1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2265 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 15).

Committee and report stage — 2265

Division on third reading — 2265

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2265

Mr. Gibson — 2266

Auditor General Act (Bill 45) Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2266

Mr. Gibson — 2267

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2267

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Skelly — 2267

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2268

Mr. Skelly — 2268

Mr. Gibson — 2268

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2268

Mr. Skelly — 2268

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 2268

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

section 9.

Mr. Barnes — 2269

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2269

Amendment to

section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 2269

Mr. Skelly — 2270

Mr. Lauk — 2270

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2270

Mr. Gibson — 2270

section 14.

Mr. Gibson — 2271

section 19.

Mr. Barnes — 2271

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2271

Mr. Lauk — 2271

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 2272

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

Report stage — 2272

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2272

section 1 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 2273

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2274

Mr. King — 2275

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2276

Mr. Wallace — 2276

Mr. Gibson — 2276

Mr. King — 2277

Mr. Wallace — 2278

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2278

Mr. King — 2278

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2279

Division on

section 1 as amended — 2280

section 2.

Mr. Barnes — 2280

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2281

section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 2281

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2282

Mr. Lauk — 2282

Mr. King — 2282

Mr. Gibson — 2282

Mr. Barnes — 2282

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2283

Mr. Lauk — 2283

Mr. King — 2283

Mr. Barnes — 2284

Mr. Lauk — 2284

Amendment to

section 5.

Mr. Lauk — 2284

Division on amendment to

section 5 — 2284

section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 2285

Mr. Gibson — 2285

Mr. King — 2286

Mr. Barber — 2287

Appendix — 2288

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this

evening in the gallery we are privileged to have Alderman and Mrs.

Goult and a group of Girl Guides from the Oak Bay constituency. I would

like to tell the House that the Guides, in their guiding programme this

year, have been studying parliamentary procedure, and are here this

evening to view the House and the democratic process. I would ask the

House to give them a cordial welcome.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Art Currie, city manager from the great city of Kitimat.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Constitution Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 19

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Calder

Schroeder

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Nielsen

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Loewen

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

NAYS — 13

Shelford

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 53.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, a few observations on the Municipal Amendment Act, 1976.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order. Mr.

Speaker, this is an extremely important bill. The minister is not here.

We dealt with the Minister of Highways who doubled...or was acting

Minister of Municipal Affairs this afternoon on another bill.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is as follows: we

got no answers this afternoon and we don't think it's fair to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs or to the opposition to have a bill of

this significance put forward in the name of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not a point of order. If

the hon. member wishes to adjourn the debate when the bill is called,

following the remarks by the hon. minister who is carrying the bill, he

has that prerogative available to him.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there are several amendments

here to the Municipal Act. First of all, it would grant voting rights

to property owners who cannot qualify as residents of the municipality

but who are otherwise qualified as 19 years of age and Canadian

citizens or other British subjects. The bill would also extend the

right of personal corporations owning property within the municipality

to vote via an agent where the owners of such personal corporations are

not otherwise entitled to vote. It also should be noted that a person

can only be an agent for one corporation.

Another amendment will allow a person whose name is not on the list

of electors, whether by mistake or failure to register, to vote on

polling day upon completion and signing of the appropriate form.

[ Page 2266 ]

In order to expedite municipal housing and other development

undertakings by municipalities, amendments are made to clarify a

municipality's right to invest in shares and foreign corporations, and

to provide express authority for a municipality to acquire land by

agreement for sale or mortgage.

To facilitate the adoption of community plans, land-use contracts,

zoning bylaws, regional plans and regional district zoning bylaws — to

acquire plurality to adopt or amend such bylaws — are changed from

two-thirds of all the members of a council, whether they are present or

not, to two-thirds of the members present.

Another group of amendments is designed to bring the accounting and

auditing provisions of the Act into line with current professional

terminology and practice — into the computer age, in other words.

The provisions governing the interest charged on taxes in arrears

and delinquent are amended from the present statutory 8 per cent to

permit the council to fix the rate up to a maximum of 12 per cent. The

present 8 per cent rate is well below current interest rates, which has

resulted in many businesses deferring payment of their taxes in order

to take advantage of the low interest rate.

The remaining amendments are of a technical or housekeeping nature.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

think this House could have learned a good deal more about this bill

simply by reading the explanatory notes than we just heard from the

acting minister on this bill. I think it's really quite a disgrace that

the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's on the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Order what?

MR. SPEAKER: Speak to the second reading of the bill, if you don't mind.

MR. LAUK: That is exactly what he was doing.

MR. GIBSON: That's exactly what I was doing, Mr. Speaker. I

was giving a certain amount of comment on the opening remarks of the

minister concerned, the acting minister. I was suggesting to you, Sir,

and to this chamber that the performance is entirely inadequate and

that we are entitled to have the minister responsible for a bill here

when it's being introduced.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You say that to every minister.

MR. GIBSON: Most of the ministers are here, Mr. Minister. The minister responsible for this bill is not here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your record is not so good.

MR. GIBSON: I've been wanting to ask him a number of

questions on this rather important bill. I've been wanting to ask him,

for example, why the replotting sections of the Municipal Act, which

are important to a number of my constituents, aren't included in this

bill. I've been wanting to ask him questions about the voting powers of

corporations and other consequential matters in this bill. He is not

here; I think it is wrong, and therefore, Sir, I move the adjournment

of this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to add "until the next sitting after today"?

MR. GIBSON: I'd be glad to add any time that's agreeable to

the members of this House. I move the adjournment of the debate on this

bill to the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment

on the business of the House, because earlier in the day the same

opportunity was given, in the minister's absence, to the opposition and

they refused the House Leader's invitation to put over the discussion

of a previous bill in order to have the minister present, so we assumed

it would follow on this bill.

Committee on Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of

order, I would just like to indicate to the House Leader, Mr. Speaker,

that while the opposition is willing to cooperate, it certainly depends

on the nature of the bill that's before the House. Where it's one that

is not controversial, of course we're willing to extend that kind of

consideration to the government. This is a very important one, however.

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to

[ Page 2267 ]

section 3 standing in my name on page 9 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a little

explanation from the minister. This is a

section I am concerned about

in the sense that it would appear that even with the amendment it would

be possible that the auditor-general could be appointed for a fairly

indefinite term. In the exact language of the amendment, the

auditor-general shall be appointed "until the end of the period of

suspension of the auditor-general or until an auditor-general is

appointed under

section 2, as the case may be." What I'm puzzled about,

Mr. Speaker, is what happens in the case that the auditor-general is

not suspended, but rather resigns. There is therefore no end to the

period of suspension, which is automatic, but rather a term uncertain.

We are then faced with the case where the cabinet — the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — could appoint an auditor-general for

the balance of the term, or perhaps for an even longer period than

that. Without examining the legislation with a lawyer I couldn't be

certain of that, but let's say that an auditor-general resigns after

the first two years of his period. I would think under the terms of

this legislation that the cabinet could appoint an acting

auditor-general for at least the next four years.

This is the sort of thing I had hoped, by the language of an

amendment that I had submitted to the Minister of Finance, to avoid.

We're obviously not moving it now because there is another amendment on

the floor, but I was looking for language something like the following:

"An acting auditor-general to be appointed for a term not to exceed six

months, during which time a permanent appointment should be made in

accordance with the provisions of

section 2." That kind of language, it

seemed to me, was what would achieve what I think the government wants

in this case.

I would ask the minister if he could explain how this situation would be resolved

without that possibility of the indefinite term of the acting auditor-general.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge the suggestions

made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), which we have

given much consideration. The amendment to

section 3 on page 9 is really an

effort to clarify the situation of the reappointment of the auditor-general

under the original circumstances of

section 2, which I think was part of your

thinking as well, but at the same time to not restrict the time period in which

they might be required as a committee to consider and to recommend. After all, the Legislative Assembly

would reappoint an auditor-general on the unanimous recommendation, as

provided originally. This simply clarifies the original wording of that

section 3, to clarify the fact that the auditor-general, if he is

suspended or leaves, is reappointed under the same circumstances as

provided in

section 2.

I think it is pretty well clarified the way it is, but at the same

time it does not restrict the time period in which such a committee

might have to function. They might be able to provide a person in a

month, and yet they might take 12 months. You never know.

MR. GIBSON: If I might just follow this up, we might be able

to solve it on the floor here. Might I have the assurance, then, of the

Minister of Finance that the machinery which is contemplated in

section

2, namely the special legislative committee, would be set into motion

immediately upon the necessity of appointing an acting auditor-general?

Could the minister put that on the record?

RON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would certainly be the intention

to put the machinery into motion the minute that a clear-cut case of suspension

or incapacity occurred. It would have to arrive at a definite point of that

kind, but certainly that would be the intention.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet

while

section 2 flew by, and I was wondering if leave of the House

could be granted to go back to

section 2 just for a few moments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My most humble apologies, Hon. Member.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

section 2.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on behalf of

the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the amendment standing in his name

on the order paper, if that is possible, or to move it myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, there is no provision under the

standing orders whereby you can move in place of the hon. member for

Oak Bay. However, you may wish to make it your own amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I would so move, Mr. Chairman, and with your indulgence will have the motion

[ Page 2268 ]

written out in a few seconds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps while someone is assisting you you may wish to speak to the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I think that the Minister of Finance, when the

bill was in discussion in second reading, gave his assurance that the

special committee mentioned under

section 2 would be representative of

all parties in the House. That was the assurance he gave. But we, as

opposition, would like to have the assurance written into the bill, and

I think this is an amendment that the government would be prepared to

accept.

