1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 4145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4145

Mr. Wallace — 4145

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act

(Bill 158).

Second reading.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4145

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4146

Mr. Morrison — 4146

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4146

Mr. Chabot — 4146

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4147

Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4147

Universities Act (Bill 157). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4147

Mr. Schroeder — 4148

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4149

Mr. Wallace — 4149

Mr. McGeer — 4151

Mr. Gardom — 4153

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4153

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

On motion 34.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4154

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4154

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4155

On motion 32.

Mr. Chabot — 4156

Mr. Gardom — 4158

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4164

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4164

Mr. Cummings — 4166

Mr. McGeer — 4166

Mr. Wallace — 4168

Mr. McClelland — 4170

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I promised to look at the

complaint made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips). I have looked at it, examined the record on the two

important pages of Hansard of May 30, page 3569 where it

starts and where it was cleared up by the Hon. Member for South

Peace River on page…. I can't get the page number here.

I do want to point out that at a subsequent page, a few

minutes after the first exchange that took place on the

question of whether a letter asked the Premier to keep the

letter in confidence, the Hon. Member for South Peace River

stood up and said as follows:

However, again the Minister suggested that the letter I read

to the Legislature was somehow to be kept in confidence. I don't know where

he got that impression or is it just another one of his ways of trying to intimidate

the little Member for South Peace River?

Mr. Chairman, I will read the last page of this letter. There's nothing in it about keeping it confidential, to my

knowledge.

I point out that at that stage he corrected the Hon.

Minister as to his reason for reading the letter. It should

have ended the matter right there, according to our rules.

There's a tendency in this House to raise as a point of

privilege a difference of understanding of the facts in any

matter, when the proper course is to raise a point of order at

the earliest moment after the Member has taken his place and

made his remarks. If you wish to correct any statement made in

committee by another Member relating to you, the proper course

is to state the facts as you know them and the House accepts it

without question. It does not call for any withdrawal unless

unparliamentary expressions are used by one Member against

another.

In the circumstances, I cannot find it a point of privilege.

It's simply a question of a point of order that occurred in the

committee 17 days ago and should not at this stage really be

raised.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Second reading of Bill 15 5.

LANDLORD AND TENANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, this

bill prevents people being evicted, pending the new Landlord

and Tenant Act which the

House so graciously passed this afternoon, on the basis that

they're speaking up for their rights under either strata

titles, conversions or the 8 per cent law. They shouldn't be

evicted on that basis, so this gives the court the power to

prevent that eviction. I'm sure that questions can be answered

in committee stage in detail. I move second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I can be very brief. I have

examples in Oak Bay in the apartments where in fact as recently

as this afternoon I was contacted by a person who has been

asked to pay more than 8 per cent. At the bottom of the notice

is the fact that if she doesn't sign then she can be considered

as having concluded her agreement.

So while we have reservations about Bill 75 and the

Landlord and Tenant Act , inasmuch as this bill will at

least protect these people until these two Acts become law, I

strongly support Bill 155.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

Bill 155, Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 ,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to take the advice of the House.

Perhaps we could move 158 and 159 into committee and then go on

to the other. So I call second reading of 158.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

Bill 158, Mr. Speaker, is to establish an independent economic analysis group

at the University of Victoria. We are convinced it would be beneficial for the

City of Victoria, particularly the government, the civil service and the University

of Victoria. We think it would be beneficial for all these entities.

One of the things that impressed us as a new government, Mr.

Speaker, was the need for an independent economic analysis

group, the need for bringing senior academics to Victoria. It's

clear that to bring some of the better people to British

Columbia, a joint academic and closer-to-real-problems group

is needed.

As many Members may be aware, several conferences have now

been held, the latest one being with respect to pollution

control, held at the University of Victoria this past week. It

included some of the outstanding people in the field in

North

[ Page 4146 ]

America.

In addition, in recent ones the senior staff of numerous

departments have had the benefit of a course in cost-benefit

analysis, which is a significant area, which the civil servants

I think have benefited from considerably. There is actually a

line-up for subsequent additions to this course work.

So we're very pleased that the senior people of the

University of Victoria — the president and some of the deans

who have been involved in this process are as enthusiastic as we are as well. We think this is most

worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure most of the real debate

might take place in committee. I move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the principle of the bill,

Mr. Speaker, we're all in favour of the government getting a

little more advice.

I was interested when the Minister gave his clear, concise

and precise speech. We think there is a need for economic

analysis. Perhaps the Autoplan cost overruns might be looked at

closely by this institute. Perhaps the $2 million that the

Premier lost in his share purchases of Westcoast Transmission

will be looked at and they will advise on this.

We are sure that the Minister who introduced this bill will

have Can-Cel and other purchases and economic policies of those

companies looked at by it, and we are sure that the cost

benefit analysis will be beneficial to the government. We're

rather surprised that this is suddenly being discovered, but

better late than never.

We'll be dealing with this bill in more detail in committee.

However, I would like to congratulate the Minister on speaking

on this bill and not the one before on condominium conversions.

Undoubtedly there was a very fine cost benefit analysis before

he made the changes that he did in the rental agreement with

his tenants of his former apartment building.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Good. Was it Granny or your mother, Mr.

Minister, who made the profits?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mother or mother-in-law. At any rate,

we'll be discussing this further in committee stage.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, just a brief

comment. I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't one large

group of people represented on that board of five. Perhaps they

could increase it to six. The group that should be represented

are the taxpayers.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I just have a few words to say

on this Act. I think it's an excellent one, something that's

badly needed in the province.

MR. WALLACE: You're embarrassing the Premier.

(Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Cummings is going, not

you.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: However, I find it very strange that so

often when

an Act like this is set up and they pick an

institute of learning, it must be on the lower mainland. Why we

have to have the University of Victoria, the University of

British Columbia or Simon Fraser University, when we have so

many excellent colleges around the province who could do the

same thing….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, the University of

Victoria is not on the lower mainland; it's on Vancouver

Island. As a representative of southern Vancouver Island I ask

the Member for the Interior to be more precise.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's a point of order — maybe a

matter of protest.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, perhaps I was wrong and for once I

have to agree with the black sheep of our family.

(Laughter.)

There have been years spent in setting up very many

excellent colleges around this province. I certainly would say

to you here tonight — and I'm sure that there are many who

would agree with me — that the finest college in British

Columbia is in Kamloops — Cariboo College. I would hope that

some of the work of this commission could be farmed out around

the province. Certainly Cariboo College should be considered

when there is some of the work to be done with this

commission.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the principle of the Economic

Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act , in the

few words that he did say in setting up this costly structure

to do research for government the Minister suggested that it be

kept on an academic level. It is quite obvious to me that the

Minister has not read the bill. If he looks at one of the

particular sections in the bill, they are going to appoint

people from the labour movement, people from the consumer

market and people who are producers as well. Under those

circumstances it is going to be extremely difficult to keep it

on the academic level, if you're going to carry out the points

that are outlined in the legislation. Whether you are going to

do that only time will tell.

I hope, when one looks at the final

section of this

[ Page 4147 ]

legislation, that the Minister, when he tables his report to

the Legislature, tables it before his estimates come up so that

we can clearly have an opportunity to examine the worthiness of

the legislation and whether it is in the best interests of the

taxpayers of this province to set aside the millions of dollars

for the functioning of this new mechanism of government.

This will be a new departure for that Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), if he is to

table an annual report before his estimates come before the

House. We find that the Minister has great difficulty in

answering questions in the Legislature. Of the 60-odd questions

that are unanswered, 25 belong to that Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

Basically we will support the principle of the bill. I hope

that the Premier doesn't rush out on television and say that we

didn't vote against it. Any experiment that may be worthwhile

to the economic community of this province we will go along

with providing it is shown that there is justification for the

establishment and setting aside of the kind of dollars which

you are requesting we support at this time.

We will support it openly. We look forward to seeing the

first annual report. Then we will give you a more clearly

definite appraisal of whether the structure you are

establishing here, which is not on the academic level, will do

something worthwhile for the people of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am most pleased to have the

suggestions from the Hon. Members — from the Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) and the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson).

They will be given most serious consideration. They are greatly

appreciated.

I'm sure that the annual report will be received prior to

the time that the Member for Columbia River wishes. There will

be farming out. There will be work with the other institutions

of the province. We look forward to great progress in this

era.

I move that the motion now be put, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 158, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British

Columbia Act , read a second time and referred to Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 159, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading

to the Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 , may I say that this bill bears no resemblance

whatsoever to the drivel we heard on CKLG and CJOR over the last week?

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, you will find on page 22 of the

orders of the day for this evening amendments to this bill. Two

drafting errors are corrected. We've refined the procedures on

adjournment and we removed ambiguity in the bill. I think it

can be dealt with in committee. I therefore move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 159, Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we will complete second

readings by having Bill 157 go into committee; then we can go

into committee work.

Second reading of Bill 157, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITIES ACT

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In moving second

reading, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly that one

of the most important sections of the new Universities Act

is the establishment of the university council. I think the

best way to explain the purpose of this is to quote directly

from the task force report, which states very briefly that

universities are a public institution spending public funds and

performing public functions. Governments must have some means

of ensuring that universities are spending public funds

wisely.

Equally, however, universities should be concerned that

governments do not interfere in any direct way with their

operations. That is why this intermediary body, known as the

universities council, will reconcile public accountability with

university autonomy and will ensure a greater sensitivity to

social needs in the development of university education.

I'm very aware of the importance of the appointments of the

people to the university councils. We will be seeking names

from across the province from people who will be able to bring

into being what we consider will be a very excellent

intermediary body.

The powers of the universities council are clearly spelled

out in the bill. I know that when we go to committee there will

no doubt be questions on that I would like to also mention that there are other sections

of the Act which are equally important. One of them is, of

course, that for the first time in the Province of British

Columbia faculty will be able to sit, following passage of the

Act, on the board of governors. We are also doing something

that to my

[ Page 4148 ]

knowledge no other province has done in allowing for the

election of someone to the board of governors

from the non-faculty, full-time staff. Also it allows, of

course, for two student representatives.

The composition of the university senate is changed to

provide for official recognition of student representation. It

brings it up to almost 25 per cent.

If there are any further questions on this, as I say, I will

be most pleased to answer them in committee.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): We must commend the

Minister for the bold step she has taken not only in the

construction of the bill; but now, having introduced the bill

for second reading, she has suggested that it is one of the

aims of the department to establish the universities of British

Columbia as autonomous bodies without interference from the

department insofar as it is possible.

