1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second reading.

On the amendment to defer second reading of the bill for six months.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2987

Mr. Gibson — 2987

Mr. Stupich — 2989

Division on the amendment — 2990

Mr. Barnes — 2990

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3002

Points of order.

Mr. Lea — 3007

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 3008

Ms. Brown — 3008

Mr. Lea — 3008

Division on second reading — 3009

-Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

On vote 130.

Mr. Cocke — 3009

Division on a motion to rise and report progress — 3011

Mr. Gibson — 3011

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 59.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What an unkind cut to start the day!

Mr. Speaker, when I closed debate last night it occurred to me that

the amendment proposed by the Provincial Secretary to the bill itself

obviously eliminates the need for the motion which is before the House

right now, and it seems equally obvious that, in view of the jovial

mood that the House is in today, given the opportunity they will

immediately defeat this motion and get on with the people's business. I

therefore

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now that they're here.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now that they're here, right. It is very nice

to see everybody this morning. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, there

would seem to be no need to discuss this any further and delay the

business of the House. I would therefore suggest that the House get

down to the business of defeating this motion and passing the bill and

completing the people's business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do we get copies of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): No, I'm standing up to speak, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, my indication, according to the notes I have, is that you have already spoken to the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: If I may speak on that as a point of order, I will explain. If you recall, I was on my feet

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, I think I have a right to speak

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: But I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps at the

outset I might express my appreciation to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace)

for rising on points of order last night to help to preserve my right

to speak.

HON. MR. MAIR: It wasn't necessary.

MR. GIBSON: No, I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, but I did

want to express appreciation in any event. I think the Minister of

Consumer Services is perhaps a trifle optimistic as to the way the vote

may go when the time comes to vote on this hoist amendment.

The language deleted by the hon. Provincial Secretary in her

amendment presented last night was certainly some of the objectionable

language in the bill. The suggestion that the Legislature shall have

been conclusively deemed to do something that it did not in fact do

would have to be objectionable to all of us in this House. I

congratulate the government for removing those words.

Nevertheless, there remains under

section 1 in this bill, which is

mainly the

section of contention, the ability of the government to

create and to disestablish executive departments within the government.

As anyone who studies these things knows, Mr. Speaker, an executive

department is of itself a very important thing as to whether it exists

or not.

Let me come back again to the example of the Department of

Environment. The Minister of Environment, up until March 31 of this

year — in other words, the last fiscal year — was administering votes

made by this House the previous spring, not made at all in

contemplation of the fact that there would be a Department of

Environment to spend it. I think it is self-evident that a new

department, such as Environment, has a new kind of orientation, I think

probably an orientation that most members of this House would agree

with. Nevertheless, it is an orientation that was not contemplated at

the time that these funds were originally voted.

Therefore given the tremendous discretion of the minister in

spending money, even with particular subheads, let alone a general area

of expenditure, it's clear that a new department with new orientation

might spend those funds in very different ways than parliament had

originally suggested. Therefore it seems to me there's still an

important measure of

[ Page 2988 ]

control lost by this Legislature through the

suggestion of this Act that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could

"establish, vary or disestablish a department or ministry."

Now I just have two other brief topics to cover before I sit down.

The first relates to the remarks of the hon. member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) on which I had been commenting when

debate was adjourned the other night. He had been suggesting that the

right to transfer between departments, particularly new departments,

was something that was ordinary enough. I was attempting to give him

citations from May which

indicated that in the Mother of Parliaments and, indeed, in most of the

parliaments in this country, the right to make transfers of this kind

is very heavily circumscribed — much more so than this bill would do.

I'm quoting again from May ,

18th edition, page 702, where the other night we described the fact

there was a

part I and

part II to the estimate headings in Great

Britain. I read the first part of the citation — now the second part:

"Part I is the operative part of the estimate. It shows the sum which is voted separately by the House and

afterwards appropriated by the Appropriation Act and states the

services for which the sum is granted in general terms which define the

'ambit' within which the details set out in the subheads and items of

Part II must fall. From the point of view of parliamentary control" —

which is what we're talking about — "the purpose of

Part II is

explanatory and has no statutory significance (except the receipts, if

any, set out in it are afterwards appropriated in aid by the vote of

the Appropriation Act), through the subheads of

Part II indicate a

further measure of Treasury control over the departments which cannot

independently vary the allocation of sums between different subheads."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the control of parliament is much

closer in the situation in Great Britain, and they go even further

requiring Treasury Board control over votes between subheads, but that

need not concern us in this debate.

The practice in Great Britain, with respect to expenditures which

might be anticipated but are not known with any clarity, is to insert

minor votes — token votes — and subheads to retain parliamentary

control over things which might be foreseen but the magnitude of which

cannot be predicted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there seems to be such a high

volume of chatter going on, other than by the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano who has possession of the floor, that I would

appreciate it if you would keep the volume down so we can hear the hon.

member who has possession of the floor.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker is attacking the speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, that particular question of token votes is covered at page 703, for any members who want to look it up.

Finally, and as a further illustrative citation, May has something to say about revised estimates, where again a different practice is followed than this bill would suggest.

This bill would suggest that you can make material changes in who is

spending the money, or the direction in which it might be spent by

order-in-council. Let me quote the practice in the British House: "If

it proves to be necessary to vary the terms of a vote so as to alter

the ambit of the vote, or even to alter materially the description of a

subhead, or to reduce the amount demanded, the original estimate is

withdrawn and a revised estimate presented."

So, Mr. Speaker, they go a great deal further than us: they require

that any material change shall be approved by parliament, and that's

titled in our existing law. This new law, this Bill 59, would loosen

the reins of parliamentary control one step further; therefore I think

it must still be opposed.

One final item I would deal with before sitting down. The Minister

of Transport and Communications gave as a reason for not supporting

this particular motion, which is a motion to hoist the bill for six

months, the argument that the British Columbia ferry system needed the

authority conferred under this bill in

section 6, I think it was, to

obtain a financing within the next week, and that therefore it would be

irresponsible of this House to move to hoist this bill for six months.

I asked the Minister of Transport and Communications if he would be

kind enough to table the documents, which he kindly did. Having

examined them, I would suggest to him that there are, indeed, alternate

ways of going ahead. For example, we have on the order paper and having

passed second reading Bill 24, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation

Act. If the government were to proceed with that bill in short order I

think the minister would find that the necessary powers are available

thereunder.

Alternately, he might bring in a separate bill which could certainly solve the question, I would say, by leave in 10 minutes.

Alternately, if he proposed not to proceed by legislation in any

way, it might well be possible, subject to legal advice, to cancel the

existing contract with the shipbuilders, to obtain a refund of the

money and have the contract with the shipbuilders transferred to the

financing company, in which case

[ Page 2989 ]

there would never have been a change in ownership

from the original usage of the vessel, which is the requirement under

the accelerated 33 per cent depreciation clause that the province hopes

to obtain — and which is a good thing to do, incidentally.

I think there are other ways around that problem. The Minister of

Transport and Communications brought it up; it's a good point. But I

think there are ways around it, and I think this House need not be

persuaded by that argument to vote against this particular motion.

All of those things said, Mr. Speaker, and with the dangers that I

see for the powers of this Legislature, vis-a-vis the executive branch

and the need for further public examination of this bill — which

interestingly is just starting to surface in a consequential manner now

in the press and on the talk shows and so on — I think time is needed

for this further examination, and therefore certainly I propose to vote

for the six-month motion to hoist.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, for some time now

the House has been debating the advisability of hoisting this bill for

six months. I think one of the arguments in favour of that would be the

response from the Provincial Secretary yesterday evening when she

indicated an amendment that may be on the order paper by now, which is

some indication that the government itself realizes that it made a

mistake in drafting this bill in the form in which it is before us —

some recognition of that — but I think further recognition is needed.

We are concerned about this authority that it does give the

government, and that point has been made over and over. We are

concerned that the bill is not presented to us in a form the government

itself feels comfortable with, and for that reason we think it should

take the opportunity of leaving this bill for six months, during which

time it might get a better reaction from the community as to how the

community itself feels about this, and have an opportunity to change

the bill so it reads in the way the government intends to use it.

The Premier himself, interviewed on this, said that we didn't intend

to do that, Although the legislation does give the government wide

authority, the Premier indicated he has no intention of using the

authority that is present in the legislation. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if

the government has no need for this power, no intention of using it,

then it's not wise to put that kind of legislation into the law books

of the province.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), speaking

yesterday evening, presented a point that was not covered in the

amendment introduced by the hon. Provincial Secretary. Even the

amendment from the Provincial Secretary, the one proposed, does leave

something wanting. While it does remove the words, some of the most

offensive words, where the legislation suggests that anything done by

the cabinet in line with this legislation would be conclusively deemed

to have been authorized by the Legislature, while it takes that out,

nevertheless it still gives the government the same authority to create

new departments, to wipe out departments or to change departments. The

Provincial Secretary in speaking on this — and I may not have taken her

words down accurately, and I haven't had an opportunity to check the Blues — did say that it's not unusual or, as I have it: "Moneys have always been transferred from one vote to another."

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: That wasn't....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Votes have been transferred — that's different; I took it as moneys transferred from one vote to another. Votes can be moved.

Mr. Speaker, another amendment is coming in and has been offered to the Clerks by the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), an amendment that would not

stop the government from wanting to do the business — that is, to the

extent of doing the kind of reorganization that they have been talking

about, not the reorganization in the bill — of reorganization that the

government says it wants to be able to do without waiting for an

opportunity to present these proposals in the Legislature. We had the

same problems, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government. We had a

different way of dealing with them; we set up ministers without

portfolio until there was opportunity for the Legislature itself to

discuss the advisability of setting up new departments. Only after the

Legislature had made its decision was the new department established.

That's one way of dealing with it; however, the government feels that's

inefficient and it wants to be efficient.

There is another way of dealing with this, Mr. Speaker, and that is to give the Legislature an

opportunity to debate these actions after the cabinet has done them. At

least then it is not taking out of the hands of the members of the

House the opportunity to debate the establishment of new departments or

the changing of departments. That kind of amendment is going in and we

hope that the government will accept that amendment. It's still not

what we would want, but at least it would seem to meet the objectives

of the government in being able to manage affairs efficiently, as they

say, and yet would still give the members of the Legislature the

opportunity to deal with these matters after they have done them. It

would provide for any actions such as these to be ratified by motion at

the next session of the Legislative Assembly. That would seem

[ Page 2990 ]

to give some satisfaction to both points of view in discussing this legislation.