I believe it's in the Manitoba legislation that all parties are

represented in the special committee of their Legislature that is

struck to select the auditor-general. I would hope that the government

would accept this motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further debate on the amendment?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I didn't hear you earlier. Has the member taken his place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're just waiting. If we could just delay proceedings for just a moment. We're waiting for a copy of the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: While we are looking for a copy of the

amendment, I might say that I think it might be better to leave the

specific words out, in my opinion. We've indicated earlier that it

would certainly be the intention to appoint an all-party committee. But

there might be a circumstance arising where a member chose not to serve

or something of this nature. I think that this offers more flexibility,

to not have that close a definition — as long as it is a committee of

the Legislature.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I believe the

Manitoba legislation does have wording similar to that proposed in this

amendment that says the special all-party committee shall recommend to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is a much better

section in

the Act than the Manitoba Act, of course, but I think that the

flexibility is still available. There's no obligation on any member of

any party to serve on a special committee. So the flexibility will

still be there. The members of the different parties can serve at their

option. But I think there should be some provision in this

section that

there will be all-party representation on the special committee. I'd

hope that the government would accept it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, seeking to assist the minister with

his reservation, I wonder if this amendment might be suitable if it

contained words to the effect of "an all-party committee unless any

party elected not to serve" — words to that general effect. Would that

solve the government's problem in this regard? Because it does seem to

me important that there should be statutory recognition of the

principle that the government has accepted, and I appreciate that very

much that they have accepted it.

This government, however, will not be the government forever, and

one day there may be a time when it should be bound by statutes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: A long time, mind you, but not forever.

With every respect, Mr. Chairman, and after adequate consideration,

I really would prefer if we left the clause as it's now drawn to

provide the flexibility, as I say, with the knowledge that it is

certainly the intention to have an all-party committee to make this an

independent choice of a special committee.

But I think to be restrictive — that kind of definition might be something you could regret.

MR. SKELLY: While we are pleased with the assurance of the

Minister of Finance, I think that it really should be spelled out in

the legislation. After all, as the member for North Vancouver–Capilano

says, one party isn't in government forever, and the assurances which

are handed out by this minister may not be valid should some other

party become the government in this House. I think that the wording

"special all-party committee" is much preferable to the wording that we

have there now.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little concerned with some of

the wording of

section 7, and it is perhaps just a grammatical

misunderstanding. The word "and" is in there on a basis which I think

is conjunctive rather than disjunctive. If you'll look at line 4 you'll

note that the auditor-general is asked to report whether it is "in

accordance with the stated accounting policies and...on a basis

consistent with that of the preceding year." Now it may well be, Mr.

Chairman, that the stated accounting policies may have been changed

since the previous year and quite properly so. In that case, the

auditor-general would find himself in a quandary.

Interjection.

[ Page 2269 ]

MR. GIBSON: Line 4, the "and" on line

Section 7, yes, 2(b), line 4. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister.

If I can explain that.... Let's imagine that the stated auditing

policies of the government changed during a particular year. The

auditor-general would find that it was on the basis of those stated

accounting policies. But he could not, at the same time, find "and" —

and the "and" requires him to do the same thing at the same time — that

it's "on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year" because,

by definition, it would have changed. As I say, perhaps it's just a

little grammatical concern, but the amendment that I had suggested to

the minister was to add after the word "and" the words "as to whether

they" — in other words, disjoining the two requirements rather than

conjoining them.

It seems to me that that's a useful minor amendment consonant with

have to write it out, Mr. Chairman. I'll just be one very quick moment

— I had it written out in a letter. I'm sorry.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That explains it: line 11, after "and" add the words "as to whether they" — "they" referring to the statement.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, could the

minister explain what a trivial matter would be? It states that the

auditor-general shall not be required to report matters to the

Legislative Assembly which he may consider to be trivial or immaterial

or insignificant. Just as a matter of clarification, I was wondering if

this means that he has the ability to refuse to report, should that be

requested, if he doesn't feel....

HON. MR. WOLFE: An example that just comes off the top of the

head would be if a package of gum were missing from the tuck shop; he

would not then be obligated to report specifically on that, I presume.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): De minimis non curat lex.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not here. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WOLFE: He just left, eh? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARNES: I just wanted some assurance that this doesn't mean that he has the authority to refuse.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, but he is not obligated to comment on trivial matters.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to

section 10 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 13: the auditor-general, overall, has

been discussed as a servant of this Legislature, and in particular he

will be working with the public accounts committee. It seems to me it

would be useful if this legislation made it possible — though clearly

not mandatory — for the auditor-general to respond to particular

requests of the public accounts committee.

In order that the government not feel too nervous about this, I

would remind them that they have a majority on that committee, as on

every other committee. But it is possible that in the course of their

work the public accounts committee would discover that there were

matters they would wish the auditor-general to investigate, either

during the currency of that particular round of hearings or in time for

the committee's work the following year. It seems to me it should be

possible, and enabled in this statute, for the auditor-general to

respond positively in that regard. Accordingly, I would move that after

the word "council" at line 2 of the section, the words "or by the

public accounts committee" should be added.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you'll be lucky twice.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not looking for luck; I'm

[ Page 2270 ]

looking for truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. It reads after "council" in second line: "or by the public accounts committee."

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Minister of

Finance and the government would listen to the arguments of the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . It seems to be an excellent

idea. Although a lot of material that is brought to the public accounts

committee by government members is trivial and can probably be rejected

by the auditor-general, there are some things brought before that

committee that require some expert advice. I think that it would be an

excellent idea to incorporate this amendment into the bill. This is a

power which they have in the United States; the committees set up in

the congress of the United States have access to the

comptroller-general, as they call him down there, or to the general

accounting office. It is of assistance to those committees to have the

expert advice of the comptroller-general of the United States or the

general accounting office when they are considering the matters under

their purview.

Also, one advantage that American members of congress have is that

individual members of congress have access to the general accounting

office staff and to the comptroller-general. They are able to write and

refer matters to the comptroller-general, and he is empowered to look

into matters referred to him by individual members of congress. I think

this is an excellent amendment and one that the government and the

Minister of Finance should consider and adopt.

MR. LAUK: Just before the minister accepts the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add one or two....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I know you are a very receptive gentleman, through

you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I have one suggestion.... Well,

I'll mention that privately to you.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr.

Gibson) is one that is based not only on the desire of the opposition

to have a voice and to scrutinize the activities of the scrutinizer,

the auditor-general, but it fulfils a basic concept of British

parliamentary practice.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says

you can do it anyway. I suppose so, but the point is this: sometimes —

and I know the Attorney-General may not accept this as a fact — all the

members of the public accounts committee don't agree. Sometimes there

is disagreement. Sometimes it may be impossible to call before that

committee various individuals who should be called unless it is in the

statute itself. Part of the concept of British parliamentary

practice...well, constitutional law in British parliamentary system

states parliament is supreme. You can never make a law that is above

parliament and that cannot be changed by parliament. You can never

create a position held by an individual that will be considered above

the law or above parliament or the Legislature; you can never do that.

This amendment, as I understand it, proposed by the Liberal leader,

makes that sacrosanct concept law. It puts it into the statute. It

protects the right of this Legislature, under any circumstances, to

call before the public accounts committee the auditor-general,

cross-examine him and bring out evidence that would be of benefit to

the democratic process in this province. The opposition fully supports

this amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the

implications of this amendment, this

section reads: "The

auditor-general may undertake special assignments at the request of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but he is under no obligation to carry

out any such requested assignment if, in his opinion, it would

interfere with his primary responsibilities." This is simply, as I see

it, emphasizing the fact that he has a prime responsibility and he is

not obligated. He is independent to do whatever he wishes to do. So as

I see it, he has the power to look into anything that he wants to if he

so chooses. I don't think we really need to direct him here — whether

he gets direction from the public accounts committee or not.

MR. GIBSON: It wouldn't do any harm then either.

HON.MR. WOLFE: So I think that it's embracing enough to

describe it in this manner because the intent of that

section is to

make it non-obligatory for him to act on an assignment given to him if

he feels that it is going to interfere, in his own opinion, with his

primary responsibilities.

MR. GIBSON: If I could just add a word of explanation of the

amendment to the minister, I agree that even after the amendment the

language of the

section would clearly make it non-obligatory for the

auditor-general to take an assignment from the public accounts

committee, exactly as from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. What it

would make clear, however, is that the public accounts committee

[ Page 2271 ]

would have the authority to make that kind of suggestion, which the auditor-general could then accept or not.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is saying

they can make that suggestion anyway, so in that case we might as well

put it in the law. Nobody loses anything, and perhaps the public

accounts committee gains something. It seems to me something that

should be acceptable.

Amendment negatived.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the indulgence of the committee to ask a quick question on

section 14....

Leave granted.

section 14.

MR. GIBSON: It notes here that the auditor-general shall

require every person to take oaths required by any given department

that they are investigating. Could the minister give us an assurance

that the taking of these oaths won't in any way hamper the reporting of

financial or other matters that the auditor-general should be covering

out of those particular sections — in other words that the swearing as

to secrecy won't impede the staff of the auditor-general from reporting

things they ought to?

Section 14 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, I'm not sure that

section 13 was actually passed after the amendment was defeated.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there is another point for

clarification. I'm not all that familiar with the procedures respecting

the appointment of auditors to do fairly delicate work, and I'm just

wondering if the authority to appoint the auditor should be vested in

the hands of the Treasury Board, who audit the books of the

auditor-general.

I'm sorry, it's

section 18. I'm one step ahead of myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 17.

MR. BARNES: I think that's going to pass, so I'll rise again on

section

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. BARNES: Just for clarification, is this the very best

that we can do? The office of the auditor-general will be audited by an

auditor appointed by the Treasury Board. Could that be a conflict at

some time? Because of the limited view which the Treasury Board may or

may not have from time to time, I'm just wondering if that appointment

should not be up to the Legislature to remove any doubts of conflict of

interest, Mr. Minister.

Wait a minute. What's going on here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're speaking to 19.

MR. BARNES: Yes, that's right, it's 19. Well, we may as well

deal with it. (Laughter.) I won't repeat the question. You know what it

is now.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman,

section 19 says the Treasury

Board shall appoint an auditor to audit the accounts of the office of

the auditor-general annually. Are you agreeing with that proposal, Mr.

Member?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inquire as to the

judgment of giving that power to the Treasury Board, when perhaps it

might best be placed in the hands of the Legislature. I'd like to hear

your comments on that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would only say, in answer to that, that I think it really would function more efficiently in this way.

