1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4991 ]

CONTENTS

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4991

Mr. Lauk –– 4991

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4994

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4994

Mr. Reynolds –– 4995

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4995

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

section 16 4997

Mr. Lauk

Third reading –– 4997

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

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4997

Mr. Rose –– 4999

Mr. Lea –– 5000

Hon, Mr. Chabot 5001

Division –– 5001

Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill

46). Committee stage.

On

section I –– 5001

Mr. Davis

Third reading –– 5001

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

section 2 –– 5001

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading –– 5003

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

Third reading –– 5003

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today are some friends of mine from Cowichan:

Jan Broadland, who is a newly elected member of the Cowichan School Board, together

with her husband Ken and their children Lori and Dean. I would like the House

to join me in welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

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

COMMODITY CONTRACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to move second reading of the Commodity Contract

Amendment Act, 1985. This act corrects a number of defects in the original and

unproclaimed Commodity Contract Act,

an act that was passed some years ago but

was never proclaimed because of deficiencies within it. Those deficiencies included

inadequate regulation-making powers, a number of definitional problems and the

problem of recognizing out-of-province exchanges. For example, the definition

of "commodity contract" now includes, with these amendments, commodity

options, commodity futures contracts and commodity futures options. This legislation,

as amended, enables the superintendent of brokers to recognize out-of-province

exchanges where adequate safeguards already exist. As a result, contracts traded

on such exchanges will not require approval by the superintendent. But British

Columbians trading on these exchanges will still be protected by the other jurisdiction's

regulations that meet our superintendent's standards. However, Mr. Speaker,

where a registrant wishes to trade in a commodity contract on an exchange that

is not recognized, that person can still submit the actual contract to the B.C.

superintendent for approval. For trading on an exchange within the province,

both the exchange and the form of contract must be approved by the superintendent.

In addition, the superintendent is given the power to prohibit any person, including

registrants, from trading in specified contracts on specified exchanges.

With these amendments we can be sure that regulatory controls exist

in every conceivable situation in which B.C. investors deal in the

commodities market. As soon as the act is amended we will circulate

draft regulations to the industries affected for their comment.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, our commodity contract legislation requires

registration of persons who deal with the public in these transactions,

sets out an approval process for the types of contracts used in these

trades and ensures that investors are protected by adequate safeguards

when dealing in commodity markets anywhere in the world.

In my opinion these amendments and the proclamation of the contract

act as amended is a positive, important and useful addition to our

strategy for confidence in the marketplace by the investor. It is a

useful addition to our securities regulatory system in this province.

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

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I expect that this morning will be the

last time that the government benches will applaud me in the course of

the debate.

In 1978 this House passed a bill called the Commodity Contract Act. With or

without deficiencies, it may have, and probably would have, prevented what one

of the city newspapers has called "the tragic tale of a commodity nightmare"

in the city of Vancouver. It's the story of investment in British Columbia

and the responsibility of this government in its role to regulate the kinds

of investments we're talking about that has discredited the Vancouver Stock

Exchange around the world. The Vancouver Stock Exchange has one of the poorest

reputations in North America, if not the poorest.

[10:15]

I want to describe to you what has occurred in that eight years to affect not

only the credibility of that exchange vis-à-vis commodity trading but

also the total image of that stock exchange affected by the scandals, if you

like, with respect to commodity trading and other forms of share trading on

the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

When I was asked by the leader of our party to take on the responsibility of

reviewing this minister's role vis-à-vis securities and corporations,

I called several stockbrokers to find out why it had, if not the poorest, then

one of the poorest reputations in North America as a stock exchange. One of

them told me — rather candidly, I thought — that whenever an investor was seeking

original advice about how to invest a certain amount of money on the exchange,

he said: "Buy shares that are traded in Toronto, and if you're going

to invest in a share that's listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, pick

the one that looks the highest price in the morning and short it. Shorting means

you sell a share you don't have, because you're gambling that it's

going to go down during the day. That is the kind of confidence that senior

brokers have in their own stock exchange in the city of Vancouver

In this province people are holding liquid savings of $36 billion, according

to Statistics Canada. All the right-wing politicians, especially the Tories

in Ottawa, go around beating the drum about how much we need capital — foreign

capital to further alienate the economy of Canada, to further sell it off to

American investors. Yet we have in liquid savings in British Columbia alone

$36 billion.

The Premier is at the first ministers' conference and he has this sort

of Mickey Mouse proposal of a tax credit for investing in Canadian shares. We

don't know what he's talking about, and no one else does either. He's

talking apple pie. It's like waving the flag and saying: "Let's

give incentives to investors." There is nothing in those three pages. If

that's the best the Premier can do in representing us at the first ministers'

conference, why doesn't he just send someone else and forget about it? Stay

in Palm Springs. That proposal is vague; it's an embarrassment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm somewhat

confused. I'm very impressed with the in-depth knowledge that the member

for Vancouver Centre has about the stock exchange, but I understand that this

bill refers to commodity trading. I haven't heard him talk about that yet.

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

[ Page 4992 ]

43, the bill before us. If we could maintain

relevance to the Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985, it would be

most appreciated by the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LAUK: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that advice, and I

thank the Minister of Forests for bringing my attention to it. I want

to explain to you and him and the House that it is my view that the

reason this bill has been delayed — it's been needed for eight years

and longer — is very nature of the stock exchange itself. The

government has not had the practice in adequately regulating this stock

exchange, and that's caused part of the problem.

The idea of regulating the commodity exchange and the stock exchange

more closely is to attract and not to discourage investment. You and 1,

Mr. Speaker, may not have much in savings — heaven knows I don't; I'm

only guessing about yours, and you don't have to make any disclosure —

but what we do have.... It may be an attractive option for us to look

at our local stock exchange or commodity exchange — it's the same thing

— and ask advice, but the brokers themselves cannot confidently advise

you to invest in shares and commodities that are traded in our own

exchange, That's what I'm saying. Why else do you think the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs is bringing in this bill? Somewhere

along the line someone — I have a feeling that that someone is rather

close to him right now — has forced him to realize that it's not a

discouragement of investment; it's an attraction of investment. People

who have charge of moneys in trust, such as some professionals and

brokers I know who give advice on investment, can confidently tell

their clients: things are much better on the Vancouver Stock Exchange;

the information you get is more reliable; the superintendent of brokers

has more regulations to make sure that information is reliable; and the

investment can be made, not without risk, but at least based on a fair

judgement of facts that you could generally rely on.

Do you know that you're much better off putting quarters into those

one-armed bandits down in Las Vegas? You've got a much better chance

down there. You've got a much better chance and a fairer chance of

making money at the track. I'm not going to usurp other people's

expertise in that area who may be in this House, but I think there's at

least one member I know in this chamber who would agree that you've got

a much better chance at the race-track than you do in the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. Proof positive. I've seen the hon. member to whom I'm

obliquely referring come in with a new tie occasionally on Monday

mornings. We know.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a shame. Perhaps part of the reason —

certainly not even the major reason — that there's so much in savings

rather than in investment in this province is that the people of this

province cannot trust their own stock exchange. It's manipulative. The

manipulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is notorious around this

whole continent.