The hon. Provincial Secretary yesterday evening recognized one of

the problems with this bill; I've touched on it already. The hon. first

member for Vancouver East touched on another one, which is not covered

in the amendment offered by the Provincial Secretary. That is the one

that would insert a new

section 12A into the Constitution Act which

reads "... notwithstanding any Act." Regardless of what legislation is

already on the books, regardless of what legislation may be put on the

books, if this

section goes into the Constitution Act in that form, the

cabinet can do anything alone the lines of this legislation and never

have to be answerable to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, there can be only one reason for putting those kinds of

words, for putting that kind of instruction into the Constitution Act,

and that is that the government is afraid to bring these Acts before

the Legislature. In bringing these things before the Legislature what

they are doing is offering them up to public scrutiny — much more so

than is done by simply passing an order-in-council.

Certainly orders-in-council can be made public, but people have to

look for them; the press has to look for them; they have to find

something in them that they feel is newsworthy before they will be

reported. So many things could be done; so many things might be done

that would never reach the light of day and could not be debated in

this Legislature, because this legislation gives the government the

authority to do them without referring the matter to the Legislature in

any way at all.

The amendment proposed by the opposition would protect the members

of the House, would protect the public generally, from that kind of

thing happening. It would provide that any orders-in-council passed in

line with this Government Reorganization Act would have to come back

into this House, would have to be debated, would have to be approved by

the House, before they would become ratified. That, Mr. Speaker, would

give us the opportunity to hold them up to public scrutiny, would give

us the opportunity to discuss them — the whys, the wherefores, the

reasons for doing them, the reasons for not doing them — to discuss

them fully in the House, and would give us an opportunity to inform the

public generally and fully as to exactly what the government had done

in the case of the reorganization and why it wanted to go the route

that it was going.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the government would really want to

accept the amendment in the form that it is before us right now with

the notice that has been given and with the time that we've spent in

debating this bill already. I would urge, Mr. Speaker...I can't think

of anything that is so important that it can only be handled by this

bill. I think the government should be concerned with the reaction from

the opposition — all of the opposition — from the public generally, as

is being reported in the papers, radio and television, and from the

editorial writers.

I think the government should be concerned about the reaction to

this legislation; it should take the opportunity of this amendment that

is before us right now and accept this motion to leave the bill for six

months so that it will have an opportunity to correct the drafting of

this legislation. In that way, they will put a bill property before us

that will improve the efficiency of government without destroying the

authority of the Legislature to protect the interests of the minority

in this House and the minority in the province. Mr. Speaker, I urge the

government to accept this amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

Curtis

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

Interjections.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's my

pleasure to be on my feet again after having unsuccessfully attempted

to have the bill hoisted in order to have sufficient time to peruse

very carefully some of the serious implications that are being

suggested that the Legislature pass. I would like to request that

you....

Interjections.

[ Page 2991 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's really too bad that

certain members of the House don't see the wisdom of listening to the

hon. second member for Vancouver Centre at this time. They seem to have

preoccupations in other spheres. But they should be reminded that when

the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) stood in the House

making his initial address, he tried to indicate the need for proper

decorum in the House, respect for the Chair and so forth — cooperation

and attention — as the various members would stand on their feet from

time to time and try and represent the constituents to whom they are

forever indebted for the opportunity to come forward and bring the

various messages they have been requested to bring. So I am hoping that

today will be an awakening for everyone.

MR. SPEAKER: Have no fear, Hon. Member. I will protect you from other members.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I promise you that I shall do my best to assist you at any time to maintain your seat in the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Order!

MR. BARNES: Because you have proven over the months to be a

friend of every member in this House. I am sure that you will continue

to do so. You can count on my vote. Although I didn't see the light

initially when you were nominated by the Premier, I have come to

appreciate that his intentions were well founded and that you very

diligently stayed with it under some very arduous times lately.

Bill 59 is really a request on behalf of the Provincial Secretary,

through you, Mr. Speaker, for this Legislature to provide carte blanche

the right and authority to carry on the people's very important

business related to fiscal matters behind the closed doors of the

cabinet and immediately associated officials. I suppose that from one

perspective that would be a most understandable approach to carrying on

the activities of such a large organization as the provincial

government except for one little factor. The government is here on

behalf of the people of the province and not vice versa. Therefore we

must not alienate the main source from which we receive direction — the

people. Simple as it may sound, Mr. Speaker, from time to time many of

us in our exuberance and desire to get on with what we consider to be

the most important objectives of our mandate forget what the most

important things really are.

I am deeply concerned about the ease with which certain programmes have been

presented to the Legislature by the government in its zeal, perhaps, to deal

efficiently and in a businesslike way and with managerial responsibility and

so forth that it has professed to be quite competent at, because in so doing

it has been hasty with some of our most treasured values, certain freedoms that

we have all enjoyed and have felt to be essential to the security and future

of a democratic society. I think we, at all costs, should be concerned at any

indication that certain of these democratic tenets, that we all know very well,

are abrogated in any way by expedient measures such as have been proposed in

this new government reorganization bill. I must say to you that I am not in

any way attempting to be facetious when I say that what has happened in this....

What we see when we read this bill very carefully is an indication of an attitude

that I feel pervades almost without exception all of the departments of this

present coalition administration in its handling of the people's affairs.

I think that when you look carefully at the suggestions that are

being made in the Legislature, you get the feeling that the ministers

would like very much to simply eliminate the arduous process of having

to come to the Legislature and debate every single step of the way the

activities that will have long-lasting effect upon the activities of

this province. What they would really like to do is literally turn the

debating activities into a charade of no consequence and to have

executive power of such dimensions that, regardless of what happened in

the Legislature, they will in no way be impaired or scrutinized as far

as the programmes they feel must be carried on.

But thankfully we haven't reached that stage yet and the bill that

is before us, to use one of the phrases of a former President of the

United States.... I think it was Harry Truman who said: "The buck stops

here." Well, the bill stops here, and I certainly have no intention of

voting for a bill that would provide the authority whereby there would

be no future need for the government to have to come to this

Legislature for authorization or ratification of its acts of the most

consequential and important nature. That is the handling of the fiscal

and the financial matters of the province, the spending of funds

through the various departments and the changing of direction in terms

of priorities and generally being able to, in fact, remove some of the

responsibility that perhaps the minister himself, or herself, may have

been charged with.

In the bill, not only are they asking for the right to change at

will one department to another, transfer funds from one department to

another, back and forth wherever, earmark a department's spending

estimates that was voted for one purpose to another, but they're also

asking for the right to delegate certain responsibilities to officials

within those departments which, in my view, could become pretty

[ Page 2992 ]

complicated depending on the politics from time to time and who's going to be answerable to what.

When you consider the kinds of protection the members have within

the Legislature and the kind of games that could be played, I'd like to

have it quite clearly defined to me just what kind of situations would

be necessary for the minister to put in writing that he is now

delegating certain responsibilities to another official that he as an

elected member should be assuming responsibility for himself. Because

we all know that as elected officials we have political considerations

and most of the people who perhaps are working in the various

departments are public servants, and if they are not they are appointed

and they also have political considerations to keep in mind.

When we talk about delegating responsibility in writing, I wonder

just what the government has in mind. But the bill, Mr. Speaker, is

fraught with similar kinds of implications, and one wonders why the

need to bring in such a massive change to the constitution of British

Columbia.

Over the years one had to be tested on their ability — their

political mastery — and that meant that you respected the British

parliamentary system as being an instrument by which you could manage

the people's affairs within certain guidelines and certain limits. Over

the years after they have been tested we know that they are

substantially beneficial to all parties and all people from time to

time. Once you start to use it you realize that it isn't something you

want to destroy, not willy-nilly, not without serious consideration as

to the complications that you may create, and certainly you wouldn't

want to change the constitution without going back to the people, and

perhaps a major change to the constitution should require a new

mandate. To change the constitution in the way this government wishes

to change it should be an election issue.

It should not be something that they expect to be able to change as

just housekeeping legislation which they will bring to the Legislature

and say: "This is really only for administrative purposes; would you

please give us the authority to make these minor changes so that we can

get on with the efficient operation of the people's business?" But this

is...

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Is that what you did yesterday morning?

MR. BARNES: ...a major change in the constitution, Mr. Member for Omineca, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised that this government that spoke from one end of the

province to the next about the socialist hordes and the pinkos and so

forth were coming to take over and the secret police and all the things

that they claim that we were going to do to the people of British

Columbia — taking away their rights, going to take away your homes....

Bill 42 meant that you would no longer be able to own any land. We were

going to clean up, wipe the people out — totalitarian state and so

forth, all those things that this now government said when it was in

the opposition. Now all of a sudden they see the light and they think,

well, it's not such a bad idea to have a totalitarian state. It's not

such a bad idea to take control, to put all the power in the hands of

the executive...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: ...put all the power in the hands of the executive council, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: All my people are diligently studying so they can

come back and give you their point of view. They are consulting with

their constituents.

But as I said earlier, the frightening

part is that the government

would have introduced this piece of legislation. The good news,

although frightening, is that the buck stops here. Fortunately we still

have a Legislature and we still have Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, of

which I am pleased to be a member. Here we have Bill 59 being presented

to us for debate. I hope that it will continue to be this way for a

long time to come. If the time ever comes when there is no longer a

need for us to debate major changes to the constitution such as this

bill suggests, then I hope that it will be an election issue.

If we're going to have a revolution, it won't just be in the House

behind closed doors. It will be out there where the people are. We will

take it to the people. We will tell them: do you want to make these

changes? Do you really feel that things would be more efficiently

operated if we took away your right to give your elected member certain

information and positions that you would like taken through the

Legislature and debated?