But in studying the bill, Mr. Speaker, we find that we must

register a protest. We see signs in the bill that exactly the

opposite is true.

She would like us to believe that perhaps the most

important

section of the bill is the

section that establishes

the new councils. But there are other changes that we must give

some consideration to. For instance, there are changes in the

board of governors. While the board of governors will now, I

must admit, have the additional representation of faculty

members, nonetheless I looked in vain for representation on the

board of governors from members of the senate.

There was no transfer of representation from senate to the

board of governors. This I find not only amazing but also

alarming. The senate is, of course, involved in the academic

policies of the university,

whereas the board of governors is

involved in the operational. These two facets of the

universities are interlocked and are inseparable. I can't see

how a university could operate with these two bodies so

autonomous that they have no interlocking influence at all.

I would ask the Minister to consider introducing an

amendment. If she doesn't, then I must. It would allow for

representation of perhaps two members of the senate, elected by

the senate, on the board of governors.

There is another area that certainly must come in for

honourable mention, and that is the redesigning of the senate

itself. The senate used to have 99 members. It has now been

suggested that the senate be given a dressing and that it will

be now limited to 66 members with perhaps other additional

members a little later on.

However, in the pruning of the senate, there are some members cut. They are

conspicuous by their absence and, I think, to the detriment of some of the affiliated

colleges. For instance, the affiliated theological colleges now will have no

representation on the senate. I would have to call on the government to have

at least one representative of each affiliate college, whether they be theological

or not, on the senate.

I would like the Minister to give every full assurance that

this would be possible because these colleges rely on this

representation for their only connection with the university.

They would like the Minister to give every full assurance that

this would be possible because these colleges rely on this

representation for their only connection with the university.

They would rely on meeting together in senate for the direction

they require for the growth of their colleges and for the

direction their colleges shall be taking. I'm sure this is just

an oversight on the part of the Minister. Although I have

studied the amendments, I see no amendment proposed that would

allow representation of these colleges. Therefore, I think that

before we reach the committee stage this should be drawn to the

Minister's attention. I strongly call upon her for

representation from these various colleges.

I notice that the standing committees have been increased

from seven standing committees to ten, and I think this is

commendable. It gives a greater scope for the operation of the

universities.

There are other questions that I must ask. Perhaps they

relate more directly to individual sections and I'll have to

ask them in committee.

Nonetheless, we must register a protest in the redesigning

not only of the board of council but also the board of

governors and the senate. There has been a reshuffling. Rather

than redesigning these boards so that they will be given

autonomy, they have been designed to give the government, this

cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the big club in

the direction of these various boards.

For instance, on the board of governors I notice that the

appointees to be appointed by the cabinet have been increased

from six to eight, obviously so that the appointees from the

cabinet will outnumber those elected or appointed by other

boards. I think this registers with me as a distinct fear in

this cabinet of losing control.

Now, Madam Minister, I say to you, if you wish to give

autonomy — and you say so out of one side of your mouth — then

you must be consistent and give autonomy. Do not overload these

various boards with appointees from the cabinet. There were six

before; there were some additional added. I welcome the idea

of having 15 members on the board instead of 11. But, my

goodness, surely to heaven six appointees by the cabinet would

be enough representation. Why not let autonomy be real autonomy

and give the majority of the members to those elected from

other sources?

I commended the other day the bravery of the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in that his was the first of

these many committees or boards

[ Page 4149 ]

or commissions that were appointed in which the board was

not heavily overloaded by cabinet appointees. I commend that

kind of an approach. Madam, I would suggest that you do the

same and reduce the number of Lieutenant-Governor-in Council

appointees at least to six.

I'll have more questions in committee; we must register this

protest now. Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister, in introducing this bill

for second reading, made a statement which we really do agree

with: the government should not interfere directly in the

operations of the universities. Then we think of the happy

history of the last few months in terms of financing the

universities — financing which was inadequate even to cover

last year's costs — and statements by the Premier that if they

came up with something bold and imaginative they could come

directly to him for financing. When we think of the problems

that we've had and the totally farcical budget that was put

forward during estimates for university financing, we realize

the government and the Minister are right; the governments

should not interfere directly as they have been doing because

they certainly have caused a great number of problems.

We would like to see a universities council we think this

buffer body is a good idea. However, we would point out that if

the government control is as extensive as we suspect…. And

in terms of government appointments we just hope that it will

not turn out to be a body which spends its time trying only to

serve the government rather than serving universities and the

people of the province.

The real question now as far as the universities council is

concerned is, first, the wisdom the government displays in

whom they appoint for these various positions. I think that if

good choices are made, the council will work effectively. I

think if these people in their turn display a fair amount of

wisdom in their work, we will have a more efficient and

effective system than previously. Certainly it will be better

than the type of system that has been in operation over the

last few months where the universities haven't known where

their money is coming from and what bold and imaginative

programme will attract the Premier or the Minister of Education

at any one time. They have not known whether they would have

the funds to even continue last year's operations, let alone

any new programmes.

We think of the programmes that were wiped out because of the government funding

uncertainty. Programmes such as women's studies, for example, were wiped out

at UBC. We realize there is a need for the universities to know in the long

term and over the years what their funds are likely to be and how many of their

expectations can be met. We think the universities council perhaps is a good

method of achieving this end.

As far as debate in principle goes, it really will depend

upon the quality of the people chosen and the wisdom they

display in carrying out their duties. We trust the Minister

will bear this in mind when she is making these appointments.

Certainly, the system will work very badly if we have poor

appointments and if they're unable to do the job

effectively.

MR. WALLACE: We feel this is a very important bill and it is

a great pity it is being brought in so close to the end of the

session. We've had very little real opportunity to go into this

in depth and to talk to the various people who are most

concerned and affected by this bill. I'm talking about the

various faculty associations and the various authorities in the

three universities. We got a very detailed reaction by the

Confederation of the University Faculty Associations of British

Columbia which came in the mail this afternoon. For us as

responsible opposition Members to try and read the reaction of

these people and participate intelligently in this debate is

extremely difficult.

I think it's rather unfortunate that the Minister did not

see fit either to hold it over until another session or perhaps

to consider referring it to the committee on education in the

meantime with a report of that committee to come back to the

House.

While the Minister introduced this bill and said that a

great deal of the bill had been based on the report of the

Young committee. the committee on university governance, it's

quite obvious that many of the representations made by the

universities to the Young committee have been either ignored or

contradicted. The report of the Young committee in no way,

completely or even in the greater part of the report, includes

all the points that were made to it in representation by

various university associations. I think it's really

unfortunate, since this is not a bill that is highly

contentious, that we should be pushing it through in this way.

I really don't feel that is justified.

Even those who have had time to react to this bill from the

university environment have stated that it would not seem

unreasonable to proclaim

part 12 of this bill, which is the

universities council and about which there is rather general

agreement at least in principle. The rest of the bill is not

urgent; there is nothing highly contentious. It seems to me a

very reasonable argument since this bill was only introduced a

few days ago. Here we are, racing through second reading and

into committee tomorrow presumably to pass it. I just think

this is the kind of behaviour of this House which demeans the

House in the eyes of the public.

Interjection.

[ Page 4150 ]

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce says, "Get on with the bill and just forget the

content of the bill."

You're in a great big hurry are you, Mr. Lauk? Maybe you're

going to Japan to see about some more steel, are you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member kindly

address the Chair and proceed?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important and

it's very much a matter which relates to the principle of this

bill that it has far-reaching effects, which we will debate in

more detail in committee, which should be studied in order to

make debate meaningful. But the details are such that we cannot

do them in a sense of haste or the last day or the second but

last day to the proroguing of this session.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) may not think that is important, but there is a

tremendous amount of work gone into this and there is a great

deal of community input which is eager to react to this bill.

By the time we get it in the mail and by the time we've had a

chance to consult with many of the people in the community,

this bill will be passed. I just don't think that is

reasonable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Hear, hear!

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Have you got your own view about the bill?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I have.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, then, give it!

MR. WALLACE: My view about the bill is that it contradicts

some of the principles which the Minister herself has espoused.

Though we shouldn't have government interference in the

autonomy of the universities, the new universities council

consists of 11 people all appointed by the government. Answer

me that.

You set up a universities council with all 11 members

appointed by the government and then turn around and say that

this government has no wish to interfere in the universities.

If some of the appointments which have been made to Simon

Fraser University are any indication lately, we can expect to

have a somewhat partisan universities council. That's my

reaction, Mr. Minister. And if that's wrong, maybe you should

give us more time to get public reaction to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The Minister says that it is very important,

and she quotes the Young report. I notice she didn't do us the

courtesy of telling us which page 1n the report she was quoting

so that I could track it down as she spoke. The Minister talks

about the importance of public involvement in the universities,

and I think we are all agreed on that. So why reduce the size

of the senate? The whole thing is contradictory.

With one voice we are being told the community and the

alumni association and people with concern who are not actually

in the university circle should have input as to how

universities should be governed and financed. The Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) applauds and I applaud. If that's the

case, Mr. Speaker, why, in heaven's name, do we reduce the size

of the senate from 99 to perhaps 76?

If we don't want government interference in universities,

why do the majority of board members have to be appointed by

the government? Another contradiction.

We have this universities council which really has very

substantial powers, a newly-created body with extensive power

and all the members appointed by the government. Yet we can't

even decide to let the majority of the board be composed of

people who are not government appointees.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

asked for my reaction to the bill. This bill is full of

contradictions. The Minister says the senate should be more

involved and more responsive to community input. She reduced

the size of the senate and increased the number of working

committees of the senate.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of the basic work in

universities is done by the standing committees of the senate.

We previously had seven standing committees; now we're to have

10. We reduce the total number of people on the senate. Now,

how you can put all this together and get any sense out of it,

I don't know. How you can square the claim that this government

is interested in community output and more involvement of the

general population in university affairs with the fact that

they're reducing the number of people on the senate who are

representative of the non-academic staff and also increasing

the number of committees of senate while reducing the number of

people you have to choose from to create these committees, I

find very difficult to understand.

In the short time that has been available since the bill was tabled I've been

contacted by telephone by the alumni association of the University of British

Columbia. Of course, they have been severely affected by the changes in the

composition of the senate. As I understand it, there is no assurance whatever

that there will be a member of the alumni association on the senate at all.

[ Page

4151 ]

This is a body of people who have a deep and abiding

interest in the future of the University of British Columbia.