We have to find out, for example, about companies that have shares

not only listed on our stock exchange but in other stock exchanges in

North America.... We have to find out the real financial facts of those

companies — sometimes our own Crown corporations — through the

Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. We don't have

that information in Canada. We don't have that information in British

Columbia. It's a scandalous state of affairs that investors in Canada

have to look to the regulations of the United States to find out about

the real financial situation of its own companies, in its own

jurisdiction. That's bush league and embarrassing, and if we expect to

have people confidently investing in corporations in British Columbia,

that's got to change.

In 1978 this bill was passed. It was never proclaimed. Futures

traders moved into British Columbia relatively uncontrolled. The new

regulations in the United States seared the worst of the types up here.

This was open country for them. This was like Dodge City. The sheriff

was powerless. It was gun slinging territory. Anything goes in

Vancouver. And they moved up here. They packed their little carpetbags.

They came up....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hired a lawyer.

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

The superintendent of brokers, as a civil servant, had the courage to speak

out and say: "For goodness' sake, give us the regulations. At least

we should have the power to license them." I should say so! But the government

did not act. The barn door was still wide open, and the Yankee traders were wringing

their hands and licking their chops. Well, I don't mean to make fun of the

situation, Mr. Speaker.

No gold in the glitter, do you remember that? Now I wouldn't want to

suggest that the minister finally moved after local investors lost $2

million or $3 million — I wouldn't want to suggest that. Would that

have been the 2-by-4 in the forehead that drew the minister's attention

to the problem? That was the crack on the forehead heard round the

world.

Here we have in the commodities situation, where it really is the

story of the widows and orphans. It really is the people that had the

$10,000, $12,000 and $13,000 in savings, and bought some gold, and had

these unlicensed, unregulated traders trading in and out of their

accounts without their knowledge and express written permission. That

resulted in substantial personal losses of their lifetime savings, and

all the while the minister sat like Marie Antoinette, doing his

needlepoint, when the bill was just there to be proclaimed at the next

cabinet meeting.

Eight years this minister had to close the barn door, and now the

horses are gone, the cattle is gone, the sheep are gone, the pigs are

gone, and the hay is gone. There is nothing left in the barn, and here

we have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs come in and

close the barn door. It's a classic case.

I want to know from the minister why there have been these

unreasonable delays. Investigations were made in the King Lung

Commodities Ltd. scandal. It's a subsidiary of Continental King Lung

Group, founded in Hong Kong in 1974, which moved into our jurisdiction

— bush country, easy pickings.

Subsequent investigations indicated that the information on their

brochures and prospectuses, if you want to give them that kind of

title, were in many cases critically false in substantial areas. It was

a fraud. It was an advertent, deliberate deception of little investors

in British Columbia.

All too often we've heard of, and even had confirmed, that people

can make money on the stock exchange if they've got inside information.

I'm not talking about insider trading; I'm talking about inside

information. That's the only way to make your investment in British

Columbia. When a stock exchange has got that kind of reputation, nobody

in his right mind is going to invest in shares in that stock. There's

more

[ Page

4993 ]

control over the shares than there is over commodities — until, hopefully, this

bill is passed. Now it's taken them eight years to not proclaim the Commodities

Act that was passed in 1978. How long is it going to take them to proclaim Bill

43?

[1030]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What did you say? "Quick as we can." Is that eight

years? Four years? One month? I think we're entitled.... We're not ordinarily

entitled to ask whether the Crown is going to proclaim a bill within a certain

period of time, but I think the people of British Columbia have a right to know

if they're going to proclaim this bill within two, three or four weeks.

If it's days, I'd like to hear the minister stand up and say so, because

the longer you wait, the longer the people with that $36 billion are going to

keep on sitting on it.

The superintendent of brokers begged the minister. I would speculate

that the assistant deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs,

who is now on the floor of the House, was the one taking the heat with

respect to this. I expect he would have had words with the minister

over the years. What was the problem? Can we call the assistant deputy

minister to the bar of the House and have him tell us about the eight

years of pain and suffering that he's gone through in begging this

heartless minister to proclaim this act?

The newspapers covered the King Lung story fairly clearly — what the

investigation showed, and how much people were losing. I would commend

everybody to have a look at that and understand what those investors

had to go through. I can't find something comparable to compare it to.

I guess it's almost like putting your money in a savings account at the

going interest rate, then showing up a couple of months later to take

your money out for a down payment on a car or house, and having the

bank manager say: "I'm sorry, we took that money and invested it in a

bad loan in a comer store that went broke. We've lost it." That's the

closest analogy I can draw. No trust situation there. No confidence at

all. No reliance that your original investment was sound.

Of course, they have private lawsuits pending. Far be it from me to criticize

the effectiveness of the common law with respect to enforcing these kinds of

contracts. I have a feeling that they're going to win their case when the

trial comes up in a year and a half, but they'll have a judgement they could

paper their bathroom wall with. Who are they going to collect it from? That's

the trouble: they post no bonds; they don't have to have assets. They don't

have to have those roots that make us have confidence in other people when we

make contracts with them. I think we should remove that atmosphere of our stock

exchange, as an investment milieu, being an open country, a crapshoot, make

it one that's solid, where people can invest with the confidence — there's

always a risk in that kind of investment, but invest in confidence — that the

information they are officially told by their agents and the commodities companies

is investigated and supported to some extent in the regulations by the supervision

of the government. A free market in shares and commodities is not a good open

market system without regulation. It's a crapshoot where the dice are loaded.

It's not even as fair as your average dice game, because the dice are loaded.

I think that the only way to describe the government's inaction in eight

years and longer is gross negligence. The inactivity of the minister is totally

inexcusable. Here is a minister and a government arguing that they defend the

little guy, the little investor and the small businessman in the province of

British Columbia, and they've turned their backs consistently on those people.

I want to know why. The excuse that the minister gave when he opened debate

is not acceptable. He said that we didn't have the powers for regulations;

the

definitions were poor. Those are pretty weak-kneed excuses, Mr, Speaker.

It's worse than that; it's no excuse at all. I want to know the real

reason why the minister did not turn his mind to this situation. I want to know

what was going on in this government for eight years while persons were losing

their life's savings in these kinds of investments.

From 1978 — almost eight years....

Interjection.

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

I would like very much for the government to take what I'm saying a little

more seriously. I enjoy good humour as well as anyone else, but the people who

have lost this kind of money.... It's inexcusable. The minister has to have

a better explanation than saying: "Our definition problems were there.

We couldn't define 'contract.' We had to expand it to include contract

options, futures, futures options and so on." Gee, that was a big problem;

that took almost eight years to figure out. Those excuses are not excuses at

all. The minister owes an explanation not only to the people who lost fortunes

as a result of the lack of regulations, who were virtually defrauded of their

savings, but also for no other motivation than to set the record straight so

that confidence in that kind of an investment community can be rebuilt.

While the minister is at it, what is he going to do about the stock exchange?

What is he going to do about Black Tuesday, where millions of dollars were gone

within hours of the stock exchange.... Why wasn't that stock frozen? Did

he talk to his superintendent? The government is now indicating that it's

going to give more power to a stock exchange that will allow that to happen.

The registration of dealers and other types on the floor are going to be left

to the stock exchange, He's now throwing up his hands further and saying

that the stock exchange should be governing more of itself. It's inexcusable.

That's not getting the government off our backs. That is stepping aside

while the vultures get on the people's backs without government protection

or regulation. There's a difference. We want the government off our backs

and onto the backs of the vultures on Howe Street.

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

MR. LAUK: Is that the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't

had tighter regulations on Howe Street? Is it the friends that they

have on Howe Street? I would find it difficult to believe that a

government would be so crass, so cynical, as not to bring in a

commodities bill for eight years while people lost their fortunes.

Of course we're going to vote for Bill 43, but we would like the

minister to indicate how soon it can be proclaimed and how fast we can

see these regulations in place.

There's another thing that I want to say. While my happy-go-lucky friend,

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — and I mean that with greatest respect

— is bouncing around reducing the civil service, I wonder if you and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs can't have a close look at Rupert Bullock's

operation. He is understaffed.

[ Page 4994 ]

I don't think you have adequately provided the kind of people who

are going to be needed to enforce this bill and to adequately....

Interjection.

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

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

MR. LAUK: I would never say that in public — never outside

the House. Even junior counsel is aware that you'd never say that

outside the House.

But I will say that I would like to see the government take a sober

look at the staffing of Mr. Bullock's department, because I think that

he is understaffed. I don't think they are providing him with the money

to attract the skilled investigators that are required to bring up the

confidence of that exchange. It's no good having the Premier going to

the first ministers' conference with some wishy-washy idea of

investment attraction from those liquid savings accounts. In what? In a

stock exchange and a commodity exchange that has no confidence?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. They will have tax incentives to

invest in corporate shares out of the Toronto Stock Exchange but not

under the VSE, because no one has confidence in it. So before he brings

in his tax incentive for investment, let's clean up Howe Street. Let's

work together to clean it up, because all British Columbians, with

those tremendous amounts of savings, could be attracted into the

marketplace. They will generate jobs, because, with a tight stock

exchange and commodity exchange, people will build their confidence in

investing in it. They will be able to rely on the information — not

without risk. Nothing is without risk or a price, but they'll have

confidence they have a reasonable chance based on the information they

receive. That money will start coming out of savings accounts and will

be circulating into the economy. Jobs will be created. Taxes will be

collected.

But first things first. Give Rupert Bullock some staff and give him

a free hand in there to clean it up. Have the assistant deputy minister

spend full time down.... He should have an office down there. Let him

flash his badge around the floors down there. Let's clean up that place

and build up the confidence that I think is required, so that....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You'd do a lot worse — and you have — than have the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) advising you on how to clean up Howe Street.

Interjection.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Exactly. Personal reflections are most unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we must never look a gift horse in the

mouth. Even though I have described as gross negligence the move of the

government as closing the barn door after all the livestock have left —

a lot of people have suffered because of the inactivity, the lethargy,

the downright laziness of this government for eight years — even though

I've said all that and will probably say it again, we support this

bill, and we hope for its speedy passage and quick proclamation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just spoken has indicated

that the opposition will be supporting this bill, as will I. The member was

wrong again, however, when he said that nobody on this side of the House would

agree with what he said. I did, and I believe that the member had some excellent

points that not just the government and the public but also the stock exchange

itself should take extremely seriously.

[10:45]

This legislation is overdue. We vote for it because it's needed. But

let it be said that the stock exchange in Vancouver does not have the

reputation that it should have or that senior stock exchanges in other

cities in Canada have. Perhaps the point is well taken that the

government should police it much more vigorously, that the legislation

should be much tougher. But by the same token the stock exchange has

its own methods and its own abilities to clean up its act if it so

desires. The best we can do in this House, I believe, is simply to say

that if the stock exchange enjoys a reputation less than it would wish

to have, it has itself to blame. As far as investors in British

Columbia, with their savings, are concerned, they have equal access to

the senior exchanges of the world. They can invest in Wall Street. They

can invest in the senior stock exchanges in Canada. Should they choose

to invest through the Vancouver Stock Exchange, they should know by the

words of members on both sides of this House that they're taking their

own risks in doing so. The protections they receive from the Vancouver

Stock Exchange are not equivalent to what they would receive elsewhere.

The risks are greater. Therefore, if they sustain losses — as the

member has just said, life savings — they should know the risks they

assume before they start. They should know that the policing is not the

same as it is at senior exchanges, and one can only say beware.

But the member is right. This bill, while overdue, deserves to be

supported. Certainly, as a member of the government, my support can be

counted on, and I'm glad that the opposition is going to support the

bill and has made the statements that they've made.

MR. D'ARCY: For the last two years, as the minister knows, we

in the opposition have been asking for this kind of bill. I want to

make the point that the need for this bill is not just the urgency of

protecting innocent investors from unreasonable risk, as has been

pointed out by both the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

and the member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

One of the major concerns has been the credibility of the Vancouver Stock Exchange

and the entire Vancouver and B.C. brokerage community. There have been over

the years large amounts of money earned in British Columbia which have not been

traded or invested through BC brokerage houses. It's been traded on other

exchanges, on other boards. Even companies that are listed on the Vancouver

Exchange.... People in British Columbia in many cases have

[ Page

4995 ]

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

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have lost a great deal of brokerage

activity in British Columbia over the years because of a lack of

confidence in the Vancouver investment community. This has primarily

had to do with the commodities market; it has not been a problem with

what I shall perhaps carefully call legitimate brokerage houses. The

major brokerage houses — the Midland Dohertys, the Loewen Ondaatje

McCutcheons, the C.M. Olivers, and so on — there's no problem with

them, and never has been. They have set their own rules and standards,

and they have regulated themselves.

The problem has been with the boiler-room operations. That is why we need regulation:

not because we need the heavy hand of government on the legitimate brokerage

houses, but because we need to catch the sharks. They are the ones who have

been making many British Columbians — large and small investors — have no confidence

in the Vancouver brokerage community and causing them to take their money elsewhere.

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

Apart from the issue of protecting the savings and investments of British Columbians

from unreasonable risk — as has been pointed out, there is always risk when

you invest, and there should be — there is the more important question of, for

the first time in the history of BC, establishing this province in its rightful

role as a major investment centre in North America, and keeping that brokerage

activity within British Columbia. We need the economic activity, and I think

this bill — it's way overdue — is going to ensure that that confidence is

slowly but steadily going to build in the brokerage houses and stock exchanges

in British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to start off by saying I certainly agree

with a number of the comments made by the member for Rossland-Trail. But I would

also say that I think there's another side to this whole issue, and I congratulate

the minister for bringing forth this bill.

If you're talking about the Vancouver Stock Exchange — which fits into this

bill — I think the overwhelming majority of stockbrokers and companies that

deal with the Vancouver Stock Exchange would agree with the member's comments

that they don't want the sharks and thieves. I think all of the companies

that he mentioned are good reliable companies, and all of the companies that

trade on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are governed by the same people as those

companies are. If any of the other ones are doing things they shouldn't

be doing, I would be the first to agree — as I know would every member of this

House and of the community — that they should be prosecuted and that we should

get rid of them.

But the Vancouver Stock Exchange doesn't have the reputation that I have

heard here this morning from some of the members. We might read of some of those

things in the media. I listened to all the comments of the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank); he made quotes like: "Nobody has confidence

in the Vancouver Stock Exchange." He also kept on using the words "Howe

Street"; I think he should know — it's in his own constituency — that

the Vancouver Stock Exchange is now on Granville Street and hasn't been

on Howe Street for a couple of years. That old image of Howe Street has disappeared.

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

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

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure that when the member's fighting for

his election campaigns, he meets in the delis of downtown Vancouver.

They are some of the greatest places to meet. Business people make

deals in restaurants and other places too; you don't have to be in the

office of your stock broker to make a deal.

But he talked about the dice being loaded, Mr. Speaker, and

manipulations. Well, certainly this bill is being brought in to stop

that type of thing.

There are some things you don't hear about in the Vancouver Stock

Exchange — and they talk about British Columbians. Well in excess of 50

percent of the money invested through the Vancouver Stock Exchange is

from people outside the province of British Columbia, who have

confidence in our exchange as the best exchange in the world for

speculative mining stocks and new industries. You can't argue with that

point. The money that comes through that stock exchange.... If you want

to look at just the past couple of years, the Hemlo gold strike in

Ontario was financed through companies on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

The largest gold find in the world in the last 20 years was financed

through small investors in British Columbia, who have made a good

return on their investment. The second member for Vancouver Centre says

nobody has made money in Vancouver. I would suggest to that member that

if you were to invest all your money in lottery tickets and the race

track, you'd lose a lot more than if you invest your money in the

Vancouver Stock Exchange.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

MR. REYNOLDS: He doesn't think that's true, Mr Speaker, but

I'd be willing to place a little wager. He can give his money to our

friend over there who goes to the race track, I'll give my money to a

stockbroker, and we'll see who has the most left at the end of a year.

I can't wait for him to put up his money.

I had to stand up and speak on behalf of this bill, because I wanted to show

support for those thousands of people who work in British Columbia in our brokerage

industry and in the stock exchange, and for the great job they're doing

promoting speculative industries. That's our stock exchange. We're never

going to be New York or Toronto; I hope we never are. There's a need in

this world for an exchange that promotes new and small companies. That's

what we should be doing in British Columbia. We should be talking about it in

a positive manner. Sure, the member can find cases — he quotes them out of the

newspapers — and do you know why? Because they were charged and convicted in

this province by a very good policing agency that looks after our exchange.

Nothing is perfect — we're improving it all the time. This bill is another

improvement that will bring more confidence around the world in our stock exchange.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good exchange; it does a good job. It has winners, it has

losers, but that's the business you're in when you play the stock exchange.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have had somewhat of

an overlap in the debate, and you have been

[ Page 4996 ]

kind enough to allow it to go a little beyond the

Commodity Contract Amendment Act. Comments have been made on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange and matters related to the Securities Act. I

thank you for giving us that flexibility, because the debate has been

excellent. Certainly many points have been raised.

The member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct with regard to the original

Commodity Contract Act being passed in 1978 but not proclaimed. The time delay

has been considerable, and since we were in government prior to 1978, possibly

I could apologize to the member across the floor in that maybe we should have

moved quicker. However, the member also recognizes that there are many people

who deal in commodities, and at the present time they are, even without this

act, under regulation. The investment dealers who operate on the Vancouver Stock

Exchange are regulated by the Securities Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange,

and those are the reputable dealers that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) comments on.

Many trades and commodities are made in recognized commodity exchanges — Winnipeg,

Chicago, around the world — which also have regulations that protect, to a reasonable

extent, investors when they deal in this fairly high risk area. So those are

already reputable people involved in trading of commodities. It's the very

few who have operated in that unregulated area that this bill really addresses.

The amendments to this bill clean up the original 1978 Commodity

Act, and when that legislation is proclaimed as amended, these

regulation will be put into place. When the legislation is effective,

we will be able to catch those few who have in the past caused a

problem.

I had wanted to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that the

stock exchange is not on Howe Street, it's on Granville, but that was

taken away from me by my colleague, the member for West Vancouver (Mr.

Reynolds). The member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct that

there's a tremendous amount of savings in this province. I've made a

number of speeches since I've been Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs that we have to bring back investor confidence. We have to free

up some of those savings accounts and provide them an opportunity to

invest, whether it be in securities or commodities. Put up some risk

capital to stimulate the economic activity in the province, rather than

putting it in a bank account to earn interest. You really don't get the

economic benefits that you would if you were investing. These

amendments will provide protections which hopefully will improve

confidence in the marketplace, and some investors will be prepared to

free up some of those savings.

I want to talk for a moment on some of the concerns expressed by a

number of speakers in the House about the image of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange. I can tell you that the board of that exchange has itself

passed a number of regulations which have tightened up the activity.

They've put into place disciplinary actions; they have made the names

of those offenders public so that people can be aware. If members who

trade on the exchange have not lived up to the rules of the game, they

are fined and their names made public. The superintendent has done a

number of things to ensure more confidence for the investor. He has

told those people in the junior companies that before they go public

they have got to have a greater amount in primary investment. I think

it went from $25,000 up to $100,000 of primary invested funds before

the stock goes public. They have to spend more money on development of

their product through the company or exploration. We've increased the

minimum amount of the value of the share from 15 cents to 25 cents

before it gets on the stock exchange itself. Those are things done

within the system.

[11:00]

I think it's important that we have on record the concern that the members

of the Vancouver Stock Exchange have about their image and what they have done

and what the superintendent's office has done to improve that image, and

what we are doing by amending this legislation dealing with commodities.

It's fair to say that investment in commodities, commodity futures, commodity

future options, etc. is a gamble. It's a high-risk area, but at the same

time, with regulations such as those we'll be able to provide now, we will

at least establish fair rules of the game, recognizing the possible risk, because

we are now going to ensure the commodity traders are qualified and licensed,

and of course we're going to be approving the type of commodity contract

through the superintendent's office.

The member for Vancouver Centre said: "How long before proclamation?"

In my opening remarks I mentioned that once we proceed with this legislation

we're going to circulate draft regulations to an industry committee and

get their feedback, to ensure that we've got everything covered. Then of

course things would be put into place, and we would at that time be proclaiming

the legislation.

The member for Vancouver Centre also mentioned about increasing

staff in the superintendent's office. I appreciate his comments. It

certainly has been a concern to me, and I will certainly use his

comments when I go before Treasury Board to see whether or not we can

get additional staff members at that time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith) says maybe I shouldn't use the member for Vancouver Centre as

support, and maybe I will get them. I'll have to keep that in mind.

I think the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has made some very good

points. He says that funds have been traded on other exchanges. Certainly we

shouldn't be attacking the established brokers, who are reputable people

involved in either the stock exchange or commodity transactions, etc. What we're

after here is the "sharks" who do from time to time take advantage.

With this type of legislation we'll be able to do a better job of protecting

the investor and certainly identifying those sharks and dealing with them.

Mr. Speaker, I've attempted to answer most of the questions that

have been raised. I appreciate the comments of all members of the

House, both in opposition and on the government benches. What they're

really saying is that we have an opportunity here to play a

part in the

economic development of British Columbia. If we have a proper, well-run

stock exchange, where you have proper regulation and legislation in

place, we will attract investment in British Columbia. We will free

some of those savings now sitting idle in bank accounts, and that can

only assist in the development and improvement of the quality of living

in the province. With those comments, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page

4997 ]

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

Leave granted.

Bill 43, Commodity Contract Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

COMMODITY CONTRACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

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

I have a question to ask. There's one minor problem with the whole

bill that bothers me. I wish it were a little bit tougher all around,

but the thing that really causes me concern that I'd ask the minister

to give some assurances on is that

section 16 of these proposed

amendments has a loophole potentially big enough to drive King Lung

through, if you like. Any class of commodity contract, person or

intended trade can be exempted. I'd like to have some assurances that

the regulations are going to be such that that's just not going to

happen in the kind of King Lung situation where 200 small investors

lost almost $2.5 million because of this.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but I would like to have some indication under this section.

It says that the superintendent can exempt this class of contract. Under what

basis — somebody calling him up at two in the morning and saying: "Hey,

how about a break?" I know that's not the case, but we should have some

indication.

HON. MR. HEWITT . Mr. Speaker, from that

section it would, in my opinion,

be.... Where it could be a class of contract exempted, it might be identified

as one of a contract accepted on another exchange. In other words, he is satisfied

that he's approved the other exchange, and thereby approves the contracts

that it's traded on in that other exchange, which automatically says that

we'll accept that contract here: "You don't have to go through

the procedure of having it approved. Therefore I exempt it."

MR. LAUK: Is that the only situation?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That would be the situation as I understand

it, Mr. Member. If you want to make a further comment, I can say I'd

follow that up and make sure that is the only situation.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Edgar may have that.

While the minister is conferring, it seems to me that if that's the only

situation, then there should be regulations promulgated for that. Is the minister

contemplating actual regulations so that we'll know what predictability

there is in having contracts exempted or not exempted?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I think the regulations would say that

contracts have to be approved by the superintendent unless he has been

given approval, you might say, of an exchange elsewhere and, therefore,

its contracts. On this particular section, it does state that the

superintendent would have to be satisfied that in making the exemption

it will not be prejudicial to the public interest. He may impose terms

and conditions with regard to that contract. So he has that authority,

and if he felt that an exemption would be prejudicial, then he wouldn't

make it.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister.

The last point that I wish to make is that I would request that the

superintendent.... I know that he's understaffed and hasn't got the

time, but perhaps we have to make the time so that circulars with

respect to his views about what kind of contracts these will be, what

prejudice he's looking at.... It's like jurisprudence, if you like:

build up that body of judgement from the superintendent where the trade

can predict when an exemption is possible or not. Predictability, it

seems to me, in this field of investment is very important.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the member's comments, and I

would certainly make sure that we do address the concerns that he's

expressed at this time.

Sections 16 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CHABOT: Bill 46, the Legislative Assembly

(Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, makes provision for the

appointment of parliamentary secretaries in British Columbia — a

tradition that's been in the House of Commons for many years, at least

30 years. Other governments in this country also have parliamentary

secretaries. In fact, there are six governments in Canada that make

provision for parliamentary secretaries. The legislation dealing with

this suggests that there is the ability to appoint up to ten

parliamentary secretaries in British Columbia. I'm not suggesting for a

moment that there will be ten appointed. I'm not suggesting there will

be one, but the provision is there for parliamentary secretaries in

case the need arises.

[ Page 4998 ]

The bill also addresses the issue of the Legislative Library, which

has a split jurisdiction between the Speaker and the Provincial

Secretary. I know that the Speaker has been working for some

considerable time to have the Legislative Library under his

jurisdiction, and this legislation essentially provides for that. I'm

not sad about that, because I think it created a problem with two....

Having it under one jurisdiction is, I think, the proper way.

The bill also makes provision for a capital city allowance, which would be

available to members of this assembly at a rate of $60 per day for a maximum

of 50 days to a maximum of $3,000, with the exception of the five seats in

greater Victoria, whose members would get a capital city allowance of $30 a

day to a maximum of $1,500. There are only two jurisdictions in this country

that do not have capital city allowances. They are Prince Edward Island and

British Columbia. I guess everyone knows how small Prince Edward Island is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I know. So that's basically the reason

there's no capital city allowance there. So essentially what we're

doing is catching up with other jurisdictions. I think it's important

that we look at the kind of capital city allowances being made

available to members of the Legislative Assembly here in British

Columbia and make comparisons with what is available in other

provinces, many of which don't have a maximum.

First of all, Newfoundland pays its members $59.40 per day when the House is

sitting. Prince Edward Island, as I said before, has none. Nova Scotia pays

its members up to $50 per day while the House is sitting. New Brunswick pays

$45 for accommodation and $35 for meals on days the House is sitting. Ministers

are not eligible in New Brunswick. The province of Quebec pays $7,500 per year

capital city allowance, the Premier is provided with an apartment in government

buildings and the Speaker — and I'm glad the Speaker is not here today —

is provided with apartments in the legislative buildings. Members may rent

or buy accommodation, with the allowance based on rental value. In the province

of Ontario — last revised on April 1, 1984 — there's up to $9,371 for members

and $10,371 for ministers and party leaders. Again, the Speaker is provided

with an apartment in the legislative building and members may rent or buy accommodation

in the capital of Ontario. Manitoba pays $40 per day when the House is sitting.

Again, the Speaker is provided with an apartment in the legislative buildings

of Manitoba. Saskatchewan pays $52 per day for Regina members and $84 per day

for other members while the House is sitting. This includes the Speaker and

is tied to the industrial composite index. The province of Alberta pays $75

per day when House is sitting. They also pay $75 per day to a maximum of 24

days per year when the House is not sitting. That includes the Speaker. The

Northwest Territories pays $125 in non-accountable allowances per day when the

House is sitting. Members, again, may rent or buy. In the Yukon actual expenses

for accommodation are paid, plus $35 per day for meals when the House is sitting,

with no maximum excluding ministers — up to a maximum of $4,400 per year when

the House is not sitting, available to all members from ridings outside Whitehorse.

[11:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So you see from that list of capital city allowances that other

jurisdictions give substantially more than what we're proposing in this

particular bill.

This bill does not provide for pay increases. The last pay increase

was provided to members of this assembly in January 1982. Since that

time there has been an arbitrary legislative reduction of 10 percent to

the pay of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, which is

substantially different from what takes place in other jurisdictions.

There have been increases in 1984.... Unfortunately I do not have the

figures for the previous years of 1982 and 1983, but when one looks at

what has transpired in 1984 in pay increases for Members of the

Legislative Assembly in other jurisdictions, including the sessional

indemnity plus the tax-free allowance, there have been pay increases of

between 4 and 7.2 percent in other jurisdictions while members of this

assembly took a 10 percent pay cut in 1982 and have not had an increase

since that time.

Getting back to travel allowances, Mr. Speaker, there is no

municipal council or school board — their representatives — who are not

given full expenses when they travel. Public servants in this province

also are given accommodation and meal allowances when they travel. It's

a recognition which is not given to members of this assembly. I think

the capital city allowance being proposed here is a reasonable amount

and is a far cry from the kind of allowances available in other

provinces of this country.

Mr. Speaker, you might also want to look at the kinds of expenses

allowed to other Members of the Legislative Assembly for travelling

within their constituencies. It's substantially larger than what is

allowed to members of this assembly. Also, the ability to travel

throughout the province is there in other provinces; it's not here.

Your travel allowance is from the capital city to your constituency.

While you're in your constituency you have a maximum of $1,650 travel

allowance, which is one of the lowest travel allowances in this country.

To give you an example, Mr. Speaker, I keep an automobile at Cranbrook. I just

got my notice from ICBC for insurance, and the insurance alone on that vehicle

is $450. The vehicle is a pickup truck. It sits in Cranbrook and waits for me.

I have over $5,000 invested in the vehicle. Then after I deduct the $450 for

my insurance, $1,200 a year is left for travel allowance. Certainly that is

frugal on the allowances for members of this assembly as far as the government

is concerned, especially when I examine the kinds of allowances that are available

to other members of legislative assemblies across this country.

I think that people fail to take into consideration the fact that most members

of this assembly must maintain two homes, one in their constituency and one

in Victoria. I'm in that situation, and I know the costs involved in the

maintaining of two homes. There's no one else in the province I'm aware

of who is obligated to maintain two homes. If they are, they are compensated.

That's not the situation with members of this assembly.

There are also provisions in this legislation for improvements to

pensions for members of this assembly. After having examined the kind

of pension provisions that are available to other members.... They are

not the highest; they are average. There are many other pension

provisions in this country that are substantially higher than are

available in British Columbia.

[ Page

4999 ]

There is no provision for severance allowances here, which are

available in other jurisdictions, and I'm not suggesting there should

be, Mr. Speaker. In Nova Scotia there is a severance pay allowance of

one-quarter of the sessional indemnity; half of the sessional indemnity

in Ontario; half of all indemnities in the House of Commons, which is a

substantial severance pay. Certainly being a member of this assembly

disrupts one's normal employment. It disrupts one's life and one's

opportunities of promotions or making more money. There is one

severance allowance here which is extremely excessive; that's the

province of Quebec, where a formula based on two times the monthly

salary for each year of service is available to members when they leave

the assembly by either resigning, losing the nomination or being

defeated at the polls. If I had that severance formula for all the

years I have been in this assembly there would be $150,000 that the

taxpayers of this province would have to pay for my leaving politics by

one method or another. I'm not recommending that we have a severance

allowance, even though they have one in other provincial jurisdictions

and in the federal government.

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

MR. ROSE: I am not going to speak at length on this bill. Much of the

statistical material and comparisons to other legislatures have been covered

quite adequately by the Provincial Secretary. I don't think there's

much to be gained by repeating it here.

I would just like to remind the House that this material in this

bill and amendments to the Constitution Act were part and parcel of the

unanimous report accepted and voted on by this House. It resulted from

the report in which there were six Social Credit members and three New

Democratic Party members; three of the Social Credit members were

cabinet ministers.

I don't think that it could be described as the most popular piece

of legislation that ever came down the legislative pipes. But I would

like to tell the House a little bit about my experience in these

matters.

In the federal House, where I once was honoured to serve, I have gone through,

I think, two pay and pension increases, one in 1970 and another I believe in

1981. Now 1970 was a year of tremendous promise and great affluence and good

times, and '81 was almost as good. But I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker:

there was never a good time to raise or change the allowances or enhance the

position of an MLA, according to some members of the public. There never is

the right time. It doesn't matter whether times are good or times are poor.

The people who stand up and say that perhaps it is time to do something about

it are probably going to receive all kinds of criticism in the press.

I don't believe that we should have this onerous task of doing this

for ourselves. I think it should be an outside commission that makes up

its mind about these matters and studies and makes comparisons, because

there is really something unseemly about voting oneself a raise. As I

say, I've been through it twice before.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think, though, that criticism about it in the media without the bases of

comparison so aptly demonstrated by the Provincial Secretary — unfair criticism

in many cases, without looking at what happens in other jurisdictions — doesn't

do anything to enhance the public's respect for democracy. The snout-in-the-public-trough

attitudes towards MLAs or MPs or whatever demeans the office and demeans democracy.

I've been in it since 1968, or 1966 if I count my municipal experience.

I've met a lot of politicians, and I would say that 98 percent of them work

very hard, and regardless of the differences in attitudes and philosophies,

they are men and women with a strong service drive. If you want to make money,

don't come into politics.

I would like to say that I'm supporting this bill because I believe

that the ability and capacity to hold office should not be a function

of your wealth. I think that once upon a time politics was the preserve

of lords and ladies and rich men who were all perhaps retired corporate

lawyers who had independent incomes. These people, while certainly

able, were not truly representative of the community.

We want to have people elected who can come here without undue

personal sacrifice. There's always some sacrifice. We want it to be as

representative as possible of the constituency out there. We want

people from all walks of life here, and we don't want to deny certain

people, because of salary limitations or whatever, the right to serve

in the legislative councils of this province or of our country.

So that's why we feel that adequate pensions and adequate

indemnities are vital and necessary. What's more, they serve democracy.

So we're very anxious for that to maintain what we regard as an

adequate kind of benefit without being unduly greedy.

I want to tell you something else. The Provincial Secretary

mentioned that accommodation allowances are available in just about

every jurisdiction with the exception of Prince Edward Island. Well, I

don't know how many people have been to Prince Edward Island. It's got

120,000 people. Charlottetown is right in the middle of it. You can

drive from either end of it to Charlottetown in two hours. That's on a

bad day. So perhaps there isn't quite the same need for living

allowances there. As far as travel allowance is concerned, we've got

people here representing thousands of square miles. The member for

Atlin (Mr. Passarell) represents people scattered over thousands of

square miles; similarly, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and other members. In order to reach many

of those communities you have to take a plane or go by boat or dog

team, even.

[11:30]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Or snowshoes, yes.

I don't mean that to suggest that in order to serve and make contact with

the people on a personal level, $2,400 a year for in-constituency travel is

excessive. I think it's only reasonable and decent, because I can get around

my riding from one end to the other of it in half an hour. So in saying that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't get $2,400. As a matter of fact, there

is no increase in the travel allowance, except for the rural and remote

ridings, and I think it's justly deserved.

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

[ Page 5000 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. ROSE: Because I won't get one here. I hope that people realize

that the people here are probably serving here in their maximum earning years.

It's the maximum earning years when they contribute to a pension. I taught

at UBC for eleven years, and since I was elected, if it hadn't been for

the federal pension, I would have had no pension rights whatsoever. So I think

that it's only fair to look upon what a person gives up by assuming this

job, not that there aren't massive personal rewards. They're not monetary

rewards, however; they are personal rewards coming from serving one's constituents.

Just to correct the member and to elaborate on what he said about severance

pay, we're not having any severance pay here, as the Provincial Secretary

said. In Ottawa, where it comes to half the indemnity, it only applies if you're

not pensionable. I think something else should be noted about pensions, especially

in the federal House — I'm not sure what it is here — but most of the members

in the federal House never qualify for a pension because the average length

of serving in the federal House of Commons is less than six years. So nobody

can say that the majority of people get a pension just because they happen to

be an MP. That's not true.

Interjections.

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

I just want to use one statistic from the source: "Canadian Legislatures: The

1984 Comparative Study." It goes through all the various provinces and considers

what the per capita spending is on the legislatures in terms of how much we

spend on a legislature per capita: Ontario, $4.09; Quebec, $9.11; BC, $2.77

— the lowest in Canada. We rank tenth in legislative expenditures as a percent

of general expenditures on the legislature.

MR. LAUK: That's not news.

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

I want to finish up by saying this. It would be very easy for me to say at

my age and with my white hair that perhaps I don't need this as much as

someone else. and, therefore, I could be a hypocrite and vote against it. In

the two other years in the federal House that I've cited, I know people

voted against it because they knew it was coming in and they knew they could

vote against it and then take the money and run. I think that if somebody wants

and feels he deserves and needs the allowances — remember, there is no pay hike

in here — that he should have the courage to stand up and say so; and if he

intends to take the money, vote for it.

I want to close by saying this: even though I've received unaccustomed

applause from the other side for this speech, I don't expect to get an academy

award for this. But I will say that I think that if you believe something is

reasonable and right, you should support it. I think this is reasonable and

right, and so I am going to vote in favour of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA ; Mr. Speaker, I agree with all of the remarks made by the hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody and the Provincial Secretary. I should tell you that

there have been people who are supporting me politically contact me and say:

"This is your chance, Graham, to stand apart from the other two parties

and come out looking like a hero." This is not the time to do that sort

of thing. This is not a political football we're playing with here.

If I had not entered politics and stayed where I was, I would now be

facing a 25-year plus pension with the CBC. I found it ironic to watch

one reporter from CBC criticizing the pay package for MLAs. I'd be

making more money at CBC, and I'd be getting a bigger pension at CBC if

I had stayed.

AN HON. MEMBER: And working less.

MR. LEA: We went on a slowdown strike one time for a month, and nobody

noticed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was standing by an elevator when

I was working for CBC, and I looked down, and there was a snail on the floor

beside me. So I stepped on it, and the guy says: "That's a terrible

thing to do. Why did you step on the snail?" I said. "Well, it's

been following me around all day."

But I think we, in this House, also have ourselves to blame a little

for the kind of criticism that we get. You know, it's too easy for

different political parties to attack the other political party for

short-term gain and long-term pain for every one of us. You know, we

see the Premier going on a holiday, and it's criticized. We see the

Leader of the Opposition going on a holiday, and it's criticized. It's

almost as though if you're a Member of the Legislative Assembly, you

have to sneak away on a holiday because you're not supposed to take one.

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

MR. LEA: That is another point, Mr. Member. To take our pay

and divide it into the number of days the Legislative Assembly sits is

not what I consider to be a very good way of looking at it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this legislation. But I should

also like to reiterate another thing that the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said. There is no good time for legislators

to give themselves a pay raise, an allowance raise or any other kind of

raise. I agree with the hon. member of the opposition and the Leader of

the Opposition that the only way we can do it so that not only will

justice be done but also will appear to be done is to move the

benefits, the pay and the staffing of Legislative Assembly members to

an independent commission. That's the only way to go. You know, I could

say that selfishly, because I know we'd be getting a lot more money if

we were to do that, and we'd be getting more staff, and we'd be getting

more expense allowance.

One final point that I think is very unfair is that whenever they

show how much we get, they say: "Here's the wage, and here's the

expense allowance." It would be like going to a television reporter and

saying: "We'd like to show you how much this television reporter made

for the last year. Here's his wage, and here's the expense allowance he

got, and that's what they're getting." We all know, when we go home,

that the expense allowance doesn't put any food on the table. It

[ Page

5001 ]

doesn't buy children's shoes. It doesn't help pay the mortgage. It

doesn't do any of those things. I think sometimes people forget that

legislators have families, that we have to pay the bills, that we are

people and that we are fellow citizens.

Mr Speaker, I am proud to take my place in this Legislative Assembly today

to back the other 56 members of this Legislative Assembly and say that I support

this legislation. But at the same time, we should never do it again. We should

have legislation in this House that takes these matters outside of this House

to an independent body. Within that legislation there should also be a provision

that says that if that independent commission wants to bring in a recommendation

of upping our allowance, we should have no more say about it; if they want to

down our allowance, we have no more say about it. Within that legislation should

be a provision that that independent commission's say is final; their decision

is final and we, as legislators, have to live with it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to reiterate one point, I think,

and that is the decrease in salaries that the members were afforded

through legislation in 1982. Had there been that kind of leadership in

the school system, that kind of leadership in the health system of

British Columbia, we wouldn't be facing the kind of restraint programs

that we've had in British Columbia in the last couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the members of this assembly have shown

great restraint in the last three years, and based on that, I think the

legislation that is before us is fair and reasonable. I move second

reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

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

section 1.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I don't like

section 1 in this bill. I'm opposed to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries

in this small House. The cabinet, in my view, is big enough already: 19 out

of 57 members in this Legislature form the executive. This bill provides for

the appointment of 10 pseudo cabinet ministers. This would bring the executive

and shadow executive to 29, and with the Whip, an effective majority in this

chamber.

The government already has the exclusive power of the purse. It

controls the administration. Adding ten parliamentary secretaries would

give it voting control of this Legislature. I question therefore

whether this move is democratic or parliamentary. The appointees

certainly won't be secretaries. I therefore question this section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: As I said in second reading of this bill, there are

six other governments in this country that have this provision for parliamentary

secretaries. There is nothing here suggesting that parliamentary secretaries

will be appointed. The legislation is permissive. It suggests there can be up

to ten appointed, but that does not necessarily mean that any will be appointed.

We'll take the member's remarks into consideration.

Sections I to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 46, Legislative Assembly (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. SMITH . Since we dealt with this bill in second reading, Mr.

Chairman, I've met with a number of projectionists in the presence of the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the member for North Island

(Mr, Gabelmann). We heard their concerns at length. I think all the members

generally agreed that from the standpoint of fire safety, the legislation cannot

be challenged, because there isn't a fire safety element any more in projectionists'

licensing.

But there were some other concerns — well, not fire concerns — of some legitimacy

as to the comfort factor of having projectionists — and also as to some need

to address the fact that there are a number of licensed projectionists in this

province, both union and non-union, who have these credentials — who have gone

through a period of apprenticeship, and who are concerned, of course, that if

there's a deregulation of that credential anyone, without any training or

experience, would be able to replace them. So what I'm going to do is try

to address that matter; I'll ask that the sections of the Fire Services

Act be passed, but that it be my

[ Page 5002 ]

advice to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that they not be proclaimed until

we have fully explored some way to at least have a modicum of testing or training

for projectionists, if that can be worked out in a manner that's agreeable

and not too bureaucratic. That's the route that I'm going to go, so

I'll be recommending that we not immediately proclaim. But from the fire

safety point of view, it appears that the amendments are in order.

MR. LAUK: First of all, I want to express the opposition's appreciation

for the Attorney-General's willingness to hear the projectionists, and also

to hear opposition points of view. With that in mind, the opposition has not

achieved every thing it wanted — then again, we aren't the government —

but I want to express my appreciation and my confidence that on this occasion

the Attorney-Generals is giving good advice to Her Majesty's government.

With respect to the fire services content, I won't abandon my

strident speech in second reading, where I was trying to bring to the

attention of the government that there were safety features attached;

but I will, after consultation with the projectionists for a more

thorough explanation of the problem, realize that the primary issue is

a labour relations issue involving people who have historically been

licensed. To delicense, if you like, that group would seem — if it were

done right away — a little like an unwarranted interference of the

government into a labour relations situation. So I am pleased that the

minister is recommending delay until notice to the projectionists that

they will either be delicensed or relicensed in some other capacity.

I fully recommend to the government and, I hope, expect that a fire safety

component to their retraining be there, although it's not officially under

the Fire Services Act, because there is evidence to my satisfaction that this

traditional exceptional service provided by projectionists should be continued

in the public good. But as I say, I agree with the Attorney-General that it

is primarily a labour relations or employee status problem.

One suggestion that has been made that I want to ask the government

to consider once again is perhaps to have the film classifier in some

way provide this kind of service. We're talking about less than 200

projectionists who are so far licensed. It seems to me that that figure

is not so high as to unduly burden the film classifier's office. I

would like to see a relicensing under some other provision, rather than

a delicensing, take place. In that way, then, these projectionists will

still have their status, and will be able to not drastically change

their situation at the bargaining table, which I think is fair.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, I just want first of all to express my

sincere thanks and appreciation to the Attorney-Generals for the method in which

we've proceeded to discuss this whole question following second reading.

It was a civilized way to deal with what was a serious issue for a lot of people.

It doesn't often happen in this Legislature that we have the opportunity

for government and opposition to sit down with concerned parties and have a

discussion together. One of the things it leads to, Mr. Chairman, incidentally,

is shorter debate, I might add. A lot of the things that we might have said

are now not necessary. I will admit, too, that some of the things we might have

said may not have been correct.

Interjection.

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

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

I do want to make a couple of comments. I'm not entirely satisfied that

the fire safety aspects are as clear-cut as they might appear to be from what

the Attorney-General said. I suspect that if this fireproof film that I have

in my hand were to come in close contact with one of these struck matches —

which I won't do in here — we would have a little fire. The suggestions

were made that this new modern film in fact is fireproof, but I don't intend

to strike the match, because this stuff will burn readily — if not explosively,

then certainly quite readily — and is a danger. If we're going to have the

kind of atmosphere we have in theatres, then I suspect we need to have somebody

in the theatre other than someone selling popcorn — someone who has some training

and skills at handling emergency situations that can occur. We went through

these discussions, and the Attorney-General certainly well knows the concerns.

What would have happened with this

section would have been an automatic delicensing

inadvertently without having considered the question of whether or not there

should be licensing or some form of educational requirements for projectionists.

I am delighted that the Attorney-Generals has decided to deal with that issue

first, prior to the proclamation of these sections. I agree with my colleague

from Vancouver Centre that the logical place for licensing is under the classification

officer's jurisdiction.

[11:00]

The final thing I'd like to say is that I think there are 371 licensed

projectionists in British Columbia now. Two hundred and forty-one are non-union,

and there have been some difficulties in making contact with those people to

determine how they feel about this kind of legislation. I would urge the Attorney-General

to find some way to reach those people prior to the discussion so that they

can be involved in the discussion about what kind of licensing procedures should

be established.

MR. LAUK: By way of addendum, perhaps you could just confirm

this or not. In my investigation under this section, I came across the

names of two lawyers who were involved historically, and I think

somewhat currently — Mr. Archibald and Mr. Jordan — in deregulation

advice and so on to the government. What disturbs me there is that

although I have every confidence in the professional independence and

ability of these men, the appearance of some conflict with respect to

these sections became apparent to me. I recalled that if they were

involved in recommending in these deregulation sections.... I'm

informed that Mr. Archibald was representing Famous Players in contract

negotiations during their labour negotiations. Although I'm satisfied

with the Attorney-General's explanation for this deregulation, that

appearance of conflict is bothersome to the parties, I thought that it

should be drawn to the Attorney-General's attention.

1 think Mr. Jordan as well.... Well, there is some appearance of

involvement with these gentlemen representing Famous Players. If there

is a conflict of interest in this kind of deregulation situation, then

it should be disclosed. If my facts are correct, then perhaps we'll

just leave it on the record at that.

[ Page

5003 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: We haven't hired either Mr. Jordan or Mr.

Archibald in relation to this matter, and my advice on this bill has

come to me from the fire commissioner. Now that I've agreed to examine

the labour relations aspect of this, it may be appropriate to explore

matters with representatives of both the majors. That's what I

certainly will be doing, but the advice on this is fire commission

advice, and we haven't hired counsel to advise us on this. Very

extensive briefing material has been fire-related, and it's on the

basis of that that I brought this forward. I recognize that it does

have a labour relations spinoff, and it's for that reason that we had

the meeting.

If we can address that special training component and leave some form of certification

or licensing which is not a cumbersome one, which doesn't involve a thousand

hours, but involves some practical experience and an examination.... I don't

think we're far apart — or not really apart at all on this. That's what

I would propose to do. I guess in doing that, I'll have to talk to the industry

and also to an even broader spectrum of projectionists.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

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

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

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

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I believe that in our galleries are some students and their

instructor Linda Cummings from the Native Communications Society of BC, who

are visiting the precinct for the second time. I don't see them but I know

they're up there someplace, and I'd ask the House to join me in making

them welcome.

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

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

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

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

Sections 1 to 51 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright ©

1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, BC, Canada