MR. LAUK: I would accept that from the Minister of Finance if

we didn't have three editions of the budget speech and the Clarkson

Gordon debacle and everything else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: (Sings) La de da, da da diddle de da. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Hidden challenge, Mr. Chairman. You've heard of Gerald McBoing-Boing? Now we've

[ Page 2272 ]

got Evan McBoing-Boing. Great sounds.

Dealing with

section 19, I think it's not sufficient to say that you

think it will be more efficient. The idea of the operation of an

auditor-general is to be completely at arm's length from the government

so that his activities could not be brought under pressure of the

cabinet at any time, either indirectly or directly. This could be

indirectly, by the appointment of auditors by the cabinet.

Surely it's simple enough to bring in a motion at the beginning or

the end of each session, or whenever required in a session. The

government could introduce a motion for the approval of the Legislature

to appoint auditors, so that motion could be properly debated in case

there was any question.

It seems to me that under normal circumstances it would seldom be in

question, but, for goodness' sake, it would show your respect for the

Legislature in perusing that kind of a situation. I think my colleague,

the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) put forward a very

important suggestion. He is trying to protect the integrity of this

Legislature, and to protect the integrity of the auditor-general, who

should be above and beyond any kind of pressure, indirectly or

directly, from the government.

HON. MR WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the clause does

indicate full satisfaction to the House, because his report — that he

finds everything to be correct, and so on — is lodged with the Speaker,

who presents it to the Legislative Assembly.

If the member were to be assured that no auditing firm with the

initials CG would be included in the appointment, would that be

satisfactory?

MR. LAUK: CG? Are you attacking Clarkson Gordon?

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, contrary to most of the legislation

we're looking at this session, which appropriates funds until March 21,

1977, this

section goes to 1978. I ask the minister why that extra year

was included here.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, as I recall,

it was strictly to give ample latitude in his appointment to the committee's

function. If you were to say, "the money required for the purposes of this

Act shall, until March 31, 1977...." it might be unnecessarily restrictive and require

a decision at an early date on the amount required for the budget of that year.

I think this is what we are really talking about. Until March, 1978, under this

clause, we are not required to specifically indicate in the budget the amount

for his office. Until that time it is to be paid out of general revenue.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this perhaps increases the

independence of the auditor-general. I'm not sure. I presume the

government controls the disbursements made during that period, but

given the statement of the minister that this gives due latitude for

the actions of the special committee to be appointed, will he assure us

that that special committee will be appointed and commence its work

without delay after royal assent to this bill?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I indicated in an

earlier debate that we would plan to strike the committee and give it

its assignment without delay at all.

MR. GIBSON: If necessary then, Mr. Chairman, would the

committee work through the summer, for instance, and not necessarily be

delayed until the fall sitting of the House for its constitution and

labours?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Auditor General Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, there is an oral amendment to

section 1. I would ask that we delete the letter "b" in the third line

section 1. In other words, the third line will read "to

section 3(2)

of the Anti-Inflation Act."

[ Page 2273 ]

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay):

Section 1 deals specifically with

federal guidelines and refers to the Act of the federal government —

the Anti-Inflation Act. I just wish to repeat my puzzlement in relation

to the government's position before the supreme court. Here in

section

1 we're being asked to recognize

definitions which relate to

legislation which this government is challenging before the supreme

court. I fully understand, Mr. Chairman, that the decision has not been

made as to whether Canada is facing a national emergency. The

interesting fact I've uncovered is that the federal bill does not

contain a

preamble to the effect that: "Whereas a state of emergency

exists, the following federal legislation shall apply...."

I understand that in all previous cases where the federal government

has introduced legislation based on the concept of an emergency

existing, that that

preamble has always included in the federal

legislation, which places it beyond judgment in the supreme court. In

other words, if federal legislation includes such a

preamble that in

the judgment of parliament an emergency exists, there is no avenue to

the supreme court, such as some of the provinces have taken in this

case. Now the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shakes his

head furiously, and that's something he does quite often in this House.

In fact, he shakes more than his head sometimes.

But be that as it may, I'm speaking from some research and from some

legal advice that I've obtained. I hope that the Minister of Consumer

Services, who's a legal man in his own right, will get up and say his

piece if he feels that is not a valid point that I'm putting forward.

But in debating this section, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the

opposition — or at least this party that I represent — should express

its request for some clarification of what's going on in this

anti-inflation business. We've got the government of this province

asking the opposition to be responsible and support the battle against

inflation. That seems a very reasonable request. Further on in

section

2 we're asked to cooperate with Canada, namely the federal government,

which brought in a federal anti-inflation Act on which this province is

presently before the Supreme Court of Canada questioning its validity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's got to be a pretty confusing situation to

the members of this House, let alone the electorate of Canada who must

be wondering just exactly how split the personality of the provincial

government can be when on the one hand, within its own Legislature, it

is asking for a responsible approach by all members of the House in

seeking to support the government of British Columbia in the battle

against inflation, which involves cooperation with the federal

government, and at the same time the Deputy Attorney-General of this

province is representing the province and questioning the actual

constitutional validity of the very bill we're supposed to support.

Now I suspect there may be some very convoluted legal explanation to

this dilemma, and I'll be delighted to hear it. But I'm not the only

one who feels very puzzled at this ambivalent approach by the

provincial government — on the one hand voicing support for the federal

effort and asking the opposition members of this Legislature to give

their approval for that support, and, on the other hand, we're off in

Ottawa this very week expressing reasons through the vehicle of our

Deputy Attorney-General as to why the constitutional validity of the

federal Act should be questioned. This seems to turn very clearly, Mr.

Chairman, on whether or not it can be established that a national

emergency exists.

In a technical respect, I've already stated that it's my information

that the federal bill does not contain a

preamble asserting

parliament's judgment that a national emergency does exist and that the

omission of that

preamble from the federal legislation may well have

been an oversight or it may well have been an oversight or it may well

have been intentional by the federal government, inasmuch as the

federal government is quite keen and happy to have this matter taken

before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I read as recently as in press reports tonight that this is

considered to be the most important constitutional issue that's been

raised before the Supreme Court of Canada in the last 50 years, because

the federal anti-inflation Act mentioned in

section 1 of this bill

opens up potential avenues of very extensive intervention by the

federal government into areas of jurisdiction which traditionally are

areas of jurisdiction for the provinces.

So I can well see the dilemma that this provincial government of

British Columbia finds itself in, particularly when the greatest area

of provincial-federal conflict at the present time in this country is

over the question of resource management. If, in fact, this federal

bill is adjudged by the supreme court to be constitutional and to give

the federal government the right to intervene in the setting of prices

in what has hitherto been a provincial jurisdiction, then I suppose the

government of this province is very concerned as to what the next

intrusion of the federal government might be into areas of provincial

jurisdiction. Probably their next intrusion could well be in the area

of taxation of resources, which already it has done in an indirect

fashion by disallowing the cost of royalties to mining companies as a

tax-deductible expense.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, in debating the impact

[ Page 2274 ]

and content of

section 1, this House would be most

remiss if it were simply to gloss over the section, either because of

its brevity or because usually in a bill

section 1 is dealing with

definitions or

interpretations. Since

section 1 in this case very

clearly relates to the federal anti-inflation Act, with which we are

asked to cooperate, when, at the same time, this government is clearly

expressing, by its representation before the Supreme Court of Canada,

its doubt about whether that very Act is constitutional, it seems to

promote a very bizarre kind of debate or should promote a debate in

this House which is not likely to occur, judging by the numbers of

members who are not even present.

The other aspect of the federal bill, Mr. Chairman, which I think

the House should be aware of, is the precedents that have been set and

adjudged in former cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. Without

going into the various details of all these cases, it is my opinion,

from reading a considerable amount, that within the terms of inflation

it is more than likely that the supreme court will not agree that a

state of national emergency exists in Canada at the present time, based

on economic factors which are the basis on which this decision will be

arrived at.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance has looked ahead

and then noticed that three of the ministers are keep in caucus at the

moment. So I would like to have the honour of the Minister of Finance's

undivided attention.

I would like to, in light of the kind of questions I've posed....

I'm not asking the minister to be Solomon tonight. I'm just asking him

to practical. If the Supreme Court of Canada decides that in fact the

federal Anti-Inflation Act is unconstitutional, does this not place the

present bill that we are debating in a completely impossible light, and

therefore would it not make a great deal of sense to adjourn debate on

this bill at the present time until at least we do know what the

decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is in relation to the validity

of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, which this bill clearly describes as

being the one that we should cooperate with provincially?

Now I am not trying to be smart-alecky on this. I'm simply asking a

layman's question. It seems to me that there is considerable doubt as

to the validity of the federal Act, which is very clearly defined in

section 1 as being the underpinning for the provincial legislation.

Now supposing we find next week or the week after that the Supreme

Court of Canada declared the federal Act unconstitutional. It obviously

leaves this provincial bill very much in question or subject to some

very basic review and rewriting. Would it not make a great deal more

sense if we suspended discussion of this bill until such time, as we

know the supreme court decision?

I'm not, Mr. Chairman, trying to be obstructive.

I'm simply looking at the situation and wondering how we can, with

any kind of credibility and impact, intelligently debate this bill when

in fact a decision of such crucial importance as that to be rendered by

the Supreme Court of Canada is in the offing.

Now I understand that the supreme court often delays decisions

because of a great deal of consideration of the evidence placed before

it, but I would assume that in the case of the anti-inflation bill we

are not likely to be kept waiting a very long period of time before

knowing the decision. I agree also, Mr. Chairman, that that's an

opinion of mine; but again it would be rather contradictory if the

whole essence of the hearing before the supreme court is to determine

whether a state of emergency exists. It shouldn't take the Supreme

Court of Canada forever and a day to come to that kind of decision one

way or the other. However, I've no intention of greatly delaying

discussion on

section 1, Mr. Chairman, but I would very much welcome

the minister's response to some of the difficult questions I raised.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to one of the

questions that the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised. I

would like to mention both to the hon. member and to all members of the

House that since this matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada, it

is sub judice.

