1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

3141 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Committee

stage.

section 3.

Mrs. Jordan — 3141

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Curtis — 3142

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3144

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3145

section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3146

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3147

On a point of order.

Mr. Phillips — 3149

On the amendment to

section 3.

Mr. McGeer — 3150

Division on amendment to

section 3 — 3151

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Smith — 3151

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3151

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3153

section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 3153

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. McClelland — 3160

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 3161

Amendment to

section 3 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 3162

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3162

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3163

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Speaker, committee stage on bills.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 3.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, before we

adjourned debate for dinner I was trying to point out to the

Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) why there is

such concern regarding his intentions in bringing in this bill,

the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act. Many

believe in the principle of the bill, but are deeply concerned

about what his real intent is, particularly as it is defined in

section 3, which we are debating.

I pointed out to him how his own actions since being in

office and his actions in this debate are only enhancing the

concerns which he tries to deny. I reviewed the problems that

there have been with the board of directors of ICBC when the

Premier tried to suggest that the board of the new savings and

trust corporation would be, in fact, free of political

influence and that it would have the power to define its own

goals, be precise in its actions and not be subject in any way

to the government. Those are the same principles that he

defined for the board of ICBC, and it is now common knowledge

that ICBC virtually cannot function more than two or three days

without reporting to the Premier and to the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and it has

now been admitted in public that the rates were set on a

political basis. That's the Premier's corporation and if he

wants to do it at the expense of the public of British

Columbia, it is a point that he must answer for. But the

concern is that the credit unions do not wish to be subjected

to this type of control and erosion of their independence and

thus their strength. We have seen this in other actions of this

government, particularly this afternoon and last evening in the

debate. Surely those actions of the Premier in giving himself

personal advantage in this Legislature and then denying Members

the same right must be just one more log in the cord of concern

that surrounds his intention in the ultimate in this bill.

I recall one time in a debate in this House involving the Pacific Northern

Fish Co — operative when this Member and other Members pleaded for the right

of the native people to lease to purchase their own fishing boats. This very

same Minister who now is trying to cover up some of his actions told the Member

for North Okanagan that they did not understand co -operatives and they did

not understand co-operatism and, in fact, those belonging to the co-operative

wished to pool their money, they did not wish to own their own boats, it was

not in the spirit of co-operatives, and on and on. But in the next session

he brought in an amendment which, in fact, gave those people, and rightly so,

the right to lease to purchase their own boats. I cite this, Mr. Chairman, as

just another example of whether either this Premier really doesn't know what

he's doing when he brings in his various forms of legislation, or, in fact,

his margin of truth and his yardage of truth in these areas is somewhat long

and he feels that he can hoodwink the public and feels that he can involve them

in his design rather than the design of their own people.

The credit union movement in British Columbia is strong

today because it is independent and because it has had its

objective and its strength rooted at the local level. It is run

by the local people on a co-operative basis and they are

the ones who make the decisions. That's why it is strong. It

has kept within the law and it has met with various governments

to request various changes of legislation which would add to

its ability to serve the public and its members and its

strength in the province. But will that independence be there

in light of the fact that the Premier will not make clear a

commitment that he has no intention of controlling the credit

unions he has no intention of reaching out to their clientele?

There are many ways to destroy an association. You don't

always have to destroy its physical plant. In business you can

just take the customers and establish your own business on the

basis of those customers.

Mr. Chairman, there is much more to debate in this

section

and there is much more to debate in this bill, but for the

moment I would just pose the question to the Minister of

Finance and ask him what studies have been done upon the basis

that he projects the ability of the moneys allotted to carry

out the intention as outlined in

section 3. He makes reference

to the Alberta treasury branches and I would just ask him, in

replying to my questions, to define where his percentages lie

because in the Alberta treasury branch their portfolio on loans

is made up in the commercial and industrial loans of 57.68 per

cent of their portfolio; agricultural loans, 25.45 per cent;

housing and home improvement loans, 3.34 per cent; personal

loans, 5.91 per cent; and municipal loans, 7.62 per cent.

I would ask the Minister of Finance to please outline from

the studies that he has had done, which undoubtedly he has, and

which will ensure a potential

[ Page 3142 ]

beginning investment portfolio, how his projections will

compare with these of the Alberta Treasury branch.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman,

does the Premier wish to comment at this point?

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: No, he is not listening, and that is unfortunate in view of the importance of this bill.

It seems that concern with respect to credit unions is at

the heart of the debate which has taken place in second reading

and now is developing in committee stage on Bill 86 to

establish the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia. It

is concern for their strength in the province — their

strength today, their strength in the future — and any

possible threats which may well develop from this bill as the

result of poor draftsmanship or perhaps just not adding

something which would ensure the protection which I believe a

number of the Members of this House should be built in.

This, I think, is quite relevant to the comments I will be

making in a moment, Mr. Chairman, for your information. I note

that in Bill 82 — that is the Credit Unions Act which is

now making its way through the House — we have

section

18(2) which appears on page 10 of the bill:

"Subject to subsection (3), a credit union may not operate

and may not locate or relocate an office except with the

approval of the superintendent" — I digress, Mr.

Chairman, that is the superintendent of credit unions —

"and the approval of the superintendent is required for the

operation, location, and relocation of each office."

Then subsection (3) goes on to say:

"Subject to subsection (1) and the regulations,

where the superintendent has designated the common bond of the credit union

as being

(

a) based on a community or geographic area, and

(

b) satisfactorily defined, he may order that his approval under

subsection (2) relating to the operation, location, or relocation of an office

and to the operation of each office is not required and may permit" — it is

permissive, he may permit — "the credit union to operate, locate and relocate

offices within the community or geographic area described in the common bond

as the directors of the credit union may determine."

Then subsection (6) of the same

section of this bill:

"The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by regulation,

prescribe conditions upon which a credit union may be permitted to operate,

locate, or relocate an office."

So it deals quite fundamentally with the physical location,

the placement, of credit union offices or branches, if you

will, in British Columbia, again, under the bill which is

moving through this House, Bill 82.

What we seek from the Premier and Minister of Finance, I

think, can be provided very easily. In examining the matter

today, I cannot see how it would in any way at all impair what

he and his government propose to do in setting up the Savings

and Trust Corp. of British Columbia. But at the same time, the

mechanism which I am about to suggest would clear away a

considerable amount of the doubt and concern which exists in

the minds of credit union people in British Columbia concerning

this bill. It can be done very easily. It can be done most

easily.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to section

(3), and I will pass it to you in a moment. It reads:

"...by adding the following after section (3), and to be

numbered 3(A): notwithstanding anything in this Act, no office

of the company shall be opened or maintained within a

15 — mile radius of a credit union branch without the

approval of the affected credit union, which approval shall be

in the form of a resolution approving of the establishment of

the said office of the company, and which said resolution must

be passed at a general meeting of the credit union, attended by

a majority of its members."

I so move, Mr. Chairman. A simple amendment which I think

the Premier would recognize as clearing away the doubt which

has developed during this debate.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I point out to you

that the amendment, in my opinion, is out of order simply

because, on the basis of a decision this afternoon, it would

alter impact of the bill. The credit union movement....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you let me finish, please?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you let me finish?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Finance has the

floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the point is

[ Page 3143 ]

that the credit union movement has not even picked up an

option or decided to become a partner or not. If they decide

not to, that would put us completely out of business. It

negates the impact of the bill, and I suggest to you that it is

out of order on the basis of standing orders.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): In response to

the Premier's remarks, I would suggest that this amendment

gives full protection to the credit unions. If the bill as

presented is favourable to the credit union movement as the

Premier says, then he won't have...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: ...any fear that the credit union movement

will pass a resolution not allowing the savings and trust

organization to put up a branch within 15 miles of them. This

would mean....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I was making

is that this amendment is not the same as the amendment the

Premier had you rule out of order this afternoon — the

one you had to search for — because this in no way will

make it impossible for the Savings and Trust to operate. In

fact, this will give the guarantees to the credit union

movement and allow this Savings and Trust Corp. to serve the

citizens of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a far different

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Hon.