Get rid of that. Elect a government. Allow them to pick their leader

and their cabinet and to go behind closed doors and carry on the

people's business without any further reference to anyone except the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and themselves and perhaps their

friends, to whom I am sure they will be very, very careful to keep

under close wraps in the future after the bungling they have had in the

past in having them read over their legislation before it comes through

as a message from the Lieutenant-Governor. I am sure that will become

more and more difficult as time goes on.

But in any event, these consultations will

[ Page 2993 ]

continue, but they will continue outside of the

Legislature, not inside the Legislature. This just isn't good enough.

This is why the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

has made an additional proposed amendment, not a counter-amendment, to

the one that was presented by the hon. Provincial Secretary, who, in

suggesting that we can delete a

section from the bill that she felt was

contentious.... She was suggesting that under

section 1, the 18th line,

we simply delete"... and shall be conclusively deemed to have been

authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." Just delete

that. She says that is contentious; I agree.

When someone talks about "shall be conclusively deemed," that's

asking for a lot of power. It means that there will be no need to come

back here, because we will make the action and it shall be as though

you had made it, as though you had participated. Now can you imagine

signing a contract on that basis where you are supposed to participate?

Someone is going to tell you: "We will make all the decisions but we

will have it so we have got your signature on a blank cheque. We've got

your signature on a piece of paper. We can write in whatever we want to

write in and you will agree with it." I am sure some of you business

people do understand that. That's one of the things about business. You

have to learn fast or you don't survive.

But I am telling you, my friends, let's not run the government

entirely as a business, although we must use some of our expertise that

our learned friends who have fought in the business wars over the years

bring to this Legislature. But they only bring part of the story. They

know well human nature too, because that's how they survive. They know

the weakness; they know the Achilles heel of every segment of the

population — the 25-and-unders particularly when it comes to ICBC and

automobile insurance. They know the difference between marrieds and

singles when it comes to telling them how to survive within the

benefits of the new ICBC rates.

All of this is necessary to be a politician. You've got to

understand how to appreciate how people think and what they do. But do

you see why, at the same time, you can manipulate the masses? There are

certain doctrines which we have all been endowed with, certain things

we've inherited over the years.

The hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) was speaking

the other night about the Magna Carta. He went back to 1215, King John.

You know, we still have it some 761 years later; we still have it. We

still have the concept. We're still talking about the law for the

people — not the people being available to a government for the sake of

the government, but the other way around. There are certain things that

we have by right, and we have come to respect and appreciate the

British parliamentary system within our society, our free society, as

being our right. We don't want it abrogated by someone who wants to

bring in a measure like Bill 59 as an expedient means of carrying on

the people's business for the short term that they will have of some

three or four years. They are going to destroy the system.

Oh, let's say that they have no intention personally of misusing the

system, but what guarantees do they have that someone, some group in

the future, will not misuse the system? That's the danger. Everybody,

let's say, means well, but we have a duty to guard against the odd

person who may not mean well.

Can you imagine what would happen if this legislation went through

without any future reference to the Legislature, as has been suggested

by the government side who say that it doesn't have all these powers

that we are afraid of — that the Lieutenant-Governor is able to

restructure the executive government, is able to establish new

portfolios, establish, merge or separate government departments,

transfer powers, and do this under any circumstances, as he sees fit,

from one member of the executive to the other? He can authorize an

executive member of council to delegate certain functions to a member

of his own department and riding — and that "riding" part, I would like

to know why — and empower the executive member to make agreements with

other governments and other bodies, and on and on and on. None of this

comes back to the Legislature. None of it!

Why do they want that power? When you read the bill a little closer,

you see where they want to merge the Department of Highways with the

Department of Public Works; they want to merge the Department of

Recreation and Conservation with Travel Industry; and they want to

create the new Department of Environment, and so forth. But why didn't

you in the first place come to the Legislature and ask for interim

approval to do what you have done? You've already done it now, and you

want to come in and make it legal with Bill 59.

Everything you've already done since you took office last December

11 you are now asking, in Bill 59, to make legal, but you've already

done it. You already have a Department of Environment, but there's

nothing in any legislation that I can see where there is such a

department. You've shown your ability to go ahead and do this. Now why

do you want to have it in this? If you do it in this, why can't it just

be on the basis that if there are going to be any future changes we'll

be back again? Why do you want it to be etched in stone that the

executive council will be free and clear once and forever from the

Legislative Assembly. You want to be free and clear forever.

You say: "We are coming to you this one last time and we promise not to bother you again. Just let us

[ Page 2994 ]

handle it this one time, and that's the last you're

going to see of us. We'll come in and visit with you from time to time

and discuss a few things, but as far as you having any real clout,

that'll be over. We will have fixed you really good."

Now you realize, of course, that that may be okay for you for three

years, but what are you going to do when you are over here in the

opposition the next time? What are you going to do when you are over

here in the opposition? Are you then going to say, "well, maybe we made

a mistake; we think you were right and we would now like to change it

back to a good old democratic society."? You see, this is the risk that

they are running, Mr. Speaker. This is the risk that we face when

people try and expedite democracy.

Democracy is not meant to be forced and pushed. It is a process that

involves participation, that involves education, that involves people

having an opportunity to be informed. In fact, a good executive would

insist that people have the necessary information and all of the facts

before any action was taken. You would feel that it was your duty to go

to the people, not to assume that the people are disinterested. People

are creatures of habit. People can be conditioned, and they have been

conditioned not to participate. They've been conditioned to be used to

politicians playing games and therefore it is hopeless and therefore

why bother to try and find out because they aren't going to tell you

anyway because they don't have any faith in us and it is just a waste

of time.

Now I would like to feel that this government would be interested in

reversing that, Mr. Speaker, and indicating its sincerity and its

understanding of the democratic process and how it functions and the

importance of making it possible for people to participate. If it is

not proper for them to participate, then they'll do what comes next.

They'll condition themselves just as the Premier said he was going to

condition the opposition. And he had hoped to do it as fast as he

trained his dogs, Mr. Member for Omineca. You recall the Premier saying

that he was going to train the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, he trained them.

MR. BARNES: Oh, he trained the back bench. Well, perhaps he

had something going for him there because the system as it's presently

constituted doesn't allow the back bench into the cabinet to find out

what's going on. Is that not right? So you're in trouble from the start.

Now if you have a government that's not interested in democracy, it

won't even inform you. I'm sure that many of you have never read this

bill, have no idea what is going on — and there you all are, like seals

flapping your tails and saying: "Fine, we're in favour of it."

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I know the problem. I'm trying to protect you,

and you should be glad that I'm standing up here, Mr. Member in the

government back bench, speaking on behalf of the people of the province

of British Columbia and including you, because you, too, need defending

against that executive. Next thing you know they'll be eliminating the

back bench.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Don't laugh; it'll happen. Those guys get pretty

ambitious when they get power, you know. They get all that power and

start going around saying: "Well, we'll just eliminate everybody."

Isn't that right, Madam Member, the Provincial Secretary? That's true,

isn't it? You know that's true, that's right.

You see, the thing is that from time to time we all slip; we're only

human. This is why I'm trying to be fair and reasonably understanding

to the government. I don't want to give the impression that I'm

insensitive and cannot appreciate the difficulties the government faces

in trying to carry on the massive task it has before it in carrying on

under the face of difficult times and the international problems we are

having.

The whole world today is faced with the need for strong leadership,

for responsible leadership, for knowledgeable and informed leadership,

and committed leadership. It's in need of the right kind of people who

can look beyond themselves, look into tomorrow and be prepared to pay

some prices, and not make sacrifices that cannot be reversed, like

giving up the democratic process. Because once you give it up, you're

going to have a hard time getting it back — we all know that. We- know

how it is with power; once you open a little crack it just widens and

widens and widens. Let's not start opening up any cracks in this system.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Go back to the people and ask permission? Do you

want to have a general election on it? Fine. We'll go back to the

people and see if they're prepared to amend the constitution to

eliminate the executive and eliminate the Legislative Assembly having

any real role in the changes that take place within the executive

council. That's what you're saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get carried away.

[ Page 2995 ]

MR. BARNES: You should be carried away. Remember, when you

are defeated in three or four years you may be over here and you'll

want to have some protection, you will want some for yourself and for

your children and for generations from now. You have a duty to protect

them, not to make it easy for yourselves today.

Sure, it will be easy for you today to make all your regulations and

carry on your business, but then you've weakened your base, and we

don't want that to happen. That's why I'm quite prepared to support the

amendment that will be coming in when we are in committee stage on this

bill that the hon. Provincial Secretary suggested by asking that we

delete lines 18 and 19 under the first

section of the bill which deals

with the powers that you require being approved, but that they not be

deemed to be conclusive regardless of any other thinking of the members

of this Legislative Assembly — and that that would be going one step

too far.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: They're listening. The spirit is there; it

reaches far and wide, my friend. I'm sure we'll communicate — just as

you fellows are. You see, we're all together and I know you are going

to stand with me and support these amendments that the hon. first

member for Vancouver East has suggested, and the one that the

Provincial Secretary has suggested. Ours is in two parts, which is one,

and then she has one, so there are two amendments, and when these

amendments are passed, then we will have restored our faith and our

ability to move from a previous position to another position. This is

the kind of encouragement we need — to know that there is hope for

change, and that we can become enlightened.

Although we may have come in with a very stiff position, when we

hear the light, when information is put before us, then we're quite

prepared to recognize it. I must say, despite some of you members of

the back bench who have argued in support of this bill without

amendment, that I must give respect where it is due: the hon.

Provincial Secretary did come forward with an amendment indicating that

she has been listening, that she has not turned a deaf ear to the

opposition, and she has shown her willingness to try and resolve any

difficulties or conflicts we may have on the acceptability of the

proposal that is presented in Bill 59.

She should go a little step further, perhaps, and deal with the

amendment that will be put forward as well by the first member for

Vancouver East, which is asking that there be no provisos whatsoever

respecting the right of the executive council to operate without

referring back to the Legislative Assembly, that there be guarantees

that the executive council will not be able to carry on any activities

of major change other than the ordinary administrative ones that have

been practised traditionally in the government and that if there are

going to be changes that will diminish the opportunity for us, as

representatives of constituents throughout this province, to

participate and to have absolute ability to scrutinize all of the

activities as they occur, then this would not be satisfactory and we

would have to oppose it.