MR. GIBSON: No!

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hearing is not completed, and I think

that the discussion here should be one of considerable delicacy. I am

afraid, my friend from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), that if

you don't agree with me in that concept, there are a few concepts of

the practice of law that you fail to understand.

I would like to reiterate the position of the province upon entering

this case. This was mentioned to the House back in April — I've

forgotten the precise date. I said to the House that we are entering

the case on the basis of support to the federal position, but on the

very clear understanding that evidence must be led as to the

exceptional conditions that prevail and that without such proof the

provincially constitutional jurisdiction.

Now it's certainly incumbent, Mr. Member, upon the Supreme Court of

Canada, in the argument of the province of British Columbia, to find

that a situation of emergency existed, according to the evidence before

it. And at the present time that hearing is not completed. It is, of

course, the function of the court to determine whether or not that

evidence is before it. When the argument was concluded for the

[ Page 2275 ]

Province of British Columbia, the question was put

to counsel representing the province as to whether or not that onus had

been met. The response was: no it had not. And that was the opinion of

counsel then.

Now many things may happen before the termination of this case. The

province certainly has its attitude to inflation — which has been

articulated in this House at great length, both by the Premier of the

province, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and by other

members, and I think it is clearly on the record.

I just wish to mention this one point to the hon. member, to

reiterate to him what the position of the province was, is and

continues to be; it is not altered in the slightest. The Province of

British Columbia has, at this point in time in the law suit, concluded

that there has been an insufficiency of evidence, but that is an

opinion of counsel for the province, and the province. The

determination, of course, will have to be that of the Supreme Court of

Canada.

With every respect to the members, and my apologies to my good

friend, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), if I

sounded a little harsh.... He knows me pretty well, and I didn't mean

to be that way at all. But since the matter is in front of the court,

since the hearing is going on, I think, in fairness to the Supreme

Court of Canada, it would be most appreciated if all of the members

would bear that in mind and treat the matter with a degree of delicacy.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's

remarks, and I certainly do not intend to say anything regarding the

validity or lack of validity, in terms of the federal government's

right to conclude that an emergent situation does exist in the nation,

and which justifies their intrusion into the provincial jurisdiction.

It's absolutely clear that it is an incursion into provincial

jurisdiction — that which is normally provincial jurisdiction —

collective bargaining, for instance, the realm of industrial relations,

price-setting on commodities. It is impossible to draw any other

conclusion but that the province's position before the supreme court is

a position which opposes the conclusion that the necessary kind of

nation emergency exists ...

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, no! On the evidence that has been led, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been a

news report last night indicating that the position put forward by the

Deputy Attorney-General from the province of British Columbia impaired

the federal government's case to justify the federal anti-inflation

bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no!

MR. KING: Now that was the report, and if I understand our

Attorney-General right, when he was commenting he indicated that the

counsel for the province responded, when asked, that the onus of the

federal government to justify an emergent nature has not been met.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Insufficient evidence.

MR. KING: Now there are a number of ways that the

jurisdiction of a province, or of the federal government for that

matter, might transcend the normal constitutional balance, as I

understand that. One is the test of an emergency nature which would

allow the federal government to act in areas that are normally within

the constitutional realm of the province. Conversely, there's another

avenue, and that is, if they support the anti-inflation programme, to

delegate to the federal government the authority to apply, in this

case, their bill to the provincial domain.

I think there's yet another way, and that is for the two

jurisdictions to pass identical legislation, which validates the

federal approach. So what the provincial government is saying is: "Yes,

we agree with the anti-inflation programme per se, but we question the

jurisdictional right under the emergent power

section — the peace,

order and good government

section of the BNA Act — to apply in the

current instance."

HON. MR. GARDOM: As long as there's a sufficiency of evidence.

MR. KING: Well, the conclusion must be — the conclusion, I

think, is inevitable — that that body of evidence is not there in

satisfactory substance for the province.

Otherwise, it seems absolutely unthinkable that the

Attorney-General's department would be represented before the supreme

court taking a position questioning the federal government's lack of

jurisdiction in this case. I don't want to belabour the matter, but I

agree with the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I just want

to say this further: if the federal supreme court finds that there is

insufficient evidence to justify and to satisfy the peace, order and

good government

section of the BNA Act, the conclusion then is that the

federal legislation is ultra vires the provinces. Isn't that right? I

believe so, and that would sustain the position, as I understand it,

that is being taken by the provincial Attorney-General's department.

So I wonder how we can proceed with a bill which is solely

predicated upon the passage, the constitutional authority and the legal

jurisdiction of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, because

section 1 of

Bill 16, which is before the committee now, clearly hinges on the

validity and the legality of the

[ Page 2276 ]

Anti-Inflation Act of Canada. It seems curious to

me that we are hinging a piece of legislation to

an Act of the federal

parliament which we are opposing on the grounds that it is ultra vires

the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada to apply it to the

provinces on the basis of the evidence that is available to satisfy the

section of the BNA Act dealing with peace, order and good government.

Again, you know, I'm a layman too, and I would certainly appreciate

some greater clarification than the Attorney-General was prepared to

provide, because it seems to me irresponsible to hinge a statute in

this province upon a federal statute that may be struck down by the

federal court as being ultra vires when that decision may be made with

the active assistance and the active participation of the

Attorney-General's department of British Columbia.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman,

I can understand very well why there is confusion in the minds of many

members of the House on this particular point, because it is not an

easy point to understand, even for those of us who are at least trained

in the law. The question that the Leader of the Opposition raises, I

think, indicates that he does not quite understand the position that

British Columbia has taken from the beginning. The position British

Columbia took from the very beginning was one of support for the

federal government, so long as they proved that a national emergency

did exist.

Now Mr. Vickers, when asked by one of the judges yesterday whether

or not he, as counsel in the case, considered that the federal

government had proved that point, said no, he did not. Now he could do

no less than say that, if that, indeed, was his opinion. The onus of

proof, at all times, rests with the federal government. Mr. Vickers

only offered as his opinion that the federal government had not met

that onus.

The position of British Columbia remains the same. We support the

federal legislation provided they, as is their onus to do, prove that

there was an emergency giving rise to the legislation in question. So I

think it quite clear that British Columbia's position has been

steadfast throughout.

Now if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one or two comments on

the remarks made by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), particularly

concerning the

preamble. I'm sure that my colleagues at the bar will

correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a

preamble does not

make an emergency, and the lack of it does not deny one. It doesn't

matter one way or the other. It may be helpful, insofar as self-serving

evidence is concerned, to say in the

preamble to a statute that an

emergency does exist, but that is not the be-all and end-all of the

matter. There can be an emergency without that having been so stated,

and there may not be an emergency even though it has been stated. I

recognize that unfortunately I came in late in the member's remarks,

but I hope that that clarifies that particular position.

Now I also think, Mr. Chairman, with respect, that the member for

Oak Bay is mistaken on one other particular point: it's not just the

question of an emergency that the federal government raises. As I

understand it, there are other constitutional issues that they raise.

They say, among other things, that inflation has diminished the value

of the dollar and that therefore it falls within banking, trade and

commerce — other things that fall within the federal preserve. So it

is, with respect, an oversimplification, Mr. Chairman, to say that it

is just the question of peace, order and good government. It is an

extremely complicated matter. It is one, of course, that the Supreme

Court of Canada is adjudicating upon now. It is not one that is easy

for us to debate, because of those matters.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the

comments of the Minister of Consumer Services, and also the comment of

the Attorney-General that we should not get into the details of the

issue since it is before the court.

All I was trying to point out in my remarks, whether they were fully

accurate or not, was that there is the real possibility, in the light

of evidence presented, that in the judgment of the Supreme Court,

within the terms of the BNA Act, a national emergency does not exist. I

only wish to repeat one more time that if that should prove to be the

case — and since we are going to be sitting in this House presumably

for some weeks yet — does it not make a lot of sense to consider

adjourning debate on this particular bill, since in fact it would be a

great embarrassment to this provincial government, I assume, if, in

fact, the federal legislation is not vindicated before the supreme

court?

None of us in this House knows tonight which way that will go, but

by waiting a week or two or three, having been in discussion on this

issue for several weeks and the fact that it is only going to be in

force for one year, expiring at either the end of March or April next

year, it just seems to me that it would make a great deal of sense for

the government to adjourn the debate at this point in time until we can

determine the decision of the supreme court.

MR. GIBSON: I'm a little concerned about the position that

the government seems to be enunciating here. They obviously support the

constitutionality of the federal Anti-Inflation Act, because we are

engaged in debate upon a bill which has that as a condition precedent.

HON. MR. MAIR: If there is an emergency.

[ Page 2277 ]

MR. GIBSON: I just want to get on to that, Mr. Minister. If

the government doesn't support the Anti-Inflation Act, just in general

terms, I think someone ought to say so. But the general concept that we

have had here is that it's been a good thing to try and bring inflation

under control in Canada.

Now there are two ways in which this Act can be constitutional. One

way is if it is found to be within the general ambit of the authority

in general conditions, or money and banking or whatever it may be. The

other is if it is found to be an emergency situation. It would seem to

me from the argument of the government that it would be far preferable

if the court were to make its findings on the grounds that an emergency

situation exists. In that context, it seems to me — and I will not

comment on any of the argumentation we've made before the court — that

it would be helpful to the general case of British Columbia for the

Government of British Columbia to take the position that emergency does

indeed exist rather than calling that into question. I have no wish to

go any further on that, but I would render that piece of advice.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I depart from my friend, the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), on that approach. As

I indicated earlier, I appreciate the government's intention to support

the thrust and the objectives of the federal anti-inflation programme.

However, it does seem to me that there's more than one way to achieve

support of that programme, and I think the province of Quebec has

chosen a different route from most of the other provinces.

As I indicated earlier, it is possible to delegate jurisdiction to

another government for specific purposes, for narrowly confined

purposes and for specific time limits. That's one way — the delegation

of authority. The other way would be through identical legislation.

