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)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

1153 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 1155

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1155

Mr. Barber –– 1156

Mr. Barrett –– 1158

Mr. Hall –– 1160

Mr. Nicolson –– 1161

Mr. Lorimer –– 1162

Mr. Stupich –– 1162

Mrs. Wallace — 1163

Mr. King — 1164

Mr. Levi –– 1167

Mr. Lea –– 1168

Mr. Leggatt –– 1169

Mr. Lauk –– 1170

Mr. Macdonald –– 1172

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1173

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1173

Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 36). Committee stage.

section 1

Mr. Lauk –– 1174

section 2

Mr. Lauk –– 1174

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1174

Report and third reading –– 1174

Royal assent –– 1175

Appendix –– 1176

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1979

The House met at 7 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that His

Honour is not yet in the precincts, and that he's coming with other

members from both sides of the House. I would, under these

circumstances, perhaps suggest that it would be in the best interests

of the proper dispatch of business that we have a recess until His

Honour arrives. I gather that he'll be here shortly before 7:45 p.m.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, about who the House Leader has advised.

Since this is an informal exchange, it would be appropriate if the

House Leader were to meet with our House Leader and inform us just what

the nature of the legislation to be introduced tonight is, so that we

can have some idea of what we will be dealing with. I think it would be

appropriate for the House Leader to make that contact. And I would like

to be advised if it is indeed necessary for His Honour to open the

session. As I understand it, we're in an adjournment situation.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, to try to bring a little wisdom to the thing, perhaps it

would be wise for His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to be on the

ground before we begin. The Chair, of course, has no knowledge as to

what the nature of the business is or how long it will take. But

assuming that a bill is involved, undoubtedly His Honour would wish to

be somewhere nearby and not embarrassed at the time of closing. Perhaps

the hon. House Leader could shed a little more light,

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm more than delighted to have a meeting with the hon. House Leader of

the opposition, Mr. Speaker — and this could take place during the

recess — and inform him of the specific matter that will be presented

to the House this evening. I don't think it's going to come as any

major surprise to anybody. It's been very pressworthy today; and it's

been discussed, not by myself, but by other members of the government

with members of the official opposition.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, but, with great respect, the House has no knowledge of the matter

before us, and the Speaker has no knowledge of the matter before us.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are in a state of limbo at this point in a

non-debate, in a non-meeting — we're not here. It is appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, for the House Leader of the government side to end the

adjournment and introduce legislation, motions, or action. Otherwise,

Mr. Speaker, we know not why we've been called back, what we have to

deal with or anything else. It does not take His Honour to instruct the

House as to what direction to take.

MR. SPEAKER: The only instrument before us, of course, is the orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, His

Honour is required to process the message, and it's not possible for

His Honour to process the message when he's in an aircraft.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I would refer the attention of all hon. members to the

fact that today is Thursday, and according to the standing orders today

is private members' day. I'm looking through my orders of the day, and

it appears to the Chair that the very first order of business should be

public bills in the hands of private members. But I have not had any

order of business called. Therefore the Chair does not have any

knowledge of what the intent of the House is.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, are we to be informed that although the members were

called, the legislation that we were called back for has not yet been

signed, or messaged, or even ready? This whole matter of haste may

compound the original error that brought us here. It would be well, in

my opinion, if we were to have a recess — if that, indeed, is the

government's wish — to give us an explanation as to why we were called

at 7 p.m. In order to have a recess at 7:15. Surely this unseemly

haste, which was complained of by the House Leader, in terms of an

attempt to notify all of our members.... We were told that it must be

done at 7 p.m., that we must be here, and we find that the House has no

order in front of it other than the orders of the day. The orders of

the day have not been called, and there is an unseemly haste now to get

a recess so we can hurry on with other haste — total confusion, Mr.

Speaker.

We need some leadership by a government that was

elected to make decisions. There are orders of the day that haven't

been called. We have a message, I understand, in flight. It's

incredible that we find this confusion compounding the error that

brought us here. If it is necessary for the House to put itself in

order, then let the House Leader put a motion for adjournment before

the House immediately.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker,

we're quite happy to accept the responsibility for the fact that a

plane is late — I suppose one has inevitably got to accept that

responsibility — or that His Honour is on the plane and unfortunately

not on the ground.

I certainly would mention without getting

into the questions of debate that this matter is one of concern not

only to the government, but to the official opposition.

Sitting

on my desk when I arrived in Victoria this afternoon was a wire from

the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party. It says: "It would

appear necessary to reconvene the Legislature to repair immediately the

grievous injury visited upon the company" — referring to Seaboard Life.

But if the House isn't desirous of recessing out of a courtesy to His

Honour so he can complete the processing of the message, and the House

would like to proceed with private members' bills, that's perfectly

satisfactory to the government.

MR. BARRETT: This is

an extraordinary situation. That is recognized, I think, by everyone

here. If the House Leader wishes time to make up for the unfortunate

fact — as we have now this moment been informed — that His Honour is

delayed by plane, then the method to do that is for a motion to adjourn

the House to whatever time the House Leader feels it's appropriate,

when the House Leader will be available to tell us that His Honour is

ready to serve the House.

[ Page 1154 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

That is one method, surely. Another method is simply to await a

division bell by virtue of a recess, because it can't possibly be

anticipated at this moment at what moment His Honour may arrive. So

perhaps rather than to adjourn to a time definite, it would be far more

propitious at the moment to declare a short recess until such time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, we have a motion before us. It's to determine whether or

not the motion is in order before it can be put. I am advised after a

short contemplation that motions which have to do with the setting of

times of the sitting of the House are placed in the hands of the House

Leader, and are not properly proffered by another member. Therefore I

cannot accept the motion, Hon. House Leader.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, standing orders do not instruct that

a motion to adjourn come from either side of the House. I beg to

differ. I would suggest, sir, that a motion to adjourn is always in

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think it's not a

matter only of adjourning the House, but as I understood the motion, it

was a motion to adjourn to a time definite. That is the part of the

motion that is unacceptable to the Chair at this moment.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw my motion. I now move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: That motion is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there's not been any business transacted whatsoever. I think it would be appropriate....

MR. BARRETT: That's right, that's why we're adjourning.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

That's right. I'll repeat that. Business has not been transacted before

the House, Mr. Speaker, and out of simple courtesy and expected

courtesy to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.... I would think,

notwithstanding, the opposition is rather revelling in this matter.

Fine, that's their right to do that if they so choose. But I would

certainly say that it's incumbent, first of all, on us to proceed to

orders of the day — private members' bills.

MR. BARRETT:

If you can't lead, then let's get some time for you to get your heads

together over there. I came back today because there was an emergency,

and you haven't even figured that out.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in trying to determine whether a motion to adjourn —

which is always in order whenever the House is truly in session and

when a member does have possession of the floor — is in order before

any order of business has been called is difficult at this time for the

Chair. I would hesitate to make a firm ruling since it would establish

a precedent, no other precedent being obvious. Therefore it is very

difficult at this time. I would almost have to declare a recess in

order to determine whether or not....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK:

There's never been any difficulty in determining whether a motion to

adjourn is in order. One motion to adjourn followed right away by

another motion to adjourn, without intervening business, means that the

second motion is out of order, not the first motion to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes. The principle that makes intervening business a necessity between

two motions to adjourn is the very same principle that perplexes me at

the moment. There having been no business transacted, I would have to

rule that, in order for a motion to adjourn to take place and in order

for a motion to adjourn to be valid, we would have had to have had at

least orders of the day called. And I so rule.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, orders of the day were never called, which is

extraordinary in itself. As I recall the event, the House Leader got up

and made a statement saying: "Now that we're here, we should go away

for a little while."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

That's what he said. He informed the House that the plane is late —

that's fine; now we know that the plane is late. Because the plane is

late, I moved that the House adjourn. That's business. We were informed

of a reason why we should adjourn the House, so I made the motion,

which the House Leader seemed confused about in terms of taking some

direction. Information was given to the House, and as a consequence of

that information and business, a motion was moved.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. members. I think that we have ample opinion, and that

we will have established at least some precedent, no other precedent

existing in this instance.

Having considered it, I believe

that it would be far better that the House have some order of business

before it before it be adjourned. I would have to make that ruling.

MR. KING:

On the point of order, there are two issues. Is it not true that a

ministerial statement is an order of business for the House? A

ministerial statement was made.

The second part of my point

of order is to eliminate a statement which the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) attributed to me in an

article he quoted, all of which I

would like to share with the House — if your consultation is complete

and you give me that privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The

Attorney-General quoted from a telegram I directed to the Speaker this

afternoon. He quoted selectively, and I would like to read the total

text into the record of the House so that no one is....

[ Page

1155 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This seems to go beyond the hon. member's original point of order for which he gained the floor.

MR. KING: I have two points of order. Do you want to deal with the first one first?

MR. SPEAKER: The first point of order is a further opinion on whether or not business was actually transacted.

The Chair would have to insist that business is not transacted until orders

of the day have been called. The Chair have to accept the responsibility for,

up until this point, not even having called on the Clerk of the House to announce

the orders of the day. I have to make the ruling that in order for the House

to be even in possession of any work for the day, we'd have to call for

orders of the day. That not having happened up until this point, I have to say

that a motion to adjourn could hardly be accepted at this time.

MR. KING:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, to clear up the incredible

situation we have here, the official opposition agrees to a temporary

recess. Hopefully the government will be able to get its act in order,

and will proceed in a businesslike way at that time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It seems to the Chair to be the best way to handle the situation before

us. Out of respect for His Honour, and in order to give both sides the

time which they have requested for a short meeting, I declare a recess.

The House took recess at 7:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:23 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

REPEAL OF THE OBSOLETE

STATUTES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Govemor:

a bill intituled Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, in order that the hon. members can consider the content of

the bill, I ask for a recess, if that satisfies the members of the

House.

The House took recess at 8:24 p.m.

The House resumed at 9:21 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36.

REPEAL OF THE OBSOLETE

STATUTES REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in

rising to move second reading of this bill before us, I want to thank

all the members for returning to the House at my invitation.

want to say in a very brief way, Mr. Speaker, that the simple case in

this matter is that during the final days of the sitting that just

adjourned, we passed

an act called the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act

which had embodied in it the repeal of some 62 old and redundant Acts,

some of them dating back to the days of Queen Victoria. In this

process, notwithstanding considerable care being taken, there was a

bill included in this list called the Seaboard Assurance Company Act

which goes back to 1953. It was not known at the time the repeal of

this bill was passed that there had in fact been a change of name and

this was the same company known today as Seaboard Life Insurance

Company, a very substantial insurance company operating in some four

provinces, I believe, in Canada with head office in British Columbia.

want to say that the error that was made was in including that Act in

this original piece of legislation. Further, the company is indeed

active and in good standing under this new name. Consequently the

original Act authorizing that company to operate should not have been

repealed. As I say, Mr. Speaker, an error was made in including this

Act in that original bill, primarily because of the name change.