Their record is one they can be proud of in the work they have

done to function on senate and to act as some kind of Link

between the population at large and the senate and the board of

the university, the board of governors.

It seems to me this kind of supposed aim which this bill has

to make the whole management and administration and operation

of the universities more effective and more responsive to what

the people at large want in our society — and then look at the

changes which have occurred in the senate and the board and the

composition of university council — to me is just a

contradiction of the aims and the goals which this bill is

supposed to seek.

I wonder if the Minister, in particular in winding up second

reading, would tell us why the alumni association is totally

excluded under

Part VII in its capacity to elect members to the

senate.

We have other gaps there. I know the Member for Vancouverer-Burrard (Ms. Brown) would be very interested in the fact that the

dean of every faculty is to be represented but the dean of women

apparently doesn't merit a place in this bill in the composition of the

senate. The Member for Vancouver-Burrard might be interested in this if

she would just listen to the debate. While all the deans of the

faculties are represented, in

section 35 the dean of women isn't

represented in the senate. She has no status, apparently, under this

new bill. All the other deans are represented by

section 35.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: In fact, the attitude of the government to the

alumni association is rather interesting. The government in

this bill doesn't even take the trouble to define what the

alumni association is or what alumnus means. When we look at

the record and when we look at the effort these people make on

behalf of the university, this is rather a distressing

omission.

There are many areas that we can certainly debate in detail

in committee, but there's no doubt in my mind, from the time

we've had to try and get reaction from the university

staffs, the faculties, and from comparing what we have

here, particularly in these three parts of the bill, the

senate, the board and the council, we have a very sad

contradiction to what the Minister and this government have

said is its basic goal in the field of education.

That doesn't just apply to universities. We've heard during the estimates;

we've heard in the White Paper discussion, we've heard outside the House that

this government truly wants to have community input into education, to listen

and to have people from the community — parents and citizens and ordinary employees

in various areas of endeavour — join an active interest and have an opportunity

to participate in the life and the administration and operation of universities.

If that's the case, not only are we making it more

difficult in the ways I've pointed out but a body such as the

alumni association, which previously had three members on the

senate, now has no guarantee whatever. It may be possible

through the mechanisms of the composition of the senate for one

or more to be on the senate, but previously there were three.

Three out of 99 surely isn't some enormous representation by

the alumni association. Yet the fact is that these people are

certainly contributing greatly to the university.

Perhaps the Minister can answer it. If there has suddenly

become some doubt as to the value of the alumni association,

why were they generally accepted in the past and given $300,000

from the budget with which to follow out their function as a

body contributing to the progress of the university? I

understand that every year they have themselves raised in

excess of that amount of money which they were provided for

operating costs.

This is something I can tell this House and tell the

Minister from speaking to the representatives of the alumni

association. They are very upset about this bill and they feel

the very least the Minister might do is to introduce an

amendment to the appropriate

section of

Part VII to guarantee

that at least one member of the alumni — and even that isn't

asking very much — or three such as they have had for many

years.

I would like to re-emphasize the fact that this is a bill

which we shouldn't be discussing in haste or passing in haste.

I wonder if the Minister has considered the fact that it would

be quite reasonable to pass

Part XII, which is the new

universities council, and leave the remainder of the bill for

reaction and discussion and debate, perhaps best done by

referring the remainder of the bill to the standing committee

on education to be studied between now and the next session of

the House.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I only want to speak

rather briefly to this bill. I've got mixed feelings about it.

Unlike some Members of the government, Mr. Speaker, I never

felt that a rewriting of the Universities Act would do a

great deal to solve the many problems that have occurred with

our universities here in British Columbia, as problems have

occurred with universities throughout the western world.

Mr. Speaker, the basic thing, I think, that has to be

realized about universities is that they're not democracies.

Universities can only function and bring value to the public

for the enormous amounts of moneys that are spent on them if

they're genuine

[ Page 4152 ]

meritocracies. I want to emphasize that, because if

universities do not pursue and achieve the goals of excellence,

they merely waste taxpayers' money. We cannot demand too much

of our universities. In my view, Mr. Speaker, in British

Columbia we do not demand nearly enough of our universities for

the amount of money which is spent on them.

Like other Members who have spoken in this debate, I agree

that the establishment of a universities council will be a

positive step, provided people are appointed to that council

who will demand that our universities be meritocracies and

achieve much more than they have achieved in the past. I think

the appointments of the government to the board of governors of

Simon Fraser University were abysmally bad. I think that was

poor judgment and low standards. I think that if the government

continues to pursue that level in the people that they appoint

to the universities council, this bill will be a backward

step.

On the other hand, if they appoint people who are demanding,

who have been achievers themselves, then it could be a positive

step forward.

I disagree personally with many of the provisions of this

Act. I know of no university anywhere in the world that has

been furthered in its own standards by the appointment of

students to the board of governors or to the senate, If there

are people who can stand up in this assembly and tell me of

universities who have prospered in that way, I would like to

know of them.

I personally know of only two ways that universities around

the world have been made great. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that there are universities that have had money spent on

buildings, that have students attending them, who award degrees

the same way as Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and so on do, but

who merely waste the taxpayers' money and the students'

time.

If we set low standards for our universities, the buildings

will still be there, the students will still attend, the

degrees will still be awarded, but the performance will be

lacking. If taxpayers' money is to be spent and students'

time to be invested, then we must demand of our universities

that performance be there to justify that expense and to

justify that time.

It does require adequate public financing. Such financing

has been lacking for a generation in British Columbia. The new

government, despite the wealth of money that it has had, has

failed to produce the level of financing that can raise our

universities out of their slump — out of their slump, Mr.

Speaker, because that's what they're in.

In addition to financing, Mr. Speaker, the other thing which produces greatness

in universities is accountability to those who can judge best the performance

of those universities. Around the world in the stretch of history the people

who have been successful in doing that are the alumni of the universities. May

I choose an example which I believe some of the Members of the New Democratic

Party government can understand? This is the law faculty.

If the law faculty is doing a bad job and turning out poor

lawyers, who knows that better — I'm not mentioning names…the Minister of Industrial Development is starting to get

nervous — who knows that better than the law graduates of the

university who are out in the community performing?

If a medical faculty does a poor job, who knows that better

than the doctors who are in a community practising?

If a faculty of business administration does a poor job, who

knows it better than the businessmen who are graduates?

If the teachers who are graduating are doing a bad job, who

knows that better than the teaching profession, who are alumni

of those universities?

It is accountability that alumni can bring that does most to

maintain and to raise the standards of an academic institution.

Those universities that have become great — we know them in

England, Oxford and Cambridge; we know them in the United

States; we know them in Canada, too — are those institutions

that have had adequate financing and that have had alumni

associations that have made demands on the faculty to produce

quality graduates. It is the only protection that the

government and the public really has.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this particular bill almost totally

removes that essential safeguard; and because it does so, I

think it lets down the public of British Columbia. We Must

regard as a positive move the establishment of a universities

council because perhaps for once some rationality will be

introduced to the financing of higher education.

I'm inclined to agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) that the wisest course of action would be to proclaim

that

section of the bill which has to do with the universities

council and with the financing of our universities in the

future. But it seems to me that a far wiser course of action

with regard to the remainder of the bill would be to stand it

over until a committee of this House could sit and listen to

submissions that undoubtedly would be made.

It would be my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of

submissions that would be received by the government through

its committee would be such as to get across to them the

positive steps that must be undertaken in British Columbia

before we're going to get quality higher education in this

province.

In my view, it would be a mistake for the public of British

Columbia to be led to believe that the standards of our

universities were high enough to be acceptable, because they

aren't.

On the other hand, there is no reason why the

[ Page 4153 ]

universities of British Columbia could not collectively

achieve the amazing standard which was achieved by the State of

California through its public university system. We could

become the best in Canada here in British Columbia. If we were

to be, the future graduates of our university would lead the

Province of British Columbia to new standards of achievement in

the generation to come.

I cannot see this happening by the passing of this bill as

it now stands. I can see it happening with the establishment of

a universities council and a rethinking of the other parts of

this particular Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) and the Premier, who I know has a keen interest in

this…. I think he would like to see our universities up to

the standards of Washington University in St. Louis and of the

University of California where his brother is at the present

time. I'd tell him that this could be done with the resources

we have here in British Columbia if they were applied in a more

demanding manner than they are at the present time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The speakers earlier

tonight have clearly and very dramatically enunciated the

reasons why the opposition is upset with this legislation. With

every respect to the lady Member for Burrard (Ms. Brown), it's

rather appalling to me that the lady who has spent most of her

life championing ladies' rights has not seen fit to stand up

and say a few words about this bill, which obviously would

certainly not go along with her philosophies at all. They don't

particularly disturb mine but they must disturb hers. We find

that her silence once again is deathly. Oh, the party line is a

strong thing with her, Mr. Premier; it certainly is a strong

thing with her.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: But this party, Mr. Speaker, has very long

advocated a better attitude and a direction to the overall

operation of the schools of highest learning in this province.

I think the more unified approach to their administration

without any question reflects the desires and the needs of the

people in B.C.

However, the cabinet appointment procedure, which has never

been illustrated by the Minister as being a needful thing with

this bill or in this province, for that matter, has been

absolutely overly larded and overweighted in favour of

governmental appointees. Who are they going to be? Socialistic

friends of the friends of the socialists.

The most severe criticism of all in the legislation, once again, is the weaning

off of those people who are prepared to contribute their time and their effort

and their expertise without reward. Those people are called the alumni. Those

people have usually an extremely devoted interest. They're prepared to come

forward very unselfishly and volunteer their contributions to the good and the

benefit of something which they've always regarded as their alma mater.

They've always come from all areas in our province. When I

say all areas, I mean provincial areas, vocational areas,

economic and philosophical areas. They're very unselfish

people. They're prepared to work for service and they have

performed a traditional service in B.C. They have exercised a

traditional function. They're community-minded people and

they're people who are prepared to help.

They're the people who are now going to be denied, for

practical purposes, under this legislation by the restriction

in the number of those who can come forward. They're going to

be the people who are denied that right of the opportunity to

serve. I say, Mr. Speaker, that alumni have in the past been

prepared and are today prepared to come forward to do a job.

Why, in heaven's name, should they be precluded? Why do you

have to go the socialistic route once again of appointment?

They've made a large financial contribution to our

universities. I believe they plug in something in the vicinity

of $350,000 to $400,000 a year. They've initiated programmes;

they've commenced projects. B.C. needs these kind of people who

are prepared to provide that kind of participation.