Instead of that, we are hanging our support for the federal programme

on the basis of a bill whose fate resides in an action before the

Supreme Court of Canada at the moment, and which we don't understand

what the outcome will be. So it seems to me that it's an irresponsible

thing to proceed with a legislative statute through this House which

could become ultra vires along with the federal statute that it relies

upon for its authority.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, you know, we have a serious challenge here in

an action that is already before the Supreme Court of Canada, in which

the Attorney-General of British Columbia's counsel has stated that the

onus of proof has not yet been satisfied by the federal government.

Now I know your objective is not to fight the anti-inflation

programme, and I understand that the concern for precedent here is very

real. I understand that the offshore natural resources, for instance,

could be a matter affected by a precedent set granting federal

jurisdiction into what is normally the provincial realm. So it's a

problem. But it seems to me that rather than chance the legality of our

statute on a rather shaky proposition that is now before the Supreme

Court of Canada, dealing with the constitutionality of the federal

statute, we would be better off to delegate authority to the federal

government for the sphere of the inflation programme embraced in their

federal bill. That can be done, I understand, subject to correction by

my legal friends, but I believe that in constitutional law that is one

of the methods utilized in terms of delegating jurisdictional authority.

So I have to say that it seems to me an irresponsible thing. And I

wonder about the implications of proceeding with this bill that is

before the House now and utilizing the authority contained in this bill

to roll back wages, for instance, or to set prices, only to find

subsequently down the road that the whole legal foundation upon which

this bill hinges has been removed and subject ourselves and the

government and the Attorney-General of this province to possible action

from people in the private sector and, indeed, in the public sector for

unauthorized interference with their rights. This seems to me a

possibility.

Section 1 ties the authority for this whole bill upon the passage

and the constitutionality of the Anti-Inflation Act of Canada. If that

bill is struck down as being unconstitutional, ultra vires the federal

Parliament, then it seems to me no authority would reside in the

provincial government to exercise any of the authority contained in our

provincial bill. If those kinds of incursions were made into the realm

of collective bargaining and the realm of price-setting — if the

provincial government does indeed decide to exercise those powers —

without legal authority, I don't know what the implications are. They

would seem to me to be very, very serious ones. I don't think you can

correct that kind of authority by retroactive legislation in the future.

I think that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has taken a very

constructive and reasonable approach. I think that it is incumbent upon

the government to either hold this bill in abeyance pending the outcome

of the federal litigation or to take a more positive stance in terms of

delegating the authority to the federal government and in that way

preventing a legal precedent which might militate against the interests

of British Columbia in protecting our sovereignty over the natural

resources, the offshore resources and so on of this province.

[ Page 2278 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the

minister apparently isn't being at all influenced by what I think are

constructive suggestions. I hate to have to make a third pitch on this

issue, but I feel that we have nothing to lose by delaying deliberation

on this bill by one or two or three weeks or whatever.

The agreement, as I say, even if it were in effect, expires at the

end of March, 1977, and we are already into June, 1976. It seems to me,

from reading deliberations on collective bargaining at the present

time, that while there is no legal force to some of the decisions that

are being made, the essential principle of an 8 to 12 per cent

guideline is being followed or certainly being used as a very

persuasive argument in many situations where collective bargaining is

going on.

I agree that that doesn't give these instances the force which they

would have if this were law and if the federal Anti-Inflation Act were

clearly declared constitutional. I just feel that in the light of these

uncertainties and the time frame we are talking about and the fact that

this has been either the intention of this government or the clear

purpose of this government by tabling the bill in the first place, we

would stand to lose very little if we delay the bill and yet gain a

great deal if, in fact, the federal bill is proved to be

constitutional. This bill, when passed, is then retroactive anyway in

its effects, as I understand it. So I see very little that we have to

lose by delaying it. I think we gain a great deal of respect and

credibility in debating a bill at a later date if it hinges on the

established validity of the federal bill.

I have no wish to intrude upon the rules of the House, but-later on

in this bill

section 5 is another

section which very clearly allows

this government to sign and write agreements with the federal

government, based on the federal Act. So much of the underlying theme

of the provincial bill is based on our cooperation and agreement with

the federal government in its federal Act, which as I have said all too

often is being disputed as to its constitutionality.

I feel strongly enough on the logic of my argument, Mr. Chairman,

that I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion negatived.

section 1 as amended.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, just with a view to the

comments being raised by the member for Oak Bay, I would like to say

that we have been considering this matter for some months now — five

and a half months. I think with one exception every other province in

Canada has entered into an agreement to participate in this programme.

We are about the last.

As you know, it is necessary to provide legal support for any

agreement we enter into with the federal government. It is not

retroactive so it is necessary for us to have this behind us in order

to proceed with any undertaking we want to have with Ottawa and in

order to provide the implications of the anti-inflation legislation to

the public sector, which is very important to this province.

So I can't foresee why a delay of the kind you suggest would be

within the interests of anyone concerned. We don't want to presuppose

what might take place with a view to the supreme court action, nor do

we realize or know how quickly their decision might come down. But

certainly not on the basis of one day's testimony and so on can we

really provide any indication as to what the final result of this

matter will be.

Suffice to say that this is an important matter with which we must

proceed. I suppose if the thing does take a bad course in the future,

this will just have to be something we will have to face at that time.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance didn't seem

to understand the concern. The concern rests with the legal authority

of this government to take unto themselves the authority and the powers

purportedly vested in them by this Act. But this Act and its authority

is contingent upon the federal Anti-Inflation Act standing the test of

an appeal before the federal supreme court. It may or may not stand

that test. If it does not, not only is the federal Act struck down as

ultra vires — and again I'm not a lawyer — but it seems to me an

inevitable conclusion that this statute before the provincial House,

tied as it is and conditional upon the authority of the federal Act,

becomes ultra vires too.

Now it says: "Federal guidelines means the guidelines established by

regulation pursuant to

section 3(2)(

b) of the Anti-Inflation Act

(Canada)" — and that is a precondition for the application of the

provincial statute.

Now let's assume that in the interim period before that federal

decision of the supreme court is reached the provincial government

intrudes into the bargaining in the public sector and rolls back some

wage awards that are obtained through the collective-bargaining

process. Let's suppose they exercise other powers contained in the bill

— which are not a mandatory matter but just generally a power that may

or may not be exerted by the provincial government, but in the realm of

price levels — and the provincial government rolls back certain price

increases only to find out that subsequently, two months or six months

down the road, the federal bill is found ultra vires. The provincial

bill, as a consequence, is ultra vires too, and there resided in the

provincial government no statutory authority to

[ Page 2279 ]

intrude in the manner that they have into the realm of bargaining and the fixing of maximum prices.

It would seem to me that under those circumstances a case for

damages would rest with the person or the organization which had been

regulated. A case for damages would rest with them, and they might

initiate such a case against the Attorney-General, against the

government of this province and the minister involved who took unto

himself powers to regulate those organizations and those individuals,

which he lacked the legal and statutory authority to do.

That is my concern, and I'm sure that is the concern of my friends

down the way. If

section 1, with its references to the Anti-Inflation

Act of Canada, does not make the legality of this statute totally

dependent on such

an Act existing in the federal realm, then I don't

understand the need to mention the federal Act at all. I don't

understand that at all, because it seems to me that this bill is

completely contingent upon the federal Act existing, and it can only

exist if it is found by the federal supreme court to be within the

constitutional bounds of the Parliament of Canada.

I think this is a serious matter. It's a matter that could subject

the people and the Government of the Province of British Columbia to

unnecessary damages which, I'm sure, no one in this House would want to

envisage.

I think it is a matter that should be looked at seriously. I suggest

that even my legal friends across the way are probably not qualified in

terms of assessing the constitutional implications of this statute. I

suggest that constitutional law is a narrow and a rather rare realm of

expertise within the bar associations of this province and of this

nation. But there are those people trained and recognized for their

expertise and for their qualifications in terms of constitutional law.

I think that this is one of those times when the government should

stand back for a moment and obtain some very hard advice and guidance

from someone who is so qualified in constitutional law. I know that we

have Professor Bourne at the University of British Columbia, who is a

constitutional lawyer and a recognized expert.

It's a very difficult realm in law, I understand, and one that a

criminal lawyer or a corporation lawyer is not necessarily any more

familiar with than I am as a layman. Surely it behoves the government

in these circumstances to stand back at least until they get some good

solid constitutional advice which would not only protect the people of

the province, but protect and satisfy the opposition regarding our very

genuine concern in this matter.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate the concerns of the Leader of the

Opposition. Let me say, first of all, that while constitutional law

unquestionably is a very special field of law, I take issue with his

characterizing it as a difficult area. I don't think it's difficult.

First of all, there aren't that many cases that one must master. It's

only difficult because of the uncertainties of it. (Laughter.)

That was perhaps badly put, Mr. Member, but I know that you're

seriously concerned with this legislation and I'm trying very seriously

to answer you. One of the problems of constitutional law is that you

have perhaps 50 or 60 decisions at the outside that you must deal with

and try to translate into modern-day terms. You must also translate

into modern-day terms that since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has

not struck down one piece of federal legislation. It is also an area of

law that you can become pretty expert in if you put five and a half

months in, as my friend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and

myself and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) have done. A crash

course can get you pretty expert in it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the

members opposite, that one of the things that we must not forget is

that the thing before the Supreme Court of Canada right now is the

question as to whether or not the federal government can legislate in

the private sector. It is not the whole Anti-Inflation Act at all

that's being challenged. It's only that particular right.

What we are dealing with here is legislation in the public sector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it is not. That is the whole point, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that this concept is

not easy to grasp, but that's not the point at all. The Supreme Court

of Canada would certainly, in theory, find against the federal

government without in any way affecting legislation that we propose in

this House. I agree that if the Supreme Court of Canada does strike

down that particular part of the legislation, we will be in a think

tank, thinking our way out into the next move, but the fact of the

matter is that this legislation does not depend for its efficacy on the

Supreme Court of Canada's decision — not at all.

We must bear in mind that we are dealing with two different things.

The Supreme Court of Canada is dealing with the private sector; we are

dealing with the public sector and keeping it under control — not the

private sector.