Premier, before I make any final decision — I've made a

tentative one.... However, before I state my decision, I will

consult with counsel. We've asked them to come in. They'll be

in shortly.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point

of order.

MR. BENNETT: This afternoon the Premier said it was

customary, and I think the Speaker said, to allow the mover to

debate an amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, You wanted me to get stabbed. You

destroyed that argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: And he wouldn't accept my premise this

afternoon that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: ...that was allowing special privilege to

certain Members. So if the Premier isn't going to allow....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please. I have to deal

with another matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the expression that the

Premier is a dictator and a liar, which I heard him say.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

I think this is contrary to standing order 40(2) which

forbids offensive language against any other Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't look so serious, Mr. Chairman. I'll

withdraw. I mean, it's all right for the Premier to call people liars in the Province of British Columbia, but I'll

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

I just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw without any

comment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I did withdraw. I mean, it's all right

to call Mr. Foulkes and Mr. Bonner liars, but I'll

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw. Will you be seated? Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did withdraw. Do you want me to get down on

my hands and knees?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking

on a point of order, I believe.

MR. BENNETT: The point was: I am asking for a ruling on

whether these motions, as suggested by the Premier in his great

defence this afternoon, allowed for people to speak to

amendments when you are going to rule them out of order. Or is

it only he who

[ Page 3144 ]

is allowed to speak and then he rules it out of order to

disallow any other Member in this House to have the right to

speak?

MR. PHILLIPS: Dictator!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

familiar with the rules, that where a point of order is....

MR. BENNETT: I am just asking for a ruling on that

point.

MRS. JORDAN: It changes every day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

MR. BENNETT: I'm asking for a ruling on that, Mr.

Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: On good days they're lenient; on bad days

they're tough.

Interjections.

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

Chairman, on that point of order, I wonder if you could read

the amendment. I'm sorry I didn't catch it the first time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be an amendment to

section 3 by

adding a new

section 3(

a) as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, no office of the

company shall be opened or maintained within a 15-mile

radius of a credit union branch without the approval of the

affected credit union, which approval shall be in the form of a

resolution approving of the establishment of the said office of

the company in which said resolution must be passed at a

general meeting of the credit union, attended by a majority of

its members."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's reasonable.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would rule on the

point of order raised by the Hon. Minister of Finance that this

amendment is out of order...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...on the grounds that it is contrary to the

principle of the bill as approved in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The ruling has now been made.

The only alternative now is to appeal the ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you mean there is no point of order? Do you

mean you don't even get a discussion on a point of order, Mr.

Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I am really disappointed in the Premier tonight

in not accepting what was attempted to be a constructive...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: ...what was attempted to be a constructive...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CURTIS: ...and very straightforward assist.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: We've had lip service paid to the credit unions

in this debate and yet a resolution such as this is not being

accepted. I don't take issue with you, Mr. Chairman, but I take

issue with the Premier and Minister of Finance. You are ruling

it out of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: I challenge your ruling.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on Bill 86 and

considering

section 3, an amendment was moved by the Hon.

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). Upon

examining

[ Page 3145 ]

the amendment, I determined that the amendment was out of

order on the grounds that it was contrary to the principle of

the bill. My ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is

whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained. All those

who support the ruling of the Chair, say "aye."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary, if any, "no."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.

MR. BENNETT: The noes have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you positive? Would you stake your seat on

that?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you stake your seat? Are you being

political, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. I was challenged this afternoon,

and I looked around and found that I was incorrect.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 25

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

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

MR. BENNETT: On a point of clarification, this afternoon the

Speaker gave a dissertation at length when I questioned whether

amendments that were eventually ruled out of order should be spoken to,

and if they were spoken to and then ruled out whether perhaps a

disadvantage had been placed on other Members of the House. The

Speaker, in his explanation to the House, said quite often to

amendments the mover and some other speaker may be allowed to speak. I

would point out that in this amendment the mover was not allowed to

speak; nor was any debate allowed. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if

there's a double standard for the Premier to put out his propaganda and

none for the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: No. I think the basic problem here is that you

may have forgotten what I said on another question, and that is

that the Chairman has no choice when the point of order is

raised but to deal with it whenever it is raised. Whether it's

raised immediately, or later on, he must deal with it, and that

is a standard he must apply in any case. So that is the rule,

and I think I've made that clear.

Interjections.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): There was some

confusion in that last vote, and I saw the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) rise when the vote was

called. I don't know if he voted twice....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm sure it couldn't have been a

mistake on his part. I know he's infallible, 100 per cent

correct at all times, not likely to make a mistake, so I'm

quite confused, Mr. Member, by this action.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're confused! You've always been confused

and you always will be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. May I hear from the First Member for

Vancouver....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's despicable. He's

attacking the Clerks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! May I hear from the First

Member for Vancouver, Point Grey?

[ Page 3146 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes, Mr.

Speaker. The Clerk had a very sharp eye, unlike the Member who

just stood up. He correctly recorded my vote.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd just like some

guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, concerning the apparent manner

in which the Chairman quite often rules on matters of procedure

in the House. He seems to be, if I might suggest, a little

trigger happy and trying to shoot everyone out of the saddle

very quickly. It would seem to me that when a matter is posed

— an amendment to a motion or to a bill or to a

section

of a bill — that it's incumbent upon the person who

occupies the chair at that particular time to listen to points

of order before he makes his ruling. Unfortunately, it's

becoming increasingly apparent that the Chairman makes up his

mind very, very quickly and will not even listen to points of

order raised by Members on both sides of the House before he

rules. Then, of course, it means that those of us have no other

alternative to bring anything before the House except to

challenge that ruling.

It would seem to me that if we're going to conduct the

business of the House and listen to arguments about the

suggestion as to whether an amendment is proper or in order,

then at least he should have the courtesy to listen to points

of order when they're raised and not be too quick and too hasty

in moving to a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: I know the Hon. Member is aware that standing

order 9, which applies to the Chairmen as well as to the

Speaker, says that the Chairman shall decide questions of

order, subject to an appeal to the House, without debate.

Now many times Speakers and Chairmen have decided matters of

order without debate. I think the useful thing is to contribute

to a point of order in terms of a precedent or a book of

authority that deals with the question and not merely state a

more or less placatory wish as to what you would like the

ruling to be. It's really a question of citing an authority

that deals with the question, and I believe the question, for

example, that has been raised twice now, deals with whether an

amendment would, in effect, take away from the declared

principle that was agreed upon by this House. That was the

problem, I believe.

MR. BENNETT: On the point of order. The two amendments, although great

protectors for the credit unions, were similar in nature, and there was a vote

preceding which didn't threaten the possibility of the intent of second reading

at all. It would only be if the credit unions felt threatened, so, in fact,

it's not the same as the amendment this afternoon. I point out that the Chairman,

without due deliberation, handed down the same ruling as this afternoon, placing

in the same category this amendment which was, although similar in its concern

for protecting the rights of the credit unions, totally different in its application

and how it would affect this bill. It would only affect this bill if the government

didn't mean what it said and chose to use the bill to threaten the credit unions.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with that because that's a matter

that was before the Chairman in committee...

MR. BENNETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: ...and that's when the matter has to be

threshed out between the Chair and the House.

All I urge upon you is that before a decision is made, if

you have a useful contribution in terms of some citation that

deals with the question, by all means the time to raise it is

before a decision is made. I'll certainly discuss that with the

Chairman.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 3.

MR. McGEER: Earlier today, the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) drew the attention of the

House to the concerns of the Minister of Finance of Canada

(Hon. Mr. Turner) regarding the constitutional validity of the

bill which we are discussing tonight.

It is an extremely serious point because, as you well know,

banking is the exclusive preserve of the federal government.

The Premier was asked very pointed questions by the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and he gave no

answers to those questions, either because he was unaware of

what the answers should be or because he knew the answers and

was unwilling to express them. We don't want to be in the

position in this House of passing legislation which is contrary

to the rights of this provincial Legislature. If we believe in

Canada, as the Premier has so steadfastly claimed, then we

would not wish to encroach on the legislative jurisdiction of

parliament, nor to challenge the monetary or fiscal powers of

our national government.

The fact that you, Sir, with the support of the government,

found out of order an amendment by the official opposition

which would in effect have prevented this Savings and Trust

Corp. of British Columbia from competing with the credit

unions, and therefore having to work through the credit unions

and within their constitutional ability to perform financial

functions, leads me to believe that the government has no

intention of restricting itself to that kind of activity, but

instead wishes to extend itself into the area of banking per

se.

[ Page 3147 ]

The unfortunate part of this whole situation is that the

bill itself specifically excludes itself from the

jurisdictional confines imposed by a number of other Acts,

including the Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the

Insurance Act, and all other Acts that apply to banks, trust

companies, credit unions, co-operatives, insurance

companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he could indicate which part of the

section he is speaking

to.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically to

section 3, pointing out to you that the powers given under

section 3 quite clearly encroach upon the powers of a bank and

therefore come in conflict with the Bank Act of Canada. Indeed,

the brochure put out in connection with this bill that I drew

attention to in second reading clearly indicated that it was

the intention of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British

Columbia to directly compete with banks. The Premier made that

clear in his speech in support of the bill.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is a little wonder that the

Finance Minister of Canada, in raising questions about this

Act, is probably prepared to challenge it on constitutional

grounds. In order to avoid such a confrontation, Mr. Chairman,

I move, seconded by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), that we add to

section 3

another subsection, (h), which reads as follows:

"The purpose and intent of the Legislature is to

confine the provisions of this Act within the competency of the

Legislature, and all the provisions thereof shall be construed so as to

give effect to this purpose and intent."

Mr. Chairman, by adding this subsection to

section 3, we

clearly prevent ourselves from encroaching on federal

jurisdiction, and automatically the Savings and Trust Corp. of

British Columbia would be prevented from challenging the

federal government. We would be spared the embarrassment of

passing legislation that was ultra vires and the expense of a

trial and the embarrassment of attempting to challenge the

jurisdiction of the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, for your benefit may I refer you to

Chapter

111 of our statutes,

section 22(l), which has an identical

provision with respect to the Natural Products Marketing

(British Columbia) Act?

This was a provision that this House approved last year so that there would

be no prospect in the Natural Products Marketing Act of our encroaching on federal

jurisdiction, so there is excellent precedent this House for a clause of this

kind. Therefore it is certainly within the competency of the Legislature to

pass such a section. We have done it only last year. We did it for purposes

that I submit are identical to the purposes we need to have tonight; namely,

to be certain that we do not encroach on federal jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read the motion. It's

section 3, new

subsection (h):

"The purpose and intent of the Legislature is to confine the

provisions of this Act within the competence of the

Legislature, and all the provisions thereof shall be construed

so as to give effect to this purpose and intent."

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would like to point out to the Member

section 9 of this bill which covers the limitations that he's

seeking. It's redundant.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it doesn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's my opinion, Mr. Member. The

advice we have legally is that

section 9 covers exactly what

this Member is seeking and therefore the government rejects the

amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, speaking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Are you speaking on the point that the

Premier made?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read

section 9.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not saying it's out of order. I am

just saying we won't accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey wishes to speak in what capacity? To

the amendment or to a point of order?

MR. McGEER: I am not speaking to a point of order. I am

speaking to the motion.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We're in committee. We can speak as often to a

motion as we wish. The Premier indicated that the government

was going to reject....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed

to speak to the amendment?

MR. McGEER: That's exactly what I was doing, Mr. Chairman. I

got up to indicate, Mr. Chairman, the reasons why....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey continues I would

[ Page 3148 ]

appreciate it if the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) would withdraw his attack on the Chair. There is a

proper procedure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out for the edification of

Members that if they do wish to attack the Chair, there is a

proper procedure and the Chair would appreciate it if it were

done in that manner.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman,

section 9 simply states that

nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the company

to do certain things, and they specifically name banking, but,

Mr. Chairman, what subsection (

h) does, which is entirely

different, is to restrict the activities of this company to

those things which are within the competence of the

Legislature. Therefore it automatically excludes those things

which might be interpreted as incompetent by another

jurisdiction. I'm not saying that the two specifics mentioned

section 9 aren't appropriate to exclude; I am merely saying

that it is not a comprehensive subsection. Therefore the

Premier's objection is fatuous and should be rejected. If we

wish to be constitutional, then we put in the clause which

ensures that we be constitutional, as the government itself did

with regard to the B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act.

I'm not inventing opposition language here; I'm merely

presenting government language to meet a situation that the

government obviously has to meet. The Finance Minister of

Canada has implied that he will challenge the legality of this

legislation, and so he should do. When the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked the Premier a

number of specific questions — had he received

consultative advice from the federal government, had he

received consultative advice from other provinces? — he

didn't answer those questions. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the

reason why he did not answer those questions is because he

hadn't. He can go ahead and take all the signals he likes from

the back row there, but that's not going to save the Province

of British Columbia from a court case. It's not going to keep

this legislation intra vires for British Columbia. There's a

clause there that will make it intra vires, Mr. Chairman, and I

would submit to the Premier that the wisest thing that he could

do is to accept this opposition amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being out of

order, I'll quote

section 9 because the Member has referred to

it:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the

company to issue a note payable to bearer, or a promissory note intended to

be circulated as money or as the note of the bank, or to engage in the business

of banking or insurance."

Nothing could be more clear than that. If the federal

government wants to take us to court on legislation like that,

it would be straight political interference, Mr. Member. I know

John Turner better than that. He would not do that kind of

thing. So your whole amendment is redundant. In clearer

language than you have in your amendment, the bill is protected

under the federal legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Premier that the

amendment is not redundant.

Section 9 purports to exempt the

intent of this legislation from the banking head of the BNA

Act. But I suggest to the Premier that there are other ways

than banking that a statute of this kind can be ultra vires.

What the language proposed by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) does is ensure that

this statute is so construed that if some part of it is in

conflict with any federal jurisdiction, then that is ruled out

of order and the rest of it doesn't therefore fall to the

ground; it remains in full force and effect. That's important,

Mr. Chairman. Otherwise this Legislature runs the danger of

passing

an Act which will be destroyed because of a

technicality and because the Premier didn't agree to insert

this kind of clause — a clause which has been hallowed by

his own Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and statute

writer and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in

the Act that the Hon. Member for Point Grey pointed out.

It's a very easy thing to accept, Mr. Chairman. The Premier

need only nod his head or whatever he might do to indicate his

grace and favour on this particular amendment. It will cost him

nothing. What does it say? It says that the B.C. Legislature

won't go beyond its powers and that this bill shouldn't be

construed that it's going beyond its powers.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No,

section 9 doesn't do that because there are

other ways you can be ultra vires than those ways referred to

section 9, Mr. Premier. Therefore it seems to me that this

is an extraordinarily wise amendment, one which this

Legislature and the government should accept in order that they

won't be embarrassed later on by hastily drafted,

ill- conceived legislation.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I am a

little confused. It seems to me that the independent Members in

this House and the Liberal Members voted against this bill in

second reading — they were against the bill in principle.

Now they're putting forward the argument that if we accept the

amendment, it will save the bill that they

[ Page 3149 ]

don't want in in the first place. (Laughter.) So it seems to

me that there may be a little politics here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: We just don't want the Hon. Minister of Highways

to be dreadfully embarrassed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River on a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've been in the House for

several years now. I've witnessed advisers to cabinet Minister

being on the floor of the Legislature, but during the last few

weeks I am getting increasingly disturbed by advisers to

cabinet Ministers who seem to be alluding to political

prejudice on the floor of the Legislature. I have a tremendous

amount of respect for the adviser to the Premier who has sat

and never showed any political prejudice on the floor of this

Legislature. But during the last two weeks I witnessed it

during the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), where advisers to him

were being definitely politically biased. I have witnessed it

here this afternoon and again this evening where civil

servants, who are to be servants to the Crown, are definitely

showing political bias on the floor of this Legislature. I

think it's a trend that should cease and desist immediately

because they are supposed to be non-political and

non-biased. I have witnessed time and time again this

afternoon and this evening where civil servants sitting on the

floor of this Legislature are showing definite political bias,

laughing this afternoon while the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) was speaking — showing definite political

bias!

Mr. Chairman, I think we're setting a precedent which we

should stop right immediately. If civil servants want to sit on

the floor of this Legislature, they should definitely show no

political bias!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry that I did not

interrupt the Hon. Member sooner. However, I would point out

that the conduct of senior civil servants, either on the floor

or anywhere else, really should be dealt with by a substantive

motion. It must not be canvassed in this manner on the floor of

the House where they are unable to defend themselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not asking them to defend themselves, Mr.

Chairman, I'm bringing this up as a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I've witnessed this in this House and I am

bringing it to your attention.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I order

all civil servants never to smile in this House again.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: You can get smart all you want but...!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Never smile again, sinners.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that Premier's executive

assistant...!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: The new regime seems to show political

bias!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because they smile at you? How can you

blame them? How can you blame them for smiling at you?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

return to some element of dignity and decorum so that we can

proceed with the debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 3150 ]

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: On that point of order, now that it has been

raised, I have to say something on your comment that the proper

remedy is by substantive motion. I would suggest to you, Sir,

that if any person on the floor of this House is offending the

privileges of this House, I care not whether it be a Member or

civil servant or anyone offending the privileges of this House,

the proper remedy is by the usual rules of this House, not by

substantive motion. There is no question about that

whatsoever.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, but I'm not going to let that ruling

pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano that you cannot

canvass the conduct of any senior civil servant in this matter

in the normal course of debate but, rather, the matter should

be raised as a matter of privilege.

I would point out that we are in committee.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that the proper manner would be to

move a motion that the committee rise and report progress and

then report the matter immediately to the House, rather than

deal with it in committee in this way.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly I agree, that if such a thing is

offending an Hon. Member, he certainly should take recourse,

but it should be done in the proper procedure. That is all that

is necessary.

MR. GIBSON: I have no wish to take that kind of time. I just

wish to say that there is no person on the floor of this House

who is not subject to the rule and dignity of this House, and

that includes civil servants. I want that clearly

understood.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Member's

stating that is his opinion in terms of remedying the matter

does not include support of the Member for South Peace River's

position.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you sure have allowed a certain amount of

leeway in discussing this amendment by allowing the Premier to quote from

section

9. While we have not yet arrived at

section 9, we can deal with that when we

get there. Since latitude has already been given, I would like to draw your

attention and the attention of the House to

section 41, which states — and I

would like the Members to listen to this, Mr. Chairman; it is rather a key point:

"The following Acts or provisions of Acts do not apply to the company...the

Company Clauses Act; the Trust Companies Act; and

part X of the Insurance Act."

You see, it is not going to be an insurance according to

section 9, but the

Insurance Act is not allowed to apply.

Then it also says: "The company is exempted from the

provisions of the following Acts to the extent that a bank, a

trust or loan company under the Trust Companies Act," is

exempt. So in

section 41 it is given the privileges of a bank

as far as exemptions from a number of key financial Acts is

concerned.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is clearly begin given the

privileges of a bank under

section 41, which of course shoots

the Premier's argument with respect to

section 9 completely

full of holes and makes it essential for us to introduce into

the bill.... I would submit that

section 3 is the appropriate

one to do this since it outlines the objectives and purposes

the sorts of things which I believe properly demand that the

Minister of Finance — whether he be the Premier's good

pal John Turner, or any other individual in Canada —

would be obliged to challenge by reason of his office as

Finance Minister of Canada.

You see, Mr. Chairman, it isn't good enough for us to pass

legislation that is ultra vires of our Legislature because the

Premier is a good pal of the national Minister of Finance. We

don't pass Acts and give provinces powers on the basis of

personal friendships between the Minister of a federal Crown

and the Minister of a provincial Crown. We do it on the basis

of clear-cut jurisdiction as defined under the BNA Act.

Section 3 apparently encroaches on the BNA Act. Certainly I

would interpret it so were I a federal Minister, and I think it

entirely proper that the Minister of Finance of Canada has

challenged this particular legislation.

But there's a very easy route out which is to accept the

amendment, clearly worded and with ample precedent, from this

provincial Legislature and, indeed, from the NDP government,

and, presumably, given by legislative draftsmen who aren't here

on the floor of the House this evening, but were responsible

for drafting that B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. The

Premier can say that he's got excellent counsel, and while I

don't support what the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) said, I'm certain that as the Premier was giving his

arguments — I don't believe in ventriloquism, necessarily

— but I thought I saw lips moving in the back there.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier really needs to very

carefully consult his legal advisers, particularly the ones who

were responsible for

[ Page

3151 ]

drafting that B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act. That Act

hasn't been challenged by federal officials; nobody has said

that Act was ultra vires. Yet they're saying that about the

B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. So what more appropriate time to

play it safe, from a legislative point of view, than right now?

We're heading for trouble if we pass this bill.

Of course the Liberal Members oppose this Act. We oppose it

because it's not within the jurisdiction of the provincial

Legislature. And we'll oppose this section.

However, we're giving the government a way out. It's not

political, or partisan, as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea) suggests. He's got a very suspicious mind. This is

an act

of generosity, Mr. Chairman. What we're trying to do is to bail

the government out; we're going to make the bill look a little

better. And here the government is spurning this gesture, and

doing it in a most contemptuous fashion by suggesting that it

was motivated out of political partisanship. Mr. Chairman, I

say shame on the Minister of Highways. Shame on him for

thinking so ill of a constructive and loyal opposition —

loyal not just to this legislature, but loyal to Canada.

I'm very hurt about it, Mr. Chairman, but I'm also

disappointed that the Premier hasn't yet seen fit to accept the

wisdom of this very simple amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

McGeer

Gardom

NAYS — 24

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I'd

just like to say that I exempt completely a senior civil

servant whom I have a great deal of respect for — Mr.

Bryson, Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to exempt him completely. I don't want

any misunderstanding about his decorum on the floor of this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a political hack!

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you and your political act!

MR. SMITH: On

section 3, I want to move an amendment to the

motion you have just put to the committee, asking shall

section

3 pass, by adding the following words after the word "pass":

"provided the Minister files with the central credit union an

affidavit stating that no branch of the company shall be opened

or maintained in a location within a 15-mile radius of an

existing credit union."

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: As an amendment to the motion that you just put

to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must rule the

amendment out of order on the grounds that it is

unintelligible. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any amendment must be an

amendment to

section 3. If this is appended to

section 3, it is

unintelligible.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if you have trouble deciphering

what has been said by the amendment, would you hand it back to

me and I will read it to you again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have consulted counsel and I

have made my ruling. My ruling can be challenged, but the

ruling is made.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a point of order on some other matter

under

section 3?

MR. SMITH: I would hope so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing now with

[ Page 3152 ]

section 3.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps I could clarify for the benefit of the

Chair the intent of the suggested amendment. As I recall the

events, Mr. Chairman, you put a question to the committee. The

question was: shall

section 3 pass? — which is in itself

a motion being put to the committee. I moved an amendment to

that motion put by yourself. The amendment is the addition of

certain words after the word "pass" — that the following

words be added: "provided that the Minister files with the

Central Credit Union an affidavit stating that no branch of the

company shall be opened or maintained in a location within a

15-mile radius of an existing credit union." I suggest to

the Hon....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is one person on the

floor now with a point of order. I will wait until he is

finished. The Member for North Peace River may continue.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I suggested to you, Mr.

Chairman, that when you put the question, it is a motion:

"Shall

section 3 pass?" I moved an amendment to that motion. I

think it should be perfectly understandable to you as Chairman

of committee. I suggest that the reason you gave for saying it

was out of order is certainly an affront to the Members of this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: I would ask you to reconsider that

suggestion.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. To rule

something out because it is unintelligible in this House is

absolute nonsense. We have been passing unintelligible

legislation for years. We have the precedent. Take the

Frustrated Contracts Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Will the Hon.

Member speak to

section 3?

MR. McGEER: The Deputy Attorney-General every session

used to give us unintelligible Acts. We always passed them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, three bills that nobody can understand....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. There is only....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the Chair has been somewhat lenient in

this respect, the fact is that a ruling has been made. The

proper procedure now is to challenge the ruling or proceed on

to a discussion of

section 3.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. By way of comment on the Hon.

Member for North Peace River, I would just point out that the

Chair is not making a motion; the Chair is simply using the pro

forma method for getting a

section approved by the committee.

This does not constitute a motion in the formal sense. It is,

rather, a pro forma way of having the

section approved. Any

amendment must be to the

section itself.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

Does the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano wish

to cast more darkness — I mean light — on this

subject?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to. I think if

you will consult May in the 18th edition, page 369 and the

pages following...

MR. PHILLIPS: Quit giving the Chair orders, Mr. Premier.

MR. GIBSON: ...will you find there a general category of

events entitled "Questions from the Chair." Unquestionably one

of the questions from the Chair is the question as they put it

in the British House, and here it is on page 526, that a clause

"stand part of a bill." That is in effect the same thing as our

motion asking: "Shall

section so-and-so pass?"

Under standing order 55 of our standing orders, which is a

marginally noted amendment, it says: "When a question is under

debate, no motion is received unless to amend it," and

so on.

This is a question which is under debate, the question of

"shall clause so-and-so pass?" That is the

question, strictly speaking, that we are debating. The Hon.

Member for North Peace River moved an amendment to the question

under debate. Sir, I think that perhaps you might wish to

consult a little bit further with counsel in order that we

should not be stumbling into bad parliamentary law.

[ Page 3153 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair wishes to reiterate that it did give

consideration of the matter, did consult counsel, did make a

ruling, and the ruling stands. We will go on with

section 3;

otherwise....

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Look, we cannot go on debating something on

which the Chair has ruled!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't get huffy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, what are you going to do now? Run to

the Speaker?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, look, an interrogation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While in committee stage on Bill 86....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Some Members want to hear

the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on Bill 86, on

section 3, the Hon. Member for North Peace River sought to

amend my words: "shall

section 3 pass?" I ruled that this was

not possible and that it was out of order. My ruling was

challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 25

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 3.

MR. GIBSON: When we were debating this

section before the

dinner hour, I asked the Premier a number of questions which

were not answered in his reply. His reply consisted mostly of

the letter from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He

didn't answer two very important questions. The first was on

subsection (g).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We can't hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have the mike a little

louder, please, at the back?

MR. GIBSON: The first was on subsection (g): what percentage

of government funds, now held in banks, will be held in this

new institution? The Premier's general answer to the kinds of

questions that I was posing at that time was that these things

were matters for the board of directors to decide. This is not

for the board of directors to decide; this is a matter of

government policy. It's a matter of the policy of the Minister

of Finance with respect to this new fledgling financial

institution.

I would ask him to tell this House what percentage of

government funds would be deposited in this institution. A

simple question important to the health of the institution.

The other question that he didn't answer is: what percentage

of the bank's loans will be below market loans? The Premier

didn't give an answer to that, but I can give him a little bit

of an answer. I asked the library if they could provide the

last year's report of the Royal Bank of Canada, which they did.

On total assets of about $21 billion, they made profits of

about $57 million which is about one — quarter of 1 per

cent of assets. I'd like to be more precise on that, Mr.

Chairman, but I've just lost the particular reference here.

Here we are: profit, $56 million on $21,669,000,000 worth of

assets. It's about one-quarter of 1 per cent.

If this bank is, on the average, lending out money at about

10 per cent and they are making profits at one-quarter of

1 per cent — let's just say it's going to be a

break-even proposition — not a money-losing

proposition — I would suggest to the Premier that he

could afford to make low-cost loans on about maybe

[ Page 3154 ]

5 per cent, depending on the amount of subsidy he wanted to

do, of course. But if he wanted to have them at about

half-price, I'd guess not more than 5 per cent. So

there's a little bit of arithmetic for him, which the Premier

should have been able to do instead of just waving his arms

around. I'd like to know if that sort of order of magnitude is

what he has in mind.

The Premier's not in the House right now, but I can stand

up, I guess, and repeat the things until he gets back. Or maybe

somebody else would like the pleasure of talking to the House

without the Premier in the House.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe you'd like to declare a recess, Mr.

Chairman, or alternately I could....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member just takes

his seat, we'll just pause for a moment till the Premier

returns.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It appears that the Hon.

Members wish the debate to continue without a pause. Would the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano continue?

MR. GIBSON: I see the Premier's back. I was going to start

reading from the report of the Royal Bank of Canada for the

edification of the House until the Premier got back. But now

that he's back I'll just have to....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, even I cannot stop nature's

call.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Premier, so I'll just

repeat the question.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I just went through a little arithmetic as to what

percentage of low-cost loans this bank could afford to

make. I'd just like you to check my arithmetic since you don't

seem to have any of your own. I pointed out that the Royal Bank

of Canada, according to their annual report, made a profit of

about one-quarter of 1 per cent of their assets last

year. If that kind of figure obtained on the loans of your new

Savings and Trust Corp., it seems to me that you could afford

to subsidize at half-price about 5 per cent of your loans

— more or less. One loan out of 20.

This is an important figure to the people of British Columbia because there

are a lot of people looking forward to getting those loans. I'd like to know

if that's about right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we are getting the facts.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in the first spring session

of this House, when the riding for which that previous Member

speaks was more capably represented by Mr. Brousson, he made a

very good speech in this House. There were others who were not

here at that time — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett). Then there are others who, perhaps, have

forgotten.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has

obviously forgotten what he said about the opposition party so

it might bear repeating because if he can't remember what he

used to say about the Social Credit Party, then he might have

forgotten this very fine speech that was made about mortgages

and about what high-interest mortgages exist in this

province, and have existed in this province.

He made a speech about a number of people who fell victim to

a mortgage concern that largely centred around Columbia Street

in New Westminster, but through other agencies as well. He

started off by relating the story of a couple who came to see

him. They had a house worth $25,000 at that time. They'd been

out of the country for a while. They came back. They needed

money desperately. They went to a company that's known by its

slogan "never borrow money needlessly" and they borrowed some

money. They arranged for a loan of $6,000, and with the legal

costs of an extra $200, in effect, we might say that the

proceeds of the loan were $6,200. This was to be a second

mortgage. Then the bonus, as it's called, charged by that

particular company was $1,700, which is 27 per cent of the

proceeds. Then the interest rate was to be 17 per cent, the

payments were to be made at $118 a month, and buried away in

the fine print near the end there was a clause which said that

the entire balance still owing was to be due in five years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope the Member's going to relate this to

section 3.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This Member has been

talking about where the low-interest loans are going to

come from. I'm going to show this Member that the type of loans

that people in this province are having to pay through the

finance companies, the banks and some of the trust companies

will not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relate the remarks to

section 3.

[ Page 3155 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The aims and objectives under

section 3, Mr. Chairman,

outline the duties of this institution, and it is to serve people who cannot

get this type of financing, the people who are victim to usury, and the victim

to whom the Member for North Vancouver — Capilano at that time addressed this

very impassioned speech which showed that after paying for five years, this

particular individual would have been owing $7,300. He had only received $6,200.

In my riding I have a few of those people who have fallen

victim to this type of thing. It's a lot more prevalent in

Vancouver.

If that Member showed more interest for this type of person

than he does for preserving the private interests of foreign

mining companies that have sweetheart smelter agreements and

which rip off and avoid income tax in this country, and pay

their income taxes in the United States.... If that's where

his compassion lies, if he would go and consult with the former

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, he would know that

if we could bring interest rates down to a true 15 per cent for

these people, that would be a cheap rate of interest compared

with what they have to pay. These people are paying 30 and 40

per cent. We want to bring an end to that.

MR. GIBSON: I think the kindest thing to do to the Minister

of Housing is to ignore him, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask the

Premier, again...

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, you want to ignore that, don't

you.

MR. GIBSON: ...how many people of British Columbia are

going to be eligible for low-cost loans? What fraction of

the loans of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia is

going to be below market loans? It's a very simple

question.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They'll all be lower than that.

MR. GIBSON: It's the big political peg that he's hanging

this bill on. He's leading people all over British Columbia to

think that they're going to get 6 per cent money tomorrow. I

want him to stand up in this House and say how many people are

genuinely going to be helped this way, and to what extent it's

just bait with no substance behind it. Give us numbers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the policy

of the board of directors. It is impossible, absolutely

impossible to be specific on that matter at this point, Mr.

Member, and you know it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, if it's impossible to be specific

on that number, I ask the Premier if he is going to, in all his

speeches about this bank from now on, preface the statement by

saying: "It's impossible to be specific, but some people are

going to get that." Will the Premier do that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you read the newspaper account of my

statements related to that very question, I did say that, Mr.

Member. And if you had been in the House and listened

attentively, you would have found that I related my comments on

second reading to the experience of the credit union

movement.

I appreciate your attempts at getting answers, but you're

already opposed to this bill. You're already opposed to it, so

I don't know what further purpose is served by attempting to

discredit the very nature of the bill by questions that

obviously can't be answered in terms of determining the board's

policy once the agency is set up.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I listened most attentively to the

Premier's remarks on second reading of this bill, both opening

and closing. That's why I voted against it. We didn't get any

answers. The people of British Columbia are being misled by

that government into believing that there's going to be a lot

of low-cost money floating around, and that's going to

cause a lot of heartbreak unless you're prepared to make some

guarantees to the people of this province.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. Before the

dinner hour I raised a few questions to the Minister of

Finance. He's been unwilling to answer the questions that I

raised. One question I raised was relative to the concern

expressed....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: There's that phony Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) making facetious

remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am speaking on

section 3, Mr. Chairman. I

am sorry that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is hard

of hearing. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) expressed some real concern this

afternoon relative to the government's lack of concern with the

local autonomy of the credit union movement in this province.

He asked whether it was the government's intention to destroy

local autonomy of the credit union movement in this

[ Page 3156 ]

province.

Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd stop smiling at me when I am

being serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't help myself, I'm sorry.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's the Chairman being biased.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: There's the Chairman being biased. It's most

unfortunate that's taking place, and it's only in the last

three years that I have noted that kind of a trend in the

Chairman's chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are free to smile in British Columbia

since we got elected.

MR. CHABOT: Well, yes, they're free to make love, too,

according to you. Nevertheless there's been great concern

expressed with the government's motivation in the objects and

purposes of

section 3 of this bill. We've never had a clear

definition from the Premier as to whether he intends to compete

against the credit union movement in this province by the

implementation of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British

Columbia Act. And that's all we ask. All we ask is that the

Premier clearly state once and for all that he has no intention

whatsoever to compete, to destroy, to take over the customers,

to compete for the customers which the credit union movement

presently enjoys; that's all we're asking.

The Premier has stood in this House and suggested that he is

a great supporter of the credit union movement. There is

concern out there in British Columbia tonight, and there has

been ever since this bill has been introduced, that the

government is out to take over and control the credit union

movement in this province. I think the Premier of this province has a

responsibility to state emphatically once and for all that he will not

compete or destroy the concept of the

credit union movement in this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests t and Water Resources):

Humbug!

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

can sit back there and say "Humbug." He's a great one to sit back there with

snide remarks, but I'll tell you that he doesn't have the snide remarks when

he's toe to toe with somebody debating his estimates. Oh, he's all mellow and

he's all rational when it comes to his estimates because you can debate with

him then, face to face. He hasn't got the guts to stand up under those circumstances.

That's the kind of Minister we have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I was going to say he's gutless, but I am

not going to say it because one Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are supposed to be dealing with

section 3

of this bill.

MR. McGEER: Don't say he's weak-kneed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I was going to say he's gutless. But I don't

dare call him gutless, because if I did I am able to be

....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This bill has nothing to do with that

Minister.

MR. CHABOT: I am liable to be thrown out of the Legislature.

And that's never happened in the 12 years I have had the honour

to represent the people in Columbia River.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's one of your good points,

Jim.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. It's probably come close. I have never

been expelled yet, and I pride myself on that kind of an

achievement.

MR. McGEER: You never use unparliamentary words like

"weak-kneed."

MR. CHABOT: No, that's unparliamentary and I wouldn't use

them. But, really, when one looks at his bill, if the Premier

really believes some of the statements and policy directions he

has enunciated in the introduction of this bill last Friday

— that he sincerely believes that he wants to help the

middle and low-income people, the farmers, fishermen and

the small businessmen — why doesn't he allocate a certain

specific amount of dollars to the credit union movement and

allow them to disperse it to those people he suggests are so

desperately in need of financial assistance in this province?

He can disperse it and he can make it available to this

organization in the province with certain stipulated guidelines.

And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that?

Or is there a genuine desire, or a perverse desire, on the

part of the government to usurp the present structure of the

credit union movement in this province? It appears that way

because we have no clear statement from the Premier in relation

to the serious questions, the serious concerns expressed by

[ Page 3157 ]

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) this

afternoon. It's unfortunate that the Minister of Finance is

unwilling to reply to those concerns expressed this

afternoon.

I have no intention of repeating anything I have said before

but I am forced....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Praise the Lord!

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is unconcerned about the plight of the credit union

movement in this province and he says: "Praise the Lord."

That's what he says.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to attack him for saying that?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm going to attack him for the facetious

way in which he said it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you deal with

section 3?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I am trying to. I wish I wouldn't have any

interruptions from that spineless Minister of Lands, Forests....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Member for Columbia

River to withdraw the unparliamentary statement he made.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you haven't....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: You haven't been in the Legislature very long....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've asked you to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: If a Member in this House feels that a statement

offends him....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. I

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't use language that is unparliamentary and that

attacks an individual Member of this House. I ask the Member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I ask the Member for Columbia River to

withdraw his unparliamentary statement.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the Premier, and if

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is unwilling

to stand up and ask for withdrawal, then, under those

circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative, on the

basis of your ruling, your arbitrary ruling, but to withdraw. I

withdraw on the basis of your arbitrary ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You cannot make any attacks on the

Chair, no matter who is here, and you cannot suggest that I am

making an arbitrary ruling. Now you withdraw that statement

without qualification.

MR. CHABOT: You know it's an arbitrary ruling, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You withdraw that without qualification!

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're offended....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: On

section 3, Mr. Chairman, the point I was

making this afternoon, which the Premier has been unwilling to

respond to, is the fact that we already have two vehicles in

the Province of British Columbia which make available funds to

people of low income, to people in middle income. We also have

a vehicle which makes funds available to the small businessmen

in the province.

section 3(

f) suggests that it's going to make

funds available to people of low income, middle income,

farmers, fishermen and small businesses.

Already the Housing Minister during his estimates bragged

about the kind of low-interest mortgages that were

available through his department. Is there going to be

competition on this legislation against the availability of

funds which are available for low-interest mortgages from

the Department of Housing? That's never been clearly defined by

the Minister of Finance in the introduction of this bill.

The next question is the B.C. Development Corp., which the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has bragged

about very vociferously as a great tool for the establishment

of industry and the creation of jobs, at low interest,

attractive interest

[ Page 3158 ]

rates, to promote the projection and the growth of jobs in

the Province of British Columbia. Is the Savings and Trust

Corp. of British Columbia going to compete against the kind of

legislation which is available under the Department of Economic

Development? This is a serious question, and I think it's

worthy of a response, whether there is a serious conflict

between government departments. Is there going to be serious

competition? Are dollars going to be available on a different

basis through the Savings and Trust Corp. than they are through

the B.C. Development Corp. and the Department of Housing? Are

the guidelines going to be similar? Are the interest rates

going to be comparable? I think these are genuine, serious,

in- depth questions to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) to which we have had no response. We have a right to

know, if we pass

an Act doing away with the Department of

Housing — because the Department of Housing has the

responsibility, according to the Act, to provide

low-interest mortgages — whether there's any

justification for the bureaucracy of the B.C. Development

Corp., which, according to the Minister when he presented his

first report in manuscript form today...whether there is

going to be a conflict here or whether interest rates are going

to be comparable. Also, I want to know what the justification

is for the presentation of this legislation, which appears to

duplicate what is already taking place in two government

departments.

These are some of the questions. I'll have other questions

as time unfolds to put to the Minister. I'm sure that he has

made notes of what I've already asked him, and he's most

anxious to stand up in this House and to answer the very simple

and straightforward and concerned questions that I've put to

him straight.

MR. McGEER:

Section 3, which we're debating, says that the

objects and purposes of the company are to provide a full range

of financial facilities and services, and to provide

competition in the financial markets, and to encourage the

citizens and institutions of the province to deposit their

funds. This is (a), (b), and (c). These are all functions of a

bank.

Of course, I am disappointed that the Premier rejected an amendment that would

make it clear that by this

section we are not attempting to compete with the

jurisdiction of the banks in Canada. It seems to be unfortunate that the rejection

of that amendment implies that the Legislature is intending to compete. I think

it unfortunate that in rejecting the amendment it should be obvious to the Minister

of Finance of Canada exactly what the intent of the Premier happens to be. He

does say, of course, that he intends to make love to the credit unions, but

I am not at all sure who is the bride and who is the groom in this arrangement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some love affair.

Mr. McGEER: I am concerned, however, about a point that was

raised back in 1964, 11 years ago, when the Legislature last

attempted to get into the banking business. This was not by

challenging the right of the federal government to bank, but

merely creating a provincial bank which would then be under

federal jurisdiction. That was, it seems to me, a more

constitutional attempt, although the federal government did not

permit it and restricted ownership to 10 per cent. Of course,

this Act says that the provincial Legislature will hold 90 per

cent. It is quite clear that this is not an attempt to stay

within the constitution, as was our previous attempt to form a

bank 1 years ago.

At that time, the then-Leader of the Official

Opposition (Hon. Mr. Strachan) spoke against the appointment of

government friends to the board of directors. "Strachan

Sceptical of Bank," says the headline. He said:

"I am afraid it will just be another board of

directors to which the government can appoint its friends and defeated

cabinet Ministers to be operated primarily to bring benefit to the few."

Namely, of course, the friends of the government who get

appointed to the board of directors and the implied preference

that would go to their friends in the obtainment of funds. I

think that was a legitimate concern.

While I consider myself a friend of Eric Kierans, I know as

well that he is a friend of the NDP because the NDP has

assiduously sought this Canadian as the national leader for

their party. When you seek someone as a national leader, you

would surely consider him to be a friend.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Now here the first man to be appointed to see that the

objects and purposes of the company are followed out turns out

to be a close friend of the NDP, the very thing that the

then-Leader of the Official Opposition and

now-Minister of the Crown said was wrong in establishing

a bank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that this would be more appropriately discussed under

section 15. So if you will just pause for a moment, we can put

the other sections through and then you can deal with

section 15.

MR. McGEER: Yes, well, I certainly intend to raise this

again. But once more I ask the Premier: is it

[ Page 3159 ]

wise to go ahead with the

section as presently worded when

it is pretty clear that the objects and purposes of it are the

same objects and purposes of any bank?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your

interpretation is incorrect. That is

all I can say to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance's

silence in relation to the requests by the official opposition

that he give some kind of guaranteed assurance for the

protection of the credit union movement in this province is

very revealing. It is even more revealing when you read the

sections (

b) and (

c) in this bill: "to provide competition in

the financial markets with a view to reduction of the rates,

" et cetera, but the key to that is the competition.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind now, particularly since the

Minister of Finance refuses to make any clarification, there is

no doubt in anyone's mind that the purpose of that

section is

to allow the government — in fact, to insist — that

the government with its new trust company go into active

competition with the credit unions of British Columbia.

Section (c), Mr. Chairman, insists that the trust

corporation encourage the citizens and institutions of the

province to deposit their funds to support further economic and

social development of the province. Well, how far does

encouragement go? I think that the vice president of the

Imperial Bank of Commerce got the message. He knows how much

they are going to be encouraged. That is why he sent that

conciliatory letter to the Premier...

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...just to hedge his bets and protect his

flanks.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on. They might withdraw their

losses.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that bank doesn't encourage....

MR. PHILLIPS: They might withdraw their losses. You know,

ICBC....

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. That's right. Mr. Chairman, I wonder

how much encouragement is going to be offered to the depositors

and customers of the credit union movement to switch over to

the Barrett bank.

I think that that's a pretty insidious section. If the Premier had

given us any indication that he would have accepted some of the

amendments — and I don't want to reflect on the vote, Mr. Chairman —

but if we had had any indication that even the essence of the amendment

would be acceptable to the government.... But, no, the government, but

its very silence, makes sure that the people of British Columbia have

been given a message that the credit union movement is in danger of

takeover by the provincial government — the takeover of the customers

and the takeover of the business.

You know, a couple of weeks ago, in fact two or three

times this year, I've had the opportunity to attend official

openings of new credit unions in my constituency, and one thing

that the Premier said was correct. It was that this party has

supported the credit union movement in the past. I certainly

support them and intend to do so in the future.

Credit unions really have brought financial institutions

closer to the people and closer to the communities. They have

forced, in many instances, the chartered banks that the Premier

is so upset about to come into the community as well as to

provide more down-to-earth services for the people

in those communities.

Now, Mr. Chairman, instead of offering all of the

encouragement and support that we possibly can for that

movement, we find that this government wants to force the

credit unions to be subservient to a government bureaucracy

and, perhaps even worse, Mr. Chairman, to be moved out of the

business because of that government bureaucracy — and to

a large degree an unnecessary bureaucracy, as has been pointed

out by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the government by its very action could

erode it if the credit union movement doesn't go along with the

terms of the government's investment conditions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Buy or else!

MR. McCLELLAND: Break or take. Buy or else. That's right.

The government moves in and makes sure that the government is

the only game in town. It's a break-and-take

tactic.

We saw what happened with ICBC, Mr. Chairman. First of all

get rid of the agents — break and take; the private

adjusters' businesses — break and take; now the body

shops — break and take. Do you think for one moment that

this government will have any conscience about doing the same

kind of thing with the credit unions, Mr. Chairman? Not a

chance. And the Minister of Finance by his silence has

indicated once again that that is the case.

If the credit union doesn't submit to the government's

threats or the threats of the trust company, then the

government moves in and takes over again.

[ Page 3160 ]

I don't see why that Minister of Finance and the government

are afraid to play fair, to give the kind of assurances that

are necessary so that the people out there, the people in the

credit union movement, can be assured that this government has

no intention of taking their business over, regardless, Mr.

Chairman, of whether they decide to invest in the trust company

or not.

If for some reason or other a credit union decides it

doesn't want to go in for the 10 per cent, or 8 per cent or 6

per cent or whatever, then that credit union should be allowed

to continue its business nevertheless and to keep its customers

and not be faced by the threats of this government.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance wants to be

trusted, why doesn't he show that he can be trusted? So far he

hasn't done that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment to this section.

It is not what I would like to see in this bill. I'd like to

see something much stronger, but we've been frustrated at every

attempt by the Chairman to bring in the kind of amendment that

would guarantee once and for all to the credit union members of

this province that their savings are safe, that their interest

in the credit unions is safe, and that the credit union will be

allowed to expand and enjoy the freedom of entertaining its own

financial business in the communities in which it serves, and

to meet the local community needs that they pioneered.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 86,

The Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act to

amend as follows

section 3 by adding a subsection: "(

h) to

encourage the continuation of credit union offices."

Mr. Chairman, if that one is out of order, and if the

government refuses to accept that amendment, then the writing

is really on the wall.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you find the amendment in

order, we will certainly accept it. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You know very well I'm serious.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can't concentrate while the

Hon. Members....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to

be quiet while we are contemplating this amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. BENNETT: In speaking to the amendment, I'm glad that the

Chairman finally is accepting some amendments, because earlier

amendments that would give guarantees to the credit union

movement were cast aside, perhaps by direction....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: I'm certainly glad that at least we have....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe that the Hon. Member is

attacking the Chair. Therefore I would withdraw any imputation

that the Chair is biased.

MR. BENNETT: No, no, no. Oh, yes, I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the appropriate method of dealing with

the Chair, as with the other Members of the House or with

anything in the House, is that it should be done by a proper

method of procedure, not by smear tactics. I would ask the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition to refrain.

MR. BENNETT: So I am glad at last we're at least allowed an

amendment that would give some indication to the credit union

movement within the framework of the bill that indeed there is

a commitment to encourage the credit union movement and perhaps

allow it to prosper and grow. It's unfortunate that it was

unacceptable, that we couldn't give them the guarantees that we

tried to do earlier with amendments that would guarantee that

this B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. would not erode their

position in these communities, erode their position in which

these people banded together to provide financial services. At

least we have an intent and a commitment through this amendment

that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has introduced

that it would be very hard for any government to go against.

Any government that then, after supporting this amendment,

established branches that destroyed that credit union, would

have a hard time living with their conscience and with their

votes. I'm glad that the Chair has accepted the amendment; I

hope the House will accept it as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, tonight we have witnessed in

my opinion some of the most irresponsible waste of time that I

have ever seen in this House since I have been a Member. If it

was the NDP....

Interjections.

[ Page 3161 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have given the courtesy of

silence while the Members are speaking; I expect the same in

return.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we had been in opposition and behaved

the way that that group has behaved tonight we would have been

castigated in every editorial page of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: The kind of behaviour, the kind of inane

comment, personal insults, slurs and smears that have been

hurled for the last two and a half hours are an incredible

performance from the opposition that is obviously undecided as

to whether or not in principle they support this move.

We accept this amendment and we say through this amendment

that yes, we encourage the trade union movement as the pioneers

of the CCF encouraged their development right from the initial

stages of 1930.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the first credit union movement

chapter was opened in this province, it was opened in Powell

River. The first credit union office — the first credit

union organization — that opened had on its board as a

founding member the present Member from Cowichan-Malahat

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). He's been a citizen of this province all

those years and fought for the credit union movement all those

years. Then after all of that to have heard that kind of debate

that we've been subject to in this House tonight makes one

almost turn on the basis of serving the public through being an

MLA.

I have never been so disgusted or shocked at the asinine

behaviour of a group that has no commitment to serve this House

other than to hate in hysteria against a government that's

trying to get something done in this province for the ordinary

people of this province.

I have sat here for two and a half hours silently hoping

that some sense of decency and responsibility would shine

through that adolescent behaviour that we've been witnessing

for these two and a half hours. If that is the best that you

can offer while we're trying to build a better society in this

province, then I hope you hang your head in shame, Mr. Member

— and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

— over the behaviour, the withdrawals, the attacks on the

Chair, abusing this House, all boiling down to trying to find

some political ground to hang their hat on. If you're against

this bill, vote against the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Lies! Lies! Lies!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Lies! Lies! Lies!

HON. MR. BARRETT: But if you are in favour, support the

bill. You can smear all you want, Mr. Member. You can shout all

you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed I would ask

the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to

withdraw the words that he imputed to the Hon. Premier. I would

then ask the Hon. Premier to speak more directly to the

amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance. I would ask him

to speak more directly to the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In accepting this amendment, we restate

what I have said all along in this bill.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): You said it in

your opening speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said it in my opening speech. I listed

every single thing that this government has done for the credit

union movement that was rejected by the former administration

when they were in government. Our record is clear. No words, no

rhetoric, no smears, no personal attack will change that

record. I'm proud of it, and I'm proud of this legislation.

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: I listened with interest to the comments of

the Premier. This afternoon the Premier

[ Page 3162 ]

criticized us for working for the small people of this

province, working for the credit union movement. We are sick

and tired of listening to the political ploys of the Premier

when he will not really come out and state — and he still

hasn't stated for the record — exactly what his position

is with regard to all of the clauses stated in

section 3 of

this Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill. Just vote against

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: He hasn't told us how he's going to help the

credit union movement, the movement he has spoken of in glowing

terms in this House. Not once in this House has he said that he

is with the credit union movement, that he will protect it,

that he feels it's doing a good job and that he's not going to

go into competition with it.

It's fine for the Premier to get up, but all his hysterical

movements and his paranoia of politics doesn't really jar the

opposition who are working to maintain that great movement that

has been built up over the years in British Columbia, built up

by the co-operation of common, ordinary people making

their deposits, making their loans at one of the finest

financial institutions in the Province of British Columbia. Not

once has the Premier said that he is not going to go into

direct competition to that movement. It is for that reason we

have given him the opportunity to say, to state clearly in

Hansard , to accept the amendments which we have put into

section 3. We have given him opportunity after opportunity to

voice in this Legislature his desire to maintain the credit

union movement which has been built up by small people, the

people he says he wants to assist.

The Premier has one other great opportunity. Through this

bill, through the Savings and Trust Corp. of British Columbia,

the Premier has the opportunity to go to the international

money markets to obtain money and to assist the credit unions

to obtain that money which they need to assist the small people

of British Columbia. This is one of the greatest problems: they

need a pool of long-term money which they cannot obtain

on the international market due to the fact that they do not

come under the Banking Act of British Columbia.

This government, through this bill, has the opportunity to

go into the international market, which they have done —

they've gone to Boston; they've gone to other countries in the

world. They've obtained long-term money, and they have

the opportunity to do that again to the benefit of the credit

unions in British Columbia.

If this is not the prime purpose of this bill, then we have to

believe, once again, that the Premier and Minister of Finance is really

not desirous of helping the credit unions of British Columbia by

providing that much-needed capital to the needy people of British

Columbia. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment: by

adding subsection (

i) to

section 3: to provide long-term capital to the

central credit union for the purpose of effecting a reduction of the

rates of interest on mortgages available to the citizens of the

province through credit union offices.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that motion is clearly out

of order as it deals with a separate financial institution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The credit unions haven't said they are

going to join this institution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, stop playing politics.

MR. BENNETT: There's no impost on the Crown.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You are just obstructing. All night it has

been obstruction.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole purpose of this bill is for you to

go out and provide the money....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: They told you that's what they needed. If you

don't accept this amendment, you are clearly evading your

responsibility.

MR. BENNETT: That's what the credit unions have asked

for.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what the credit unions have asked for

and that's what they need — long-term financing.

We'll go out and we'll tell the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the amendment: I must

regretfully rule it out of order because such an amendment as

this must be brought in by message of His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor, and cannot be introduced by a

private Member. Therefore it is out of order.

MR. BENNETT: I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on

consideration of Bill 86,

section 3, an amendment was moved by

the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). I ruled

it out of order on the grounds that such an amendment must

[ Page 3163 ]

be brought in by message from His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor. My ruling was challenged by the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 26

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Wallace

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, does the House wish to

continue or adjourn?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Adjourn.

HON. MR. BARRETT : What is the Whips' agreement — to

adjourn?

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada