their hearts — although the hon. minister from

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) said he didn't give any money to his campaign;

maybe he didn't believe in the candidate that much, or he was going to

let the little people contribute to it…. I always give money to the

campaign in which I'm running, Mr. Minister, and I'm sure you must have.

HON. MR. MAIR: Prove it.

MR. MACDONALD: Now there are members who must have given

money since April 3, I guess it was, who will receive the benefit of

this retroactive legislation, and they have a direct and special

pecuniary interest in this vote.

HON. MR. MAIR: Name names.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you seriously prepared to say that none of

your members gave money to their own campaigns?

HON. MR. MAIR: You prove they did; the onus is on you.

MR. MACDONALD: Is this a criminal court? I have to prove the

obvious beyond a reasonable doubt?

HON. MR. MAIR: It isn't obvious.

MR. MACDONALD: It is obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you have read a

section of May

on a very special question, but the general thing is set forth at the

beginning, and it talks about a direct pecuniary interest, separately

belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned. There's no

question that to get back 75 percent of the first $100 you gave is a

direct pecuniary interest. You may not apply for it, but the fact that

it is there now and you have voted to enable yourselves to receive

money in your pocket as a refund from the provincial portion of income

tax is unquestionably in violation of the rules of this House.

As the hon. member for Burnaby has pointed out, it is not a law of

general application; it is not that exception pertaining to cabinet

ministers. In this vote you are directly allowing yourself to recover a

pecuniary interest in the contribution you made to the Social Credit

campaign. Nobody can tell me that they did not put up money, that none

of these members put up money for their own campaign. They're not such

spoilsports as to allow all the other people of the province to

contribute to their campaign and not do something themselves. It's a

very serious point. It involves the whole question of passing

retroactive legislation for the benefit of a special group. Legislation

prospectively that applies to everybody is an entirely different thing.

[ Page 219 ]

This is legislation to reward the bagmen of Social Credit. Okay, you

want do do that, but those who sit in this House who are going to

benefit directly from this vote cannot vote. The government should

withdraw the retroactive feature of this legislation, because you can't

vote on it and the government would fall if you put it to a vote and

you lived up to the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of

Environment.

HON. MR. MAIR: It seems to me that if what the second member

for Vancouver East says is true, then all those on the other side of

the House who have contributed to their campaigns will likewise

benefit, because you'I get it provincially now as well as federally.

Since I'm the only person in this House who has stood up and

acknowledged that I did not give anything to my own campaign, perhaps

the entire chamber should disqualify itself except me, and I'll vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No vote has taken place, and if

the members feel the matter is to be raised it should best be raised

after such time as a vote has taken place.

MR. MACDONALD: They should not be allowed to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's premature to discuss it at this time.

The member for Vancouver East was quoting from the seventeenth

edition of Sir Erskine May, page 435, with the paragraph starting: "In

the Commons…." If the member would take the opportunity to read that

paragraph it will become much clearer.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the one I did read.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "This interest must be a direct pecuniary

interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were

questioned, and not in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects,

or on a matter of state policy." I would leave it at that, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order raised by the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), I think I should point out that it was

somebody on this side of the House who raised the point of order in the

first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just prior to recognizing the

point of order, the position of the Chair has to be that the Chair

cannot rule on a hypothetical situation until such time as the members

have voted on this particular question. Standing orders clearly point

out that if a vote takes place and someone does have an interest, the

vote shall be disallowed: it's clearly in place.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise in this debate on this

section of which

we've heard a great deal. We have recognized that the debate in this

session has certainly fallen to a new low. In this session I've never

heard so much pure nonsense and inconsequential words wasting the time

of this chamber as I've heard today.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) judiciously claims

to have said that the NDP by some machination or other was able to

receive a kickback on federal funds because of an agreement. I want to

tell him that no arrangements by political parties supersede the Income

Tax Act.

The hon. Deputy Premier of this House (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) read the

letter written by Mr. Nichols. I want to assure you that if anyone

wishes to take exception to that letter, the same Mr. Nichols has done

a culpable act and is subject to prosecution for joining in what could

be considered

an act contrary to the Income Tax Act.

I feel that this debate has gone on too far. It has no point in

fact. It gives me the impression that the House is merely stalling the

business of this House.

How can the NDP say that they have some special privilege of having

kickbacks from the federal party? It is not in the Income Tax Act. It’s

some machination of their own.

As I said very clearly yesterday, we are not doing indirectly what

we cannot do directly. We were saying that in this election, if

elected, anybody who contributes to our party would have the same

benefit as the NDP would have had by their kickback method.

Let us drop this ridiculous debate. Let us get on with the business

of this House. It is not accomplishing anything. We're only spending

our valuable time wasting the public money and the public time, and

we're not here for this purpose. This is too simple a

section and it

does us great discredit on both sides of the House to be involved in

this ridiculous debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak

briefly to this particular

section to draw attention of the members of

the House once more to the double standard of my friends who sit on the

opposite side. It's one thing to be against a provision of this kind on

general principles for everybody. But it's something quite different to

come in full of honour and purity the high moral standard, the

certainty that you would never transgress a direct or implied rule of

the House, or a law of Canada, because your standards and your purity

are so impeccable. Yet here we find in practice that when the NDP goes

to the public seeking power, their standards aren't quite the same as

they preach to us here in the House. The second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), the former Attorney-General. who understands so

much about moral conduct, the member for Burnaby, who drew our

attention to the rules of this House…. Well, here we have it in the

Victoria newspapers during the election campaign: ''Yes, I want to

elect the Hanson-Barber team and the NDP."

MR. BARBER: And they did; they sure did.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm sure they did. "Get a tax rebate for

your donation to the NDP."

MR. LEA: Under an existing law.

HON. MR. McGEER: "If you pay federal income tax," and so on.

[ Page 220 ]

MR. LEA: Under existing law.

HON. MR. McGEER: "Under existing law," so you say — inviting

people to contribute to your provincial campaign, to get you elected to

this House here. Yes, yes, it's a provision of the law. Well, let's

read the law here, Mr. Chairman. "There may be deducted from the tax

otherwise payable by a taxpayer under this part for a taxation year in

respect to the aggregate of all amounts, each of which is an amount

contributed by the taxpayer in the year to a registered party, or to a

candidate at an election of a member, or members, to serve in the House

of Commons of Canada."

That's not to the provincial Legislature of British Columbia but to

the House of Commons of Canada. Those two candidates over here for whom

this advertisement was taken out were asking to be returned here to the

Legislature of British Columbia, not to the House of Commons of Canada.

You could hire all the Philadelphia lawyers in the country and they

couldn't worm around that particular provision. But no, when it comes

to interpreting the law to suit your purposes, then morals don't count.

You use every twist you can. You interpret the law the way you wish to

your advantage.

MR. MACDONALD: Why not?

HON. MR. McGEER: "Well, why not?" says the Attorney-General.

Of course, why not? There's where you express your true moral standard.

Why not if you can get away with it? But when it comes to talking in

this House about our standards and our morality, oh, how different that

story is. I can only tell you that there is the party with the double

standard over there. Once they go to the electorate seeking power,

principles be damned, Mr. Chairman, when that's the exercise. But when

it comes to lecturing the government in the House, oh, how different it

is. That's when the high moral conduct can be put forward. They're not

seeking power now, no sir!

HON. MR. MAIR: Sanctimonious claptrap.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what it

is, sanctimonious claptrap from the NDP, and I'm voting for this

section.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey claimed to be waving a copy of the federal legislation. He had, in

fact, a photocopy of one page. I have on my desk a copy of the income

tax amendments from 1973-74, the House of Commons. It takes several

pages…. It would take me about 40 minutes to read the entire income

tax amendments that we're referring to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he deliberately misleading this House?

MR. GABELMANN: No, he wasn't aware that he was misleading

this House, but he was. The fact is that there are two kinds of

contributions under the federal legislation. One is to candidates

running in elections, and the other is to registered political parties.

For that member who has spent some years in this House, it's incumbent

on him, with his years of experience, not to quote some sections of the

Act that are to his benefit in his argument. He should quote all the

sections. If he were to do that, he would understand that the federal

legislation is very clearly written in a way that allows candidates and

their agents, and registered political parties and their agent, one in

each province, to be recipients.

MR. BARBER: Are you going to apologize?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not asking the member for an apology. I've

seen them before, and there's nothing new.

The federal Election Expenses Act was passed in parliament in

1973-74. The government here has been in power since 1975. They were

aware, or should have been aware, that their political party was not

eligible under the federal statute. They had the time between the

beginning of January 1976 until the spring of this year, three years

plus, to bring in amendments to the Income Tax Act which would allow

them to do what they're doing, which would then have allowed them to

get the benefit from law that we have had for the last five years. Why

didn't they bring in that legislation in that three and a half years

they had? That's a valid question to the government.

You would not then have had to make it retroactive. You would then

have been able to do it properly so that the procedures that are

spelled out very clearly in this federal Act, which are complicated

procedures, could be spelled out too. How can you retroactively appoint

an official agent in a campaign for the purposes of income tax

legislation? You can't. How can you retroactively issue receipts on

prescribed forms that must accompany such legislation? How can you do

that? You can't, so I'm concerned.

Let me say this to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who isn't

in the chamber at the present time, and his comments that he thinks

we're stalling or wasting time: there is a very basic principle of

parliament included in this section, and it must not be allowed to go

by unchallenged. Frankly, if the government had a leader in the House

today, I'm sure the government would be withdrawing this section,

because it is most unparliamentary and most improper.

MR. HANSON: The member for Point Grey is a professor who

teaches at a university. If one of his students had done what he just

did and improperly quoted his sources, he would have tweaked that

student's ear. That thesis would have got a D.

But he can stand up and do it, because he's being political. My

colleague for North Island had just made reference to the comments of

the member for Dewdney, where he said what we were saying was nonsense

and inconsequential. That is not true. The points we have raised, and

the points I would like to address to the Minister of Finance, are:

Will he please tell us what guarantees of confidentiality there will be

on receipts of contributors to political parties in British Columbia.

Would he please tell us and allay our concerns about the

confidentiality? Will it be kept in the B.C. Systems Corporation on a

tape? Will it be recalled by a minister? Would you please tell us?

Would you pay me the courtesy of responding to those questions?

MR. BRUMMET: Briefly, it seemed we got started on talking

about a simple income tax amendment, and since

[ Page 221 ]

then we've discussed the electoral Act, electoral reform, the

definition of a bona fide political party, and just about anything and

everything except what this bill is dealing with. We have had the

implication that it is not of general application. I see nowhere in

this bill where it says these deductions are limited to any particular

political party. It looks like a very general application to me, so I'm

assuming that much of the legislation that has been quoted and referred

to here is really a matter of

interpretation, and that is also a matter

of

interpretation. I don't see anywhere in here that it is limited. It

looks like a general application to me.

Since we've spent many hours debating this, are the members on that

side prepared to say that they are against allowing deductions for

everyone in this province? If they are, then we can have very clear

what they are saying. Otherwise, as the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) said, we seem to be spending a lot of time just talking. I'd

like to repeat that question for the record. Are they saying that they

are against allowing deductions from income tax for all people in this

province? Is that what they are saying?

MR. BARBER: The answer is no. Our people have said repeatedly

what I say now: it is fair and just and appropriate that supporters of

the Social Credit Party receive the same financial advantage at tax

time as supporters of any other party. That's the message. But listen

as well to this. We want it done right, Mr. Chairman. We want it done

lawfully. We wouldn't want to see you pass a bill that would be

challenged in the courts later on for its inadequacies. We wouldn't

want to see you consider retroactive legislation that, by the nature of

its retroactivity endangers a significant tradition in the British

parliamentary system. We wouldn't want you to get into trouble through

your own misadventure. What you have done is propose a bill that has

many errors: errors of omission; errors, one presumes, of deliberation;

errors that will get you into trouble.

You have proposed something which, in principle, we endorse. Let me

say it again, for those who are school teachers seem to have some

difficulty in listening to anyone other than themselves. We want Ed

back. The principle which we endorse is that supporters of yours, or

any other recognized political party, shall be able to obtain in the

proper and correct way remuneration at income tax time, as do other

Canadians in other provinces. That's fair, that's appropriate. We don't

object, we support it. Do you understand that now?

If you can understand that, will you also understand this? The law

you have proposed is defective. It doesn't work properly. It is not

competent law. What we argue with is that if you did it right, if you

did it better, it would be something we could support. Can you

understand that? It is, admittedly, a somewhat complex argument.

The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

made a hopeless fool of himself five minutes ago, and he has abandoned

the House, as usual. My colleague for North Island quite correctly and

properly read the law. We hope you understand the law as well. If you

understand those three things, you may then share our objections: you

propose something that is retroactive; you have done it in such a

fashion as to suggest that you may have held out to the voters what, in

other less parliamentary precincts, might be called a bribe — I don't

suggest that, but I observe that others have; you have drawn up a law which, in

some technical detail. appears to be defective.

MR. BRUMMET: Where?

MR. BARBER: Where? Where indeed. Where have you been?

Further, what you have done is endanger a valid principle by the

incompetent handling of the whole legislation, and that's just foolish.

You should realize, at your political peril, that you have managed to

botch something, and to look like fools in the process of its botching.

You could have taken credit for this legislation. but, unfortunately

following the example of the Minister of Mis-education, you chose not

to read the law correctly, you chose not to understand the law

adequately, and you chose not to write the law competently. No wonder

we object; any opposition would.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Act we are contemplating here is that

proposed or already in effect, in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

I have circulated the proposed regulations, the ones which you have on

your file. The regulations would have to follow the passage of the

amendment.

One of the members expressed concern over disclosure, or the privacy

of this information, in terms of a minister or ministers. The members

need have no fear in terms of the disclosure of this information. What

is required here is a system whereby the receipt developed will have to

be related to the federal income tax files, in order for your receipt

to be valid. You have to have some relationship between the provincial

ministry and the federal ministry to accomplish this objective.

Otherwise you rely strictly on the trust of all contributors, of all

registered agents not to falsify returns, et cetera. So although

concern is being expressed here about details which we really haven't

gone into there has been considerable consultation with other provinces

on these very things that you're concerned about. I just want to

emphasize that there is a need to relate to the federal income tax

department with our own department, in which these returns will also be

filed, to verify and validate that the returns are correct.

MR. LEA: The minister has raised the very point. or one of

the very points. that we're concerned about, and I'll use his own words.

He said: "The details of this we're not discussing here. We're going to

decide the details on our own, in cabinet, by resolution, and we'll let

you know the details later." Now we may just pass a regulation that

will, by the terms of the regulation, only have one political party

that's eligible for this, and that could be yours. That could be the

minister's, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The Act covers that.

MR. LEA: The Act does not cover that, Mr. Chairman.

Regulations can change the whole flavour of what's going on in this

debate, and that's what we're concerned about.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now if the minister and his cabinet are not fearful of open scrutiny

of this legislation, then why does he persist in

[ Page 222 ]

doing the most important part — that is the regulations — in the

secrecy of cabinet, and with no opposition in cabinet?

Do them here. Do them in this House. Bring the regulations that

you're going to apply and pass them into law within the Act itself.

That's all we ask. We're not saying that the Social Credit Party

shouldn't get the benefit. It might be better if you took the benefit

of the federal law and made yourself a national party. That might be

better still. Then we wouldn't even have to face this kind of

stupidity. But, Mr. Chairman, the minister by his own words has said

we're not discussing the details here. "We'll discuss that later as a

cabinet." And this cabinet, which is made up of members of a certain

political party, will decide what the regulations are going to be that

pertain to all political parties. That's what we're objecting to.

Now surely, Mr. Chairman, members of government and the backbenchers

should understand that. That's what we're objecting to. And the way

they change parties over there, Mr. Chairman, maybe some of them should

be objecting too, because you may not be in that party in the next

election. What about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

? Will he be in that party or will he be sitting over here as an

independent? Now how does the legislation affect the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour if next election he is sitting over here as an

independent? That's, of course, unless he goes into cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has put his finger on the fear and the

concern that we have. He said: "Yes, we as the cabinet will be dotting

the i's and crossing the t's of what this Act really means when we get

into the privacy of cabinet." That's exactly what we're objecting to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Read the bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps saying: "Read the

bill." We have read the bill. My concern is that the minister hasn't

read the bill, because obviously the bill was probably put together by

the Minister of Finance, who is not that minister. It was probably put

together by the Premier.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Read what it says about regulations.