So I'm asking, Mr. Speaker — myself being, I believe, the last

speaker to make some remarks respecting the main motion before second

reading is completed — that when we go into committee stage, I'm quite

prepared to support the Provincial Secretary's motion. But there will

be an addendum to her

part in adding some extra words assuring that

there is no confusion as to what we expect in the way of the safeguards

against the executive getting out of hand. If she is prepared to

support those amendments then there's no reason why we shouldn't be

able to get unanimous approval of this bill which would indicate, I

would hope, the kind of confidence that the government wants to achieve

on all of its legislation. It takes a little more time. The process is

not always simplistic. It can be very complicated. It takes more time.

There are some advantages to moving fast. We appreciate that. When

the time comes if you come and present a good case to us and say,

"well, this is critical, this is urgent, don't play politics, don't

drag your feet, don't be obstructionists, allow us to move on," and

you've got a good case, bring it to the Legislature, and I'm sure that

in the interest of democracy and good government you'll get full

support from the opposition. But if you attempt to come in with some

kind of disguised programme calling the bill a housekeeping bill of no

real significance, just an administrative bill, and we find that the

thing is covering up some of the major cornerstones of this free

democratic society, then we're going to be worried, and this is a

dangerous thing.

I would just like to say, though, before taking my seat that we may

as well understand one thing. I realize it's going to be a long hard

job convincing the government that people really matter and it's also

going to be a long hard job for the opposition to educate the

government. Because I sincerely believe, although there are many

members on the government side who have succeeded in their chosen

professions and various interests and careers, that there is a certain

lack of respect and integrity for human beings. There's a certain lack

of confidence, Mr. Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . There's a

certain lack of confidence, and it's manifest in your legislation.

Interjection.

[ Page 2996 ]

MR. BARNES: Don't say that I know better. I don't know

better. All I know is what I read and what I see and how you behave.

Now do you want to challenge me?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You want to challenge it. I'll tell you what

we'll do. Let's take a look at your legislation. Let me ask you one

simple question. If you really are that concerned about democracy and

about participation on the local level and are concerned about

involving people so they can have some understanding about the workings

of government and some confidence in the credibility of government, why

did you close down the community resource boards when you had people

out there working as volunteers giving up all kinds of time managing

their local activities, making recommendations to the minister, feeling

some sense of importance...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. BARNES: ...at no cost, at virtually no cost? You're

saying that you closed those down, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to

tell me that I'm being oversensitive. Come on!

What about the community information centres, one of the most vital

things that we need in a democracy where people can find out what's

going on? You closed them down. You say, "Well, we're only going to

permit a couple of major centres," when these things are vital in a

democracy. They're a vital means of communication to avoid people

becoming alienated and apathetic and disinterested.

Don't tell me that I'm being oversensitive when I say that I don't

trust you and I don't believe when you say that you care about people,

that you don't mean it. Because I'm telling you that the way you behave

you're totally insensitive and irresponsible. Do you want to go a step

further?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But, you know, I was

going fine until that Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster).... I was

trying to be kind to the government.

But, you know, invariably I get upset when I think about the things

that have happened in the last six months. I was just about to sit

down. Now you've upset me.

Now I'm worried about the social service tax.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You've got me worried about the 40 per cent

increase you did to those people from 5 to 7 per cent. You say: "Okay,

we love people; so we're going to get everything we can from them.

We're going to treat them like beasts of burden. We're going to ride

them all over the place." Grind them down to the ground, that's what

you're going to do.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: "Double up, double up! Triple up! Quadruple up!

Take them for a ride because we are here to govern and they are here to

see that we stay here." It was supposed to be the other way around. I

didn't want to get into a caustic kind of casting aspersions on the

government, because I know they mean well and they're only trying to

carry on the people's business. But all I said in the first place is

that I don't think they really understand human nature or care that

much. Furthermore, they don't have a whole lot of confidence in people.

People are willing to pay their own share, are willing to participate,

but those people would like to feel some sense of belonging and some

sense of interest in what's going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I draw your attention to the fact that you're on your final two minutes?

MR. BARNES: Yes, thank you. No, I'm a designated speaker, Mr.

Speaker, and I can stay here forever. (Laughter.) You didn't know that.

I'm sorry. I just bring that to your attention. I'm sorry I didn't

inform you of that, but I could stay here on this stand as long as the

hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) did. He stayed

here for 14 hours one time. Remember that? It was on Bill 42. We were

trying to bring out some legislation that we felt would assist the

people, Mr. Speaker, and he stood up here....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, well, you see, but I got the word. I got the

word. (Laughter.) His voice went far and wide — almost as far as the

Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) voice.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I was here. You bet I was here.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I suffered like you did over here as a Liberal.

You were a Liberal over here. You sat here as a Liberal and you were

just as mad as I was,

[ Page 2997 ]

standing up there fighting and waving at the

gallery, saying: "What do you mean?" And now look at you! You're

defending the position of that member who was at one time trying to

tear us to pieces.

Which side are you on, Mr. Attorney-General? (Laughter.) Oh, Mr.

Attorney-General, I'm telling you, you confuse me. You know, you've

caused a lot of trouble for the member for North Vancouver-Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) too. He's upset. And that Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) hasn't done any good for our friend, the member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) . Look what you've done to him — he's all alone. You

deserted him. Where's your sensitivity? Where's your concern for

humanity? This man is left alone. I wouldn't be surprised if he quit!

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up, Emery! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you, he wouldn't know where to go, because he doesn't like anybody for now. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please return to the principle of the bill?

MR. BARNES: I withdraw those remarks if there's been any

indication that I am trying to demean the integrity of anyone in the

House, because I'm sure everyone is concerned. Everyone has their own

orientation, but the problem is that they're all different. We're

trying to pull ourselves together, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to suggest

that the ultimate goal and the virtue of the members of this House

should be to have a House completely together and undivided —

undivided. That's what we should be trying to pursue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: Now I think you guys are playing politics, quite frankly, and I don't trust them for a minute. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: Not for a minute. I'll tell you why....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) return to his own seat if he insists on interjecting.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that the

thing that bothers me the most about those members on the other side is

the way they play with the political opportunities that are open to

them. Now they have said on a number of occasions that they would like

to assure everyone that they want complete unanimity in certain things,

like the ombudsman and the auditor-general, but when it comes to other

things, they say: "Well, we'll deal with that ourselves." Why don't

they be consistent? I'm suggesting that we have the House undivided and

that we get consensus — 100 per cent — on things that are important.

They should want that; there should be no question.

They just finished defeating an amendment to a bill that has caused as much

debate as any bill in this House, an amendment to hoist the bill for six months

— they defeated it. Now we gave all the reasons and excuses that they needed,

but they've shown no sensitivity whatsoever. This is what I mean. I don't

think they really care. If you cared, then why don't you demonstrate your

willingness to cooperate with us? Give us some encouragement and then maybe

you would find that we would reciprocate.

MR. LEA: Everybody likes a pat on the back once in a while.

MR. BARNES: We would reciprocate. But what do we get? We get

all this tugging and tossing and everybody playing their own games, and

absolutely no indication that we are prepared to work collectively and

set the kind of example that the people in the community have been

looking for and would like to see demonstrated by those of us who are

elected to carry on their activities.

As I was saying, just before getting ready to take my place, I have

no intention, Mr. Speaker, of delaying the passage of second reading of

this bill, because I think that the hon. Provincial Secretary is very

anxious to get this to committee stage, whenever that happens. I'm sure

she will also be very anxious to accept the amendment of the hon. first

member for Vancouver East along with the amendments that she's put

forward, and that we are going to have unanimous support and this bill

will go through without any fears. Although it will be amending the

constitution, in effect it will be as though it had not been presented

in the first place.

All we want to do is assure that the House does not lose its

position in terms of carrying on the people's business. What will

happen, in effect, if we succeed in carrying these amendments, is that

we will have mechanically done in reverse what could have been done the

other way. In other words, you could have gone for an interim approval

to set up the departments that you want, we would have debated them,

they would have carried on, and you wouldn't have had any need to bring

in this smokescreen

[ Page 2998 ]

talking about administration.

What you're doing in fact is trying to make a major change in the

constitution and take a step backwards for democracy. It's a very

serious thing you are doing, and we won't accept it.

So before I sit down, I want to say to you, and I think you should

listen, earlier I charged the government with perhaps lack of

understanding as opposed to malicious, because I don't believe that you

sincerely are malicious or that you could have been elected had you not

attempted to indicate to the people out there that you cared. I believe

the people believed you, as they should, because they are desperately

looking for leadership, for compassion and sensitivity in the political

arena. They are looking. And you people obviously are masters at at

least displaying your abilities politically. Now what we want you to do

is deliver in fact, to carry out what you have been showing.

If you do that, then I'll be the first one to sit down and admit

that I have perhaps overreacted to how you appear to be, because in

fact your actions will be different to what I have seen. But that has

to be seen. I'm not convinced yet.

Remember when I was going down the list of activities you

introduced, particularly the GAIN legislation — and not only the GAIN

bill which wiped out everything we had given the people as a right, and

now you're saying they've got to qualify to get it.... But okay —

that's one of your games.

But the other main thing is the attitude, the attitude of that

Minister of Human Resources who is restricting people's movement,

restricting people's ability to move in their society — telling people

that if they live here they can't be on welfare, or if they are over

there, they qualify for this, or we're going to say that you've got....

There are 175 different areas where they claim people cannot stay in

and live in. Now where have you heard of that in a democracy when you

tell people... ? That's a contravention of the Bill of Rights. And if

it is not, it should be!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please get back to the principle of this bill?

MR. LEA: That's the man who calls a spade a shovel.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you, when it comes to that, Mr.

Speaker, what about the quality of life, what about the feeling of... ?

What's so great about living in a democracy where you've got to have

everything so tight that no one can feel free? We should be encouraging

people to enjoy the quality of life. The opportunity to be alive is a

wonderful thing, but let's let them enjoy it; let's make them feel that

we want to see them happy in their lifetime, not in some existentialist

kind of situation where it's in the abstract, under the ground or next

year or some other time of the second coming or something. Right now!

Right now is what people want.

I want to see the senior citizens, the young people and all of them

encouraged to live and to feel good. We should be saying: "Live

wherever you want to live. We will find a way to accommodate you. We

will encourage you to live in this beautiful province of ours — all

over."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's called the money tree!

MR. BARNES: It's not always money, man! It's not always

money! That's your trouble — you are locked into money! Haven't you

ever heard of cooperation? Haven't you ever heard of people

participating without having to be remunerated for everything they do?

I don't believe you understand. No, you don't! Look at him shaking his

head. He does not understand! Are you going to tell me that those

people who are...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: ...on the community resource boards who are not being paid...? I can tell you that there are four or five...

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member...?

MR. BARNES: ...who are not getting a dime! They don't want any money.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please return...?

MR. BARNES: They have made representation to the Minister of

Human Resources, and he refused to listen. They said: "We don't want to

get paid; we just want to have the right to continue operating." And he

took it away from them. He said: "You don't have any authority to

operate."

AN HON. MEMBER: But he ran for a resource board.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please return to...?

MR. BARNES: So that man over there was a member of a resource

board, and started to deny it because he doesn't understand; he thinks

there's something wrong with participating with people who work for the

love of working, for cooperation and for belief in a system which they

want to see survive — and they don't have to be paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

[ Page 2999 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, what's the problem? (Laughter.) Do you want me to take my seat?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the Chair has granted you great

latitude in the material you have delivered in the debate on second

reading. Now I think you understand the rules of the House as well as

anyone, and the Chair must remind you to return to the principle of the

bill.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker and former Whip.... As you know, the

Speaker and I at one time were colleagues suffering together trying to

deal with our respective leaders, and we did have our problems.

(Laughter.) I think they want to know that, you know, I've extended

that same concern and compassion for you in your new role, and that I'm

not going to in any way aggravate the difficult task you have before

you. I will move immediately to try and find the principle of this

bill. (Laughter.) Don't be discouraged; I'm about to take my seat.

The only way I'm going to be able to do this calmly, as I've tried

to do all along, is if I'm not disturbed by these members on the

government side who seem to feel that I have been speaking in

generalities without getting down to some of the things that are really

essential.

But the thing is, I think they need a course in human nature and in

things like structures that are important in the environment in which

people live, and the kind of atmosphere that's necessary in order for

them to be motivated and stimulated in a constructive way to

participate.

These are the kinds of things you people seem to be totally

oblivious to. You think you can operate in a vacuum. You think you can

get a bill passed like this and go into closed doors in the chamber for

the executive council and there'd be no problem. But you've got to come

out of there and talk to the people. It's important that you talk to

the people; it's not important that you pass all this legislation with

no communication. If you do, then the people haven't been sufficiently

informed. They don't understand what's going on. We don't understand

what's going on. We haven't had a chance to represent the people. They

are asking us questions we can't answer. You are saying: "Forget it.

We'll take care of everything." It's a heck of a mess. We can't have

that. You've got to participate.

The most important thing in a democracy is to participate, to have

time to let the process take its course. You say it's awkward, it's

inconvenient, it's cumbersome, we've got to get on with the people's

business. But the people's business is participation. If it means

one-fifth the speed at which you are travelling, it is more important

in the long run than going through it and having everybody confused.

This is what I am trying to tell you. You don't understand. You do not

understand.

Now listen, you don't understand. If you think I am kidding, you

will find that in the next election the people are going to be on you.

I'm trying to help you. (Laughter.) I would like to see you understand

in time because believe me, despite my...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: ...political affiliations, I am more than willing

to see you do right. If you do right so well that I can't make any

distinction between what I am trying to do and what you're doing, then

I would be the first to admit it. Mind you, you have more or less

obliterated all of the other parties, because mostly we thought you

were different but we find you are all the same. Scotty Wallace —

pardon me, the member for Oak Bay — still believes there is a

difference and that's why he is standing here. But look what happened

to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . He saw the light. He

said there is no difference. The Attorney-General said there's no

difference. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) said: "There's

no difference. Let's go over there and get those guys out of

government. They understand people. You can't have that."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member...

MR. BARNES: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I am coming back to the....

MR. SPEAKER: ...you are straying from the principle of the bill.

MR. BARNES: I'm still trying to find the principle of it. (Laughter.)

Okay. I've tried to put the things into perspective — that's all.

I've tried to put things into perspective, because this government

would like us to believe that things are isolated and separate, but in

their respect they are all the same. It doesn't make any difference

whether you are talking about Bill 59, Bill 57, Bill 28. The point is,

it is the authors of those bills that I am concerned about. I am always

worried when I see no indication that the people on that side of the

House have any sensitivity or concern for the effects of what they are

doing on the people — the effects. Talk about administrative

responsibility, fiscal responsibility — you've got to be kidding. What

would you have done to Vancouver Island and other places as far as

their economies are concerned?

Interjection.

[ Page 3000 ]

MR. BARNES: Wiped them right out. This Minister of Travel

Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) says: "Oh, I am concerned about tourism.

We want to see the people come to the province." I bet you there won't

be very many on Vancouver Island. If they do, you haven't made many

friends. Because the kind of things that you have been doing, the kind

of things that that Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Davis) has been doing and will be doing in the future, plus muzzling

the people, the ones you are getting later in the public service....

You're going to lock the door on them. You're going to back up on them.

So don't start telling me that you care about people. You don't.

This bill is just one more treachery to alienate them even further.

It's a dirty rotten trick. It's serious; it's an amendment to the

constitution of British Columbia. It should go back to the people. We

should be having an election on it. It's that kind of a bill as far as

I am concerned. You shouldn't be making changes like that without going

to the people.

Talk about getting a majority vote on major changes — in most

institutions and corporations and what not we have a board of

directors. They go and they say: "We want a two-thirds vote." This

government doesn't even have a two-thirds majority. They're short. I

know, Mr. Speaker, you tried to correct me the other day. You said:

"No, you're wrong. We have got it." You haven't got it. I think you are

a couple of people short — at least half a person short. But in this

case you should want 100 per cent support; 100 per cent is what you

should want. You don't want a simple majority of a two-thirds majority.

You want 100 percent support. You are making a major change. If we go

through this....

Okay, fine. The Provincial Secretary said: "We will eliminate that

section that is contentious. We will eliminate '...and shall be

conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so

paid and applied.'" She said: "We will eliminate that and then

everything should be all right." That's like when someone sticks a gun

in my head and he didn't know that I knew a little bit about karate or

something. He pulled it fast and I took the gun away from him. He says:

"Okay, okay, I'm going to take it away. I will take it away if I have a

second chance." I said: "No, but I got it on you now. You tell me

you're going to take it away. You would have taken it away. Pardon me,

you would have." Well, the thing is now you're going to say: "Fine,

we're going to take it away." But why did you put it in there in the

first place? We should debate that.

What was your plan about putting it there in the first place? Let's

talk about that. When you stand up, you tell us why you thought it was

necessary to do it in the first place. I'm worried about your

motivation; I'm worried about all of you. I think you have a conspiracy

and you're going to pull something fast. There is no reason in the

world why I should sit here and let you tell me you're going to amend

it when you brought it in in the first place. I'd be some kind of a

dummy. I never would have gotten to be the age I am now, I'll tell you,

if I had believed that people will come in and tell me something and

change their mind. You don't get that many changes; you don't get that

many opportunities.

You have already indicated to me, as far as I am concerned, your

intentions as many of the other ones have. You have been changing too

many things too fast. You've got a plan and your plan is to run people

out of this province like myself. I found that out about the Minister

of Human Resources when he started saying: "Stop those young people

from coming across the border! Don't let them in! Habitat is on. We've

got to show a lot of understanding for the people, encourage them,

hospitality, but we din't want anybody here, especially those young

ones who come in with that long hair and not enough money — they're

going to cause problems." That's the attitude you have.

It's not that you don't have a point. It's true that we're not the

money tree, but your attitude bothers me; I don't trust you. I would

like to trust you, but you're going to have to demonstrate more your

ability to carry on with some compassion and sensitivity for the people

and for the common decency, for the rights of people and democracy, and

the kinds of things we all believe should be uppermost in our minds,

the kinds of things we feel will make this a qualitative place to live,

a place where people can enjoy with pleasure some of the freedoms and

the luxuries that have been left for the elite, the exclusive rights

that you feel are for those who have achieved certain merit and certain

status in life. You have set this up as an elitist society, a society

of classism, and you continue to try and perpetrate this myth upon the

people — you exploit them and tell them that they are lucky to be here.

These people have rights. You know as a business people — those of

you have been in business — that you have to have something to exploit

before you can accumulate. So what do you do? You con them into

thinking that they've got to go and participate in a game in which

you've got the cards stacked against them. And you have no intention of

ever letting up, because it is fundamentally the way you operate; it's

the way you build your system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: You believe that everybody should participate.

This is why I get excited, Mr. Speaker, when I see things like this. I

will tell you that I will not rest easy — I will not rest easy even

after they

[ Page 3001 ]

have accepted the amendment which the hon. first

member for Vancouver East will be bringing in, and approve the one the

Provincial Secretary will be bringing in, or even if they perhaps

withdraw the bill. Even if they withdraw it there is no reason for me

to feel, all of a sudden, that they are now angels. Remember, they

brought it in. They brought it in, and if they bring it in, it tells

you something about them. Mr. Speaker, you know that!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I'm sure you are aware of the fact

that all members of the House know that the bill is before us for

debate in second reading, which is the principle of the bill. All I'm

trying to do is assist you in keeping your points relative to the

principle of the bill, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I needed the rest. I

always like these interruptions at a time when I am becoming redundant

and repetitive, and people are probably getting bored and saying: "Why

doesn't he sit down? He knows it only takes one statement for us to

understand." But there is one thing I've learned about human nature —

and I'm sure the Premier knows this too, and that's why he said he'll

have us trained, like he did his dogs, in two weeks. He knows that you

can condition people. He knows that, Mr. Speaker, and I know it.

I realize that it depends on what your objectives are. You can

convince them to behave in a way in which they can feel that life is

beautiful and worth living and participating in — and that would be a

message to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because he probably

thinks that if they do that they are going to deceive you, that

something is going to go wrong. He has no delusion of people's common

motive to be happy, to want to live and to share. People want to love.