MR. KING: With respect to wages, but what about prices?

HON. MR. MAIR: That's an entirely different matter, Mr. Member.

[ Page 2280 ]

I think it's also worthy of note that there are only two provinces,

as I understand it — perhaps only one — who are opposing the position

taken by the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Alberta is very reluctant. Alberta is

wondering how it got in the position of opposing it. Really and truly,

to sit here tonight in this House and concern ourselves with what the

Supreme Court of Canada may or may not do, based on newspaper reports

that we have, to me is not the point. The point is: is this good

legislation in light of what the situation is as we now know it? I

suggest it is good legislation and

section 1, obviously, therefore must

pass.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Lloyd

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Loewen

Mussallem

Veitch

Strongman

NAYS — 13

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

Mr. Wallace requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 2.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Premier is in his

seat right now. I hope he isn't getting ready to leave because I was

just going to ask the Minister of Finance to recapitulate on a question

I asked several days ago following a speech by the hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch). The member for Burnaby-Willingdon was

quoting the Premier on his good intentions and suggesting that after

this bill was passed all of the increases that the government had

imposed upon the people of British Columbia would be subject to

scrutiny by the Anti-Inflation Board.

I would like the minister to reassure the House that this is exactly

what will happen and that ICBC, hospital insurance, medical services,

ferries and so forth will all be subjected to review by the

Anti-Inflation Board once British Columbia becomes a partner. And I'm

sure that even though you haven't accepted our advice, Mr. Minister,

this bill will be detained at least until its legal status has been

clarified.

You must remember that the Premier also stated, when he was speaking

some time ago on the need for cooperation with the federal government

in its fight against inflation, that this government was not satisfied

with its provincial authority to bring in measures to fight inflation,

but that it wanted the legal authority to cooperate, along with other

provinces in the country, with the federal government in a concerted

fight. This was a quote from the Premier as well, that he wanted the

legal authority. This, in fact, was some time around mid-April that he

was indicating the need for.... "Legal capacity" was the exact quote

that he used. "We want the full legal capacity, should it prove

necessary in the future to freeze prices for a limited period of time,"

et cetera.

So I don't see how you can get the legal capacity when the whole question

of the Anti-Inflation Board programme is subject to legality in terms of the

Constitution Act.

But I'm not raising that. We've had a division on that situation,

and obviously the government is bent on proceeding. I would only

suggest that if it is prepared to proceed, it will, in good faith,

assure the House that every piece of legislation and every regulation

that it has introduced to increase prices beyond the 10 to 12 per cent

recommended by the Anti-Inflation Board, which we claim that we will be

binding ourselves to, will apply. Then we can look forward to a

possible rollback, for instance, from a 40 per cent increase in the

social services tax back to maybe where it was at 5 per cent, or if you

can split pennies, perhaps 5.25 per cent, based on something like

volume of purchase and so forth.

But in any event, I think that that's the one thing I would like to

emphasize, Mr. Minister: you did state — and so did the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) in quoting the Premier — you stood in

this House several days ago and said that it is government policy to

subject all increases that have been brought in during the interim

period, until this bill is passed and receives royal assent, to the

Anti-Inflation Board.

I think that if the government will subject itself to the same

regulations that it expects all the rest of the people of the province

of British Columbia to subject themselves to in terms of price controls

and wages, in that way you will show in good faith, that indeed the

bill does have a possibility of working. But unless that's your very

first act — to apply to the Anti-Inflation Board requesting that ICBC,

ferry rates and other increases that you've imposed upon the people of

British Columbia, be subjected to a review

[ Page 2281 ]

— then I think it will be a poor start, and not

very many people will be very enthusiastic or, in fact, all that

confident that you are sincere.

Needless to say, there was some talk about cursory agreements

between the Premier and others, prior to the period when you had your

discussions about joining the federal anti-inflation programme,

suggesting that possibly certain of your Acts would be exempt and that

you could pretend as though they were going to be reviewed knowing full

well that when the time came to apply it wouldn't, in fact, make any

difference. It would just be so much of a charade. You would go through

the motions knowing full well that the Anti-Inflation Board would not

make a judgment contrary to one which you had previously arranged.

Now that's open to your comment. You can refute that, but I'm

suggesting that you may say, "Yes, we're going to be subjected to the

Anti-Inflation Board and all of the prices and programmes that we've

introduced will be reviewed," but I'm just wondering if it will happen.

If it does, I will be the first one to stand in this House and say:

"Well, I withdraw those remarks, Mr. Minister. I can see that this is

truly a sincere effort on the part of the Government of British

Columbia." I have no defence if you subject every one of these

increases that you've made on the people of British Columbia to the

Anti-Inflation Board for review and recommendations as to what the

proper increases should be.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I

can only say in answer to that that he is entering into the area of the

nature of an agreement that we might sign with Ottawa. At this stage I

don't think we could commit ourselves to the outcome of those

negotiations, because there are many things that could crop up before

we finalize the matter with them. Suffice to say that it is a matter of

what is included in that agreement or what is not included in the

agreement, and that what we're talking about is public sector

compensation and pricing.

As you mention, the Premier has made different statements with

regard to our intentions in this matter and that if proper review

procedures can be established to review the matters that you are

talking about, these are going to be included in our proposal with them.

I might say that any agreement that any province has signed with

Ottawa on the anti-inflation programme has nothing to do with taxes or

tax increases or matters within the government sphere where tax

increases are concerned. So your continual reference to those matters I

don't think are a part of the anti-inflation programme.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention

that

section 5, certainly in paragraph (a), relates very clearly to

entering into agreements with Canada respecting the application of the

Anti-Inflation Act and the manner and extent to which the

Anti-Inflation Act of Canada or the federal guidelines shall apply to

the price of commodities or services. So once again

section 5 very

clearly points out how closely dependent this bill is upon the contents

of the federal bill.

In paragraph (b), I just would wish to ask a question. The

section

states that "the minister may, on behalf of the government and with the

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, enter into agreements"

— subsection (b) — "with Canada, or any other province or state." I was

just fascinated to know what

interpretation we should place in relation

to the use of the word "state." I thought that Canada consisted of 10

provinces, and I'm just wondering what the use of the word "state" in

that sentence refers to. Are we referring to any one of the 51 of the

states to the south of our border...

MR. GIBSON: A state of mind!

MR. WALLACE: ...or is it a state relating to some other

jurisdiction that I am unaware of — municipalities or regional boards?

I'm just very puzzled with the insertion of the word "state" as an

entity with which the province of British Columbia might enter into an

agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little constitutional invention.

MR. WALLACE: I just wanted to be sure that we would get an

answer, and the minister has said that he will respond, but I did not

wish to lose my place in debate until I know what the meaning of the

word "state" is in that sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have to worry about losing your place, Hon. Member. You can rise as many times as you wish in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we are to debate this

bill.... It's a very important bill, and I'm really disappointed that

there seems to be a rather casual approach to many of the points that

we are raising. We are not here playing games, and we are not trying to

be obstructive. We want to have some answers to what I think are

reasonable questions, and the word "state" in that subsection (b),

coming after the use of the words "or any province...." I can

understand that the government might enter into agreements with other

provinces, but what is the

[ Page 2282 ]

meaning of the "province or state"? This is not a country that consists of states.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Here we go!

HON. MR. MAIR: I think, with respect, Mr. Chairman, that the

agreements with another state anticipated is not an anti-inflation

agreement, but I think we should look further: exchanging information,

statistics, that sort of thing. So the contemplation there is that the

government may very well want to enter into an agreement with another

state, whether it be another country, another state of another union,

for the purposes of enhancing the bill and any agreement that's entered

into thereunder, not entering into another anti-inflation agreement

with such a state.

I think that if you read the whole section, you will see that the

intent is rather broader than the member puts forward: "carrying out

any of his powers and duties under this Act, or for exchanging

information or statistics, or for any other joint action."

MR. LAUK: Well, I couldn't let that pass. I recognize that

the hon. lawyer for Kamloops, which is well known as being a centre for

Canadian constitutional learning....

Interjections

MR. LAUK: You know, I think the Minister of Consumer Services

would be correct if the

section did not say: "as the minister considers

necessary or advisable for the purposes of carrying out any" — any —

"of his powers and duties under this Act." And when you see "or for any

other joint action" related to "any of his powers...under the Act,"

you've got a

section that is extremely broad. If it didn't say "any of

his powers, " then the phrase "for any other joint action" would have

to follow the justum generis rule, but it doesn't in that case.

What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that we not pass this

section

but that we move on to the next

section until the Minister of Finance

can bring in an amendment. Because what he is suggesting here is that

the right-wing coalition is desirous of forming a political or

commercial union with the United States. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I repeat: I am not a lawyer, and I

hesitate to get into the line of fire between my colleague from

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Mr. Mair). But since the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) seems

reluctant to answer, I have the temerity to join in, particularly in

light of the legal opinion which the Minister of Consumer Services gave.

I was not aware that statutory authority was required, under this

Act or any other, to allow the government to embark on the exchange of

information and/or statistics with any other state. Quite frankly, I

hope that is the case, because it would be reassuring, Mr. Chairman, in

light of the discussions that have been taking place the past number of

days and weeks between the Prime Minister of British Columbia and

Governors of Washington, Alaska and other particular states. It would

be reassuring to know that he lacks the authority to arrive at any

trade-offs, as he says, or agreements, and indeed lacks the authority

to involve himself or the province in the exchange of information and

statistics without specific statutory authority. Certainly that is the

implication in what the Minister of Consumer Services just indicated to

the House.

I think we have to conclude, as the first member for Vancouver

Centre has pointed out, that the clause specifically extends the

authority held under this statute by the authorized minister. Under

those circumstances I think the

section is ill-conceived and

ill-thought-out. I suggest and endorse the proposition that the

government withdraw this section, and possibly consider an adjournment

on this whole bill until they get their act together and get the

language cleaned up in this bill.