MR. LEA: All it says about regulations, Mr. Chairman, is that

regulations will be drawn up. That's all it says.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It does not. Read it.

MR. LEA: You read it to me, and you tell me whether you can

draw anything more out of the Act than that the cabinet will make the

regulations as to this bill. We say at least do this: if you're going

to make the regulations in cabinet, if you persist on taking that

course and you won't put the regulations into a different form and put

them in the Act itself, then do us a favour.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I circulated them to you. I've done you

enough favours.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he has given to

all of us what the proposed regulations are going to be. We know that

old trick. We've had proposed regulations before. And guess what, Mr.

Chairman? The regulations haven't come out as they were proposed. That

happens all the time. But the minister is asking us to trust him.

Doesn't he understand that he's not just a member of government? He's a

member of another political party. Why should we trust him? We don't

trust him, and why should we? We're saying bring that legislation into

this House so all members know exactly — and also the public — what

you're going to put in that Act — it's not going to be any good for us

to complain afterwards. Once this bill passes this House, it's out of

our control, it's out of the public's control, and it's strictly within

the control of the government by order-in-council to make regulations.

That's what we're complaining about. All we're asking is that simple

justice and simple democracy be carried out. No wonder they object;

they don't believe in it.

MR. KING: I'm going to be fairly brief. I don't want to

prolong the debate, but in light of the wide-ranging debate this

afternoon, I thought I should make a few observations. There has been

some misrepresentation of the points members were trying to make. For

the record, there are basically two points I object to, and I want to

try to explain those to the minister as clearly and concisely as I can.

The minister indicated earlier, I think, there's nothing wrong with

holding out prospective legislation during an election campaign. The

minister should recognize that only the government can do that. The

government controls the House; the government determines what

legislation will be proposed and passed through this Legislature.

Therefore, dealing with an issue such as campaign provisions and

political donations, that should be above the taint of partisanship.

Certainly it should not be held out as a potential provision during the

course of an election campaign. There would have been very little

difficulty with this bill had it been proposed and introduced, clear

and free from any election campaign. The main problem has arisen

because it was tied to a potential offering held out during an election

campaign.

Much has been made about the federal campaign contribution

regulations, and I think my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

has explained that quite clearly. Most political parties are one

political party, federally and provincially. The Social Credit Party

happens to be a different stripe; for whatever reason, they are

strictly provincial, and make much of that in their own propaganda. I

suppose that's partly why they have very provincial ideas in other

spheres of philosophy and so on. Be that as it may, they are strictly a

provincial party, and as such they are prevented from participating in

the federal election campaign contribution system that is available to

all the other major parties in British Columbia. That is their choice,

and their design. That is the choice and design of the Social Credit

Party.

I'm going to suggest to you that the main problem I have with this

legislation is the retroactivity part of it being held out during an

election campaign. I suggest the letter distributed by an executive of

Midland Doherty during the election campaign was a private letter, not

a public one. It wasn't a public appeal for funds, such as was done by

my colleagues from Victoria, open to public scrutiny. This was done

behind closed doors, within a corporate structure. That in itself is

significant, I submit, and I think it should be read into the record

because it completely highlights the kind of problem we have with the

legislation proposed by the

[ Page 223 ]

government today. This letter I am going to quote is directed to all

sales personnel and staff, all branches:

"I am deeply concerned about the coming election,

mainly because of the apathy that has developed, because too many of us

are of the opinion that this election is liable to be a 'shoo-in.' I

need not remind you that if the Socreds are not returned as the

government on May 11, a lot of us are going to be looking out the

window, or perhaps looking in the window.

"I would like to stress that if we could muster the

same aggressive attitude that we all showed during the last election,

indeed, then, maybe it will be a 'shoo-in.’ But no political party, no

matter how popular, can win without workers. We are at a very dangerous

crossroad at this moment in time, and to have the Socreds turned out of

office would not only be a personal disaster to ourselves, but

generally destructive to the economy of the province. I urge you all to

put in the effort you are capable of doing in working for the Socreds.

Our livelihood depends on it.

"I would also like to appeal to you to make a personal

financial contribution to the party. I will point out that any

contribution up to $500 is 5 percent deductible from your tax payable

if the Socreds are returned to power. For example a $100 deduction

costs you only $25. I would like to ask you that if you are going to

contribute anything from $1 to $500 that you make the cheques payable

to the British Columbia Social Credit Party in trust, and give them to

your manager who will in turn forward them to me. Let's all get behind

the Socreds and keep this province moving. Thanks very much.

Ian A. Falconer

Member of the Executive Committee,

Midland Doherty."

I have heard members on that side get up and decry the fact that my

colleagues for Victoria made an open and above-board public appeal for

financial assistance, with the benefits accruing under the federal

Income Tax Act that our party is entitled to. If those members find

that approach offensive, or objectionable, do you feel in good

conscience this kind of corporate appeal, with all the strength and all

the coercion that could be associated with it, is completely acceptable

to your morals and your conscience? Do you find it acceptable that a

private appeal to employees by an executive manager should be made

without the light of public scrutiny when that executive manager has

the power over his employees to influence promotion and to influence

indeed whether or not there is any security to their tenure of

employment with that firm?

The kind of implications raised by this document clearly highlights

the objections that my colleagues have been raising: the immorality of

holding out the promise of a benefit — "if you will only vote for us so

that once we again assume power, we will be able to bring you financial

favour and financial return as the benefit we pay for your support."

Surely to goodness it doesn't take a very bright person to

understand the implications of this kind of arrangement. The proposal

before the Legislature today would have been quite acceptable had it

not been tied in to the kind of odious implications introduced and

suggested by this kind of promise during an election campaign. The kind

of provision you are putting before the Legislature should have been

brought in and debated and fully dispensed with by this Legislature

free from the implications, the fervour and the partisanship of a

provincial election campaign.

I tell you that every single voter in the province of British

Columbia can understand that principle concisely and clearly, and I

suggest that if the Social Credit backbenchers, much less the cabinet,

have difficulty understanding the implications of that principle, then

indeed the administration of the ship of state in this province is in

serious jeopardy. There's no question about it, Mr. Chairman, that is

what we're somewhat exercised about. It's an unseemly way to do

business.

If members wish to associate themselves with that kind of approach,

it is appropriate and it is necessary that this debate takes place to

clearly state the difference of philosophy, the difference of political

morality and the difference of values between this party and yours.

Mr. Chairman. apparently members on that side find this kind of

behind-the-doors appeal, with the coercion implied in it, completely

acceptable but reject and object most strenuously to an open public

appeal for financial assistance under the laws of this nation such as

was put forward by my colleague from Victoria. That’s the only

conclusion one can draw. I say shame on you, particularly you new

people who I assume came here with some fresh ideas and some commitment

to the people of British Columbia. If on occasion your good conscience

prevailed, it would cause you to depart from the narrow, partisan

interests of your political party, the government of the day. I'm sorry

to see that you've lost those fresh ideas and that kind of verve and

commitment at so early a stage in your political careers, because here

clearly is a moral issue where you have an obligation to represent the

voters of British Columbia, not Social Credit.

Let's get the debate in its proper perspective and not have the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) try to muddy the waters with

irrelevant and incorrect references to federal legislation. We are

dealing here with the propriety of a statute introduced in this

Legislature that could have been debated on its own merit had it been

introduced and disposed of free from the furor of a provincial election

campaign. That's the issue. The retroactivity of it is the issue. That

implies that this statute was introduced as payment for the

contribution and the voting support of certain corporate enterprises

who made their decisions behind closed doors. That's wrong — absolutely

wrong.

The other thing that's wrong about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it is

not necessary to deal with a matter of this kind on a retroactive

basis. I can see dealing with tax relief for all of the citizens of the

province of British Columbia. such as sales tax or personal income tax,

on a retroactive basis. But what is the urgency of making electoral

reform essentially retroactive? That certainly makes the motivation

behind the legislation suspect, in my view. Had the government handled

this properly, as my colleague for Prince Rupert said, there would have

been very little controversy in this Legislature today. The

backbenchers should pay particular attention to the ineptitude of some

of their ministers who besmirch what might otherwise be acceptable

legislation by the most grossly incompetent handling. They should pay

particular attention to that because the opposition is here to make

sure that whatever statute is brought forward is

[ Page 224 ]

properly scrutinized, so that the public is alerted properly to the

implications of that legislation, and to make sure that we have this

kind of debate and this kind of exchange of ideas so the people clearly

have an option and can make their determinations in complete compliance

with the democratic process that we all represent.

I regret that this debate has had to go on so long. I regret that it

has become at times somewhat asinine and somewhat far removed from the

principles involved. They're fairly narrow principles; they're clear. I

regret very much that some members on that side of the House could not

muster their courage enough to say to their minister: "Take this

legislation back to the drawing board. Bring it back free from the

taint of partisan political campaigning, and let's deal with it as a

statute properly designed and properly introduced in this House."

MR. HOWARD: I vaguely recall a reference to that particular

letter during the course of the campaign. It was just something that

came over the news. Victoria is a long way from the realities of life

in the north and in the Interior, things that may be of great moment

here in Victoria, but somehow or other the Gulf of Georgia prevents

them from getting across to the rest of us. I vaguely remember hearing

about that particular letter. I think we are indebted to the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) for having read it into the record,

because if there ever was a reason put forward to oppose this

particular clause on the grounds of political morality and honesty,

there's the reason in that letter. It's connected with the earlier plea

that has been made from members on this side of the House for a

disclosure of source of campaign funds. Look at the connections that

could take place and probably did take place. The letter was sent from

somebody in the upper echelons of Midland Doherty to the people down

below in sales or someplace.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Disclosure is not allowed under the Act.

MR. HOWARD: Disclosure is not allowed in the Income Tax Act —

in the Act that we are now amending.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: Exactly. I'm glad the Minister of Finance has

cottoned on to tat. I'm glad he's caught that truth. After listening to

you for the last few days since I've been here, that's a real

revelation. It's an exhibition of his perceptiveness.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Hear, hear!

MR. HOWARD: It makes me wonder why he's been kept on as

Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on

section 5.

MR. HOWARD: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I wish you

would have told the Minister of Finance that before he interrupted me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're strictly on

section 5, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I'm dealing with

section 5, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has some difficulty in seeing that,

hon. member. We have had very wide-ranging debate. I think now we must

really specifically relate to the section.

MR. HOWARD: I can see clause 5 very clearly. The part right

at the beginning of it talks in terms of an amount contributed, and it

then identifies what that means. It means "a contribution," et cetera.

That's the first

part I'm going to deal with.