Even Trudeau found that out — through Margaret.

All I'm trying to say is that we are going to have a new perspective on life, Mr. Premier, and Mr. Minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, while I appreciate a philosophical discussion as much as you do....

MR. BARNES: Yes, I know you do.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the principle of this bill. Unless you relate it to the principle of the bill....

MR. BARNES: Oh, I have to disagree.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask you to confine your remarks to the principle of the bill.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you what I'll do: let's have a

conference with the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

and see what he thinks about principles of bills. Do you remember how

he talked about the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, two or three years

ago? Remember that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you, at that time all he could talk about was freedom!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Shame on you!

MR. BARNES: Freedom, freedom, freedom — of the people —

losing their homes, losing their land. That's what he was talking

about, and now I'm on the same thing; we have a common interest. But

why is it that whenever he talks about it it is all right, but when I

talk about it, it is not all right? I'm concerned about the same things

that every member on this side of the House is concerned about. They've

said it....

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): She said we were going to have a secret police force.

MR. BARNES: Right! She was trying to get rid of it; she was

scared there might be one. She hadn't seen it, and we haven't found it

yet. We asked the Attorney-General to help us find it, too. He hasn't

been able to find one, but we're all looking.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a real secret police force. (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: We know that she may have some illusions, but she

is trying to find a danger to democracy; we are trying to do the same

thing. Now why can't we all work together.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Except that this bill would allow them to have a secret police force.

MR. BARRETT: That's right — they could set up a secret police force.

MR. BARNES: That's right.

Well, you know, me being inexperienced in the details of drafting

bills and so forth, I had to read a few lines to see that there is a

game going on, and I just put the thing down. You know, I had to see

what was going on. I mean, if a person means well, you trust them and

you don't worry about details. You know, it's like my solicitor — I

have to have one to protect myself. (Laughter.) He comes and says:

"Here I am; sign this." Scribble, scribble, and it's done. But he has

never put the screws to me — yet. (Laughter.) If he does, I'm not going

to go for that any more.

[ Page 3002 ]

Now we are asked to sign this bill. They almost slipped it through,

but I said: "Wait a minute, wait a minute — there might be something

that is contentious." It's too late! You were trying to do it to us in

the first place and now we are worried. Now we've really got to go

through this thing very carefully because you almost got us.

You see, that's what I mean, you know. And that's what's going to be

happening, I'm sure, for the next few years. We'll have to watch every

step of the way because they have a plan, and the plan is to wipe us

out. Right? Come on! When we first came in here — I'm an elected member

just the same as you are — I remember many of you saying: "That's

right, you shouldn't be here. You have no right to be here."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Who didn't say that? Come on, stand up and give

us a speech on freedom and democracy. I'd love to have someone stand

up.... We'll have leave of the House, even though you have all

participated. No, in fact none of you have. Have you? (Laughter.) Now

that I think about it....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: You've shown great latitude, Mr. Speaker. I promise you, you'll have no cause to interrupt again.

MR. SPEAKER: I must caution you to stay with the principle of the bill.

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

I think that I've made my points, and I realize that I'll have an

opportunity to recapitulate many of them again in committee.

(Laughter.) Perhaps by that time they will be somewhat refined and

pulled together and we'll want to be anxiously getting on to the

amendments, and particularly the one that the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is proposing.

What he is in effect saying is: "We want you to have all the

authority you need to carry on the people's business without any

feeling of restrictions that are undue and unnecessary. But we don't

want to have you burdened with the responsibility of having to decide

whether or not you are within the law. So we are going to eliminate

that possibility by telling you that the law will not be changed, that

the constitution must remain intact, that the rights of the people must

prevail, and that you're not going to do that unless you want to go

back to the people and get their permission out there in a general

election."

I for one would never, in any way, diminish the right, the

hard-fought right that we all enjoy in this House as representatives of

the people in this province, to stand here on their behalf and know

that we can scrutinize every step of the way what goes on in this

government. We won't have that right if this bill passes unamended, and

it won't pass if it's only amended the way the Provincial Secretary

suggested. It's got to be amended the way the member for Vancouver East

suggested, not the way that the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) suggests.

So with that, I'm quite willing to take my seat, and I want to thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I think you've been most

courteous and I think that you should be reminded from time to time and

encouraged to stay with it, because not each day is easy, as you know.

I want to let you know that I have compassion for you, and I know that

your role is one of impartiality and as you sit there as a person who,

by virtue of the choice of your colleagues for you to do so, although

it wasn't unanimous...that you nonetheless are there and that you are

burdened with duties that can be fun one day and extremely hazardous

the next.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But, you know, that's the strength of our system.

If you weren't doing that, who would be doing it? If you didn't take

all the heat, you know, who would take it?

I'll tell you, we may be out on the streets if it wasn't for you, so

don't get discouraged. (Laughter.) You know, people can get pretty

nasty, but the British parliamentary system protects us as long as it's

not emasculated — as long as it's not ripped apart carelessly by people

who are playing games with it by expediency and carrying on for the few

short years they'll be in office. You see, we're getting beyond that. I

want to thank you and we'll be seeing you in a very little while,

perhaps tomorrow, on the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say, in

replying to the last speaker and remarking on his address to the House, that

I think he spent a great deal of the time, especially in the last few minutes,

giving great credit to you, sir, for the difficult job that you have. Considering

that the debate has wandered so far from the principle of the bill, I certainly

have to agree with that member that you certainly have had a difficult time.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I just say this too, Mr. Speaker, that the

reverse of the truth could not

[ Page 3003 ]

have been said with such exact precision and with such feigned emotion as has gone on during this debate?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you read the wrong page.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The opposition has not talked to the principle of this bill...

AN HON. MEMBER: One more strike for you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...because all the emotional hogwash that has accompanied this debate shows they have not read nor understood this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: And now you're amending it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's a political ploy, Mr. Speaker...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...but I'll say this: when I went through this province, and I did....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...within the last three and a half years....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When I commented on the NDP legislation of the last three and a half years...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...I never had to make it up, Mr. Speaker. I never had to fabricate it.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've never had to fabricate the case...

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...for power centred in the former NDP

government. The pious statements of power being taken away from this

Legislature made by the same people who set up all-powerful boards and

commissions taking all the power out of this Legislature and putting it

into non-elected hands....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The amendments to the Revenue Act that the Finance minister, the then Premier of the province....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Where were you when that debate took place, Mr. Member?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Just name one.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I just named one.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That is one I am bound to say this

government has taken out of the hands of the Finance minister, because

we don't want power in the hands of our Finance minister, nor do we

want the power of that kind that was taken unto himself by the former

Premier, in the hands of any member of a Social Credit government or

any government to follow.

You could do anything you wanted with the Revenue Act, and not only

that, you did; you gambled with the people's money. You gambled on the

stock market and everywhere else.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They tied to this bill the threat that

this Legislature has no power over the spending of moneys — completely

untrue, Mr. Speaker. Every single vote that is passed by this

Legislature, every single dollar is guarded over by this Legislature

and still will be with the passage of this bill.

The only difference, and I repeat what I said in my opening remarks

to the introduction of this bill, the only difference is not the change

of dollars from one place to another, but the difference in letting the

vote move, the vote complete with its total amount of money passed by

this Legislature to perhaps be placed in a different department, just

changing the functions of the particular department.

MR. BARRETT: Now you see it, now you don't.

[ Page 3004 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, we all saw you, Mr. Member. The people of British Columbia saw you and read you and saw through you.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked by members of the NDP,

it has been asked by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the hon.

Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace). What would this House say? Would you

like the NDP to have this power? The question has been asked by almost

every speaker that has come before in this debate, by the NDP

particularly. I'm going to say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is no, but

it was not given by us. That answer was given, the answer to "Would you

like us to have that power?" was given by the people of British

Columbia on December 11.

The people said: "We don't want you to have any power," and that

answer was very clearly given: no power at all to the socialists of the

province. That power that you — that all-hungry power...why, the member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said at a speech in Terrace, "Power

is the name of the game," she said, the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

You're the socialists that talk about power, and yet they are saying

in speeches in Terrace — not before this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, not

before this House — but she's saying: "Politics is the only route to

power." I'm quoting Rosemary Brown — "and power is the name of the

game" — speaking in Terrace Saturday at a conference on women's

changing role.

Mr. Speaker, there have also been comments made during the debate on

this bill that the former NDP government moved to ratify and kept

ministers without portfolio. But I want to refer again to the member

for Prince — Rupert (Mr. Lea) who referred to a former member of this

House, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), who served this

House as a Minister of Highways.

He served this House and was sworn in after Minister of Highways as

Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications on May 18, 1973. On

July 13,1973, as he was still....

MR. LEA: What about May 25?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As he was still.... May 18.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: He was still the Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could bring

that unruly member to order. I gave him my full attention when he was

speaking in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please allow the hon. minister to proceed in debate on this bill?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Following that action, on July 13, 1973, just two months later....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. Provincial

Secretary does not intentionally or any other way plan to mislead this

House, and I would ask her if she's going back to that July 13

order-in-council, before that to refer to May 25. Because if she goes

to July, it's a complete misleading of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, this was not a point of order in

the proper manner that you're making. Any hon. member has the privilege

and the prerogative of referring to statements, documents, transcripts

— whatever — in debate. Every member take full responsibility for what

they say in and outside of this House, and for you to bring a matter of

that nature up as a point of order was not a legitimate point of order,

Hon. Member.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA . Mr. Speaker, I accept your correction, and I will raise it

under

section 42 at the end of her statement.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, let me go back. The Minister

of Highways, the then member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

and the then Minister of Highways, was sworn in as Minister of

Commercial Transport and Communications on May 18, 1973. By

order-in-council, May 25, 1973, the Hon. Robert Martin Strachan was

designated Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications and was

at that point in time given by that order jurisdiction over many areas,

again many departments, and I'll name some of them: the motor-vehicle

branch, which was then in the Department of Highways, the data

processing centre, which was then in the Premier's office, the B.C.

[ Page 3005 ]

Ferries, provincial aircraft which was then in the

Department of the Provincial Secretary — and I may stand corrected on

that, I'm not quite sure of that one, but I think it was — telephones

and communications, again in the hands of the Provincial Secretary, and

the motor carrier branch, which I believe at that time was in the hands

of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). It is just suing the same

argument.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that on July 13, 1973, again following

the point that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was trying to

make, two months later in an order-in-council transferred all of these

various departments to the new minister. It did not have any reference

to this Legislature.

I'd like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that it was not until November

29, 1973, by order-in-council number 3958 that he was designated as the

executive council member charged with the administration of the

Department of Transport and Communications Act.

Mr. Speaker, the point that the hon. member for Prince Rupert was

trying to make in that respect was that what the NDP government did in

that time was all so different than what we are trying to do through

this Act. It's not so different. It's just the same thing except they

did it without the authority, and this Act is giving the authority of

the Legislature to transfer functions from one department to another.

I would like to also address my remarks to the hon. first member for

Vancouver East, and I believe that his wording last evening just at the

close of the debate on the amendment was that he never had seen

anything anywhere in any legislature that had the words

"notwithstanding any act of the Legislature." I think he said it was

unprecedented. I believe that was the phraseology, "unprecedented

legislation," Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never read it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the Manitoba Executive Act.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I did that!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm looking at the organization of the executive government:

"Notwithstanding any act of the Legislature, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the organization of the

executive government, and of the various departments thereof, and for

that purpose may (

a) establish, vary, or disestablish any department,

(

b) determine or vary the duties and functions of any department and

transfer any duties and functions from one department to another, and

(

c) determine or change the name of any department."

Mr. Speaker, that is taken from the Manitoba 1970 statutes.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Could I say this to you, Mr. Speaker? I

agree with the hon. Conservative leader of the House (Mr. Wallace) when

he says that just because it is being done by a Manitoba or

Saskatchewan government — and by the way, I haven't quoted

Saskatchewan, but it is. It is done by Alberta and it is done by

Saskatchewan. It is done by Manitoba, and I agree with the hon. member

for Oak Bay.

Just because this is compared and copied from those jurisdictions,

that is absolutely no reason why this Legislature should take on any

kind of legislation simply because it was done by the NDP government or

the Conservative government in Alberta. However, I draw that to your

attention because I want you to also know of the remarks by the Premier

of the Province of Manitoba when he introduced this Act: April 30,

1970, in the presentation of Bill No. 40, the Executive Government

Organization Act for second reading.

"Mr. Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be in

order if I were to give some brief explanation of this legislation,

this proposed legislation, although I suspect that not too much is

required by hon. members opposite inasmuch as they had something to do

with the drafting of it initially, and there have been no substantive

changes made in the draft."

And as an aside and not quoting Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Speaker, I refer

then to you that that was the Conservative government prior to the

Schreyer government that he was suggesting. To go on to quote Mr.

Schreyer:

"I think it can be said in a few words, Mr. Speaker,

that the main effect of this legislation is to formalize the number of

practices already in use and to provide, generally speaking, for

greater flexibility in the executive branch of government.

"Quite a number of the sections in this bill are

really in many ways a repetition or a restating of sections, provisions

in the present Act, that is to say, in the Executive Council Act.

"The important new provisions are to be found in

sections 7 and 8 whereby there is authorization given for the

establishment of committees of cabinet to carry out certain functions

and purposes. The great flexibility proposed here in

section 8 would

empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to determine with greater

ease the organization of the executive arm of government rather than

have

[ Page 3006 ]

departmental Acts for each and every department. It would empower

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to rearrange the executive arm as is found

most expeditious and most efficient in the judgment of members of the executive

council.

"There is also provision in the bill for the

delegation of powers, the kind of delegation of powers that is

frequently found in statutes. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that other

specific clauses in this bill are more of a routine nature."

I would like to just now quote for the benefit particularly of the

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) from the reply to Mr. Schreyer. It was

by the then Leader of the Opposition and the member in the Conservative

camp who held the government just prior to this bill being introduced.

"Mr. Walter Weir, Leader of the Opposition

(Minnedosa): Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven't yet had an opportunity to go

over the bill in detail but I have the First Minister's indication that

it is substantially the same bill that was being worked on. May I say

that I agree with it wholeheartedly? I think that the government of the

day and the changes that take place in an economy like ours are such

that the executive council should have reasonable flexibility so they

can put into effect any efficiencies that may be dictated by current

trend of the times.

"So with just these few words and with the indication

that I agree with the principle that is contained in the bill, Mr.

Speaker, and indicating that I haven't yet checked the clauses, I am

prepared to allow it to go to committee. If there are any questions in

detail I am prepared to deal with it at that time and not hold up for

further discussion here."

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to refer the House to the federal Act

— I will quote from

chapter 14, No. 29 — which says under

"transitional"....

AN HON. MEMBER: Your straw man is failing down.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: "The powers, duties and functions of the

minister shall be applied to such classifications of the public service

within the department as the Governor-in-Council may determine." I

would also like to refer you to statutes in Saskatchewan that give the

same powers. I won't take the time of the House to quote the bill, but

the same powers are given in Saskatchewan. Again, Mr. Speaker, the

opposition has taken a technical, organizational Act of this government

and is attempting to feign ignorance, going overboard in trying to

place an aura of suspicion just over a technical change.

What they are really saying, these members of the opposition, is

that they do not understand the power of the Legislature. They don't

understand the power that we have. These 55 elected people in this

House have supreme power. That is where the power is centred in British

Columbia; that is where it is going to remain.

Mr. Speaker, this Legislature, these 55 members have complete

jurisdiction over every penny, over every dime, over every dollar. If

they do not know their boundaries — if they do not understand their

role — if they do not know that, then they should not be here. They

should not be here. It's their responsibility to understand that. Where

were they...?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Where were they in the debate on the Revenue Act in the former government? Where were those pious members?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They are tying the debate to dollars.

They bring up the "not a dime without debate." Believe me, Mr. Speaker,

this side of the House believes that there should never be a dime spent

— not a penny — in this House without debate.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the present structure of

government has served us well, but with the passage of time society

changes and its demands on government change.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Government structure must change too if

it is to effectively meet the public needs. This Government

Reorganization Act is part of an ongoing programme by this

administration to bring government into the 20th century, to ensure

that its services are aligned with the aspirations and technology of

the day and to do it in such a way that the authority of this

Legislative Assembly remains paramount.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No one is happy with the continuing trend

for governments at all levels, Mr. Speaker, to cost the taxpayer more

and more and ever more. It is our responsibility, therefore, to

continually review our programmes and constantly review our services

and the manner in which they are delivered to the citizens of this

province. The Government Reorganization Act is part of that

[ Page 3007 ]

endeavour.

I want to say it again because it bears repeating in this House:

this bill does not allow the cabinet to determine any powers, any

duties, any functions, only to change those from one department to

another. Votes have always been changed, Mr. Speaker, without explicit

authority, from one department to another. This Act, Mr. Speaker, will

give such flexibility. That is all it does.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. LEA: Under rule 42, Mr. Speaker — the hon. Provincial

Secretary, when closing debate on Bill 59, referred to a statement that

I had made in the House. To me it's obvious that she misunderstood what

I had to say. Under rule 42, I have the option of correcting that

misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have been misquoted or misunderstood, that is correct, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: When I was speaking during the debate on Bill 59, I

went into the history surrounding the fact that Bob Strachan had been

appointed as the Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications

and how it had all been handled within the law — under the

constitutional law of this province. The Provincial Secretary has said

that it was not. I would like to, for the House, so they can understand

what I said, and the Provincial Secretary, go over what I said so

there's no misunderstanding.

I said....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I must draw to your attention that

in the use of rule 42 you may make a brief statement of correction, but

you cannot engage again in debate upon the matter. It's just a matter

of a brief statement of correction.

MR. LEA: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial

Secretary, when speaking, said that I had said it had all been lawful

and she said it had not. I would just like to briefly point out to the

Provincial Secretary and to the House where it is indeed lawful, as I

described it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. KEMPF: You'll never learn.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no debate, Hon. Member. It's not, Hon.

Member, recanvassing it or entering into a debate. If you have been

misquoted, that's one thing that you can bring to the attention of the

floor, but you have an opinion which is perhaps different from the

Provincial Secretary. That is not something which you can bring into

debate at the moment. What you can do is refer to something she has

said which has been a misquote of yours or she has misunderstood, but

you cannot enter into a debate, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into a debate,

but rule 42 clearly says that if there has been, in the member's

opinion, a misunderstanding of what I have said, then I have the

option, under rule 42, to clear up what I consider to be that

misunderstanding of what I said in the Legislature. It's obvious to me,

Mr. Speaker, that for the Provincial Secretary to say what she did in

her closing of the debate she had to have misunderstood what I said. I

would like the opportunity under rule 42 to clear that up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. We can't have two points of

order on the floor of the House at the same time. It's now my

understanding that the hon. member for Prince Rupert was on his feet on

a point of order.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Could I just comment on the point of order that's already on the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: Not while the member for Prince Rupert is in

possession of the floor under rule 42. I must caution you, it must be

very brief and cannot be argumentative.

MR. LEA: It is not. The misunderstanding seems to be, Mr.

Speaker...and I suppose it was my fault that I didn't indicate that

when Mr. Strachan was appointed to Commercial Transport there was

already a portfolio in existence that he was appointed to. I would like

to file with the House, to clear up the misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker,

an order-in-council dated May 25, 1973, which I believe will clear up

the misunderstanding — that in fact, what happened in those days when

we were the administration was handled according to law. I would like

to file with the House this order-in-council.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This is just a point of

[ Page 3008 ]

order....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Before I can take your point of

order, the hon. member for Prince Rupert wishes to file a document with

the House. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this whole

debate has been out of order. The member obviously wasn't misquoted and

had nothing to stand up to correct. I'd just like to point out that

there's nothing in our rule book which insists that anybody in the

House must understand the statements that that member makes. If there

was, I would suggest that that would be cruel and unusual punishment,

Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: There is a rule in our House that if a member

feels that he has been misquoted or misunderstood, that hon. member can

make a brief explanation.

MR. LEA: Where's your rule book?

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I too would like to raise, under

section 42, a misquote by the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this in relation to a remark made on the floor of the House?