This

matter came to my attention as recently as yesterday just before noon.

Exhaustive meetings went on to try to discover a means by which we

could find some alternative remedy other than to recall the House on

this occasion. These alternatives were examined in detail over many

hours. They would have been highly complicated and none of them as sure

or as satisfactory to the parties involved with this insurance company.

I'm referring to the shareholders, a great many of them, and to the

some 8,000 policy holders. So the conclusion was arrived at that the

only sure way to remedy the situation was in fact to recall the House.

Mr.

Speaker, I regret the necessity of having to call the members back, but

I think they agree that this was in fact necessary. I'm pleased to note

that in the process the official opposition in this House had gone on

record by way of communicating with the Speaker that they thought it

fit too that the House should be recalled to attempt to remedy this

situation. I'm pleased to see that they're in accord with what has been

done on this occasion.

A further word to explain, Mr.

Speaker. The bill was introduced on July 4 and was before this House

for some three and a half weeks prior to debate on July 30. I just note

that, not to make excuse for what happened, but to note that the bill

was there for anyone's inspection during that period of time, three and

a half weeks.

It's perhaps not necessary to emphasize the

urgency of this matter and why it was necessary to call everyone back

to this House on such short notice. Why is this an urgent matter? Mr.

Speaker, it's urgent because the confidence in a substantial financial

institution across this country is fundamental, because we have, as I

say, 8,000 policy holders. We have assets in this company of some $29

million and I don't know how many hundreds of millions of outstanding

policies — their face value I'm referring to — represented here. It is

highly important that this Legislature express the fact that the

confidence remains and that this

[ Page 1156 ]

was an unintentional removal of their authority which should be reinstated.

The

principle of this bill before us this evening, the Repeal of the

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, is simply to repeal the Act we gave royal

assent to on July 31. The members will note that having this bill

before us has the force and effect of being effective with the date

that the original Act was passed to take care of the intervening period.

It's

a very simple, straightforward piece of legislation and, in the opinion

of all those who were associated with putting it together, it is the

most positive way to deal with the situation.

I'd like to

explain, Mr. Speaker, that in doing so we recognize that we are, in

fact, removing the repeal of the other 61 Acts that were considered

appropriate to be repealed. We recognize this. The reason is that we

would like to be absolutely, positively sure before advancing further

repeal of redundant Acts that every possibility has been examined so

that such an instance would not occur again.

It's a simple,

straightforward bill repealing the original Act, and all those Acts

which were therein contained, as the most effective remedy, in effect,

to reinstating what has transpired insofar as this sizeable financial

institution is concerned.

I would urge members, Mr. Speaker,

having given the reasons why it was necessary to call all members back

to this House, to expedite the passage of this. Undoubtedly anyone may

wish to debate the matter, and they may wish to do so politically, but

I accept that.

I am urging early passage of this bill

because there are substantial numbers of innocent people who are

worried about their present situation. We have had calls in my office

today from numbers of policy holders who wonder about the status of

their situation if a person covered were to die tomorrow, et cetera. So

I am urging members, in consideration of that fact, to accept the need

for early passage and the urgency for presenting this bill.

the interests of the shareholders and policy holders and the many

people affected with this, I urge the cooperation of the members and

therefore move second reading.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of the official opposition, I rise as the designated speaker in this debate.

First

of all I would like to advise the government that we propose no undue

delay, no obstruction, no unnecessary delay of any sort to the passage

of this bill. We do have questions, we do have some arguments, but we

do not propose in any fashion to unnecessarily delay the bill. As well,

we intend to vote for the bill.

I would like to talk

briefly, if I may, about why it is we are here tonight. I want to talk

as well about how this came to happen. I want to talk further about how

this kind of situation can be avoided in the future. These are, for us

as well, important arguments as we debate the bill — debate why we are

here and debate what the minister just said.

We are here, at

least in part, because of a very considerable error — with even more

considerable consequences to it — made by the minister who just spoke.

We're here because this government, under what appears to be

considerable pressure within its own ranks, has made not just this

mistake but many other mistakes in the last several weeks. We don't see

just this disarray tonight, but we have seen much disarray in the weeks

past. We don't see simply this error tonight; we have seen many errors

in the weeks before. We presume that in part that's because they almost

lost on May 10; because in part this cabinet is in some chaos.

What

we are concerned about as this bill comes forward is that we may see,

if the government chooses not to learn from this ridiculous series of

errors they have made, that we'll be back here on some other night

trying to clean up some other Socred mess. That is also why we are

here, Mr. Speaker: not just to debate the bill but to debate, in the

narrow measure that the bill provides us, the wholesale incompetence of

that minister and his government.

Across the floor earlier

this evening the minister made a joke. He said: "This is deregulation

gone wild." If I've misquoted the minister, I'm sure he'll correct me.

Well, it is, in fact, deregulation gone wild, prompted by a government

that simply doesn't know, in the ordinary and correct process of

things, how to do its business. This bill is not the only evidence we

have that this government is not being run competently. There is much

other evidence; it's been referred to before and I won't refer to it

again at the moment. But this is the next, but presumably not the last,

in a series of wholesale errors and mistakes, run by a government that

is in internal chaos and dispute, that is suffering enormous problems

inside, the consequence of which seems to be that they were not able to

pay appropriate attention to the original Bill 20, and so now we have

Bill 36 instead.

The minister seemed to suggest in his

opening remarks that because the bill was on the table for three weeks

anyone could have had an opportunity to study it. The obvious

implication is, Mr. Speaker, that it is perhaps the opposition's fault

that we didn't catch the government's error. If that truly is the

government's position, I say again tonight in debate on this bill what

we said before: give us the research staff we need and we'll catch all

the errors you ever make. So by the government's own hint of it, we're

here tonight in part because the opposition has consistently,

deliberately and foolishly been denied adequate research staff.

How

is it that we found out about it and made the first announcement at 10

o'clock this morning? It was very simply this: I was in my office last

night at 5:30 waiting for a friend; I was reading statutes; I saw

Seaboard, and it occurred to me that I knew that company — they have an

office in my riding. Was it possible? Together with my colleagues, the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the second member for Surrey

(Mr. Hall) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), I

spent the evening making phone calls and doing the work that the

government itself apparently did not do prior to the introduction of

the bill which is being repealed by this bill before us tonight. We

spent the morning doing the same thing. We concluded around 9 o'clock

this morning that the government, in fact, had committed an

extraordinary blunder, the precedent for which cannot be found in the Journals of this Legislature, the precedent for which does not exist anywhere in the records of this province and this House.

Perhaps,

had we had adequate research staff when the bill came forward in the

first place, we wouldn't be here tonight. Your error would have been

caught long ago. As it

[ Page

1157 ]

is, we're here tonight in special session — at a

rather considerable cost to the taxpayer, it should also be noted —

because of the bungling and incompetence of this government, and their

unwillingness to spend the time they should governing, and their

apparent preferred willingness to spend time fighting among themselves

over ICBC announcements or whatever.

We're here tonight

because procedures are defective. It would appear that the minister who

sponsored the bill and the government minister who chairs the

government committee on legislation didn't even have the wit or the

sense to make a phone call to Seaboard in Vancouver. They're in the

phone book; I'll give you their number if you still don't have it;

they're in Victoria, too, if you've lost that phone book. They didn't

even have the common sense to do the sort of research that any clerk 1

would have had the common sense to do. Once again,it betrays a cabinet

in chaos, a government in disarray, preoccupied with their political

problems and seemingly unable or unwilling to spend the good time they

should examining their own legislation before it comes to the floor of

this House.

I'd like, if I may, to read very briefly from Hansard .

I'd like to describe, if I may, how it was that this came to happen, in

order that we can better understand how we should avoid having to come

back here on any other evening. In Hansard

we find that the minister introduced the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act

in the following way — and the words, I'm sure, will cause him some

ironic amusement: "It is with mixed feelings that I introduce for

second reading Bill 20, which is exactly what it says: Obsolete

Statutes Repeal Act. It's an honour to stand here and move for the

removal of some laws, rather than adding on some new ones." He goes on

to talk about a public servant, and to talk about how, through the

deregulatory process, they would like to bring in further lists for

removal of statutes, perhaps at the next session.

We would

like the government to be advised tonight that we are no longer

satisfied with those so-called guarantees that you've examined the

bills. We put ourselves on record as warning you that, if you come back

at the next session with lists of further statutes to be deregulated,

the second time around we're not going to have any confidence that

you've done your job properly. We have no such confidence tonight;

there's no reason to have it. We doubt very much that we're going to be

able to have such confidence in the future.

That's what the

minister said when he brought down the bill in the first place. What

did he say tonight? Well, the minister tells us that he knew some five

hours before we did that the company may well in fact no longer exist

in law. This is a very serious problem for those shareholders. To say

the least, it has endangered the confidence they have in their own

company. It is a very serious problem for the policy holders. Our

reading of the Insurance Act suggests — and this may not be correct —

that none of those policies is currently valid in the legal sense, and

that if any of those policy holders tonight, by virtue of the bungling

of this government, should have reason to make a claim, that claim

would not be honoured. It calls into question as well the possibility

of the civil liabilities that this government now faces, should any of

those policy holders, if their claims are not honoured, choose to

exercise their legal rights against this government. I trust that won't

happen; but because of the failure of this administration, the

possibility appears to exist in law that should a claim not be honoured

by virtue of the error of this government, the government itself may be

held civilly liable for any damages that could result.

What

did the minister say tonight? He said that he knew yesterday, before

noontime, that there was something wrong here, that the company might

no longer exist. I want, if I may, to read into the record information

we obtained this afternoon from the Vancouver Stock Exchange about what

happened to this company. It too calls into question the competence, or

lack of it, the speed, or lack of it, with which this government has

dealt with this problem. They knew at noon yesterday, and here's what

has happened since. According to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, Seaboard

Life Insurance Ltd., whose exclusive listing is at the VSE, traded a

total volume of 300 shares from July 16 to July 20.This may well, in

fact, be 150 shares — it depends on the nature of the transaction; we

can't tell. In the period July 23 to July 27, it traded 100 shares.

However, in the period of July 30 to August 1 this company studdenly

traded 6,400 shares.