When the decision was made by the government to distribute shares in

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, it decided to pay to the

financial agents, whoever they might happen to be, who were to process

the applications for the five shares, $5 per application. Midland

Doherty was one of those agencies involved in receiving $5 per

application.

The processing of an application in a bank or a financial

institution doesn't cost that financial institution $5 — it's 60 cents,

probably. What would they do with the $4.40? Well, they'd have to take

out a little bit in reserve to pay their income taxes, maybe. Then

comes the letter — written by the vice-president of that firm, I'm told

— that we just read that said: "Friends in Midland Doherty…." It was not

an appeal but almost a directive to the personnel and the staff working

in Midland Doherty, which said they could contribute some of their

money to Social Credit and get a tax rebate on their own income tax

returns. It told them not to worry about the money coming out of their

own pockets because, in addition to getting the tax rebate, they were

going to get the money from the taxpayers of the province for every

application they filled out for BCRIC shares. And that's the process

that is horrendously injurious to the political system.

My friend from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the Whip of the government

party — who isn't in his seat right at the moment — talked a while ago

about kickbacks, and pointed his finger at us as being involved in

those kickbacks. Well, if there is any sort of under-the-table,

strings-attached kickbacks involved in politics, here it is with a

group like Midland Doherty and the Social Credit Party. And the

taxpayers are paying the shot for it, Mr. Chairman.

In closing I would say to my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke that

he was really wasting his time trying to convince Social Credit

backbenchers to vote against this particular clause. They are not going

to, Mr. Chairman, for a very simple reason. Apart from the fact that

they support political immorality when it comes to financing, there is

a fundamental structure in this Legislature that is very, very clear,

and that is that there are, apart from the Premier, 15 cabinet

ministers and 14 backbenchers. What greater attraction can you have to

be subservient and do what you're told?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have raised today and yesterday a

number of concerns that I have had regarding the confidentiality of the

records and receipts that will be obtained by the government from

people who will have made political donations. I want the record to

show that I have received no assurance on that. There are many

provincial government employees in this province who

[ Page 225 ]

want to contribute, as free citizens in the public process, to a

political party of their choice. If they believe or feel that the

records of those receipts or of those contributions could possibly ever

fall into the hands of their employer, you are denying them access to

the political process. Do you think that is funny?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was agreeing

with the hon. member. I thought, perhaps, he would be more courteous.

MR. HANSON: Then I would like the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head to accept my apology, because I think that, in the way I phrased

my comment, I misinterpreted what he was saying. I am pleased that he

agrees with me, because I think it is a serious matter — and I am

raising it in all seriousness — that the confidentiality of the

participation of people in the political life of this province should

not fall into the hands of one political party.

My colleagues for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), have all raised concerns

about confidentiality. The Minister of Finance has said to us that we

should trust the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to draft regulations

that will be in the best interests of the people of the province. I am

sorry, but I can't feel totally confident in that. The first

recommendations of the Eckardt commission were to do away with ridings

of my colleagues. Those were political judgments that came out of

electoral reform. I think the regulations that will be drafted will be

political regulations. And I don't think that one political party that

happens to get more votes, and sits in office, should define what a

political party is or have access to the names of the political

contributors of this province.

I am not getting any answers on that, and I want it on the record,

Mr. Minister of Finance — through you, Mr. Chairman — that we have had

no assurances that the records and receipts will not fall into the

hands of the cabinet.

MR. LEA: I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Neilsen

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in

the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: If we could for a moment. let's take a look at

the case that the government has attempted to put to the House. One

minister misled the House and misquoted federal law in a very bad way.

He totally misinterpreted the burden of federal law, and the opposition

made it perfectly clear how that law actually works.

Another minister seems totally unaware of the actual operations of

the law he is himself advancing. The government repeatedly has in this

law and by its debate around the same, offended against the competent

principles of retroactivity in the British system, which are very

narrow and very precise, They've offended against the only way that

retroactivity can ever be made a fair or a just thing, Their law is not

just and not fair as it is presented here today.

My colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) read a letter into

the record of this House which some of us were able to use at an

earlier time during an earlier and more public debate, a letter from

the ever-generous Mr. Falconer of Midland Doherty, making it perfectly

clear what Social Credit has been doing all along in anticipation of

this legislation. That too offends against the way fair law should work.

The problems with the government's case and the problems with the

government law make it clear that they would have us approve defective

law, and we will not do that.

There is another aspect as well, which I was pleased to note the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith) shared. I hope he speaks. I

hope the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head will have the courage to stand

up and speak his mind. It was gratifying that he nodded across the

floor of the House that he shares our concern. It would be more

gratifying to have him on the record. I trust he will.

The particular concern, raised particularly well by my colleague for

Victoria (Mr. Hanson), is that what you ask us in the way of power to

be granted through regulation to amend law is too great a power

handling too many regulations. We want instead that power determined

here on the floor of the House.

Let me ask, if I may, whether or not you would be prepared to take

the Gaglardi test. This is the one that David Anderson made famous.

When we were in government, asking from time to time for certain

authority, he said: "Okay, maybe we can trust the NDP. Maybe we can

trust your government. They're not crooks; they're not hauled up on

this charge or that charge. They're an honest bunch, well meaning.

Maybe they burnble from time to time, but basically the NDP is an

honest lot. Maybe we could trust your government with that particular

power." What David Anderson went on to say was: "Assuming that we could

trust your government with political power, what would happen if that

government changed? Would you trust Phil Gaglardi with that power?"

That's this same Gaglardi who some weeks ago said: "They'll never

prove I took the $60,000." Do you remember when that came out in

the campaign? "They'll never prove I took the $60,000." Well, maybe

one member

[ Page 226 ]

of this House would trust the Phil Gaglardis of this world, but we

wouldn't.

The burden of the Gaglardi test is simply this: you may wish in

conscience to be trusted and feel yourselves honourable enough to

manage the trust — to do by regulation what you seem unwilling to do on

the floor of this House. Well, let me ask you this: acknowledging the

antipathies that exist from time to time and are expressed from time to

time here, would you trust our guys with the same power?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARBER: No, you wouldn't, eh? Listen to that. What kind

of standards are those?

What you've failed to comprehend is that you're not passing a law

for your party. You're passing a law for the people, and that's the

difference. You are only, with all respect, the government of the day.

What if today you passed a law which gave, as you propose to do, powers

to achieve in cabinet what you will not forthrightly try and achieve or

debate on this floor, and then the government changed hands?

There are some of your supporters who believe that our guys talk

Russian in their sleep, and you wouldn't trust us with anything, not a

ruble. Some of our supporters think that you guys regularly commune

with Joseph Goebbels, and we wouldn't trust you with a mark. Is it not

reasonable to ask, given the political hostilities in British Columbia,

that the great burden and bulk of law be debated here, and not in

cabinet chambers, here, and not by regulation, here, and not by fiat?

We ask no more than this: bring to the floor and debate here every

aspect of regulation which will be the engine of this law, and not

simply the framework that we have in front of us. We'll be prepared to

debate, relatively quickly, this whole thing. But continue to hold out,

as you propose to do, for the secrecy of the cabinet room, for the

retroactivity of this legislation and for the very considerable

endangerment of good public law and good public policy, and we'll debate

you for a long time to come. Understand that as well.

If you wouldn't trust us with the power you propose to take, why

then should anyone else trust you? Let the law be so wholly and clearly

fair that such powers as are granted be granted here, and not in the

cabinet room. Let the regulations as are required be determined here,

and not in the cabinet room. It's a very simple principle for which we

argue.

Your case, presented this afternoon, is, with all respect, a

shambles. The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) goofed badly. The Minister of Finance is simply not able to

explain or defend his law. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr.

Smith) agrees with us that what you propose to do by regulation is

wrong. What kind of a law is it that you would have us agree to? It is

not a good law at all. We shall not, and will not, agree until you

amend it. Amend ito improve it, make it a law worthy of support and

we'll support it.

Section 5 approved on the following division.

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Lea

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in

the Journals of the House.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 12.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LEVI: I have an amendment. It's under my name on the

order paper —

section 1, line 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if I might read the amendment for

those other members present, it seeks to amend

section 1, line 7, by

deleting the words, "but does not" and substituting the words "and

shall." It's signed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

The amendment appears to be in order.

[ Page 227 ]

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: The intent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is

really to go back to what we were given to understand was the original

intent of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, that people should

participate, and that they would have a say in what was going on. Now,

of course, since the original legislation there has been an about-face

on this particular issue and they've introduced the concept of the free

shares or the bearer shares which give people absolutely no right at

all to participate in the corporation.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister of Finance, who

is presumably piloting the bill on behalf of the Premier, as to why he

thinks that these people should not participate in the ongoing business

of the corporation, because it does create two classes of people in

respect of the corporation: those who hold free shares who cannot

participate, and those who can afford to buy shares who can

participate. I think that I would like to hear from the minister why

they've gone this route, and I'll wait until the minister replies.

MR. BARBER: I rise to support the amendment proposed by my

colleague. As the minister is well aware, we've prepared a number of

amendments which will in a considerable fashion, we feel, democratize

the operations of the corporation itself; guarantee that every citizen

who has a share has a vote; guarantee that the corporation is as

accountable as it may be held to all of the people of British Columbia

and not just a few; guarantee as well British Columbia control of British

Columbian resources.

The first amendment presented today by my colleague is the first in

a series that we will be introducing. It may well be that one or two of

them will be determined ineligible by the Chair by virtue of the

particular nature of them, requiring government sponsorship rather than

that of the opposition. We acknowledge that in advance, and we will

present that amendment as well as we can and hope at the time to

persuade the government to adopt it.

As to the amendment at hand. Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. now that I have your attention,

perhaps on page 23 of our standing orders you might review the

section

on relevancy — and strict relevancy — especially at this time when

we're dealing with this proposed amendment. Please continue. The

remarks are for the new members as well as for those who have been here

for some time.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I appreciate that.

What we're trying to establish here, and if the government accepts

the amendment of what the law will establish, is that every shareholder

in the corporation shall have voice and vote. Against whom does that

principle offend? Against what institution traditional in British

Columbia does that procedure offend? It certainly doesn't offend the

Companies Act, Mr. Chairman; the Companies Act requires that. It

doesn't offend the Societies Act or the Cooperatives Act either. In

every instance of current law where the members or the owners of any

publicly established corporation are recognized in that law, they have

voice and vote.

The government has in this instance chosen, for some reason never

explained by the Premier, to determine, as my colleague put it, that

there shall be two classes of citizens in British Columbia: those who

have a vote and those who don't have a vote. The government has argued

since 1977 that the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation

should be considered to be owned in a unique way by the people of

British Columbia. If that is the case, and we are to adopt that

argument, then will you not adopt our amendment which follows the

perfectly reasonable conclusion that, if they should own the

corporation, they should also control it?

The conclusion we draw in this amendment is that the perfectly

arbitrary and, in law, fixed limit, below which if you fall you do not

have a vote is not reasonable. The government has proposed that you may

not exercise any authority whatever unless you have 100 shares. Why

would such a limit be drawn? Why would such a line be in place? Why

would such a specific figure be chosen? Obviously, it's arbitrary. It

could have been 106 or 94: presumably 100 is a round enough number that

even certain government members would remember it for the purposes of

debate. So there it is: 100 shares. The problem with it is that you

undermine your own claim that this is the people's corporation. In

fact, we are informed that fewer than 60,000 of the people — not 2.4

million — may in fact consider this their own corporation. Only 60,000

will actually be able to vote.

Look what you've done: look what the government proposes to do if it

does not accept our amendment. You have disfranchised 2.4 million

people in British Columbia; you have restricted the vote to 60,000

people alone. Assuming you have not deliberately set out to

disfranchise 2.4 million people, may we not then assume that you might

consider our amendment' What's wrong with the principle that every

shareholder should have a vote? Those of you across the floor who

operate companies are well aware that if those are publicly held

companies — not family firms, obviously; I presume you operate

differently — you expect in the ordinary course of business that

everyone with a voting share has a vote. They show up, or their

proxies arrive, and they conduct the business of the company

accordingly. That's fair: that's Canadian law that's British Columbia

law. There's nothing wrong with that.

What we ask is that you extend the provisions of Canadian and

British Columbia law to this corporation. What my colleague's amendment

argues is that the figure of 100 shares is arbitrary, and not very

bright. What happens when people read the fine print and discover that

you have disfranchised them? What happens when 2.4 million British

Columbians, or, rather, those who applied for the shares, 2 million

or 2.1 million — excuse the error — receive the five free shares and

read the fine print? They will discover that they have five free pieces

of paper, and no vote. They have five free shares, and no say. They

have five free shares, and no standing. It may turn out that you've

offended 2 million British Columbians who thought you were giving them

control, as well as a piece of paper; who thought you were giving them

a direct say in this corporation, as well as five free shares.

What objection can you have to allowing this company to be governed

like all the rest by its shareholders?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 228 ]

If I owned a share in B.C. Tel, which I do not, I would consider it

my right to go to a B.C. Tel shareholders' meeting and ask questions of

the chairman as to the operation of my company. Even the smallest

shareholder in private enterprise has that right. To the credit of many

of them, they exercise that right; and that's a good thing. That keeps

the companies accountable. You are denying that right to our citizens;

that is not a good thing. You are denying the individual exercise you

grant to private enterprise in every other circumstance. Why would it

benefit the government to do that? If one is to be charitable one would

have to presume that the only reason might be mechanical. You're

worried about two million people showing up to a meeting. With all

respect to those who might hold that belief, that's not a very credible

argument; it's not going to happen.

At the time when the greatest corporation of them all in British

Columbia, this Legislature, has its annual meeting, only 70 percent of

the people show up for that. That's disappointing; it should be 100

percent, but it's not. When the most important public corporation we

all own is up for grabs at election time 30 percent of the people

disqualify themselves. It disappoints all of us on both sides of the

House. The number of shareholders who would actually show up to a

meeting of this corporation would be even more disappointing.

It is not a rational defence of the previous government position to

argue the reason you're opposed to democracy in the Resources

Corporation is because you feel too many people will be democratic.

That's not a rational defence it's not a rational reply. The official

opposition and my colleague argue that, if you've meant what you've

said all along about intending that this corporation be owned by all

the people, then let it also be controlled by all the people. In

British Columbia, that means 2.4 million people, if they care to

exercise that, but they won't. You're not going to have to rent the

Coliseum, you won't even have to rent the Memorial Arena.

If you deny the amendment, you deny an important principle. Those of

you in business acknowledge the principle in business. Every

shareholder has a vote, doesn't he? Why would you repudiate that

principle in this business? Well, maybe you wouldn't. Maybe the

amendment will pass. It is in order. It could pass and it could do a

great deal to redeem this whole corporation in the eyes of the people

of British Columbia and to guarantee to the people of British Columbia

that every one of them may, if he or she wishes — as shareholders, with

one vote or 100 or 10,000 — show up and exercise that franchise, ask

those questions and know for a certainty that it is their corporation.

Please accept the amendment; it's fair and reasonable.

MR. LEGGATT: I rise briefly to support this particular

amendment.

I think it's useful to review the success of this particular

operation. The government, I know, is going to be telling us that

something in the order of two million people have applied for shares,

that there are only about two million shares left and that therefore

the purpose of the legislation, which was — and I'm quoting the Premier

— "to allow people in British Columbia to experience personal

ownership…." But this legislation doesn't allow that broad cross-section

of British Columbians who have applied for their shares to participate

in this company in any way, shape or form. The only people who are

going to participate in this company are the approximately, I think,

60,000 people who have applied to purchase shares in BCRIC. That very

small group of people will be allowed to participate in the operation

of this company, but this government doesn't want the broad

cross-section of something over two million people to participate in

the operation. How is that teaching them something about individual

ownership? You don't want them to have a chance to vote if you don't

want to have them show up at the annual meeting.

Mr. Chairman, we're going to be dealing with another provision which

attempts to avoid the whole concept of the annual meeting entirely — a

unique step in the history of law in this province, and probably in the

British Commonwealth.

But, to get back to the principle of this first amendment, if you're

really serious about seeing this corporation have a broadly based

ownership and that ownership have some participation, why don't you

just accept the amendment? We can all sit down; we don't need to beat

our gum