MS. BROWN: In closing her debate on the floor of the House she read from a speech given by me in Terrace in the newspaper.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to assure the House that I was

flattered to find out that the hon. Provincial Secretary keeps a

clipping file on me, but I want to set the record straight if you would

allow me, Mr. Speaker, please — under

section 42.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would you take your seat?

Rule 42, hon. members, can only be used where one hon. member has

misquoted another member of the House. You must then relate your

remarks to something that you said in this debate on the floor of the

House which she has misquoted.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, maybe you should make your explanation to the Premier. He doesn't seem to understand what

section 42 means.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: In closing debate the hon. Provincial Secretary

read a quote which quite frankly I wish I had said. I wish I could have

been given credit for that quote, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, if I may be

permitted to conclude, what the hon. Provincial Secretary was reading

was a quote which must be credited to the Hon. Shirley Chisholm, who is

the person who said those words.

I certainly agree with them, and I know the Provincial Secretary

does because she certainly is involved in the pursuit of power herself.

That is one thing that we share in common.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: It is not fair to the Chair or to the members of

this House to use points of order and rules of the House in an improper

manner. That's all I wish to bring to the member's attention.

The question is....

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm putting the question, Hon. Member, but if you have a point of order I will listen to it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you rule 42, because I don't....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It is not necessary. We all have rule books and we can all read them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it is necessary because I interpret

rule 42 differently, obviously, than you do. I would like to have some

clarification of rule 42.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules are there, Hon. Member....

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Chair for clarification

of the rule that is in our standing orders. If you feel that is

frivolous and you should not deal with that, then I believe you have no

idea of what your role is in that chair. I'm asking you for advice, Mr.

Speaker, and you're refusing to give it!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I make two points. All members of this House have copies of the rule book.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please!

[ Page 3009 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: All members of the House have copies of the

rules of this House. The rules are there for all of us to read and it's

not a matter of taking the time of the House in debate on particular

interpretations of the rules. If the hon. member is concerned about

rule 42 or the

interpretation of it he has ample opportunity outside of

the chambers to come to the offices of the Speaker or the Clerks or

engage in discussion on the particular matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you need to clarify the rule publicly in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question is second reading of Bill 59, Government Reorganization Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

Curtis

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Barrett

Stupich

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

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

Bill 59, Government Reorganization Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just a little puzzled here, sir. We've been

advised by the government Whip that we were now carrying on with Bills

81 and 82, and I wonder what we're doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. House Leader reply to the hon. member?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Whips

had an agreement to go to 81 and 82, and we would have been pleased so

to do, but I understand that the opposition's speaker is not in the

building and cannot be until after lunch, so we are going to put that

over, if we may, until after lunch unless you'd like....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the other hon. members would like to participate first in the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If they are ready, I would be pleased to call it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want it called!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, just to keep the record straight I

think that since we're going backwards on the order paper in this

protracted session, we should ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee of Supply, by leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, so nice to have you back. We've

discussed the Department of Mines and the Minister of Mines for some

time, but it was a little while ago. Just in case we need our memories

refreshed, I thought that I might review one or two of the thoughts

that occurred to me at the time of the discussion of that ministry.

First we found a department minister who indicated publicly that he

could only spend 20 per cent of his time in the mine shaft and, Mr.

Chairman,

[ Page 3010 ]

we found every evidence that less than 20 per cent of his attention was spent in the area of mines.

MR. BARRETT: And only 60 per cent of the normal relationship of anybody else's attention.

MR. COCKE: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is

making a pronouncement with which I agree, but it's so complicated that

I'm not going to try to put it forward this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, it was because of this lack of attention to a very

important process in this province that the opposition moved an

amendment. That amendment has been resolved at this point, but that

amendment, I think, showed that there was a real concern on this side

of the House over the way that there has not been enough attention to

detail and attention to principle and attention to policy in the mining

resource sector of this province.

We found a minister who felt that the mining industry in B.C. needed

a face uplift and so, in order to encourage that this be done, his

executive assistant's son was commissioned to assist in this regard. We

say that was a miserable mistake, Mr. Chairman, and that minister when

interviewed on television rather agreed that he had made a mistake. You

know, some of us were a little bit encouraged at that time. We thought,

well, the minister has made a mistake. He's promoted something that

should have been quite without his sphere of influence, but he admitted

publicly that he thought possibly he had overstepped the bounds — and

I'm paraphrasing, of course, what he said.

But then, Mr. Chairman, the minister confounded us. We thought that

possibly at that point he's learned his lesson, but he confounded us by

making further mistakes which have been alluded to in our debate.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Minister of Mines, despite the fact

that he has said that he's only spent a very small portion of his time

in this area, has been very much overworked, even with that 20 per

cent, or somewhat less, if we are to use the Leader of the Opposition's

point of view in calculating worth along with time spent.

Mr. Chairman, we have a province that has been totally confused. On

one hand, we have a province that has been told by the government of

the day that now is the time to participate. Now is the time to tighten

up the belt. Then on the other hand, we've got a mining minister who

has told that industry: "Friends, " — and I say friends, using the term

in a political way — "Friends, you don't have to tighten your belts;

you can loosen your belts right off."

Now that inconsistency hasn't quite escaped the opposition — the

inconsistency of saying to the people of our province, "Tighten your

belts, pay more taxes, pay more for insurance," and at the same time,

saying to the mining industry, which admits that the problem isn't the

royalties, the problem isn't anything other than terrible world

markets, a world recession — a recession that's driving our present

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) grey.

I say as an aside that I'm worried about it — look at him. Have you

ever seen a man age to the extent he has in so few months? He really

is. He's aging; he's grey.

MR. BARRETT: That's the Minister Without Portfolio who can

pass as the aging Minister of Health redone by the Minister of

Education. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the inconsistency with which this

province has been treated...first by the government and then by the

Minister of Mines, saying: "All is well out there and we want to see to

it that you people don't tighten your belt; you loosen your belt."

Mr. Chairman, we certainly know that he had a lot of help in making

those kinds of statements of that kind of policy to the mining

industry. He's been very close to it over the years. I'm sure that his

position in the past was one that, if one isn't terribly careful — and

this is what I'm trying to lead to — could lead to conflict-of-interest

situations developing because of friendships that develop over

the years.

Mr. Chairman, with all the respect I can muster for the Premier —

and sometimes I find it difficult — but with all the respect I can

muster for the Premier, wasn't it a terrible mistake that he should

appoint that member for Yale-Lillooet Minister of Mines? Should he not

have looked around in his potential cabinet for someone who did not

have those kinds of connections, for someone who might very well have

looked at the mining process, the mining resource industry, with a

clear view?

No, Mr. Chairman, instead of that, the first minister of our

province decided to appoint a person who was clearly identified with

the mining industry, a person who had been on the hustings during the

election crying out: "You're safe in the arms of the coalition."

I'm using something that I think the Chairman of our House would

wonder why I would use that particular line, but I thought it was

appropriate. "Safe in the arms of the coalition" — that verse was

written by the now Minister of Mines.

Is it any wonder this side of the House looks at that Minister of

Mines with a great deal of apprehension over the future? Not only are

we looking at him in that way, but forest industry looks at it that way

too. They say if he's only spending 20 per cent of his time in Mines,

what's he doing with the other 80 per cent, because he sure isn't doing

anything over there.

That member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — and we

[ Page 3011 ]

shouldn't dub him the member for Northwood, should we? That wouldn't

be fair to talk about his connections. He's running back to his chair;

he's going to challenge that. Mr. Chairman, while he's making his way

across the floor, let me continue.

The Minister of Mines is devoting 20 per cent of his time to Mines,

and that 20 per cent has been mis-spent for the most part, as I think

we've clearly identified over the last short while.

Mr. Chairman, his other 80 per cent is not being spent where it

should be, according to the forest industry. They are asking the

question: "Where is he? What's he doing for our industry?" I suggest to

you that while the forest industry cried out with concern over the

previous Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williams),

oh, how they would love to have him back! You see, the only concern

they had over that former minister was the fact that they weren't quite

sure what he was thinking. Of course, you know, he wasn't quite sure

what they were thinking either, so it was kind of tit for tat. But we

know that the minister now isn't thinking at all.

Mr. Chairman, we've identified a weak link across the way. We've

identified a minister who really is not paying attention to what he is

doing, and when he does he makes mistakes, because he was all rolled up

in those mistakes from the outset. He made promises; he's tried to

deliver but those were bad promises.

Mr. Chairman, I'm so concerned about that minister and his

strength.... I'm very concerned about his strength. I feel that he

looks a little bit weak now.

It could be that in order to answer some of the questions that have

been raised, he should have something to eat, some sustenance. So in

order to afford him that opportunity, I move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

Barrett

Stupich

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 29

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

Curtis

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

MR. GIBSON: Mr . Chairman, I just have a few questions for the

Minister of Mines at this time. I would like to ask him first of all

about his plans for what I see as one of the greatest potentials for

the B.C. mining industry, a frontier area into which it is going to

have to move because of the declining rate of return on our land-based

mining enterprises. Of course I am talking about the potential of

undersea mining for British Columbia, particularly in the Pacific Ocean.

Just to lay the foundation for that a little bit, I would like to

tell the House something about the rate of return in the industry in

British Columbia and in Canada generally in recent years.

From 1967 to 1975 in British Columbia the composite return on

investment was 10.4 per cent — hardly the kind of thing, Mr. Chairman,

that is generally thought of as a bonanza industry. As a matter of

fact, when it is ranked among the various industries of this nation, it

is not very impressive at all.

There was one very good year during that period, an extraordinary

year — 1973 — where the return on investment was 24 per cent in British

Columbia. I will come back to that year later. From there on it was

nosedived: in 1974 it was 12.7 per cent; in 1975 back to about that

long-term average, 10.6 per cent. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that

without coal in 1975 — in other words, the metallic mineral section,

which is what many people think of as "mining" when they use the word —

the rate of return on investment was only 2.2 per cent. It was

disastrously low.

We have reached the point where the senior economist for the Royal

Bank of Canada had this to say. In a conference devoted to the mining

industry sponsored by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce that the

minister attended and I attended as well for a period of time, Mr.

Ralph Sultan said that his long-term forecast