This very evening we are trying to

determine the significance of this massive increase in trading on the

VSE. We don't know who had this kind of information. We know that the

minister had it as recently as noon yesterday. We also know that

trading of shares in this company was not suspended until 10:55 a.m.

today. While almost 24 hours went by, it would appear that this

minister had knowledge that this company no longer existed and thereby

could no longer sell policies, that it apparently could no longer

honour policies, and that it apparently had become an unincorporated

partnership of some 600 shareholders, each of whom was now personally

liable for the corporation's debts. From what the minister said

tonight, it would appear that for 24 hours this government was aware of

the extraordinary liability these shareholders now faced, and of the

extraordinary danger now faced by their policy holders. Once again,

this demonstrates gross incompetence on the part of that

administration. It is our opinion that trading should have been halted

instantly the government and the minister were aware that something was

wrong. The fact that trading continued in this massive volume — 6,400

shares in two days, as opposed to 100 shares or 300 shares traded in

the weeks before — tends to suggest that something peculiar was

happening. We don't know yet what it is. I make no accusation, other

than to point out that it is a very curious thing that such very

considerable volumes were suddenly being traded during part of the

period in which the minister now tells us he had knowledge that the

company had probably been wiped out by his own error. This too is one

of the problems posed by the utter incompetence of that minister and

his administration, and one that we have in debating this bill. We want

to know the standing of those shares and the validity, if any, of their

trading on the VSE. If they no longer existed as a company, how could

they be listed on the stock exchange? If they no longer existed as a

company, presumably they were struck off the register of the Insurance

Act, as, provided for in that legislation.

We know what the

minister said when he introduced the bill. He said: "It is with mixed

feelings that I introduce for second reading Bill 20." We know what he

said tonight, which was to admit that he sat on this information for at

least 24 hours before trading was suspended. We wonder

[ Page 1158 ]

what

he will say next time. We wonder what new excuses will be offered for

new blunders by a cabinet in chaos, that is so preoccupied with

politics and its internal problems that it can't do the job properly in

supervising legislation.

This government will, I think,

forever be tagged as the government that dumped Seaboard overboard. The

government will be forever tagged as those hopeless incompetents who

couldn't manage one solitary statute repeal Act without having to come

back three days later with something called the Repeal of the Obsolete

Statutes Repeal Act.

The performance of this government is

lamentable; it is a joke; it is a costly joke. Being here tonight costs

money, thanks to their error. It may be that individual shareholders

and policy holders will also lose money or the claim to it. It may be

that the company has lost business and thereby the claim to funds,

because of the errors of this government. The liabilities are

considerable at all those levels. They are the greatest, however, at

this level here in this House, because this minister failed utterly, as

did the chairman of the government's legislation committee, to do the

job properly. That's where the final responsibility lies. That is,

after all, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility under which we

have always operated in the British parliamentary system.

There

is, I suppose, one good thing in all of this; it's the only one I can

find: never again will any member of this House have to listen to a

speech from that minister or from any of his colleagues about the

alleged incompetence of some other administration. Never again, surely,

will even this coalition have the nerve to attack some other govemment

for some other imaginary incompetence, bungling or mishandling of

legislation. At the very least, we are now, at long last, no longer

going to have to put up with any of those nonsensical speeches,

especially from a minister who introduced two budgets in one month and

who admits tonight that he sat on this information for 24 hours. That's

the only good thing we can find about it.

We will vote for

the bill. We will not delay it unnecessarily or unduly. We will,

however, contemplate from time to time about how it is that a

government, purporting to be businesslike, could in fact do a piece of

business, the like of which we have never before seen in the province

of British Columbia. Some business people! Some competence! Some skill!

Some government!

We find it very hard to conclude anything

other than that it must be as many have speculated: the internal

problems of this coalition are enormous; the pressures on each of them

are enormous; their preoccupation with those problems is obviously

greater than their preoccupation with doing their job properly. We find

it hard to have confidence in this particular minister. We find it even

harder to have confidence in his government.

Of course we'll

vote for the bill. It was our House Leader who first telegrammed you

today, Mr. Speaker, recommending a session. Of course we'll vote for

the bill. It was our representative — myself — at 10 a.m. this morning

who told you you had to call the House tonight and pass a bill. We knew

all that. Of course we'll vote for the bill. But we have no intention

at any further instance of taking anything that minister says at face

value in regard to the alleged skill and discipline with which they

examine their own legislation. From now on legislation may take just a

little longer to pass this House. From now on it will be just a little

harder to have any confidence whatever in the minister who introduced

this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be long, not even the time permitted me in the House rules to participate in this debate.

I'm

unaccustomed to this reserved, almost humbling silence from the

government benches. Normally when an opposition member gets up to

speak, it is an opening for the rhetorical cat-calling, the hissing and

the smug burps and everything else that fly across the House when the

opposition speaks. But tonight they are strangely quiet. Perhaps it's

the new mood of humbleness that's overwhelmed them in the fact that

they've admitted they've made a human error.

I remember

cabinet colleagues of mine who did not wait 24 hours to speak about

errors they made, only to be subject to the most virulent abuse from

the then opposition benches, who were the most irresponsible group ever

to grace this House in opposition and the most incompetent to ever

grace this House in government, as proven tonight and why we're here

tonight.

This morning I was informed by our House Leader,

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), of what the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) had discovered and his plans to call a press

conference. At first I was surprised that indeed what was being

described to me was actually a fact. I asked the House Leader to double

check and I waited. He double checked and informed me, and he also

informed me of the action he was taking that he was going to request

that the House be called together.

Mr. Speaker, this is not

the first time that the House has had a request from our side to be

called together because of an issue. For the Minister of Finance to say

that he responded to that responsible call of the House Leader of the

opposition, let us understand very clearly that the government had

absolutely no option but to call this House together to clean up this

mess. There was no other way. But what is reprehensible, Mr. Speaker,

is that it appears that they have become humble in recognition of a

mistake only because they could not find any other way to deal with

this issue. The only reason we're here tonight is because the

government couldn't find another way to deal with this issue. There can

be no other explanation, Mr. Speaker, for the 24-hour delay in this

knowledge becoming public from the minister other than that they were

working that 24 hours hoping to find a way that would avoid the

conclusion that the first member for Victoria had discovered.

want to publicly say this about that member. He's young in years but

the wisdom and approach and service he has presented not just to

Victoria but to the province of British Columbia in his role has been

tremendously enhanced.

There is the unanswered question that

obviously relates to the fact that in my opinion the government tried

to stall for 24 hours. As a consequence, rather than grasping the

nettle immediately and picking up on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I

believe the Minister of Finance thought the problem could be swept

aside some other way. Instead of immediately recognizing the

significance of the blunder, and the responsibilities that went with

the blunder, the minister deliberately avoided for 24 hours contacting

the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which was the most obvious

[ Page 1159 ]

public vehicle still dealing with a company that was no longer in existence because of this error.

The

error is bad, Mr. Speaker. Incompetence may be levelled at the

government. But what is worse is fear-inspired action, or the lack of

it, because of the discovery of an error that may be embarrassing. What

we have witnessed is that fear inspired that minister of this

government to avoid facing the responsibility for 24 hours, avoid

alerting the press, avoid alerting the stock exchange, and attempting

to avoid the ultimate the discovery of responsibility of having to come

back to this House tonight. The original error is very human. The

original error, now found by Social Credit can happen to a government

in power. But the original error, Mr. Speaker, was compounded

deliberately by the fact that that minister had knowledge for 24 hours

and did not pick up the phone to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and

inform them.

I'll tell you something else that compounded

the error. Did the Premier attempt to contact me? To my knowledge, no.

Did the Minister of Finance attempt to contact the House Leader of the

government (Hon. Mr. Gardom) during that 24-hour period when he knew

about this? No. The House Leader was contacted, finally, at 1 o'clock

today, after the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) did his

responsible duty, as I was apprised of this morning, by alerting the

public and calling a press conference before the government even

publicly acknowledged that the error was there and that, indeed, some

people might suffer.

The question has to be asked: how much

longer would the public have had to suffer in the ignorance of the

blunder had it not been for the fact that the member for Victoria went

public on this issue?

A phone call to the Leader of the

Opposition, a phone call to the House Leader within hours after the

blunder was discovered and with the full knowledge that ultimately the

House would have had to be called would have gone a long way to add to

the credibility of the government that says now: "We're sorry, we made

an error." Mr. Speaker, the only reason they're now reaching for that

ground and 'fessing up is because there was no other option. The shame

is that 24 hours went by before they 'fessed up and faced the

responsibility of the fact that they had made a major error.

From

a personal point of view it is interesting to see that the government

has been humbled enough to admit an error. This is the first time since

this group came together as a coalition, after error after error, that

faced with no other option they finally said, at the eleventh hour:

"We've made an error and we've got to call the House together and we

ask for cooperation."

Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt in

their mind that the opposition wouldn't cooperate, that doubt was

inspired not on the basis of us, the New Democratic Party, but on the

basis of their remembering their own irresponsibility when they were in

opposition. Let me tell you, there sit in silence a number of those

members who smugly giggle and think back about their own behaviour: the

"not a dime without debate" irresponsibility; the filibustering for

hours on legislation that they are now praising; the behaviour by

member after member in the most abusive and vituperative manner,

delaying, stalling, attacking with personal attacks.

I hope,

Mr. Speaker, that there is some growth and maturity there among the

government benches. Not the new members; their habit patterns have not

yet been jelled. They will be congealed once the government decides who

shall be incorporated in the cabinet and who will be left to swim among

the back bench and survive among the barracuda. Because barracuda it

is. I believe that the caucus of the government was not notified or

called together at any time other than when they got the instruction to

get here; and they weren't fully apprised as soon as the government

knew. They weren't even apprised, as responsible representatives of the

people, of what the error was.

The minister talks about

confidence. The minister is an employer himself. I ask whether if the

minister had an employee that had led him to believe that the action he

had delegated to that person were correct and thorough and proper, only

to discover that a proper job was not done, the minister would fire

that employee. Or would he pat him on the head and say: "We're going to

erase this last 24 or 36 hours and say it didn't happen."?

Mr.

Speaker, the public of the province of British Columbia employs the

government of the day to be businesslike and responsible. It recognizes

that errors can take place, but no public can tolerate any minister who

deliberately avoids bringing this error to the public's attention for

24 hours. Any minister who keeps this kind of information from the

public after a blunder, and after an understandable human error, has to

ask himself what further use or what further role he can play in a

cabinet in terms of the very word that he tried to express about the

company's need, and that is the question of "confidence."

We're

not here tonight talking about the confidence of the company. We're not

here talking about some problem the company is having. We're not here

talking about their investments or their insurers or insurces. We're

not here talking about who's buying or selling shares under the curious

examination of what took place. It is not the confidence of the company

that is at stake here, as the minister is trying to slough off, Mr.

Speaker. It is the confidence in the minister and the government that

is at stake here.

For a government that claims to be

businesslike, it is understandable that errors can take place. For a

government to be businesslike, it is understandable to say there must

be confidence. But from a government that is supposed to be

responsible, there has been no public explanation of the delay in this

information being broadcast, and no explanation of the minister's own

role in undermining confidence in the company because of his mistake.

It should go on record, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no

question in the minds of the members of the New Democratic Party that

this company is any better or any worse than it was before this blunder

took place, and let not the minister imply that its confidence is at

stake. Every citizen of this province knows that that company stands on

its own record, regardless of the blunder by the government. To suggest

that its confidence is a question mark is to sluff off responsibility

for the very cause that brought us here. That very cause rests at the

doorstep, at the desk, under the pen of the minister.

Every

minister of the Crown is responsible when his or her name appears on

legislation. Questions must be directed to that minister: Did you

double-check before you signed that legislation? Were you satisfied

that every possible examination on the removal of legislation had taken

place? What fail-safe system was implemented to ensure that, by the

time the material came to you and you gave your signature to it, there

would be no such error?

[ Page 1160 ]

don't want anyone to think that this is nothing more than a little

mistake. It is a human error, something that this government has found

difficult to acknowledge. It is difficult for demogod arrogance to

recognize that, on occasion, humans make mistakes. But beyond the

mistake is the action of the government after the mistake was

discovered. That is the very serious question that has to be dealt

with. And it has to be dealt with more in the minister's mind and

conscience and in the Premier's mind and conscience than in any debate

taking place here tonight on this legislation.

I was asked

by a reporter who was coming to the chamber tonight whether we intended

to move a motion of non-confidence. Well, the backbenchers are in no

mood to vote for that, Mr. Speaker. They're lining up to get into the

cabinet, and they're going to give confidence no matter what happens —

until their stakes are over with. I turned to the reporter and I said

in a somewhat offhand manner: "It's not a question of non-confidence

tonight. Since this is a unique situation, for the first time it is a

motion of incompetence." Never before in the history of this province

has such a blunder taken place, and never before has there been such

incompetence in dealing with it, in terms of the indecent delay in

dealing with this matter.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to

reiterate the point made by my hon. colleague, who is even more

esteemed by our group now — if that is possible — because of the work

he did. That young man came to this House as an idealist, and he has

not yet been jaded by the cynicism of some of us who are a bit older

and greyer. I welcome his idealism, along with that of the other new

and younger members of this House. But, Mr. Speaker, let me make it

very clear that the statement he made about the opposition being cut

off at the pass for adequate research staff has come home to haunt the

government.

I know it is embarrassing for the government.

The Premier has candidly said that, and I welcome that candour from the

Premier. But once having admitted the embarrassment, we do need a

public explanation for the delay; and we do need a public explanation

as to why a phone call was not made to the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

want to thank all the MLAs who have come to the House tonight in what I

consider to be undue haste brought on by a government that, once

discovering it had made this error and that the only course to correct

the error was to call the House, hadn't even got itself together,

having been rattled by this mistake, to the point of putting things in

order before they got here. A few phone calls to the opposition, a

little understanding of the nature of this chamber, a little more

direct honesty as soon as information came to the minister's attention,

would have gone a long way and would have added to the idea that there

is some confidence in the government.

I'll put it squarely

this way. As far as I'm concerned, I have no hesitation with my

colleagues in supporting this legislation. These people are innocent

victims of human error that even Social Credit can make. But I'll tell

you that where I

part company in terms of support of this government

and calling this session tonight is the fact that there was a 24-hour

delay without a phone call to the opposition, a phone call to the

press, and a phone call to the stock exchange. That, Mr. Speaker,

beyond the human error, is inexcusable, deliberate, compounding of

keeping that information secret from the public while they scramble to

clean it up quickly by finding another way. That is inexcusable. And

let no citizen of this province forget that you ran for cover for 24

hours before you 'fessed up to your mistake. We hope that doesn't

happen again. Human error is understandable, but compounding it with

deliberate action of avoiding responsibility is inexcusable.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, it's a serious occasion when the House is recalled to

repair an error. I think the House should examine the error, and also

examine the things that have been already suggested on the floor of

this House tonight.

I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker,

some ideas about why these things happen. It's very easy to talk about

human error. We've already heard during the course of this 24 hours all

sorts of reasons why this kind of mistake may have happened.

notice, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is put forward again by the

Minister of Deregulation. I think that in itself is really the error

that is being made. The bill that was passed third reading at the end

of July and received royal assent was produced in the name of the

Ministry of Deregulation by the Minister of Deregulation, and it's all

part of a government public relations program. It's got nothing to do

with repealing obsolete statutes. It's got nothing to do with the real

honest-to-goodness work of a government, nothing to do with the real

honest-to-goodness work of a cabinet. It's the fulfilment of a bit of

PR. As long as you've got that kind of serving to be done, you are

going to find mistakes. The human error that will always accompany

human endeavour won't be picked up when you're serving other kinds of

criteria. The kind of criteria that are being served in this bill

again, because it's again in the name of the Minister of Deregulation,

is really public relations hype.

I've dealt in estimates,

Mr. Speaker — you won't know because you had left the chair — with the

kind of PR puffery that accompanies the statements from the Ministry of

Deregulation. I dealt at some length with the fact that all they'd done

was to erect a catalogue of some 400 letters. Indeed, when the minister

introduced the bill that we're now seeking to correct, he didn't praise

his own staff, didn't commend them for the work that on the face of it

the bill we're seeking to repair would convey. He congratulated the

work of a member for another department — the Attorney-General's

department.

Tonight I'd like to hear from a minister who's

got something to do with this particular mistake we're here to correct

— namely the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen). Maybe he's going to tell us something about what his

department did. How come his department didn't know something about

this? I hear in the corridors it might have been his department that

made the mistake, not the civil servant that was mentioned on the floor

of this House as having spent all these months collecting these 62

statutes. The fact of the matter is that now, Mr. Speaker, we've got

more statutes than we started with and we've got no further forward.

That's deregulation if you like. Around the corridors they're talking

about some kid, some third-year law student who boo-booed. That's very

convenient, very convenient. The fact of the matter is that it was the

Premier who made the mistake in the first place of trying to find a

cabinet position for somebody who wasn't and shouldn't have been in the

cabinet in the first place. Now the second member for Vancouver–Little

[ Page 1161 ]

Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is going to pick up all the marbles and take them home, and he's not competent to do that either.

The

whole question of deregulation has been a farce from start to finish

and will continue to be a farce. All that was needed in the first place

was a decent Attorney-General to step on somebody and say, "get this

work done," and a member of Treasury Board who will say: "cut out some

of the rubbish." I've said that over and over again, and that's all

that's required, instead of spending all this money and having to

apologize to people and cause all this trouble in the business sector.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to the Minister of Deregulation that you can get

all the help you want. You can be coached all you want by the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who's spent the last 10 minutes telling

you what to say. I've been watching him.

MR. LAUK: That would be your second mistake.

MR. HALL:

That would be your second mistake. All you need, Mr. Minister, from the

Minister of Education is the name of a good wine to drink with crow.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has just preceded me has very aptly

described this Ministry of Deregulation. A government that's talked

about cutting down the size of government, and is constantly trying to

hype up this situation, brings in this legislation which today we're

back here to repeal. I'd like to just say that I think that the whole

way in which this House was called into this special session is

shocking.

The minister says that he knew about this

yesterday. So what was plan one for the government and that minister?

Today I think we've seen plan two. They've come in here, made a clean

breast of things and said that they made a mistake, but only after the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought this to the public

attention. What was plan one? What were they doing for 24 hours? I

submit, Mr. Speaker, that plan one was a cover-up. They didn't want to

be revealed the extent to which they had bungled, and so they have

tried to cover up, tried to keep it silent, tried to cover up as they

did the illegal expenditures that were made in violation of the

Constitution Act by previous people. That has been their history.

Whenever they're in trouble they try to cover up. But this is one time

in which the ramifications out there were very readily understood.

Because when you have to finally suspend trading on the stock exchange

because of some government error, then you can no longer keep things

hushed up.

I am here at the behest of my secretary, Betty

Leech. That's the information that I had that the House was in session.

I came down because she is an honourable secretary and I take her word

on matters. But to my knowledge I had no official information that this

House was in session. It was called in session with undue haste. I

understand that your office was, as late as 4 o'clock, requesting the

current telephone numbers of hon. members. Yet I heard that it was the

intention to start to convene this House as early as 7 o'clock this

evening, when members were all over the province. In fact, if the

minister has given the assurances that policy holders and stock holders

will not be hurt, and that legislation will be brought in giving full

force and effect to the actions of the company as is proposed in this

bill, one would really wonder if we could not have convened this

Legislature.... I would hope that if future emergencies arise, we would

not act with such unseemly haste.

Mr. Speaker, the

government talks about us having this on the order paper for three

weeks. Yet ever since they have been elected they have been talking

about what they are doing in terms of the review of obsolete statutes.

The government has had four years to prepare this legislation. If they

had done anything in terms of looking at this legislation, I'm sure

they would have noticed that not only was this one of the bills passed

by this House, but as recently as 1971 amendments have been brought

into this House amending the original piece of legislation, which I

believe was passed in 1951.

I believe there are at least

five different bills pertaining to this private company which have come

through this Legislature since 1951 or 1953 when it was first

incorporated by

an Act of this Legislature. So how could that minister

possibly have missed this in bringing in such very, very important

legislation?

Mr. Speaker, the responsiblity for this cannot

be relegated to some clerk, or some summer help, or anyone else. The

responsibility for this Act lies clearly at the feet of the minister,

and I think that the minister should behave as anyone would expect in a

matter of this magnitude. We talk about responsible government. That

means that the person at the head, the person at the helm, is the

person who is responsible, and that minister bears the full

responsibility for this.

Before I sit down I'd like to send

a message to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The Minister

of Health also brought in one of these bills which we had a few days to

look at before the House Leader was asking for second reading, and

wanting committee reading the same day. That's what is leading us to

this kind of legislation — this attitude, this feeling that the

Legislature is just an administrative inconvenience for all of these

administrators over here. It's about time they started to pay some

attention to it.

There is a serious question now as to

whether members of the Ministry of Health are acting illegally in the

mental health field — I'm referring to social workers — because of the

hasty manner in which the minister brought in legislation. I want some

assurance that in two weeks from now we are not going to be brought

back into this Legislature. as we have been today, because of hastily

conceived legislation and because people working in the mental health

field under that minister are being fined $300 for a first offence and

are liable to imprisonment. This is the whole benchmark of this

government's current attitude towards legislation. It is worse in this

Legislature than it was in the previous one. Every day people get up

and say: "Oh, let's have leave to do committee. It's just a routine

bill.'' This was a routine bill. The minister got up and introduced it

in an almost jocular fashion. It has led to this tremendous impact on

the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and also to the expense of bringing us

back for this emergency session.

I would hope that this

minister and other ministers will think in terms of their

responsibility. I would hope that the Premier, the House Leader and the

whole cabinet would reflect on their attitude toward legislation. They

had a year and a half to get their legislative program ready. What did

[ Page 1162 ]

they

bring in? They brought in about 31 bills; they fouled up three of them

beyond recognition, and this one may be the most serious foul-up of

all. They've had a year and a half since the last session to get things

in order. They were having committee every night trying to get these

few bills ready for this session. With this particular piece of

legislation they've had four years to get it ready, and it has led to

this. I just hope that the whole works of them will take things just a

little bit more seriously in the future.

MR. LORIMER:

I left this place two days ago and didn't expect to be back this soon.

I notice that there's already a fair amount of difference in the

chamber. There's very little noise from the other side. It seems like a

different place altogether. I don't know what the reason is. I don't

know why we're being faced with this silence, and I don't know why some

of the members on the other side are not getting up to explain the

unexplainable.

The interesting thing that has come to light

is the 24-hour delay in advising anyone of the human error that

occurred, and failing to advise the Vancouver Stock Exchange or anyone

else. I wonder why this lengthy delay took place in such an important

area.

A number of questions arise from this legislation

which we're debating tonight. One thing that was touched on by my

colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was the question of

notice. At the adjournment on Tuesday, the motion was: "I move that the

House at its rising to stand adjourned until it appears to the

satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government,

that the public interest requires that the House shall meet." Then it

goes on: "Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has

been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated

in such notice." It doesn't state what length of notice. I received

word up in the Interior around 2:30 this afternoon — not from the

Speaker's office. I had no contact at all with the Speaker's office.

It's my opinion that it's not good enough to notify the different

political parties, but I think it's essential that we all represent our

own constituencies. We're all MLAs, and an MLA is entitled to proper

and sufficient notice. On hearing tonight that we could have had an

additional 24 hours' notice, it's a bit of a shocker to have to get to

a session without having time to pack or anything else. The

inconvenience is somewhat great.

The question of the

legality of this sitting is an issue which I think we should address

ourselves to. If anyone so desired, I would suggest that they could go

to court to determine whether or not this sitting in passing this bill

is a legal sitting. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that no court

would be satisfied with the notice given. And if anyone wished to set

aside our work tonight, I would certainly think that a court would undo

it quite promptly.

I think the next question we should look

at is what has happened to the assets of Seaboard Assurance Company. It

doesn't exist. We've forgotten that in the last three days they haven't

existed. In my opinion the assets of this company have probably

escheated to the Crown. The Crown now has the holdings of a corporation

called Seaboard. The minister was saying how worried the shareholders

and policy holders of Seaboard were, because they're no longer in

existence. I would suggest that I'd be worried too if I knew my assets

were in the hands of some car dealers. There is a lot of worry in

what's going on here tonight. I would just like to wind up by saying

how really disappointed I am in this minister. I thought he was one of

the more efficient ones in the group across the way.

MR. LEA: He is.

MR. LORIMER: If that is one of the most efficient ministers we have, I'm wondering what's happening to the rest of them.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I think it says something for the

MLAs who did gather on such short notice that we were able to get here

in such numbers with such short notice. Perhaps some of us, like

myself, didn't have an opportunity to get properly dressed, but at

least I did get here. I think it's pretty good that on the kind of

notice we were able to get for this session so many of us were able to

come. That's good for both sides.

As for the reason for us

being here, that of course is something else. Talk about a mountain

labouring and producing a mouse! We've had a Ministry of Deregulation

for a year and a half. All that it has to show for its activities in

that period and for the cost of running that ministry is Bill 20 that

we're discussing again this evening, except that this time we're

talking about getting rid of it. So in a year and a half a piece of

legislation is produced, and the result of that is that we have to be

back here in special sitting....

MR. LEA: The Premier says: "Just six months."

MR. STUPICH:

It certainly seems like a long six months. Okay, so it just took six

months to produce a bill that we now have to be back here this evening

to cancel. Since that's what we're here for, I thought I'd look at some

of the remarks made by the minister who introduced the bill, Bill 20.

quoting from his remarks: "Only a few of these statutes contained in

the present repeal Act are really causing us any trouble." I wonder

which one was causing us as much trouble as the one we're debating this

evening, or the one that is the reason for us being here. He didn't

identify any that were causing any trouble. As a matter of fact, he

divided the 62 statutes that were being cancelled into three

categories. One of them was described as "one-shot Acts" — for

instance, authorization of spending for a specific purpose, a

particular problem. Those were being gotten rid of. Now certainly they

weren't causing us any trouble, not nearly as much trouble as the one

that we're dealing with this evening. Second were those statutes which

are now redundant, no longer in use. Now those couldn't have been

causing us any trouble that I can think of. They couldn't have been

worth putting us through the trouble that we have been put to. Then

there are those that are obsolete. Those are the three categories of

bills that were introduced, or that were being dealt with in Bill 20.

He said that only a few of those were causing any trouble. I can't

imagine that any of them were causing us any trouble. I can't imagine

that any of them were worth the trouble that it took to pass Bill 20 in

the first place, let alone the trouble that it is putting people

through to reverse that one decision that was made by the Ministry of

Deregulation.

[ Page 1163 ]

Some

of the members opposite were fond of telling us on many occasions that

we couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want

any of them running my peanut stand or anything else.

think there's a much more serious aspect of this question, though, and

that hasn't been commented on by the minister who introduced the

legislation this evening. I don't know whether he was aware of the

extent to which stock trading was going on. Information was revealed to

the House this evening by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) who spoke about the volume, the regular volume between July 16

to 20 of 300 shares; July 23 to 27,100; and then suddenly July 30 to

August 1, 6,400.

The Minister of Finance told us tonight

that he knew some 24 hours ago about this. The Premier stood up today

and did a good job of apologizing on radio and TV — said they were

sorry they made a mistake, and had to admit it. It looked good, Mr.

Speaker, until we found out that he wasn't finding out just then, but

had known for some 24 hours. And from the moment that investigation

started, people in Seaboard Life Insurance certainly knew that

something was going on. Is that the reason for the sudden increase in

volume of trading?

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that the

Minister of Finance didn't know about this increase in volume of

trading. And I wonder why he didn't tell us about it this evening. I

wonder why he didn't make any comment about it. I wonder whether there

is any investigation going on to find out just who was trading stock.

Did somebody make money or lose money because of information that they

had that the government had made a mistake and was going to do

something different? The Premier didn't comment on this. When the

Premier stood up and told the people of British Columbia that the

government had made a mistake, that the government had erred, that was

very noble of him; but he didn't tell us that he, and a number of other

people, had known for 24 hours. He didn't tell us how widely that

information had gone abroad in the community in that 24-hour period

during which trading on the stock exchange had not stopped.

The

minister responsible for this legislation is taking the brunt of the

attack this evening. The Premier's just sitting back and letting it all

happen. But it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the person who is

responsible is the Premier himself. The Premier must have been informed

the moment the Minister of Finance knew about it. Yet the Premier did

nothing, and the Minister of Finance did nothing. Other government

members must have known; they must have known what was going on; they

must have known about the mistake. And yet collectively and

individually they took no step, until some 24 hours later, to start to

correct the error of their decision. It's not just the minister

responsible for this legislation who is under attack this evening. All

the cabinet members who were in on this decision suppressed this

information for some 24 hours, suppressed it from the public,

suppressed it from the House, and yet did not suppress it from the

business community. Those are the people who have to bear the

responsibility for what has happened. And we just don't know the extent

of the damage done. The Minister of Finance could have told us more, I

think, but chose not to. Hopefully, he'll answer some of these

questions when he closes second reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't want them running your peanut stand would you?

MRS. WALLACE: You know, there is nothing worse than uncertainty or confusion in the state of the law.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who told you to say that?

MRS. WALLACE:

Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of the

minister when he introduced the bill to get rid of what he thought were

obsolete statutes: "There is nothing worse than confusio, in the state

of the law."

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight faced with

some very grave confusion in the state of the law as a result of the

inefficiency of this government. They're not only inefficient. Why did

it take so long for this to become public? The minister has admitted

that he know that there was an error as early as 10:30 yesterday. Why

did it take so long? Was there an intent to try and keep it quiet? To

try and find a way around it? To try and keep the public from finding

out how badly this government had goofed? It was an attempted coverup

that left stockholders and shares open to abuse in the marketplace. I'm

convinced that's what it was,

It was only after the public

announcement by this party, by the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber), that the minister came forward and admitted his mistake. And

even at that time he was still saying we were all wrong, that there was

no need for a session of this Legislature. He was attempting to cover

up, and not even facing up to his responsibility as a minister to make

sure that the stockholders were protected, that the shareholders were

protected, that the company was protected and that the Legislature was

aware of the problem — not even an attempt to do so for 24 hours.

And

then what do we get, Mr. Speaker? We get a rush session. Even though

this legislation has one of those Socred retroactive clauses which is

supposed to protect everything, which has to be in in this case because

of the bungling in the first place, we're rushed back here without any

notice, as far as I'm concerned, from the Speaker's office or from the

government benches. There was a phone call from my secretary to my

constituency representative, who finally contacted me at 5:15 tonight.

And I live very close to the capital.

It's amazing to me

that so many of us have gathered together. I think it's only through

the efforts of the two political parties that made sure they got their

troops here rather than any procedures that should have been followed.

Because certainly I would suspect that nearly every member who is here

is here not because of any official notice they've received, but rather

because of an unofficial notice. It's very wrong to have to rush into

that kind of procedure. They're always rushing into things, trying to

cover up, and trying to correct some problems that have existed. And

that's just typified in this particular section.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'm

wondering how in the world this ever happened that we find in this list

of obsolete statutes a company that is still active. I had occasion

just the other day to pick up the phone and phone the company

registrar's office. You know, if you're an MLA it doesn't even cost you

50 cents to get that

[ Page 1164 ]

information.

You can just phone. I picked up the phone and I wanted to inquire about

two companies. I had that information within about three minutes. Both

of those companies had changed their name in the course of time from

the name of the company that I was asking for. One of them had

disbanded; the other one was still active. I had all that information

within about three minutes. Yet this particular minister includes in

this bill a company that is still registered, still active, still

reporting.

Where is his direction? Do we have to blame this

minister or do we look at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)? It's his responsibility as far as

registration of companies go. I guess we couldn't have a worse

combination for efficiency than the Minister of Finance and the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it's obvious in this

bill that's before us tonight.

One of the worst features is

that here we have a Minister of Deregulation with a double portfolio,

and that's probably one of the reasons. This government is great at

double portfolios and it happens all the time. The other day in the

Legislature I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about

a report. He told me he had filed it in his estimates, and yet he filed

it the next day in the Legislature. That's the kind of thing that

happens when you have doubling up of portfolios. There's no time for

that minister to deal properly with the problem that he has before him.

That's one of the reasons why we have this problem here — doubling up

of portfolios, not enough attention to what's going on.

wonder how many hours all told have been charged up to the Ministry of

Deregulation — hours and hours and dollars and dollars of taxpayers'

money — and they finally came up with 62 bills that they were going to

get rid of. Now, because of one error, we're going to wipe the whole

thing out and start from scratch. That is a dastardly waste of

taxpayers' money, a dastardly waste. The only reason I'm glad they're

wiping the whole thing out is that if there is one error in here, I

wonder how many other errors there are in here. Because this minister

is noted for errors.

It was interesting that when I came

into my office tonight I found a letter on my desk. Who do you suppose

it's from? It's from the Minister of Finance. And what is it? "A copy

of the revised regulations regarding eligibility requirements for

income tax credits for contributions to candidates in political parties

in respect of provincial political purposes is enclosed." A revised

list.

MR. BARBER: We've only had it for two weeks.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, we just got it two weeks ago. That minister is so busy revising

things he doesn't have time to carry on his business. You know,

everything he does is wrong. And this is just one more example. We had

two budgets. You know, he can't get anything right. Every time

something is wrong. That costs the taxpayers all kinds of money. I

wonder how much it's going to cost the taxpayers for this session

tonight. Private planes were running all over this province bringing

people in here. I would estimate $100,000 at least, Mr. Speaker, just

to correct this one error. And that government has the audacity to sit

over there during a session and blame the opposition for delaying

tactics. You know, next session we're going to be much more careful;

we're going to spend much more time. We're going to have to take that

time to ensure that our very limited research staff has time to

research the legislation you bring in, because we can't trust you to

have it right.

I'm concerned about the bill itself, in that it disallows the

Interpretation Act. I know the

Interpretation Act makes provision for

that; but I suggest it's a very dangerous precedent when we start doing

things like this, because that

Interpretation Act is in place to

protect the democratic process of this Legislature. It's there for a

purpose, and when we start making retroactive legislation to correct

errors, and do it in such a way that we have to disregard statutes of

this Legislature, it creates a very dangerous precedent. I think the

least that minister could have done, when he found he had made a

mistake, was to bring in a proper bill under the standards that are set

by this Legislature, without having to disregard

an Act that is there

to protect the democratic process. That bothers me very much. What

bothers me as much as the extra cost, as much as the goof, as much as

anything that has happened here is the fact that we are disregarding

the democratic processes that are set up, and the Act that is in place

to protect those democratic processes. I know the provision is allowed

there, but that is for extreme emergencies. There was another way that

this could have been handled, and I am very upset that the minister has

chosen this way to bring in this legislation.

It is time that that minister reviewed his responsibilities,

because I believe that minister has more than he can handle in one

ministry, let alone in two. To make that man responsible for something

like this has certainly shown that we're not getting our money's worth

for his attempts to do something that sounded really good. Deregulation

wa a political gimmick. A lot of people were concerned about the red

tape that they were faced with, that's true; but there is nothing in

this bill that is being repealed that did anything to reduce the red

tape. This was not a bill to reduce red tape; this was a red herring to

make the public think that that minister was doing something. All he

did was create greater confusion, and yet that's the minister who

introduced this bill and said that there was nothing worse than

confusion in the law. That's the minister who is causing the confusion

in the law.

MR. KING: First of all, before making some comments with respect to

the particular bill that is before us this evening, and the problems surrounding

it, I would like to read into the record a telegram that was sent to the Speaker

earlier today under my signature, on behalf of the official opposition. Since

it was referred to in part, I think it is only appropriate that I read it into

the record and explain precisely why it was sent. The telegram was sent to Hon.

Harvey Schroeder, Speaker of the Legislature, and it says:

PASSAGE OF THE OBSOLETE STATUTES REPEAL ACT HAS RESULTED IN

THE REMOVAL OF AUTHORITY FOR AN ACTIVE COMPANY, NAMELY THE SEABOARD LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, LIMITED, OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, TO ENGAGE IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.

ACCORDINGLY POLICY HOLDERS AND SHAREHOLDERS IN THIS COMPANY ARE PLACED IN GRAVE

FINANCIAL JEOPARDY. PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COMPANY CAN ONLY BE IMPAIRED AND

ERODED BY THE HIATUS CREATED THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL. IT WOULD APPEAR

NECESSARY TO RECONVENE THE LEGISLATURE TO REPAIR IMMEDIATELY THE GRIEVOUS INJURY

VISITED UPON THE COMPANY. SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO NOTIFY AND TRANSPORT MEMBERS

BACK TO VIC-

[ Page 1165 ]

TORIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS YOUR PLEASURE TO RECONVENE

THE LEGISLATURE. RECOGNITION OF THE EMERGENT NEED TO ACT, COUPLED WITH RECOGNITION

THAT MEMBERS ARE, IN MANY CASES, HOLIDAYING IN ISOLATED AND DISTANT LOCATIONS,

REQUIRES REASONABLE NOTICE AND SPECIAL TRAVEL ASSISTANCE. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED....

A copy was directed to the House Leader.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I had discussions with the

Minister of Finance this afternoon, as well as the Premier, and, while

I recognized the emergent nature of the business before the House, I

did not feel that it was so emergent that it could not have kept until

tomorrow morning, which would have provided ample time to respect the

right of each and every member of this Legislature to be notified and

to have the opportunity to travel to Victoria to attend this session,

as they were elected to do.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it

grieves me and concerns me when the reconvening of the Legislature is

apparently predicated upon the instructions of the Minister of Finance,

rather than upon the Speaker's calculated consideration and duty to

protect the rights of each and every member of the Legislature in terms

of meeting their duties and obligations here.

The minister

opened his remarks tonight by saying: "You are returning to the House

at my invitation." I suggest that that is a scandalous comment for the

minister to make, one which compromises the impartiality and the duty

of the Speaker's office, and is hardly calculated to instil confidence

in the members of this institution that, indeed, their rights and their

independence as members of this Legislature are being protected by the

Speaker of the House, rather than dictated by the government. That, to

me, is a very, very important principle. Even in the face of emergency

and even in the face of grave emergency, we must never let the rights

of parliament be trampled and ignored, nor should we, in reacting to

emergencies, in any way breach the civil rights of citizens. Sometimes

in the name of emergency, governments have been known to take unusual

and dangerous actions. That's why I raise this matter tonight as one of

sincere and very deep concern.

The minister said that

exhaustive studies to find alternatives to calling the House had been

undertaken by his ministry — and presumably by his cabinet colleagues.

He said that they had been working on a solution since 2 p.m.

yesterday. Again, I ask what kind of mentality it is that has such

little regard for the Legislature that they would seek to undo a

legislative statute, duly passed through this House, by some

administrative procedure in the secrecy of the cabinet room. What kind

of mentality would seek to provide that kind of secret back-room

solution to a problem which was created by a bill passed through proper

debate and through the legal process vested in this Legislature in the

province of Britsh Columbia? That is a dangerous kind of admission.

What we have here is not just proven incompetence and scandalous

bungling. It's both those unfortunate circumstances, followed by two

admissions which scandalize the traditions of this House, which

compromise the integrity and impartiality of the Speaker's office, and

which run roughshod over the rights of members of the Legislature. It

shows complete disdain for statute law, properly passed through this

Legislature, by an open admission that he sought to remedy, and bypass,

that statute "by working on a solution since 2 p.m. yesterday as an

alternative to calling the Legislature."

Do these people

really understand what the responsibilities of government are? Do they

really understand the traditions and the basic underlying principles of

parliament in a free, democratic society? I find it absolutely

astounding that the kind of statements the minister made tonight would

be uttered in the year 1979 by a supposedly modern government. These

are the kinds of things blood was shed for in the past by

parliamentarians to protect their rights and freedom to represent all

of the people of free nations.

I don't believe it's a

conspiracy. I believe it's shocking ignorance. I believe it's very,

very dangerous — the offhand, cavalier way the minister admits: "Oh,

yes, we sought to circumvent the statute. We sought to circumvent the

parliament of British Columbia by finding a solution, an alternative to

calling you back to deal with our error." It was presumably out of

embarrassment, and presumably out of the desire to hide their

incompetence, and presumably out of the desire to maintain their shame

in the secrecy of the cabinet room, That's shameful and dangerous.

There

are questions to be asked about this bill. There are questions to be

asked regarding the trading which took place on the stock market in

Vancouver. Again, I think it's shocking. I think it's inexcusable and

inadequate for the minister to introduce this bill without giving the

Legislature some indication of the damage, impact and effect the

government error may already have had in the business and financial

community of this province and, indeed, other provinces. The minister

never gave any indication. Has the minister made inquiries as to who

apparently developed the run on these shares on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange? Who bought them?

I believe that the Premier of the

province should have issued a statement as soon as this oversight and

error was revealed and known, instructing Crown corporations dealing in

the financial sector not to purchase any shares in this particular

company while the hiatus of its charter removal was unresolved.

MR. LEA: Did the Premier know?

MR. KING:

Did the Premier know? Did the Premier issue any instructions to BCRIC,

for instance, that no shares must be purchased in this firm? These are

valid questions. The Premier and the minister should have addressed

themselves to these particular questions. I find their position very

incompetent and really infantile in terms of how they grappled with the

problem.

Mr. Speaker, I found the minister's comments

instructive when he introduced the bill, and I know some of my

colleagues have quoted from them. I suppose it's hard to resist

pointing out the irony that resides in the minister's comments when he

introduced the statute. He explained he had "mixed feelings" about it.

I imagine those feelings are still in turmoil and very mixed tonight,

and I sympathize with him to some extent there. But I do say to him

that the worst error and the worst sin that any minister of the Crown

can commit, in my view, is to seek to evade responsibility for his

ministry and staff. To suggest by rumour and inference that some

obscure staff person, whether of senior or junior level, is the one

responsible for the error is to abandon ministerial responsibility,

which some members may smirk about, but it is a long-standing tradition

and tenet

[ Page 1166 ]

the British parliamentary system. Unless members of the government

understand and respect that principle, then we shall continue to have

shoddy and inept government in the province of British Columbia.

The

minister, ironically, went on...and I would just like to quote a few

classic lines which, I imagine, will come back to haunt that minister

for many years to come. He said: "I would like to make it clear that by

indentifying these statutes which are no longer necessary, we hope this

will be an ongoing process." Well, Mr. Speaker, if it's going to be an

ongoing process, I want to make a recommendation to the minister and to

the government, in good conscience, as to how this process may be

improved. Then we may have some confidence that they are not in fact

making colossal boo-boos, and deep-sixing active trading companies who

are out there in the business community of British Columbia at the

present time.

MR. LEA: Where will he strike next?

MR. KING:

Where will he strike next? It was Richard Nixon's advisers who first

came up with the phrase: "We have to deep-six this one." I think that

was the reaction of the cabinet when they were confronted with the

colossal error they had made. They said: "We've deep-sixed the company.

Now we have to deep-six our responsibility for facing up to this

shemozzle."

I want to suggest to the minister that if we are

to be confronted in the Legislature with more statutes for repeal of

obsolete statutes, he refer the statutes contained in such

recommendations to a standing committee of this Legislature that was

established during this session to deal with statute revisions. I would

point out, Mr. Speaker, whether it is coincidental or not, that Dr.

Gilbert Kennedy is working on those revised statutes. This is an

essential function and is simply improving language in statutes that

are very old, and bringing them up to a contemporary standard. Surely

if it's necessary to strike a standing committee of this Legislature to

deal with updating of language in old statutes, then it is doubly

important to refer statutes which the government proposes to repeal to

that same committee for consideration. That seems fairly fundamental,

and it seems to me an adequate safeguard to make sure that no other

company has to rely on the tender mercies of this minister to maintain

their function and their role and their activities in the business

world. I think that is something worthwhile doing and I think it is

common sense, and the government should certainly look at it. It's a

standing committee made up of members from both sides of the House, and

I think this would be a useful purpose for it.

I just want

to say before I sit down that I've looked at the statute, and I want to

read it again for the benefit of the members of the Legislature

themselves and also for the benefit of the draft people — I think

they're up there — and for the guests, and Hansard , and the

press gallery, and the Pages, because, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you

that this moniker, this handle is going to become synonymous with

Social Credit in the annals of British Columbia parliamentary history —

and it's a dandy: Bill 36, Repeal of the Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act.

I want to suggest to you that only a Premier of the province of British

Columbia who is steeped in the traditions of politics, as he was from

childhood, could come up with a handle like that — only the Premier of

the province could come up with something like that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

for the bill itself, it too is very fascinating. I'm not going to

equate it in any philosophical way with Il Duce, the man who was going

to make the trains run on time, and the man who was going to rewrite

history. I wouldn't equate it with his undertakings in any

philosophical way, but in terms of the language I think all members

should listen to what it says: "The Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1979,

shall be conclusively deemed not to have come into force, and is

repealed." Mr. Speaker, if we never had the rewrite of history in the

province of British Columbia before, we have it today — 1984 visited

upon us, five years in advance. It shall be conclusively deemed to have

never happened because Social Credit did it. Isn't that a dandy?

MR. BARNES: I wish we could say that about everything they did.

MR. KING:

The second

section is same as the first. It says: "Everything done in

accordance with the provisions of any of the Acts referred to in the

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act, 1979, between July 30, 1979, and the day

this Act comes into force shall be conclusively deemed to have been

done with full legal capacity." Poor company! It was deep-sixed; it was

out of existence for four days. It did business; its shares traded on

the stock market; but now, through retroactive legislation of the most

spectacular kind of language, it shall be deemed by Social Credit to

have had full legal authority to do so, and the Act which offends it

and deep-sixed this company shall, for the purposes of Social Credit,

be deemed never to have happened. Now that is interesting.

You

know, I can just imagine what would have happened had the NDP ever

brought in legislation which sought to rewrite the history of this

chamber in that fashion, I should not have been surprised if under

those circumstances the Premier had run out and rented a hall and said:

"Not a dime without debate; no repeal without authority." Remember what

he did? He'd have gone out and rented a hall, first thing; then he'd

have hid in his office for three days.

Mr. Speaker, it's

unfortunate. I am very concerned about a variety of the principles

involved here. I intend to speak, sir, with you and with the

appropriate committee of this House with respect to the introduction of

rules which guarantee to every member of the Legislative Assembly that

except in the most dire emergencies which threaten the health, safety

and welfare of the people of British Columbia, adequate and proper time

be taken to not only notify members, but to make sure that all of those

who are able have the time to arrive and participate in the

Legislature, which they were elected to do. Quite frankly, it alarmed

me when the minister opened his remarks as he did. With all due respect

to your office, sir, I am sure that on reviewing those remarks you also

could not help but be concerned, and that you would want to see

something done to ensure that this kind of questionable recall never

occurs again. Whether it be in response to something important or in

response to just a government whim, the rights of each and every member

of this Legislature must override government needs, except in the case

of a grave emergency which could in some way jeopardize public health

and

[ Page 1167 ]

safety. This is something all of the legislators should take under advisement and should view in a very serious manner.

MR. LEVI:

I hope that the minister exhibits a great deal more candour in closing

the debate than he did when he opened it. I would expect that he would

be able to tell us some of the circumstances surrounding how in fact he

discovered the predicament which he's in right now. From what we read

in the newspaper and from what we hear from various people, we can only

deduce that the mistake was first observed by people connected with the

company, not by the government. Perhaps the minister would tell us if,

after having found out the mistake, he discussed the matter with the

president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Did he call the president of

the company? Did he speak to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who has responsibility for the

administration of the Securities Act? Did he d any of these things? We

don't know. We are left doubting that in fact he did anything. It's

been strongly suggested from this side that for 24 hours he did

absolutely nothing.

The minister tells us that what is

important is to re-establish confidence so that the company can

continue. The company published a quarterly report in May, dealing with

their operations for the first three months of this year, which says:

"Commenting

on this year's first-quarter results, President J.M. Burnett says

Seaboard Life Insurance Company experienced significantly higher claim

ratios on both disability and life insurance compared with the

equivalent period in 1978.

"Some improvement

occurred in March, and hopefully this trend will continue.

Administrative and selling expenses showed virtually no change over the

comparable period. However, with a vigorous sales year ahead,

management expects these costs to rise."

They showed a net

profit of $270,000, and 50 cents on each share for the first quarter.

That is the situation of that company some two months ago. The minister

should tell us exactly what he did when he found out that there was a

problem. I would think that, as a matter of courtesy, he would talk to

the company. Has he spoken to the people in the company? He assured

them through the press that everything would be okay: "We'll go back

into the House and we'll remedy it."

In relation to the

legislation, it's a little difficult to understand why this particular

problem was overlooked by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), After

all, nine years ago in this Legislature there was a great debate going

on about Seaboard Life Insurance Company. The AttorneyGeneral had a lot

to say in that debate about the problems of Seaboard Life, Columbia

Beneficial Holdings, CanAmera and all those companies that were

involved at that time. He knew about it. We don't know whether he had

an opportunity to run his finger down the list to see whether he

recognized any of the companies. The whole business of putting together

Acts that are going to be repealed is not new. The statute-law reform

problem has been in existence for a long time. The former deputy

minister in the Attorney-General's ministry has been working on it for

some six years. It's not a new thing. The minister would have us

believe it's new; but, in fact, it is something that has been going on.

One is a little taken aback by some of the particular statutes that he

feels need so urgent a repeal.

All of the time that we've

now spent assisting this minister in repairing some terrible damage

that he's done we could have very valuably spent in this House debating

other ministers' bills — perhaps the question of children's legislation

which still hasn't been brought forward. But no, we're here trying to

bail this minister out of a terrible mess.

That party, Mr.

Speaker, put out a research newsletter, series 2, volume 4, July 27,

1979, and there's a little item dealing with the Minister of Finance

and Deregulation. It's headed: "Cleaning House, Deregulation Wields a

Big Broom. "

"The Minister of Finance and Deregulation, Evan

Wolfe, has introduced in the Legislature The Obsolete Statutes Repeal

Act, which the minister described as the first cut in the government

program to eliminate redundant or obsolete statutes." The first cut:

"Mr. Wolfe cited the Goat-breeders' Protection Act, Threshers' Lien

Act, and Sales on Consignment Act as examples of statutes which no

longer serve any purpose except perhaps to confuse."

He's

right, and in making the statements that he did about these particular

statutes he completely overlooked the one statute that has resulted in

the tremendous blunder that has taken place. That's why we're here

tonight.

I would urge that the minister exhibit some candour

and tell us in some detail if he will just what he did when he

discovered or was informed that there was an error. Because that is

important. It's more important than standing up and telling us that

they're going to take their first cut at deregulation and they're going

to repeal the Goat-breeders' Protection Act. He can't blithely talk

about confidence, because he knows as well as anybody else that there

are some very serious problems out there in respect to the way this

government keeps intruding itself into the marketplace and into the

business community. This is another example. We don't know until we go

through, as he apparently is going through now, the rest of the 63

bills to find out if they've made a slip-up there. One wonders how one

makes the decisions to put those pieces of legislation into a bill —

whether, as my colleagues have suggested, somebody does a check, sends

a letter to the registrar of companies and gets confirmation in writing

as to whether these still are active companies. Or do they have some

students sit down and go through the bills and look for that

section

which says: "And this Act is now repealed."? After all, that's what the

companies office is there for — to supply information on request. It

seems to me that that's the logical process to follow. Perhaps the

minister will tell us what kind of process they did follow. What kind?

lt's not good enough for him to tell us that the company changed its

name. That's part of the problem that we've got tonight. A company

changed its name and it was eliminated.

The House Leader for

the NDP has gone into some detail on the kind of charade that exists

within the bill about rewriting history. It makes one wonder, when

we're going through the whole business of statute reform and improving

the language so that it is understandable, that this is a perfect

example of what we've got to look forward to down the road when they

get through simplifying the legislation and the language. Because there

are very few people that can understand this kind of language. It's

[ Page 1168 ]

might very well address himself to in the whole question of deregulation that he's so interested in.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister again, I would urge him, to be frank

with us about exactly what happened. Because accusations have been made

that for 24 hours he appeared to do nothing until that stock was

suspended on the stock exchange. If that's not the case, then in

closing the debate let him get up and deny it and tell us exactly what

happened. All we ask is a great deal of candour, and that will do more

in the eyes of the public, who expect to get a better degree of

behaviour from that minister than him just saying, or as the Premier

said: "We're sorry, we made a mistake." We don't know how sorry they

are. We don't know whether they're sorry because it's political, or

whether in fact they're sorry because people are now troubled by the

fact that they may not have any investments at the moment. They don't

know where they're going. We don't hear the government or the minister

saying that they've created possibly an enormous financial loss to

those companies.

What are we going to get down the road — a

series of lawsuits? And what is the government going to do about that?

There's been no indication from the minister at all as to what the

government is prepared to do to remedy that particular problem when

people are going to have to spend large amounts of money for lawyers to

seek some kind of recompense from the government, because they made the

mistake and not the company, and not the people who have investments in

there. He should address himself to that when he's closing the debate.

He should recognize now that when he started to introduce this bill,

nobody over here treated him seriously in the remarks that he made in

presenting the bill. If he wants to have any credibility at all, then

he had better express with a great deal of candour what happened, and

what he intends to do in the future. Otherwise it becomes nothing more

than a joke, and a meaningless gesture on his

part in the business of

repealing. Some serious charges have been made, and that minister has

an opportunity to give us a clear picture of exactly what has happened.

He's the only one that knows the facts and he's the one that has to

tell us, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what we

are seeing is the old pull-the-wagons-in-a-ring act by the Social

Credit again. You see, the minister is in trouble, and what they do all

the time is pull the wagons in a ring on one side of the pasture and

let the burning wagon go over the cliff.

Where are these

other ministers who are partly responsible for this error? Where is the

minister who is in charge of the securities division of government, who

obviously has some stake in what's happened to Seaboard, and to make

sure that it can't happen again, and to explain why in his ministry

there are not procedures to make sure that it didn't happen this time?

Why isn't the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) taking his place in this debate to shoulder some of the

responsibility? Obviously some of it is his. What about the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who sits as chairman of the legislative

process? Where is the Minister of Labour tonight? Why isn't he standing

up talking about his lack of accountability in this matter? Why aren't

those two ministers also taking their place?

Why isn't the

Premier taking his place in this debate to explain government's

position in the overall? Because those ministers' wagons are not on

fire. They're circled on that side of the pasture, and this poor

minister, whose wagon is on fire, has been pushed over the cliff by his

colleagues from the coalition. It's just lovely.

What kind

of powers did they use to rectify this error? Could they be called

sweeping? I mean, are they the kind of powers that democratic

goverments use every day? Obviously not, because we have a situation

that doesn't happen every day. We don't normally have a complete

company wiped out by a mistake of the government. But today we have

that so we need some extraordinary powers to take care of an

extraordinary situation, and so the minister is left on his own.

How

did he handle it? Immediately upon finding out that he had a problem,

did he do those things that he should have done as the Minister of

Finance — notify the Premier, notify the Minister of Corporate and

Consumer Services, notify the Minister of Labour responsible for the

legislative committee? Did he do any of those things? Or did he say:

"Maybe we can sneak by and nobody will ever find out."?

think, Mr. Speaker, that's what he did. There was no admission that it

had happened and no "I'm sorry" until the official opposition, the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), pointed out that it had been

done, even though he says he had information 24 hours prior to the

announcement being made by the NDP. So what did he do in those hours?

Well, the kind of powers that he's using to rectify the error would

almost seem like the powers of an emperor. When I say "emperor," Mr.

Member, I don't mean the kind of decisive, authoritative decisions that

an emperor would make, but more like Nero, who fiddled and played while

Rome burned. As a matter of fact, I think we can call this the "Nero

Wolfe Act, 1979, " because that's how he's acted — like a person who

panicked for fear of losing his job; a person who panicked because he

didn't want to have the Premier angry at him — and the Premier probably

is a little angry at him over this, as probably the Premier is a little

angry with the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs and the

Minister of Labour for allowing it.

But you know, Mr.

Speaker, it's not the first time that this minister has done this sort

of thing. It's not the first time he's made an error; it's just the

first time he's said: "I'm sorry."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

member, may I just interrupt you a moment to remind you of the scope of

debate in second reading, and that debate on stages of the bill should

be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of

administration. Although the Chair has been very lenient, nonetheless I

do not believe that we can build an entire debate on a criticism of

administration. Perhaps you could use that as a guideline. Please

proceed.

MR. LEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I'll

try to do, then, is bring it down to the debate of universal good or

evil, because I don't see how we can discuss that without talking about

the administrative bungling that caused us to be here tonight. That's

what we are here to talk about: why we have a need to be in this House

to debate this bill in the first place and, I think, to point out, as

is our duty to the public of British Columbia and to those members who

weren't here prior so that they can take it back to their constituents

and tell them all about it, that this minister has goofed time and time

and time again.

[ Page 1169 ]

The

first budget that he brought in.... He brought in two budgets. That was

also a mistake. He just didn't say: "I'm sorry." Did you know that? He

read one budget in this House, and then when he sent it out to the

people he changed it. Now that's the kind of mistake that the minister

made before. He didn't say he was sorry. At that time they had a few

more seats in the House than we had, quite a few, so they weren't sorry.

What

was the next thing he did? He went around this province inferring that

Clarkson Gordon did an audit of the books of British Columbia when that

isn't true — another mistake of this minister. He didn't say he was

sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I trust that soon

you'll be bringing the debate back to the principle of the bill, and

perhaps leave the central tenor of the debate which seems to have been

a criticism of administration. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: Yes, it is a criticism of the administration. That's what the bill's all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is exactly what is out of order in second reading. Please proceed.

MR. LEA:

Well, Mr. Speaker, how in the world can we talk about this bill, which

is because of administrative bungling, without talking about

administrative bungling? It's impossible.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am simply reminding you of the rules which you have placed in my hand. Please proceed.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'll take you back again to a cheque in ICBC, again

handled by this minister, a cheque that he wrote to ICBC as a grant,

and two days later borrowed back as a loan because he said that ICBC

needed the money — another administrative bungle. And at that time,

with over 35 seats, he didn't say he was sorry.

Now we can

only surmise that the reason the minister's sorry that he had to come

in with this bill is that he got caught, and he got caught when they

were only three members above not being government at all. That's the

only reason we're getting "I'm sorry" tonight. That's the only reason

we see a bit of humble pie over there. The only reason that we're back

here tonight at all is because with that minister it's been one

incompetent act after another ever since he took office, even to the

time when the press went down to interview him about ICBC and he had to

stick his bubble-gum under his desk before he could speak to the media.

Ever since that bubble-gum trick by Nero Wolfe, we've had one, two,

three, four, five administrative bungles that I can think of, the fifth

one being the one that we're talking about tonight.

Not only

that, Mr. Speaker, but this bill came through the chairmanship of the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who only two short sessions ago

brought a piece of legislation into this House that he had to say he

was sorry for. That was labour legislation regarding new regulations

around union certification. He had to come here and say he was sorry

for bungling up the legislative program. Why is that minister still in

charge of the legislative committee that allowed this bill to come onto

the floor of this House, or the need for it? Mr. Speaker, it's

administrative bungling time after time after time. And if there's one

minister who deserves the title of the most horrendous bungler of all,

it's the Minister of Finance, who I don't think even now, as I look

across at him sitting there giggling, understands the gravity of this

thing that he's not done — to check out legislation before bringing it

into the Legislature to have it passed.

So, Mr. Speaker, if

there's one thing that should happen out of this legislation, the

Premier should deal with this minister in the harshest way, because it

undermines the confidence of all of the people of British Columbia, all

of the business community in British Columbia, in a government that has

had a Minister of Finance for four years who's bungled one time after

the other in an accumulative way until we get the biggest bungle in the

history of the province of British Columbia, all by one minister.

Should he be there? That question, of course, is for the Premier. But I

think the Premier would be well advised to ask that minister to

reconsider whether he's suitable to serve in'that cabinet.

MR, LEGGATT:

I was hoping at some point in the evening that we might hear at least

one other member on the other side defend this government; because I

can remember during the campaign the eloquence of the second member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith) so

eloquently telling us about this businesslike administration that runs

this province so well. Now surely we could expect a few minutes, maybe

five or four, because I know you don't want to extend the debate, but

I'd be very interested in hearing some kind of defence now that they've

had an opportunity to watch this businesslike government in their first

session, as I have; whether their view of this administrative

performance is the same as mine objectively, that this group are those

skilful, dedicated, administrative giants that have run this province

in such a magnificent fashion. I'd like to hear whether they still hold

that view about this particular government. I suspect there are a good

number on that side of the House that no longer hold that view, that

have had their touching faith in the rhetoric of the past three years

shattered just a little by what has occurred tonight.

I'm

not concerned particularly about the 6,400 shares that were traded. I

think it's odd, and I also think that it's incumbent upon the minister

to have found out tonight, so that he can advise this House, whether

there is anything wrong with the trade of those 6,400 shares. I see

he's been sitting in his seat listening to the debate. I hope he's

given his officials some instructions to get on the telephone so he can

reassure this House that there's nothing whatsoever the matter with

that strange transaction. That's surely this minister's duty. We've

heard about the delay of 24 hours, in which the minister has clearly

shown significant negligence. I hope he's not showing more negligence

by sitting in his seat and not at least following up on the hard-won

information of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), so that

together we can cooperate and get this information on the floor of the

House. Surely it's incumbent upon that minister to satisfy this House

and the public of British Columbia that that transaction is okay and

sound. And I'm not suggesting it isn't. I'm not suggesting there's

anything the matter with it whatsoever; but surely we are entitled to a

reasonable explanation, and I hope to hear the minister shortly about

that.

[ Page 1170 ]

I've

come to this debate from a slightly different perspective, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has deliberately and studiously tried to build his

reputation in the world of federal-provincial conferences — he's taken

the very high line about senate reform — and it's clearly been a

strategy from his advisers that this is the right political route to

travel. But I'm a little unhappy when I pick up the Globe and Mail

and I find that this parliament is made a laughing stock right across

Canada by the bungling of this administration. This is a night when

British Columbians are a little unhappy that every other provincial

legislature is quietly laughing at us because of an incredibly stupid

administrative blunder. It's a sad day for all of us who like to go

east and promote British Columbia and say what a wonderful place it is.

Now they're going to come out to have another chuckle at the B.C.

Legislature. That's too bad, especially from a government that came to

office saying they were going to provide great administrative

competence.

I am interested in the bill itself. On a cursory

look it would appear they may have been able to luck out of this mess.

But

section 1, which really attempts to pretend the last three days

didn't exist, supposes parliament has the power to do anything it wants

within its own jurisdiction. How can we possibly debate this bill

without debating administrative competence? This is a bill to correct a

serious administrative error. With the greatest respect to you, Mr.

Speaker — and I'm not debating your ruling — your suggestion to the

previous speaker that he could not debate the question of

administrative competence while dealing with the principle behind this

bill flies in the face of the very principle of the bill. The principle

of this bill is: "We blew it, fellows. Please help us out of this

mess." That's what this bill is all about, and what we're doing is

exactly that we're trying to help you fellows out.

The

question is: how do they feel tonight in the Vancouver Club? Are they

really happy about this government now? After all, this is the

government coalition that was going to keep these socialist hordes from

the banks of British Columbia. I don't know what's happening over

there; but I've got a feeling there are some people muttering: "What

are these guys up to? How could they do this kind of thing?" Where are

they going to strike next, Mr. Speaker? That's the real question. They

don't really know what they're doing. Is MacMillan Bloedel now really

safe? Who knows? They've got a special interest there.

It's

not as if it were deliberate. It would be safer if it were deliberate,

you know. But it's that craziness in which you never know where they're

going to move — an elbow goes this way, and suddenly somebody else

bites the dust. It reminds me of a fighter who used to compete against

Muhammad Ali, who had a great name for him. He used to call him the

Washerwoman. He'd get out there and he'd hit in every direction. Quite

often he hit the referee, wound up knocking somebody in the front row,

but never laid a glove on Muhammad Ali. You know, that's these guys —

moving everywhere but never hitting the target.

I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should trust them with anything big

any more. We really shouldn't. It's a bit too much for them to handle.

In fact, since we're in the mood tonight for repealing bills, and we

are cooperating, it seems to me it would be reasonable if the

government would cooperate with us and repeal a few others that came up

this session and which have just as bad an effect. The principle in the

Whistler bill, which means that if I've got a lot of money I get a few

extra votes: that's a great principle. How about Trinity Western

College? We might have a look at Trinity Western College.

MR. SPEAKER . Order, please. Hon. member, it's not in order to reflect

on votes that have already been taken in the House.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not arguing, of course, with your ruling. I make the

brief point that this is a statute to repeal a statute. Surely it's

within the confines of the rules. Otherwise, the entire debate would be

out of order, since it's clearly a refle