I say to you, by this bill in restricting the alumni and

going the route of cabinet appointment, you've given them a

slap in the face. I think it's a bad thing to do and it's not

necessary. They should be included. Next year, for example, as

far as UBC is concerned, is the 60th year of an alumni

association for the University of British Columbia. I think

those people who have served in the past and those who are

prepared to serve today should be complimented. They should be

encouraged. You agree with that. They should be encouraged.

When you take the appointment route, you don't encourage it.

That's the whole point of the thing: you curtail it. With this

bill, you're doing just that.

This is the greatest criticism I have of the legislation.

Apart from that, as I said at the outset, I think it's a good

thing that we're trying to get things a little better under one

roof from a philosophical and practical direction in the

province. But, for gosh sakes, with the legislation that you're

bringing in tonight, you're destroying a degree of

participatory democracy. I think it's a bad thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members

who participated in this second

[ Page 4154 ]

reading debate tonight for what I considered Were very

concerned and sincere inquiries about the Act. I have made note

of the points that have been brought up in your concerns. I'll

discuss them with you when we move into the next stage of this

bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the question, Motion approved.

Bill 157, Universities Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By leave of the House, I'd like to go to

motions 34, 36 and 37.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: They're in the latest Votes and

Proceedings on page 5, June 14, Friday.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to call 34 now, and then, with

leave of the House, call 36 and 37. Then finish adjourned

debate on 32. In the interim, I would welcome a meeting of

Whips to decide which committees we should do.

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) isn't here for that 34.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, perhaps, I can….

MR. SPEAKER: Nor 36 or 37.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not prepared to do that? No,

okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, on 34, go ahead.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, 32 is adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: It's under adjourned debates on motions.

As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Members agree, we could

start with 32 which is already under adjourned debate. The Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) adjourned the

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to do is call

34 and, with leave of the House, call the two others, 36 and

37. If there's no leave granted, we'll leave those until

tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the orders of the day?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was asking for leave to call them off

Votes and Proceedings .

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: What it amounts to is calling a resolution

without proper notice and suspending the rules to do it.

On motion 34. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. HALL: Moving motion 34 standing in my name on the

order paper, I would like to advise the House that this is just

tidying up our standing order 129 to actually bring it into the

area we have….

Mr. Speaker, have all Members got standing order 129?

Starting again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that what this

resolution seeks to do is to amend standing order 129 to bring

it into the practice that is presently going on in committee

work of the House and in the standing committees of the

House.

I think it is self-explanatory for those who have their

standing orders in front of them. They can find standing order

129 on page 36(a). It was the addition that we made a couple of

sessions ago. I hand the motion to you, Mr. Speaker. If there

are any questions I would be pleased to answer them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

if I may draw the attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) to the second part of this motion, which would add to

standing order 129(8) the words "where such committee requires

transcripts to be taken" the opening words of standing order

129 read:

"That the debates of the Legislative Assembly in the

House and all committees of the House be recorded by means of magnetic

tape recorders or other suitable recording devices in accordance with

the following rules…."

It seems to me that the opening words have implicit in them

the recording of matters which take place in committee. It

speaks of "committees of the House" without definition;

therefore it must mean Committee of the Whole or any of the

select or special committees.

With that preface, may I suggest to the Provincial Secretary

that adding the words to 129(8) "where

[ Page 4155 ]

such committee requires transcripts to be taken" is to

suggest that the committee has some choice. It seems to me that

the recording goes on and that the committee doesn't have any

influence thereon because "any member" of the committee may

request that the transcript be prepared. Accordingly, it seems

to be that the second part of the motion is unnecessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I follow the Member's reasoning;

however, there are two points that I think he may have not

taken full notice of.

One is that the preface which he referred to indicates that

everything should be recorded. I think he is mentally

substituting the word "recording" with the word "transcript." I

suggest that while we have the instruction or permissiveness of

the preface that we will record, we want to make sure that a

transcript — that is, something that happens after the

recording — is made available to members. That is one point I

wish to make.

The second is that I am not entirely certain that the

expression in the preface "all committees of the House"

includes the select standing committees. I don't think the

Member moved an amendment but I certainly want to, on behalf of

the government, indicate that there is no intention at all to

allow the thought to go abroad that there is some selectivity,

none at all. In fact, I thought we were doing the opposite of

making sure that it would be done. I can see the force of your

argument but in response those are the only two points I can

make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm in your hands, Mr. Speaker. If the Law

Clerk could kindly advise me of the accuracy of my second point

- that is that I don't think the preface really does include

select standing committees — then we could allow a further

argument.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that the

proposal is to amend standing order 129(8), which deals with

select standing or special committees of the House. It does not

deal with Committee. of the Whole House. Therefore, what you

are doing here is amending that paragraph by adding the words

"where such committee" — and that refers to those two types of

committees, select standing or special committees — "requires

transcripts to be taken." In other words, it is done upon

request — that is the proposals that you are voting upon.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you raised the point because

I will address these remarks to you on a point of order. Maybe the Provincial

Secretary will listen.

Section 129(8) now provides that any one member of a select

standing or special committee of the House may ask for a

transcript and then it will be produced. The words that are

being added would seem to suggest that the committee must

request it. This means that if a majority of the committee

decides that they don't want a transcript then the rights of a

single member are ignored. Therefore there is a conflict. It is

only because of that that I raise the question.

If one member can ask for it now, then obviously the

committee can ask for it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the intent upon which you are

voting — if I nay say that much without being chastised — is

that there may be occasion when transcripts are not required by

committees and it is really a matter for the committee to

determine whether a transcript be taken, by the proposal you

are voting upon. Where it says "where such committee requires

transcripts to be taken" any member can then request that

transcript. It is, in effect, altering the purpose of what you

are voting on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, once a

committee decides that a transcript is to be taken then the

right of any committee member is still upheld.

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly. Now that we all understand the point

of order, are you prepared to vote on the question?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Point of order. Then obviously if the

committee decides that you can't have a transcript, then the

rights of individual members are gone to have one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, it means that

the committee itself, as I understand it, will vote whether or

not they want a transcript. I don't see any problem on this

point of order at all.

Motion approved.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to

appear obnoxious or difficult to get along with on the matter

of the motions not appearing on the order paper. I'm doing it

strictly on the basis that I hope that the government, or

whoever is responsible, will tighten up the procedures and make

sure that the Orders of the Day clearly reflect the

situation relative to motions and relative to

[ Page 4156 ]

legislation as well. Not only do you fail to see this on

motions on the Orders of the Day — and that's our guide

as to where we stand on the various items to be discussed….

We find that Bill 162, the Statute Law Amendment Act ,

doesn't even appear on the orders of the day. We don't know. We

quickly passed it from second reading to the committee stage at

6 p.m. tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was dropped because it was on its way

to committee.

MR. CHABOT: I know, but it is wrong. It is sloppy

procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Members….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, just let me finish the last few

words I have to say.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I want to point out to the Hon.

Members and the House that in the June 14 notice of motion, on

page 5 of Votes and Proceedings , it clearly says:

"Notice of motions: on Tuesday next…." I don't think

this is Tuesday, is it? Therefore it wouldn't normally be on

the orders of the day until tomorrow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. That

is why I asked the advice of the Members before I attempted to

call the motions. That is why I asked for leave. Of course, I

wouldn't ask for leave if leave is not forthcoming. I

understand leave is not forthcoming, so I'm not going to ask

for it. Therefore, the question you raise is not in order. It

would have been in order, however, had I asked for leave….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debated on motion

On motion 32. (See appendix.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before I go on,

I examined the Orders of the Day for today and motion 32

doesn't seem to have been adjourned by the Member for Columbia

River. There is an appearance on the Orders of the Day

for June 13 that the Member for Columbia River adjourned the

debate but that has been dropped from the Orders of the

Day. It doesn't reflect that the Member for Columbia River….

MR. SPEAKER: I have a note here that certainly advises me that you did

adjourn the debate. I would ask you if you wish to proceed on the motion.

MR. CHABOT: Who advises you, Mr. Speaker? I just want to

know why it doesn't appear that the Member for Columbia River

has adjourned the debate on motion 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a mystery to me but I point out that Hon.

Member did adjourn the debate.

MR. CHABOT: I realize that I adjourned the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It wouldn't matter whether your name appeared

or not from the standpoint of posterity. The question is

whether you wish to proceed in debating it now.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there are some

very loose procedures and wording here. I notice one motion

here — motion 22 — which I adjourned some months ago. It still

appears as if the Member for Columbia River adjourned it.

Nevertheless, with your indulgence and recognition, Mr.

Speaker, I think I have a few words to say about motion 32.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to advise

the Member for Columbia River that his name is enshrined in

history. On June 13, page 4 of Votes and Proceedings , it

discloses that Mr. Chabot adjourns debate.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) wasn't listening when I said it did appear on

June 13 but it didn't appear in any subsequent Orders of the

Day . However, if one looks at the adjourned debate on 22,

it's been carried forward.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the

printer probably didn't believe it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd stop attacking the

printer. (Laughter.)

Now I don't know which Orders of the Day to go to…May 30, Mr. Speaker.

We are debating at the moment report number 4, from a

legislative committee dealing with the supposed streamlining of

debates in the Legislature, be it on legislation, throne

debate, budget debate or estimates of the government. I want to

suggest at this time that this is the most important motion to

come before this House during this current session. It's one

that should not be taken lightly, one which should be

[ Page 4157 ]

fully scrutinized by the Members of this House because it

has extremely wide ramifications.

At first glance it appears to me that it's an attempt on the

part of the government to discipline the opposition — not only

to discipline the opposition but to suppress free speech within

this chamber. That's what will result from the passing of this

motion. Open and free debate no longer will be the rule in the

British Columbia Legislature.

It's a shocking amendment which we're discussing at this

time. As I said at the time as I sat on the committee, as the

final report was marched through the committee and the final

motions had been adopted, a little bit of democracy died in

British Columbia with the passage of this report. I still

believe that is the situation.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is what I

consider to be vicious tampering and tinkering with the rights

of full scrutiny of Members of this Legislative Assembly and

the right of Members to carefully examine the expenditure of

tax dollars. That's the area about which I am primarily

concerned. Certainly there's a need for adjustment, there's a

need for shortening up of speeches during the throne and budget

debates and probably through the legislation, but certainly not

within the estimates.

I wonder why the government wants to suppress the kind of

questioning which the opposition poses to the Ministers during

the estimates. What have you got to hide? Is there anything to

hide?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: Well, one backbencher down there said there is.

I don't doubt from that backbencher's response that that

government has something to hide. What is seriously wrong with

free debate within these four walls? Is there anything wrong

with the Members during the estimates where we are discussing

the expenditure of $2 billion of taxpayers' money? Is there

anything wrong with taking the necessary time to properly

scrutinize, to ensure that the taxpayers of this province get

full return for their money? Don't you think that's a

responsibility we've undertaken when we sought election to this

assembly?

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the chairman down here, the chairman of that select

standing committee (Mr. Cummings) that was responsible for the regimentation

and the motions coming forward and being churned through the committee. I hope

he will speak up tonight on behalf of democracy in this assembly. I hope he

will say a few words and stand and tell us whether he believes in parliamentary

democracy or not. Speak for your colleagues on that committee that railroaded

these kind of motions through, that sees the kind of curbs that are going to

be imposed on the right of free speech within this assembly. I hope you'll stand

up and tell us clearly whether you strongly support or whether you don't support

this kind of hampering of free speech in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking at length,

because I've already had an opportunity to speak on two other

occasions on this motion and at that time I quoted some very notable parliamentarians. I talked about Disraeli and his

attitude about parliament, and I talked about Gladstone as well — two great parliamentarians, two great people in our history

of parliamentary democracy, people that stand out.

Mr. Speaker, their words should not be lost by this

government or by this assembly. They should be heeded, because

these are people who had long experience in the British

parliamentary system and their words should be taken very

seriously.

One other point, Mr. Speaker, is that this Legislative

Assembly established a Legislative Procedure and Practice

Inquiry Act to scrutinize not only in Canada but throughout

the Commonwealth the kind of laws and the kind of regulations

that should apply within an assembly such as we have in British

Columbia. We saw fit to send our Speaker to other parliaments

in this country — other provincial parliaments and the House of

Commons in Ottawa — to the mother of parliaments in London, to

the grandmother of parliaments in India….(Laughter.)

Mr.

Speaker, you travelled far and wide throughout this

Commonwealth, to come back and report to the Legislature as to

the changes that might be necessary in our rules and in our

standing orders as well. You came back with three outstanding

reports suggesting what should take place, suggesting new

changes in this Legislative Assembly. I want to quote just

briefly from one of the reports, and that's your second report,

Mr. Speaker, which was presented on September 28, 1973. I only

have to quote from your words, Mr. Speaker, and your

well-researched, well-documented report from the information

you gathered throughout the Commonwealth and from your

impression of what takes place in other parliaments, be they

similar to this or not. And this is the conclusion you came to,

Mr. Speaker, in the presentation of your second report in

September, 1973, on page 14. You said in the last

paragraph:

"Among parliamentarians it is common ground that the

important detail of legislative work takes place during

consideration of estimates in Committee of Supply, and in

examination of legislation in Committee of the Whole. The

proposed limitations would in no way affect the functions of

these committees, and it would appear appropriate that serious

consideration be given to a practical limitation on the time

occupied by the throne and budget debates."

You suggested in your report, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 4158 ]

there should not be any motion suggesting that there should

be serious limitations on the debate of estimates in this

House, which is contrary to the suggestion in your second

report under the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry

Act , Mr. Speaker. And I'm sure you will be deeply disturbed

if that government over there sees fit to disregard the kind of

knowledge, experience and research that you acquired by

travelling throughout the Commonwealth.

Certainly this report must have some credibility, Mr.

Speaker. After all, you travelled wide and far to secure that

information to be presented to this House. And now we find the

government is prepared to railroad a motion through this House

contrary to the information gathered by the Speaker on his tour

of the Commonwealth. You don't have respect for the Speaker of

this House when I find you're attempting to destroy the kind of

suggestion he made to you in September of 1973.

Certainly you must have more respect for the Chair in this

House than what you are displaying by the introduction of this

motion. It is most disrespectful to the Speaker, when he

specifically suggested that there was a necessity for the

shortening of the throne debate and the budget debate, but said

very clearly: "Don't tamper with the estimates." Here we find

in motion 32, which we are debating at this time, a serious

destruction of the point of view of the Speaker of this

assembly.

What is wrong with this government? Why bother sending the

Speaker throughout the Commonwealth to research the procedures,

rules and regulations which should apply to this assembly if

you are not going to listen to him? Certainly he should have

had an opportunity to make his point of view known in the

assembly, but you utterly refuse to listen to him.

I think this is a serious downgrading of the efforts of the

Speaker in his research under the legislation, the

Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act .

How can you sit there and not stand up and speak on behalf

of the Speaker of this House? You are going against the

recommendations of the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, this

is a disgraceful motion. Mr. Speaker, no doubt you've come to

the conclusion that I'm not going to support the motion.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, you're doubtful.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) just said that I'm doubtful. I

think I'll have to speak for another half hour to convince

him.

HON. MR. LAUK: No! No!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion not worthy of

support.

MR. GARDOM: The former speaker, Mr. Speaker, has made some

excellent points both tonight and the other night, and the

other night before that, and I commend him for his impassioned

attitude to this proposal. It's rather late in the day finding

Social Credit wishing to enshrine the rights of democracy in

the Province of British Columbia. I certainly have had my

difficulties with the socialists, but not with question period,

which they brought in. I've not had my difficulties with the

socialists with a Hansard ; they brought in a proper

Hansard .

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to be kind. In fact that comes easy

to me. It's repentance, I suppose — deathbed repentance on the

part of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). However,

whether it be deathbed repentance or any other repentance I'm

glad to see that he's seen the light and perhaps the only way

the socialists will similarly see the light is the time that

they once again have to join the ranks of the opposition in the

Province of British Columbia, because there was no way that the

former government could have seen the need for the things that

have been talked about tonight.

They had an opportunity to freely vote in this House for a

Hansard . They had an opportunity to freely vote in this

House for a question period. The former speaker was a Minister

of the Crown. He didn't move. He didn't offer any

suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: "How's the Majority Movement?" the Hon. Member

says to me. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Member. The majority

of the people in the Province of British Columbia recognize

true and practising democracy — make no mistake of that fact.

But debate is not a sin and it's not something to be decried or

to be arbitrarily curtailed just, I'd say, for the luxury of an

executive, and that is a luxury in my view that democracy

indeed cannot afford. Debate is the essence of the democratic

process and I'd say it is the counterbalance to the exercise,

be it exercise by excess or otherwise, of the authority that

is granted by the people to a governing party.

The job of debate in the norm is to portray the minority

view of the people as represented by the opposition, and the

majority view of the people, as represented by a government, or

indeed the converse in this province, where we find the

majority view of the people in British Columbia represented by

the opposition parties and the minority view of the people only

represented by this government.

But in either case, Mr. Speaker, and more particularly when

the majority point of view is represented by a minority of the

elected

[ Page 4159 ]

representatives, as we have here, that view has got to be

freely and flexibly expressed, and the opportunity to have that

view freely and flexibly expressed has got to be available

within the mechanisms or the rules of parliament, call them

what you will. And if a situation presents itself that is

deserving and commands the necessity of in-depth research and

in-depth consideration and in-depth debate, that debate, Mr.

Speaker, becomes a democratic necessity, and that has to

occasion. Anything less than that is autocratic and

non-democratic curtailment, I'd say, of the democratic

commitment of providing free and open and proper debate.

I'd like to refer to this report in detail, and there are

six points. First of all I would like to say a few words about

the address in reply or the throne speech. Its historic

significance is gone, in my view. Certainly in B.C. no longer

is it a beacon for government policy, but it's become

essentially an account of the union and a statement of honours

and glad ridings and visitors to the zoo and a whole bunch of

rather musty, anachronistic statistics, because in the Province

of B.C. legislation has become the vehicle of policy

pronouncement, and the budget plus legislation has become the

vehicle for economic pronouncement. So in view of the way we're

practising in this province, I think the time proposals

suggested in the throne speech are not overly disturbing. I'd

say just a couple of caveats.

First of all I note that the leaders or designated speakers

for parties have an unlimited period appointed time — that's

fine. Other members have 40 minutes, but the mover and the

seconder are granted 60 minutes. That's pretty silly, Mr.

Speaker. It really needs a Hollywood script writer to come up

with anything more than 10 minutes to complement the bare bones

that one finds in a socialistic throne speech or indeed in a

throne speech of the former government. So I think there is no

question of a doubt that the Members will be fully prepared to

support an amendment which I do hope my colleague for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) could draw for me

while I am speaking…. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm enthralled.

MR. GARDOM: I think the mover and the seconder should be

restricted to the 40 minutes just the same as the rest of the

Members, and certainly fine and dandy for the rest.

Now if you take a look at the arithmetic in the throne

speech you have four leaders, shall we say, speaking for about

90 minutes each. At the present time that would consume six

hours, and then there will be 51 Members, and I'm allowing an

intrusion there for the Hon. Speaker for a few extemporaneous

witticisms….

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill's party…. Knock off an hour-and-a-half.

He won't be here.

MR. GARDOM: Who's he?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's an empty chair here.

MR. GARDOM: You mean Nameless-Faceless.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nameless-Faceless won't speak.

MR. GARDOM: Well, he's probably going to come back sometime

in August Or September, I don't know. No doubt he's likely to

return.

You'll find that if you allow 40 minutes to the 51 Members,

including the Speaker there for a little bit of interjection

from himself, because we all remember how well the Speaker used

to enjoy speeches in this House and I'm afraid he's not quite

forgotten how nice it is to fly on one or two wings…but if

you allow 40 minutes, you come up with 34 hours, Plus six hours

for leaders. That's 40 hours.

Now, fine and dandy. Assuming that we have afternoon

sittings of 3.5 hours and evening sittings of 2.5 hours, that's

6 hours. So we are going to have to do all of that in 36 hours

to fill it in in the six days. But that does not include, Mr.

Speaker, amendments or subamendments, which could really be an

overwhelming time tilt because in this present House the

workability of the proposal, even for the throne speech — and

I'm going to refer to these other five points in my talk

tonight — once again has got to depend upon cooperation

between the parties. This has been a factor, unfortunately,

that has been sadly lacking in this Legislature and in others

that I've been in in the Province of B.C.

This greater flexibility is going to be required in order

for the parties and the speakers to work within the time limit,

because it's a day limit as well. I think if it were a time

Emit then that might be one thing, but we've got a day limit

here. If we suddenly find the people decide that they wish to

hog the time of the House by amendments or subamendments, that

can put other speakers in a very unfortunate and into a very

invidious position.

Secondly, I'd like to talk for a few moments about the

budget debate. There is a greater scope proposed here for the

Members than in the throne speech. We find a sitting of 10 days

and a minimum of 14 sittings. But in this speech, Mr. Speaker,

there is only one amendment permitted and one subamendment. If

there is the cooperation of the Members of the House, the time

allotted for the budget debate could work really in a better

situation than with the throne speech.

Bills in second reading: 40 minutes. Well, that seems to be

okay, assuming that 40 minutes is not

[ Page 4160 ]

cumulative. This is not stated in the report from the

committee. A great deal can happen there by amendments or hoist

motions. Does this mean that if there is an amendment or hoist

motion a person is only permitted to speak for a total amount

of 40 minutes plus on the bill itself? Well, we're going to

have to have a lot more than egg timers in here to time that

thing out.

Bill in committee: 30 minutes. Again I would say that is

satisfactory, but once again with a caveat that the 30 minutes

is not a cumulative time proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: If the 30 minutes was a cumulative time

proposal, it's highly unlikely that we would have had a bill

that was criticized in this House, most genuinely criticized in

this House, through within that period of time. A great deal of

time can be spent on a section. A great deal of time was spent

on a

section this afternoon with the Hon. Attorney-General, and

good came from it. The Hon. Attorney-General recognized the

position raised in the House and he accepted it very gallantly.

Congratulations to him. But it took time, Mr. Speaker, to

present that position and to present that argument and to have

it effectively accepted.

The fifth point, private Members' day. Now, Mr. Speaker,

this government is perpetuating the farcical and the arrogant

performance of the past government because private Members' day

for bills and resolutions is, for practical purposes,

non-existent in the Province of B.C. I have to criticize, Mr.

Speaker, with all respect to you, your report at page 40, when

you said in your report that the time allotted to debate

private Members' business in B.C. Is two afternoons a week.

Well, there's a difference between day and night, Mr.

Speaker, between the allotting of time and the government

granting time. Fine and dandy. You say in your report two

afternoons per week. We haven't had 10 minutes in private

Members' bills since this session commenced in January. To me

that's an utter disgrace. The inference in your report, with

all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, is grossly misleading.

Private Members' resolutions and bills are not bad things,

Mr. Speaker; they're good things. Unfortunately, in B.C. the

public of this province, I think, are still totally deceived by

the governing process concerning the introduction of these

kinds of measures. They think they're going to be voted upon.

They really do. They think they're going to be voted upon, but

they never are. That's absolutely silly.

I say if the government objects to a private Member's

proposal, let the government do so. Let it have the courage to

do so. Say that. Or if not, and it wishes$ to incorporate a

private Member's proposal, whatever side of the House it comes

from, as its own measure and obtain the public credit for doing

that,

let them do that as well. If it happens to like the private

Member's proposal and is prepared to say, "Okay, we accept that

private Member's bill," let it do that just as well. But

let's stop once and for all this farcical and phony practice

that we still carry on in this Legislature. It's an absolutely

disgraceful procedure.

Private Members, in my view, should have an unequivocal

commitment and an unequivocal assurance that they are permitted

to have their day in court. I say throw out that stupid and

very cobwebby rule of disallowing a private Member's points on

the basis of Crown impost or on the….

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is going far beyond the terms

of either the motion before us or the report. He's dealing with

matters which are not really the subject of this debate.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I draw to your fact that it is because it

has the usual two-liner dealing with private Members. It says,

"With reference to item 5 in the motion, your committee

recommends that the present practice relating to public bills

in the hands of private Members and motions be continued."

Carry on with the phoniness; carry on with the farcicality,

carry on with the absolutely unmitigated gall of refusing to

hear what a private Member has to say. I say that has got to be

stopped, Mr. Speaker. Private Members should have the

commitment and the unequivocal commitment of assurance that

they are entitled to a day in court.

I was talking about this rule of Crown impost and the

expenditure of public funds, which one always hears when you

come up with a private Member's bill — in the days when one

would even be able to introduce a private Member's bill.

This is the longest session and will be 88 days, a piano

keyboard if we finish on Wednesday. What date is Wednesday? The 19th — two days before the days in this year start getting

shorter, Mr. Speaker. The longest session in the history of

this province and private Members have not been able to have a

say.

Ruling a private Member's bill out by virtue of the fact

that it offends the rule that only government can introduce by

message a bill that involves the expenditure of public money, I

would say, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely silly and anachronistic

today. If the government wishes to countermand any private

Member's bill, let it do so. Let it have the gumption and the

guts just to do that. But don't go ahead and try to say this

rule has come down a beam of light and it's got to be

absolutely followed. It was man-made and it can be man-changed

and it should be changed as soon as possible.

The private Members in this House should be able to make

their points. It is very much in the interest of the general

public that they do just that. The

[ Page 4161 ]

procedure we should have in here is to ensure that it can be

possible to do that, not impossible as it is now. Every reason

is advanced why it can't be done and not one single reason why

it should be done. If the idea is a good idea, the public

should hear about it. If the government thinks it's a good

idea, they should act upon it or grant the private Member the

right to have his own bill or her own bill go through. It's the

job of every elected representative, not just government, to do

the best they can for everyone in our society.

I say we have to have, which this report negates — it's just

a slap in the face — built-in procedure where private Members

can be assured of being able to freely and democratically make

their point, which they are not allowed to do today in the

Province of B.C.

The last point I wish to talk about is the one dealing with

the estimates. This proposal is a complete space-out, I agree

with my colleague, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot),

when he talked about that. Some Ministers, Mr. Speaker, have

made a farce of the procedure and of the process of estimates.

I say, far from following the ground rules they so very

religiously and sanctimoniously espoused in opposition, they

went the other way.

I remember when they used to subscribe to the fact that it

was the taxpayers' day in court in estimates, where, on behalf

of the taxpayers, all of their representatives, the government

side and the opposition side, would be able to interrogate

Ministers as to their own performance, both past and

contemplated, and as to the performance of their

departments.

Historically, Mr. Speaker, Ministers are supposed to level

with the public and with their questioners. I say that

questions, unless contrary to the public interest — and with

good reasons being advanced, such as, say national security — they should be answered.

We've run into a complication in B.C. We've run into a new

lifestyle in B.C. It's an imposed lifestyle and it's not a

welcomely-accepted lifestyle but it's a new lifestyle. The

government went headlong into business. When they did that, we

find the passing of the buck, or the debt, or the problem back

and forth between one Minister and the other. They are evading

their responsibilities to level with the general public as to

the programmes that they have before them.

Some of the Ministers who are in conflict-of-interest situations

with portfolios…. And I'm not talking about economic interests. I'll

give you an example. It's a strong word, and I'm not attacking the

Minister whom I am going to name: the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He has never been involved in a conflict in his

life. I know the man; I've known him for longer than most people in

this House. But he's in a conflict-of-interest position, Mr. Speaker.

He's the Minister of Municipal Affairs and he's a director

of Hydro. The interests of Hydro are not necessarily the

interests of a municipality, e.g. taxation. It's in Hydro's

interest not to pay its proper share of taxes to the

municipalities and it's the interest of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, perhaps from the viewpoint of doing the best

job he can for Hydro, to see that it doesn't.

But it is a responsibility and a duty and in the interests

of that Minister as a Minister of Municipal Affairs to see that

Hydro pays what it is supposed to pay. This is how we get into

conflictual situations — by virtue, again, of government getting

into business. You're ploughing into business left, right and

centre and these conflictual situations are going to present

themselves to the extent of thousands and thousands and

thousands of dollars.

The Crown pent, as my friend to the right says. In his view

this is why government should not be in the business. We find

the Crown corporations, the boards and tribunals and all of

these companies in which government now holds shares — no end

of emanations of government and an enormous bureaucratic maze.

We find the situation of Ministers who have control of these

areas in conflict with their duty and responsibility to level

with the province because it may be hurting one or the other

side of the coin of the operation. That is not correct. This is

why we are not getting the answers we should receive. This is

why we will never get, from this administration, the kinds of

answers that should be forthcoming.

The second complication is the practice of evade and avoid.

This, unfortunately, is very adeptly performed by some

Ministers. To go ahead and put the cap on the bottle, which has

happened with this resolution, as enunciated by my friend for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), you put the cap on the bottle for

the need for accountability by advancing the democratically

preposterous suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the public's

opportunity to question be limited in estimates. It's not the

opposition's opportunity to question — it's the public's

opportunity to question. It is a democratically preposterous

suggestion you have raised that that be limited irrespective of

public need, irrespective of public interest and irrespective

of the need for proper and true public accountability.

Certainly some of the problems are technical. The

availability of material and the availability of government

officials and their capacity to answer to a problem — more

important, their willingness in certain circumstances, which is

an unfortunate thing to say — those are problems. Maybe there

are difficulties at times of gainsaying the information.

Everybody appreciates that fact.

I think; perhaps, it would be a wise thing to carefully

consider the advisability that the questioning processes in

estimates, dealing at least with the Crown

[ Page 4162 ]

corporations, be referred not to a Committee of the Whole

House but to a separate and special legislative estimates

committee for the companies and the corporations of which the

government has control, and present in that special committee

the people who can furnish the answers. Present the officials — the head of ICBC, the head of the ferries, the head of the B.C.

Railway and of Hydro — have those officials there and have

their back-up people so the Ministers may not themselves be

unfortunately embarrassed. No end of them have been

unfortunately embarrassed by virtue of a lack of expertise and

knowledge on their own behalf.

These Crown corporations are behemoths in the province, Mr.

Speaker. They are carrying by far the bulk of the public debt — about 90 per cent of the public debt. They affect the doctrines

and lifestyle, in one way or another, of all of our citizens. I

say that they should be subject to the closest of scrutiny and

they should have the opportunity to provide the best of

accountability. In B.C. In 1974 they do neither. That message,

oddly enough, has still not got across to the general

public.

From an accountability point of view the taxpayer in B.C. Is

being conned.

I like the process of the Lok Sabha wherein there are

built-in assurances to provide that cabinet Ministers do answer

questions — built-in assurances to see that they answer

questions. A committee is appointed in that parliament for that

purpose — to ensure that a Minister will answer within a

reasonable time or make a proper explanation to the House of

why he has not done that. Is that a bad thing to have in B.C.?

Would anybody put up their hand and say that is a bad thing to

have in the Province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Labour did.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister of Labour didn't, I don't think. He

was just….

Why don't we have that here, Mr. Speaker? The citizens of

our province are, I think, sick and tired of the process of

avoid and evade.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we have 20 portfolios — apart from Alf. We have

135 hours proposed under this resolution: 6.75 hours per

portfolio; seven minutes in estimates per Member per portfolio.

That's a tilt; it's ridiculous. Questionable performance

requires intensive scrutiny, and this government does not wish

to provide the means for that scrutiny. They want instead a

built-in ball park that will limit and restrict the lawful,

needful interrogation of excesses and mismanagement in

government.

There is a power to prevent repetitious debate and tediousness. That is structured

today in the rules. Any Member can make use of those existing procedures. But

no, not that, Mr. Speaker; they are not satisfied with the rules as they stand.

The government wants a built-in sword of Damocles, or a built-in sword of foreclosure

is rather a better way to express it, Mr. Minister-over-there, hanging over

the freedom of debate. That is what you want in the Province of B.C. and that

is no way to effectively equate the priority of emphasis that Members may have

to place upon one portfolio or upon another portfolio.

Fifty-two days in this session, I believe, were spent. on

estimates. The proposal is 45 sittings and 32 days. If the

government's proposal had come into effect in this session

there would have been no time at all — not even seven minutes — to consider the estimates of the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole idea.

MR. GARDOM: One Member says, "That's the whole idea." If

that is the whole idea then you people have lost sight of

democracy. You've lost the sight of democracy.

As I said earlier, who is going to run the clock? You're

going to need a battery of timekeepers. I suppose we will have

to have 55 clocks. Bells will be ringing like New Year's Eve in

here.

HON. MR. HALL: How do they do it everywhere else,

Garde'?

MR. GARDOM: That's a good question.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right.

MR. GARDOM: But Mr. Minister….

HON. MR. HALL: Before 11 o'clock, get done with it.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Minister, why do we have to be rushed when

you are interfering with the democratic process and we are

saying that the democratic process should not be interfered

with? That's the whole point, you see. You see, it is the

convenience of the Minister — he says, "Look at the clock and

finish the debate." Never mind the democratic principles — that's his attitude.

HON. MR. HALL . Don't twist my words.

MR. GARDOM: What you were suggesting, Mr. Minister, is a

haymaker to the democratic process in the Province of B.C. This

is a very, very sad day.

You know, Mr. Minister, you or any Member over

[ Page 4163 ]

there can assure anyone of anything. Be those assurances

correct and acceptable or be they questionable or otherwise, in

any future parliament they are worthless. They are worthless in

any future parliament.

If debate is being abused, the rules are there now. We have

the frivolous and the irrelevant rule; we have the tedious and

the repetitious rule. There is the power to call the question

at any given time. But what you are proposing here, Mr.

Speaker, is foreclosure in advance. Foreclosure in advance.

Closure is a mighty harsh rule. It's used sparingly. But you've

incorporated it without any degree of flexibility in

determining the timing that you have set for the estimates.

You're programming this right into the parliamentary lifestyle

of this province which, at one time, was a very, very proud

thing. Programmed closure and closure in advance.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, isn't that a nice, cheeky remark from Granny

over there. The condominium kid to the timber tycoon in one

easy year. (Laughter.)

What you are proposing here, Mr. Minister, is an extension

of doctrinaire socialism at its very worst. That's right.

(Laughter,) And you laugh. You fellows were elected as New

Democrats. I'll tell you what you've done: you've Jekylled it

and Hyded it or Jekylled it and hidden it — call it what you

will — into Non-Democrats in two short sessions. Rigidistic

control and absolutes for your own particular ends.

There is no need for this time limit in estimates, save and

except to meet the convenience of this government that doesn't

have the gumption, the courage or the responsibility to utilize

the rules available. If Members are transgressing the rules on

your side or on this side of the House you have the majority

and you have the power to act. Why don't you do that? Instead

you say, "No way, we don't want to do that because the public

would get upset. We'll just build in our little trench and

we'll put it down like that and it's all boxed in. You do it

our way or you're going to be in trouble."

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Sure. And there is another design behind it too.

There is, indeed. You want to weaken the opposition. You do.

You want to fragment them left, right and centre. You want to

have them quarrelling among themselves — that's right — for the

fair allotment of time. This is just bread on the water for

this kind of thing. That's what it is; bread on the water.

Divide and conquer. The old principle.

Sure, they will grab up most of the time on the first

estimates and the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who has an amazing

contribution to make in the estimates to the Minister of Health

will only be allowed three minutes to do it because somebody up

there got exercised about his road into Sicamous or something.

Yes siree.

What is being proposed by the government, Mr. Speaker, is

something that is politically devious and deviously

political.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: What you want to do is manacle the opposition.

Their job is to question Ministers if the questions are

necessary. If the questions are not necessary, fine and dandy;

you have the opportunity to take care of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You have all the time you want; your

leader is never here.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: These aren't my estimates. Are you asking me

questions? I'm happy to answer a few questions if you want to

give me a few questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GARDOM: Has anybody a telescope? (Laughter.)

Levity aside, Mr. Speaker, the most tragic suggestion in

this resolution tonight is the limitation of debate for the

convenience of government, contrary to the interests of the

general public and contrary to the interests of the taxpayer of

the Province of B.C.

There is no question that this government, hopefully having

a fair attitude and being prepared to listen to suggestions

from other sides of the floor, would be prepared to agree

tonight that the Committee of Supply should not be restricted

save and except that when Members speak — personally I do not

find this to be an objectionable suggestion — let one speak for

his 30 minutes and then let someone else have their turn. I

don't think one Member should hog the time and I don't think it

is a necessity to have that happen. But I can see no reason

whatsoever why supply should be restricted to a maximum of

seven minutes per Member of this House per portfolio. It is

disgraceful and it is undemocratic.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 4164 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I worked on this committee for some time,

of course, along with some other Members of this House. I had a

few little qualms about putting rules into the time of debate

for Members. After listening to the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom), I certainly have no doubts now that there should

be time limits on debate.

In the area I come from people don't spend too much time

saying what they want to, except for the previous Member (Mr.

Gaglardi) from that area. He used to spend a fair amount of

time, of course. He talked for hours and said nothing. We've

had an example of this in the last two speakers, I think,

also.

They talked about the cabinet Ministers. "We have to have

more time because the cabinet Ministers won't answer

questions." What they are actually saying is that the cabinet

Ministers are not giving the answers they want. Therefore, they

have to keep on until they get the answers they want. The

answers don't mean a thing until they get an answer they

want.

They say also that the government Members and the government

have the opportunity to spend all the time they wish in

debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Any time the government wants, it can

shorten debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're too late for the cabinet. You're

waiting for Nimsick's job.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I would say to the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that 1, at least, have the next year

or two to look forward to. I think that is more than he has.

Twenty-six votes. Next time I think it will be minus more than

that.

We had a recommendation tonight that we should have a lot of

committee study on some of these things. Mr. Speaker, we had

the Members from the Quebec Legislature here last week. I was

fortunate enough to have the opportunity to spend a lot of time

with them. With 110 Members in their House now they have gone

to the committee system in many ways. They also all said to us — agreeing on this unanimously — that a lot of the Members are

losing interest in the business of the House unless they are on

that particular committee that is debating some of the problems

of the House in their province. I would hate to see our

province go to that total committee system.

MR. CHABOT: You know why? It's because committees sit at the same time

as the House.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We've heard the numbers game played, of

course: the multiplication of the total number of Members into

the hours that are set for the debate. It sort of reminds me of

the Bill 3 I debate. It is a numbers game and you have about as

much chance of winning it as you have at a cheap carnival.

MR. PHILLIPS: He was too late for the cabinet. He got

bypassed.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I maybe got bypassed for a while, Mr.

Member, if I had ambitions in that direction. But you have been

lost entirely, not just bypassed.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't want to be in the cabinet. He has

no ambition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: One thing the opposition speaker said,

Mr. Speaker, was absolutely correct. Any time the government — any government with a majority, not just this one — wants to

limit the debate they can bring in closure. This is a beautiful

political situation for the opposition party, isn't it? "The

government brought in closure; we didn't have a chance to say

what we wanted to. My goodness, we had all the people's

business to do."

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this session and these last two

speeches have convinced me that any lingering doubts I had

about limiting debate in this House have gone. They have

disappeared entirely by now. I'm going to support this report

of the committee 100 per cent.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This has been an interesting debate. It

ranges between those who have some experience in the House and

those who haven't. I have to call upon my brief experience and

recollect how very well Members who are presently in the

government performed when they were in opposition without any

limit on debate at all.

I would say to the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)

that it is unfortunate he wasn't here to hear former Members of

this House who were Members of his party who hour after hour

attacked the government in a proper and constructive way with

respect to their performance on the Columbia River treaty. One

of the Members who is now in Ottawa made major contributions to

this province through debates in this Legislature which he

could not have done had he been limited as is proposed in the

report of this committee.

[ Page 4165 ]

The Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), both in the

field of mining and in the field of workmen's compensation,

took more than the time that would be allotted under this

report in order to lay before this assembly the sad performance

of the former administration in those two fields.

The Hon. Premier, when he was a member of the backbench of

the opposition, made searching inquiries into the performance

and lack of performance by the government in areas of welfare,

needed reform in our correctional system, which he would not

have made in this House had he been constrained by time

limitations such as are in this report.

I'm not entirely opposed, Mr. Speaker, to some of the

limitations which are contained in this report, but I am a bit

dismayed at the limitations on estimates. I do not believe that

we will achieve the required maturity as Members of this

assembly by making rules such as this. If there is one thing

that has bothered us perhaps overmuch in this assembly, it is

the use and abuse of rules that we already have. What needs to

be engendered in the minds of all of the Members, both on the

government side and the opposition, is a better realization of

why we are here and what we must do in order to discharge our

responsibility to this House and to the constituents who send

us here.

I spoke in the original motion of sending this whole matter

to the committee for study. I made remarks then which I believe

are even more meaningful now that we have the report. One of

the things lacking in this report and in the recommendations

for changes in our rules is some constraint upon the rights and

the authority and the power of the majority in this House.

I oppose this particular motion. Not, as I say, because it

tends to limit one's time to speak — I've never been known as a

person who speaks very long in this House — but I am opposed

because the government still holds, with the power of its

majority, the right to regulate the conduct of the business of

this House and the time when that business will be carried

on.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The Member means closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kamloops just

called "closure." I'm not talking about closure. The Member

from Kamloops doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the

word. What I'm saying is that the government, through the House

Leader and with its majority, is able to dictate what business

will be brought before this House, when that business will

start and when that business will end.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: That's closure.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not closure; that's merely a

selection of the business which is brought before this House.

We can move, as we have today, from bills in committee to bills

in second reading, to motions. And if we were still at the

stage of Committee of Supply, at the will of the leader of this

House, using the majority power that he has, unless and until

the Government of British Columbia, no matter which party it

may be, is prepared to use this assembly as the responsible

instrument of the people and to lay before this assembly in a

clear, unmistakable way the business which it expects this

assembly to do, we will continue to have chaos in the way in

which we conduct our business, regardless of whatever

limitations you wish to impose by the rules.

We have had a few, unfortunately too few, instances this

year when this assembly did have its affairs regulated to an

appreciable degree. The Members will know the days of which I

speak — when the government took the opposition into its

confidence and said, "Look, there is certain business which we

believe we should accomplish today. And this is the order in

which the business will be placed before the assembly. If we

are able to get through this business, then this is what we

will do after that."

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that's what we've had the last three or

four days, with the government being prepared to indicate that

it had reached the end of its legislative programme. And on

those occasions, we've had full debate, we've had good debate,

and the business of the people of British Columbia has

progressed.

The government in making this move gave up nothing. It

always has the control in the final analysis. But all it did

was to unbend to the assembly, both for its own Members and for

the opposition, and say, "This is what we intend to get done."

We had on those occasions some leadership shown in this House

and in the operation and the conduct of the business of this

House.

Yet there's nothing in this report from the select standing

committee; there was, indeed, nothing in the reference that was

made to the committee which would ensure that we would have it

in future sessions, once these Emits are imposed. And there is

no question that they will be imposed, Mr. Speaker, because

again the majority will vote in accordance with the

government's wishes.

But unless we have this commitment from the government to

use the majority power it has in a way which will encourage the

progressive discharge of the business of this House, then the

future of this assembly will go on as it has in the past. We

will deal over much with personalities; there will be

rancour;

[ Page 4166 ]

there will be mud slinging, and there will be no

satisfaction for any Member.

It could be overcome by some amendments. And maybe in future

years we will get the chance to overcome some of the

difficulties. I think the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot), when referring to the Quebec experience, indicated

what should have been considered with regard to dealing with

the matter in committee, certainly as far as estimates were

concerned, where the time was allocated between departments

rather than in gross, leaving it somehow or other to the

opposition and to the government, who don't communicate anyway,

to work out the number of hours. But perhaps bad experience

will teach us what further changes need to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to deal any more with that, which

is the main substance of my objection. I turn to something else

which, while not necessarily so engaging as matters of

limitation of debate, I think still bears the need for

attention on the part of the Members. It's with respect to the

recommendation concerning item (4).

This is the use of sound amplification and the microphones

which are so essential to the functioning of

Hansard .

If I may read the recommendation, it is that: "…the Hansard operators in the chamber be

instructed by Mr. Speaker to cut off all voice amplification

other than the Speaker or Chairman when the Speaker or Chairman

rises." Then it goes on to say that when the Speaker or

Chairman has risen, no words spoken by other than the Speaker

or Chairman shall be recorded or transcribed by

Hansard .

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), the mover of the motion, that that

last sentence needs some very careful consideration. I agree

entirely — and I have said this in the House before — that when

the Speaker rises, the Members must obey the significance of

that action on his part.

HON. MR. HALL: That was the only unanimous part of the

committee.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I agree that the sound amplification for

a Member who does not desist from his remarks should be cut

off. If I am to become involved in a breach of our rules with

the Speaker or the Chairman, then I don't need to have the

benefits of sound amplification. But I do suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to the Hon. Provincial Secretary that it is a

mistake not to record both what is said under those

circumstances by the Speaker and by the defaulting Member.

If I do choose to offend against the rules of the House and to remain on my

feet and to continue speaking after the Speaker has risen to his feet, then

at that moment, it may be of the greatest importance that the words I utter

are clearly transcribed by the recording mechanism of Hansard for use on some

subsequent occasion.

If, when offending against the rules, my microphone is cut

off, if there should be any failure on the part of the

transcription system to hear what I say when I am being

disorderly, that may preclude the proper punishment of me at

some subsequent time.

I say, therefore, cut off the sound amplification, but

anything that I may choose to say when I am offending against

the rules should still be clearly recorded. It may be, Mr.

Speaker, that some subsequent investigation will find it

essential that the words spoken by the Speaker when on his

feet, as well as the words of an offending Member, are of the

utmost importance. They should be clearly transcribed and

intelligible to Hansard so that they can be reproduced

without question.

We had one example in this House a year ago. Fortunately, it

was perfectly clear from the Hansard transcription what

had taken place between two Members and the Speaker.

That's the only point I wish to make. I just think that it

would be a mistake if Hansard were somehow or other

interfered with in recognizing what a disorderly Member was

saying.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I didn't plan on taking

part in this debate. But the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made great issue

of the fact that a private Member's bill should be

accepted.

I feel that he has misjudged it completely in the sense that

the whole essence of the parliamentary system is that only the

government can ask for the money to make the government

run.

If I can rephrase this a different way…you have to

understand that only the Legislature grants to the government

the money to make a bill work. If he can't understand that, the

whole parliamentary system goes down the drain. This is not a

congressional system. Under a parliamentary system a private

Member cannot….

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: It's very nice to hear from the Member of the

pocket-borough of Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Actually there was just one point that I wanted to make and

hammer home. A private Member's bill cannot be accepted by the

government.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak

[ Page 4167 ]

briefly to this motion. I think that it's appropriate that

the speeches should be brief, lest after 123 days of sitting,

or whatever it is, the Members of the opposition this session

be regarded as being windy.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I'm glad that the Member is awake and noticing.

I wouldn't want to be accused of being drab in this House

because we're getting close to the summer solstice, and close

to the full moon that goes with the summer solstice. We have

never sat at this time of year before. I don't think I've ever

seen Victoria at this time of year. While it is a beautiful

city, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislature will never

again be sitting at this time of the year. I think that

Victoria belongs to the tourists at this time of year.

Perish the thought, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to be the

one to knock the government for some of the very worthwhile

changes they have made. On the other hand, I feel that we have

allowed parliament in British Columbia to take a giant step

backwards with this particular resolution.

I say this because never before, in 100 years, has any

government suggested that it be necessary to curb debate. I

note that half of the committee that made these recommendations

were sitting in their first parliament. I regret that, Mr.

Speaker, because, in my opinion, had this committee been made

up of people who had seen this Legislature operate, with all he

faults that it had in previous parliaments, we might not have

had a report of this kind.

I would be the first one to agree that this session of the

Legislature has not only run out of control, but that it has

run out of control to ridiculous excess.

I would also be the first to say that previous parliaments

we have had have been the mockery of all of Canada. No other

Legislature operated without a proper Hansard , without a

question period, with the operation of the House carrying on

into the middle of the night — and into the next day, yes. It

was not a regular occurrence, but certainly it was an annual

occurrence.

But, Mr. Speaker, at least we could talk all night. We could

talk into the next day. There was never any limitation on how

long a Member could go on, beyond his own endurance. If the

occasion demanded — as I recall that it did once demand when

the Leader of the Opposition, now elevated to the post of

Premier, felt obliged to ask the same question 67 times…. He

asked it into the wee small hours of the morning. But he

nevertheless had the right to ask that question. The government

got exhausted before he got exhausted.

But nobody curbed his rights under that extreme circumstance to extend the

hours of parliament and to indicate to the public of British Columbia the degree

of distress that he as a Member and the official opposition experienced as a

result of the brutal authority being exercised by the government of the day.

The parliament in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, has 265 Members. I

hope, if they don't continue to shaft British Columbia, that it

is going to go up at least to 268. The House of Commons in

Britain has in excess of 600 Members. Under these conditions it

is reasonable, with so many people wishing to speak, to ask

that there be some limitation on what an individual Member has

to say.

But even with a record parliament for length, as we have

here in British Columbia, we have gone less than five months of

the year. Even with a leader of the government who doesn't seem

to feel it necessary to exert his authority, and a Leader of

the Opposition who doesn't think it's necessary even to attend

parliament, we still have had only five months out of the 12

utilized by the Members of this House.

No one can claim, Mr. Speaker, that there are not enough

days in the year to allow people who feel that they have

something important to say to stand on their feet and say

it.

Mr. Speaker, even if there were some necessity to limit the

length of time in days that a Member felt it necessary to take

to make his point — I'm not going to mention any Members by

name, some have taken several days to make their basic point — there is no reason why, by order of this House, we cannot give

an individual Member who felt terribly strongly about some

given point the opportunity to speak for 24 or 48 hours or

however long it was necessary for him to establish a

record.

Mr. Speaker, for myself I would like to see a situation

arise where a Member might feel it necessary to come in with a

senator's helper to see whether his voice could stand up to 48

straight hours of debate. At least that Member would have an

opportunity to have his day in the highest court of the land.

That is the Tight which is being taken away by this report. It

is being taken away really under panic. The option of the

Premier and the House Leader is simply to sit the House past 11

p.m. on those rare occasions where a confrontation of major

proportions, develops between the government and some

opposition Member.

A second alternative would be to have a Leader of the

Opposition who can really lead, spends his time in this House

and keeps the Members of his party focused on the point under

discussion.

To resort, as we are resorting tonight, to unnecessary,

cheap and limiting rules which, on the one hand, make up for

the inadequacies of the government, and on the other, express

displeasure for the inadequacies of the opposition is to

cheapen parliament, There are other, far better ways to go about the business of

debating the issues before the public of

[ Page 4168 ]

British Columbia than to throttle them with rules that suit

a dictatorial government. While the present government has so

many times got up and lashed the opposition for the

restrictions they have placed on the operation of democracy in

British Columbia, it is the height of hypocrisy for that

government to stand up and place restrictions that the former

government, for all their excesses and abuses, would never even

have considered.

Mr. Speaker, I might add that no one took greater licence

with the rules that were permitted the Members of this House

than the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) who is so desirous now of limiting the

opposition. What was fine for him in opposition is very

distasteful for him in government. What was fine for most of

those cabinet Ministers in opposition is very distasteful for

them in government.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the things opposition

Members say in this House are distasteful for government. They

always will be distasteful for government and they always

should be distasteful