It is obviously drafted in questionable legal terms; it's obviously

a rather sloppy initiative by the government to come to grips with the

problem that is a real one in the province and in the nation. It leaves

very many serious questions unanswered. It leaves the implications of

broad and unnecessary powers being extended to the minister, and which

have nothing to do, necessarily, with the problem of inflation in the

nation. I am sure the government doesn't want unnecessary powers; we in

the opposition would not want to grant unnecessary powers to the

government.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that probably the use

of this word "state" is just a little constitutional imperialism, which

is good fun. I would just ask the minister, however, if it would be the

proposal of the provincial government, in the event it does enter into

an agreement with any state under the authority of this Act, which

presumably would be a foreign state, to keep the Secretary of State for

External Affairs posted. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Posted where? (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Siam.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: The minister seems to bring out an inconsistency in the implications of

section 5(

a) when

[ Page 2283 ]

he makes reference to compensation of employees of

the provincial public sector being subject to agreement between the

province and the federal government. At the same time he states that

there may be some factors that have to be dealt with in a different

manner respecting the increases that the government, through the

Legislative Assembly and the cabinet, has initiated.

What I am saying is that the government really is complete, is a

whole, and the public sector is part of the government, just as the

Crown corporations are part of the government; the Legislative Assembly

and those members within the Legislative Assembly are part of the

government. But I am wondering why the minister is making these

distinctions.

He is suggesting that the public sector — I think he means employees by that....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: If the employees are subject to the

Anti-Inflation Board regulations — which is fair enough if you are

going into an agreement — there should be no question, in my view,

about the inclusion of any other acts on the part of the government

that it assumes responsibility for, including its own salary,

Everything should be 100 per cent. You have pointed this one out and

you haven't mentioned the other things that I have mentioned, like

ICBC. You said that the social services tax should be excluded. I will

accept that because of technical reasons, although I question the need

to exclude anything at a time of restraint and a need to be consistent

so there is no doubt as to your concern. I hope that you will explain

why the public service was included and none of these other things were

expressly included in the legislation.

Now you pointed out that the reviews would be open for all of the

measures that the government has brought in, but you have taken the

initiative to include the public sector. I just wonder if there are

other parts of the government that you could have included. Why only

the public sector specifically?

The minister is writing notes on what I said. I think he wants to

answer if you give him a chance. I don't want to deprive him, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like me to check?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I just wanted to comment on this word "state"

once again. It is, in fact, strictly in there to cover for the

potentiality of exchange of information and statistics.

MR. LAUK: The second member for Vancouver (Mr. Barnes) should

be answered. The general theme is still here that the government — and

it's reiterated in

section 5(a) — is content to raise rates and taxes

and other costs to the public. When they feel a little bit shy in

dealing with their own public service, as far as restraint is concerned

they want to foist that off onto the anti-inflationary programme and

the federal government. That's the theme of the question that's being

asked. You're not fooling anybody. You've got a fantastic majority in

the House and you're trampling over rights every day.

As far as

section 5(

b) is concerned, I'm not content that it should

be passed off frivolously. I'm sorry that we added too much humour to

it. The addition of "or state," read with the phrase "any of his [the

minister's] powers and duties under this Act," does not confine it to

the mere exchange of information on statistics. So if that's what your

intention is, eliminate "or state" or at least define that when you're

dealing with the state the agreement will be for the exchanging of

information and statistics. Otherwise you're asking the Legislature to

grant broad powers. Quite frankly, we're not sure what this government

is going to do in agreements with the United States or any other

foreign states.

I don't know why you're so amused about that. This is a very broad,

power-giving section. I think you should withdraw the

section and

redraft it.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to

section 5(

a) again which I think, when read carefully, substantiates precisely the

proposition which the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself were trying to put

forward with respect to

section 1 of this bill. The provisions of

section 5(

a) grant that: "The minister may, on behalf of the government

and with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council, enter into

agreements with Canada respecting the application of the Anti-Inflation

Act (Canada), the regulations and federal guidelines in the province,

and the manner and extent to which the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada), the

regulations, or the federal guidelines shall apply to the prices of

commodities or services and the compensation of employees in the

provincial public sector...."

Again, as in

section 1, which was denied by the government, which

was denied by the Attorney-General, the whole premise on which this

bill is put forward is that we have a federal Act that is upheld in the

federal supreme court and which sets guidelines and regulations which

will be endorsed, accepted and applied in the province.

If the federal Act is found ultra vires in the supreme court, then

this whole bill, I submit, becomes ultra vires also in terms of any

provincial jurisdiction to enter into the public sector with regulation

of commodities, services, salaries, and so on.

I think it's scandalous that the government is going

[ Page 2284 ]

ahead with a bill like this which is on such a

shaky foundation, which in this

section specifically predicates and

makes this statute dependent upon the legality of other federal

Anti-Inflation Act, which is admittedly questionable, and, further,

which contains in

section 5(

b) the kind of broad, sweeping, awesome,

unnecessary powers that have been outlined and identified by my

colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

It's true that the Social Credit Party when in opposition constantly

screamed about unnecessary powers being taken unto the government of

the day, and here they are, Mr. Chairman, going further in this statute

and others that have been under debate in this chamber today, taking

unto themselves the most unlimited and broad powers that I have ever

witnessed in this province. I think it's unjustified, I think it's

unnecessary, and if I were the back bench members of that

administration I'd be concerned, and I'd be supporting the proposition

that the minister take this bill back, accept an adjournment on it,

reconsider some of the language — clean it up so that there's some

assurance that the government is not vesting in themselves unlimited

and unbridled powers and authority which are not at all necessary to

accomplish their intention in terms of trying to dull the fires of

inflation.

I think there are some very dangerous concepts embraced in this bill

that should be rethought. I appeal to the Minister of Finance to

adjourn debate and, rethink this bill and call it again at some point

in the future.

MR. BARNES: I just wanted to remind the minister that I feel

that he completely ignored me. I've been very calm this evening. I

haven't in any way tried to get him or anyone else excited but I'm

expecting cooperation so that we can move on to some other matters. He

hasn't stated why he feels that the public service should expressly be

included in the bill when other matters are being excluded. I just

would like to know why the public service was expressly included. Was

there some reason to make sure that there was no danger of them

escaping?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I don't know. We would assume that everybody

would be included. The fact that it's included makes me wonder why,

when you didn't really need to.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Are you speaking for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Well, I guess you're going to have a cabinet shuffle, but you'd better be careful — you might get shuffled sideways.

Would you like to answer, Mr. Minister?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that our

suggestion is not being met with any degree of seriousness by the

Minister of Finance....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: There seems to be a great deal of frivolity. Shall we have the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: I think that paragraph (

b) of

section 5 is of such

import that we should vote on an amendment. I move an amendment to

section 5(b), line 1, by deleting the words "or state."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 23

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Strongman

Veitch

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I just give a reminder to each

member. This is information that you all have; however it's just

perhaps something you don't think of. During the time of the reading of

the division list, I think we should extend the courtesies of the House

to the Clerk who is reading that list for us to be sure that there is

no error. As a result, I think we should adopt a policy of absolutely

no talking at all during that time. It was that way at one time and I'm

sure we can make it again.

[ Page 2285 ]

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this

section gives

an incredibly wide authority to the provincial government in

implementing the provisions of this Act.

Section 6(2)(a), for example,

talks about the regulations defining terms such as price, commodities,

services and any other word or expression used in the regulations.

Section 6(2)(

b) gives authority to establish the maximum price that may

be charged for the supply of a commodity or service. I'm quite

concerned about some of the public reaction to this kind of

legislation, particularly the comments of groups and societies such as

the Canadian Labour Congress which sees this kind of bill as the end to

collective bargaining, or at least it renders collective bargaining

meaningless.

While I personally believe that these groups are overreacting when

they talk in terms of using the legislation to justify a general

strike, nevertheless it is some evidence of concern with which many

important groups — unions and groups of employees — view this kind of

legislation. It would really serve no purpose if, in attempting to deal

on a temporary basis, as this bill does, with the inflationary

problems, all it succeeded in doing was causing widespread havoc

throughout the employee

section of the province and the country. So I

think the government has been unreasonable in giving itself this kind

of power under the regulations of

section 6.

I'm not really reassured by subsection 3, for example, which

mentions that any regulation terminates 60 days after the commencement

of the next ensuing sitting of the House. We have no assurance that

there will continue to be two sessions of this Legislature each year,

and the regulation brought into effect soon after the House rises could

be in effect for a very long time. And that kind of power, added to the

powers existing under subsection 6(2), leads me to believe that many

unions in this province and across Canada, faced with this kind of

legislation, have every right to be deeply concerned.

The fact that in the early months of the anti-inflation measures by

the federal government there has been an uneven application of the

measures, and that all the emphasis seems to have been on wages and

very little on prices — that fact of life, coupled with the kind of

power that the provincial government wants under

section 6, I think, is

excessive, unreasonable and certainly raises the question as to just

how very much this government, despite its espousing of limiting the

powers of government, in fact, seems very much to be going in the

opposite direction, and, as with bills we've already discussed today,

seems to be bringing in the kind of power which it criticized the

former socialist government for seeking in its programme of legislation.

I just find the example of

section 6 here, together with some of the

other examples that have been quoted in debate earlier on today, to be

really a frightening contradiction of so much of what this government

stood for when it went to the voters and successfully received their

majority support last December.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment as to whether the

apparent intent of sections such as subsection 2(

a) which I quoted a

moment ago, where the regulations can interpret the definition of any

other word or expression used in the regulations...if it means what it

appears to mean. I can't remember in the years that I've been in the

House ever encountering a bill which goes out of its way to express the

fact that the regulations can provide the bill with total authority to

define any word or expression used in the regulations. This seems to me

to mean that the government is going to the nth degree to give itself

total power which cannot be argued against, or within which no other

interpretation can be considered.

It seems to me that in most bills certainly there is a

section which

describes

definitions of words subsequently used in the bill. But to go

to this extent and say that it has the power to define any other word

or expression used in the regulations, to me means two things: that the

government expects to be challenged, as indeed I'm sure it will in the

course of applying this legislation, and is predetermining its own

position by giving the government authority to interpret the definition

of any single word used in the regulations.

If that is the case, then, indeed, even this bill could have been

simplified by just putting all this total power into one single

paragraph. It's very frightening that there seems to be no appeal

mechanism whatever in this section, or in the bill for that matter,

under which any group or employee or union or otherwise which feels

itself to be unfairly penalized by the application of the regulations

section 6 can seek redress.

So these are two of the questions I hope the minister might answer:

why is there this extensive application to be given the power to define

the meaning of every single word; Secondly, was it a purposeful

decision by the minister not to provide any kind of appeal mechanism

against the application of the regulations under

section 6?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this

section 6 is an absolutely

horrendous section. It was my prime reason for voting against this bill

on second reading.

All of the words that we use in this House from time to time on this

kind of legislation pale into insignificance when you look at the

powers conferred

[ Page 2286 ]

by this section. We talk about blank-cheque

legislation, arbitrary legislation and all the rest; this is all of

that and more. King John didn't have these powers before the barons

gathered to impose Magna Carta on him. Diocletian, the Roman emperor,

tried to take these kinds of powers and they didn't work. He had them,

but it was back in the days of the Roman empire — in the dying,

decadent days — that we saw this kind of legislation imposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: This section, Mr. Chairman, would allow that

government over there — and I wouldn't trust it with any government,

but I sure wouldn't with that government — to fix any wage...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GIBSON: ...to override any contract or agreement within

the civil law of this province and to fix any price above or below

cost. Mr. Chairman, this action could go on for months without debate

if the Legislature happened not to be then sitting, and then, when the

Legislature finally got around to debating it, that crushing government

majority would simply override the protests of the opposition and they

would carry on unimpeded.

Mr. Chairman, this is a complete betrayal of the mandate that the

government received from the people of this province on December 11.

That's not why you were elected — to pass this kind of legislation. I

want to tell you — those of you who were sitting in this House before

December 11 — if the last government had tried this, you would have

been up on your feet yelling "Communism!" You would have gone around

the province saying that.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): That's right.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: This is a complete taking of power unto the state

and unto the executive council that can go on for months before there

is any appeal to the Legislature, and at that point your majority will

still make it stick. This is taking the right to enter into the private

lives and contracts and agreements of any citizen in this province, and

do it arbitrarily and do it by cabinet order. You Social Credit

backbenchers remember that, because you aren't going to have any

influence over it when the day comes...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: ...through you, Mr. Chairman. There won't be any

hearing. There is no provision for that here, and there is not

provision for appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an absolutely disgusting

section and

I call upon every thinking member of this House and every member of

this House who values his liberty and the liberty of people around this

province, to vote against it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is first on his feet. Do you...?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I defer to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief on this. I

certainly agree with the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in

terms of the very, very unusual powers that this

section of the bill

grants to cabinet discretion. It is a valid comment to reflect on the

reaction from those members on the government side to some of the bills

introduced by the previous government containing authority that really

did, in fact, pale into insignificance when weighed against the kind of

powers and the kind of authority taken unto the government, unto the

cabinet, in

section 6 of this bill. It is true there would have been

hysterical cries of "Communist!" and so on.

It's a bit of a shame that these people have such a short memory.

You know, there is more than one kind of dictatorship. We on this side

neither subscribe to communist dictatorships nor do we subscribe to

fascist dictatorships. We remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that excesses

and abuse of power can and have been exercised in defence of any dogma,

and it's usually at the expense of the freedom and the rights of

individual people in any state. We certainly repudiate that. Never have

I seen the kind of powers taken unto a government administration as are

contained in this

section of the bill, with the exception of certain

initiatives by the federal government in cases that they deemed to be

emergencies, some of which became highly debatable in light of the

scrutiny of history.

The other thing that I object to in this section, and I want to deal

with it just briefly, Mr. Chairman, is again the inequity. The whole

thrust of this

section is mainly directed toward granting the right

toward the government to regulate prices of commodities and so on. I

find it objectionable that unusual powers are granted in a completely

discretionary way while conversely, in the federal act, which will

regulate the wages of working people both in the public and the private

sector if this bill becomes law, there is a precise formula, a precise

level, a precise maximum laid down in the legislation which defines and

[ Page 2287 ]

outlines the permissible guidelines.

On the price side, Mr. Chairman, we find nothing more than a

discretionary authority. Quite frankly, I neither trust this government

to be serious in their attempt to be even-handed in terms of regulating

prices as they are arbitrarily limiting wages, nor do I trust their

good judgment with the unusual powers they are taking to themselves in

this bill. But I cannot help reiterating and re-emphasizing that the

suggestion of regulation of prices, which is essential if there is to

be any vestige of even-handedness in terms of a campaign against

inflation, should be spelled out precisely in this bill.

If they were spelled out precisely, I suggest that the vague and

unusual powers and authority that are granted carte blanche would be

more restricted. They would be precisely narrowed down to the authority

to specific limitations. Rather than that, as I say, they are carte

blanche.

I think if we were to look at the history of this coalition

government, if we were to look at their contracts and their

relationships and the sources of their campaign funds, I must state,

Mr. Chairman, that I have no confidence that there is a sincere desire

here to intrude or interfere in any way with the prices and the profits

and the profiteering of corporations in this province. Indeed the

contrary seems to be true.

We had the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) today indicating that legislation is coming which is going

to provide additional relief from taxation and royalties to the mining

industry. Is that the price the mining industry is going to pay to

fight inflation? Is that the sacrifice that they're going to receive,

by contrast to the regulation, the curtailment, of negotiated wage

increases which workers in the private sector and the public sector

have worked to win, have gone through the collective bargaining process

and negotiated in good faith, only to be intruded upon by government

and have that private contract rendered ineffective and rolled back?

It is not even-handed legislation, Mr. Chairman. It's frightening

legislation. It's obviously inequitable and I oppose this legislation

in the strongest possible terms.

MR. BARBER: I'll be very brief. I very much share the concern

expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), by the Liberal

leader (Mr. Gibson) and by the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace)

regarding the endangerment of civil liberties represented by

section 6.

In a constitutional democracy,

definitions matter a very great deal.

They are the foundation and the instrument of the law.

Definitions must

be precise to protect and to preserve the liberties that we believe are

valid and valuable assets in a constitutional democracy.

Subsection (

a) makes it very clear that this coalition has no

respect whatever for that principle, that this coalition is permitted

by this legislation — should it pass — to define, in any way it likes,

any term it chooses to define. I think that's a dreadful piece of any

legislation, no matter which government should bring it in.

In any constitutional democracy

definitions must be clear, they must

be precise, and they must be accountable to the lawmakers who pass our

legislation. Here you are asking for permission to define, after the

fact and after this legislation comes into place, any term, any word or

expression used in the regulation. To quote from it.... I think that is

dreadful, Mr. Chairman. This government should never have had the nerve

to do it.

Subsection (

d) is even worse. Subsection (

d) requires a person to

provide "such information and access to his records as the minister or

a person designated by him may require." Mr. Chairman, this is

iron-curtain legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: This is iron-curtain legislation.

What are we going to see here? Are we going to find the secret

police, whom the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) discovered

and whom the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has denied exist,

breaking down the doors of businesses at midnight? Are we going to find

these secret police kicking down the doors, seizing the records and

documents of honest businessmen...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. We just have a few minutes until 11. Let's restrain ourselves.

The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is iron-curtain

legislation precisely because in subsection (

a) we see this coalition

giving to itself the unconstitutional authority to define anything it

wishes in the Act ...

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: .... . secondly, allowing in subsection (

d) unlimited access to the homes and business premises of any person in

the province in order to seize any records they wish, day or night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes?

MR. BARBER: I have to agree with the other

[ Page 2288 ]

comments, Mr. Chairman. If the New Democratic Party

had brought in such legislation there would be the hysterical cries of

hyenas the length and breadth of British Columbia, saying what a

dreadful thing this was. When we do it we hear nothing but the

laughter. This is iron-curtain legislation. It has no place in a

constitutional democracy.

This coalition should be required to provide

definitions. This

coalition should be required to provide the right of appeal. This

coalition has no right whatever to allow the agents of the Crown to go

anytime, day or night, into anyone's home or business and seize it. It

has no right at all doing that, Mr. Chairman.

This

section is absolutely offensive to anyone in a constitutional

democracy and to anyone who believes that one's home and one's business

should be free from the kind of encroachment and intimidation and open

access to any agent of the state that the minister may declare should

have such access. It is offensive, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Listen to these guys!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's listen to the member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: If they've even read the bill it's clear they don't understand it.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Are you finished?

No government has the right to produce legislation which in its own terms permits

it to determine all the other terms after the legislation has been passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: That is grossly undemocratic. You have no right to bring

it in. No democracy should permit any agent of the state this kind of access,

day or night, to the homes and business premises of its citizens. This is iron-curtain

legislation. You should never have brought it in. Never!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress, further reports

that divisions did occur in committee and asks leave to have them recorded in

the Journals of the House, and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following amendment is referred to on page

2267:

45 The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 45) intituled Auidtor General Act , to amend as follows:

Section 3, subsection (1), line 1: By adding "general" after "auditor".

Section 3, line 9: By deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

"

(3) Where the auditor general is suspended or removed from office or

the office of auditor general becomes vacant, the Lieutenant-Governor shall,

on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, appoint an acting auditor

general to hold office until the end of the period of suspension of the auditor

general or until an auditor general is appointed under

section 2, as the case

may be."

The following amendment is referred to on page

2268:

45 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 45

(No. 45) intituled Auditor General Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, subsection (2), line 2: After the word "Special" insert

the words "All Party".

[ Page 2289 ]

The following amendments are referred to on page

2269:

Section 8, subsection (2), line 4: By deleting "representation" and substituting "presentation".

Section 10, line 3: By deleting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

"

(2) Upon receipt of a report of the auditor general, the Minister of

Finance shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible.

"

(3) If the Minister of Finance does not lay the report before the Legislative

Assembly on the first sitting day following the receipt of the report by him,

the auditor general shall transmit the report to the Speaker and the Speaker

shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada