1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2875 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second reading.

On the amendment to defer second reading for six months.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2875

Mr. Nicolson — 2876

Mr. Veitch — 2882

Mr. Lauk — 2883

Mr. Barrett — 2886

Mr. Hewitt — 2891

Mr. Kerster — 2892

Mr. Levi — 2895

Mr. Gibson — 2896

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the Chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not required now, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Our hero!

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

this afternoon a number of members said that there was no particular urgency

in the passage of Bill 59. I would like to identify one item,

section 6 of

the bill, which is urgent. Unless it is passed, there will be considerable loss

of income to B.C. Ferries.

Section 6 substantially permits B.C. Ferries to lease

new equipment, notably new ferries, from financial houses. The leasing of this

equipment will, in effect, provide B.C. Ferries with much lower-cost money than

would otherwise be available to that agency. Air Canada leases its new jets;

the Canadian National Railway has been leasing a lot of its new rolling stock.

By using the leasing route, in effect it has been able, in each case, to obtain

its money for around 8 per cent interest rather than paying 10 per cent.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: What it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that, in

the case of B.C. Ferries, instead of paying out $48 million

immediately, annual payments of several million dollars a year would be

made. At the end of an 18-year period, B.C. Ferries would in fact own

the vessels. In the interval, however, it would make annual payments —

obviously a much lesser drain on the revenues to B.C. Ferries by using

the leasing route. I think the most important aspect of these leasing

arrangements, however — and it is an aspect which obviously appealed to

Air Canada and appealed to the Canadian National Railway — was that

instead of having to pay in the order of 10 per cent for its money, it

paid 8 per cent.

In the case of these leasing arrangements B.C. Ferries would have

the vessels, would maintain them and would operate them as if they

owned them. Physically, outwardly, there would be no change in the

programme — no change from what has been experienced in the past. The

title to one vessel would be held, for example, by the Canada Trust

Co.; the Royal Trust Co. in the case of another vessel; and in the

third case, the Central and Nova Scotia Trust Co. would own the vessel.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is a deadline for the first of these vessels later this week because the ownership of the vessel, in the case of the Queen of Coquitlam ,

which is the first to be delivered, will change at a date later this

week from Burrard Drydock to its new owner. Either that new owner is

the Royal Trust Co., if a lease is effective, or B.C. Ferries if a

lease arrangement is not made possible as a result of this legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): You can do that six months from now, Jack. You know that.

HON. MR. DAVIS: You cannot buy and sell. The leasing agency

or company can never have held title to the property in question. This

kind of arrangement is limited to ships and aircraft — other mobile

equipment. The ownership must never have been,

[ Page 2876 ]

must never be in the hands of the leasing corporation. Mr. Speaker, the urgency is the deadline for delivery of the Queen of Coquitlam

from Burrard Drydock later this week. This bill, were it not to pass,

would cost B.C. Ferries approximately $1 million a year for 18 years,

or $18 million.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, if ever there

was a need to bring in an amendment to hoist this bill in order that

the public could have the benefit of six months in order to scrutinize

this bill, it would have to be at this time. I think the words of the

Minister of Transport and Communications tended to reinforce rather

than persuade the opposition to drop this amendment. It would appear

that this amendment is even more in order.

He says that

section 6 would permit leasing. Of course, we note that

section 6 amends the Act, and in addition to allowing the acquisition

of property, improvements and other things, this would now allow the

minister to, indeed, dispose of these ferries.

Now the minister has gone out and made statements — he's said that

this would allow us tax write-offs, but still hasn't demonstrated with

any proven examples how the tax write-offs would work, under what

sections of federal tax legislation these things would work. Has he

taken the dollar amount? Has he taken the price of these ferries? Has

he taken the instance? Does he have a contract, a pro forma contract

which he can sign with Canada Trust? Does he have a contract which he

could sign with Royal Trust? Does he have one with Central and Nova? Is

the minister prepared? If it is such an emergency and if this hoist

cannot take place for six months, that minister should be prepared.

Mr. Speaker, it's our worst suspicions confirmed — that this

government is willing to work behind the backs of the people of British

Columbia, that they are trying…even in this bill in which they're

trying to take unto themselves all kinds of sneaky powers. They're not

only taking unto themselves these powers, but within this bill they're

trying to sneak in…

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They're businessmen, and might think it's all right to beat Ottawa.

MR. NICOLSON: … this thing the minister's been talking about

and which we've been waiting for some time to discuss in his estimates.

He should certainly table the agreement, which must be drafted if the

deadline is later this week, on the Queen of Coquitlam .

If Royal Trust and the government had nothing to hide, and if this

power is so urgently needed and can't sit around to be considered, then

certainly, if everything is above-board, these contracts should be

tabled. The minister didn't seem to show any inclination toward tabling

these things — he's talked in very wide generalities.

Now we know that in business, certainly, one can depreciate capital

costs and one can even defer taxation. You can make provision that from

a high-earning year you can defer taxation to a year that you might

anticipate would be somewhat lower. There are many loopholes within

business — when you're in business for profit and when you're showing

profit and loss. But certainly it's a very strange wrinkle where a

Crown corporation, which does not itself have to pay income tax, will

try to avoid paying income tax. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

Crown corporation is going to seek to do something which up until now

the federal government has allowed some of the federal Crown

corporations to do, because, after all, they're just robbing from Paul

to pay Paul.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, I think that the federal government might

indeed be interested if they were to see that provincial governments

were engaging in some sort of a loophole, as the minister described it.

So the urgency of passing it for

section 6 wouldn't seem to be as much

justified as the minister has stated. Indeed, if it were so urgent, why

wasn't that power brought in as a separate bill? Why was it not brought

in in such a manner that we might have been asked for all three

readings in one day?

I see my mike is back on again.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I think I'll start at the beginning again, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a need….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I bring to your attention the

fact that…. Order, please! Apparently there is some problem with the

microphones today, but the recording is taking place and everything you

say will be in Hansard .

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, that's good, Mr. Speaker. My mother-in-law will be very interested to hear that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, why was it snuck into this bill? Why did not the

Provincial Secretary make a great point of this? Why did she just say,

well, it was just technical and just to facilitate government — just to

facilitate? You know, that's a rather misleading phrase when a

government tries to just sort of facilitate things. You know, you can

facilitate, I suppose, by doing away with the Legislature. You can

facilitate by stating a state of emergency and doing as has been done

in a lot of jurisdictions lately, suspending the constitution. That's

another euphemism, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we think this bill is

akin to.

[ Page 2877 ]

But why was it snuck into here? The minister got up. He still hasn't

given us any dollar-and-cent figures in terms of starting out with….

Okay, what are the capital costs with the Queen of Coquitlam

delivered from the drydock? What are those capital costs? Who will we

sell it to? Will we sell it to Canada Trust at cost? Will we sell it

below cost? Will we sell it to them at a profit, above cost? Did the

minister tell us that in making his plea that we not hoist this bill

for six months?

MR. GIBSON: Royal Trust.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, are we going to take it at its actual

cost? Are we going to inflate or depress that cost in selling it to

Royal Trust? Are we going to…?

Okay, at what rate is Royal Trust going to depreciate it? How does

this affect Royal Trust's total taxes payable? What share of whatever

savings is Royal Trust to get from this thing which they are going to

hold in name only? Then, Mr. Speaker, does that minister honestly

expect that the federal government is going to stand idly by if we

urgently allow this thing to go ahead before six months' careful

consideration? Is the federal government going to let this minister get

away with this? Mr. Speaker, I think there's some very serious question

in that respect. If we embark upon this, well then, is Alberta to then

take its airline — and I know it has discussed the leasing route — to

leasing some of the Boeing 737s? Is Alberta going to do it? If Alberta

does it, then will they still let British Columbia get away with this

type of a ruse? Because if it's going to be fair for British Columbia,

and if we urgently allow him to do this so this can go ahead in just

six weeks time, then what is going to happen?

Well, I think now, Mr. Speaker, we see the government's reason for

urgency in this matter. I think it's come out. Finally the truth is

out. This bill, the major part of the bill as presented to us by

government, is certainly something that could stand a great deal of

scrutiny from the people of British Columbia, and it should die on the

order paper this year. But the minister is now telling us he's in a

jam. He's only got six weeks. If that's the case, why didn't he bring

in a bill earlier than this?

The government is out of control, their legislative

schedule is

running amok, and then they say that we should allow a bill of this

nature to go ahead without being put out to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because of one

section not related to the rest of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Because of one section. It just doesn't wash.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the government is, I think, going to allow

the ombudsman bill to be held over to the next sitting, maybe in the

fall. It is a good idea, maybe, that there be some scrutiny of it. It

never hurts. We need an ombudsman with this government. But if they do

hold it over…. I know there are some concerns. Maybe they could bring

in some amendments. Maybe they've had enough input, from some of the

people out in the community who are interested.

But the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as an instance of the

worth of holding a bill over, pointed out that the Societies Act was

going to be held over, I believe, until an anticipated fall sitting.

Certainly, government would be well advised to take the advice of the

opposition and to support the holding over of this bill, because the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) hasn't laid

out an example in dollars and cents. He has not said what sections of

the Taxation Act are going to apply, hasn't tabled the basis of any

agreement between Royal Trust and his department concerning the Queen of Coquitlam .

What commitments does he have in writing from Ottawa? He says, trust

us, and we're hearing a little too much of that from this government —

trust us.

MR. GIBSON: Royal Trust does.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, that's right. And Canada Trust does and Central and Nova Scotia Trust does.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Why was this snuck into this bill when this

certainly is not part of rearranging departments? It's not part of

their desire to seize more control from the Legislature and to make it

no longer necessary to come before the Legislature if they want to

start a new government department.

Mr. Speaker, the speaker who preceded me on this bill from our side

of the House spoke about the need for education on this bill. I would

say that it's perhaps a criticism of our education system in British

Columbia that we're not familiar enough with the British parliamentary

system. We're not familiar enough with the system as it operates in

Canada or in British Columbia. The education system has failed the

community in this regard, and perhaps a lot of people are wondering why

one would be concerned and why we would feel that there should be time.

But there should be time for the public to be educated and for public

opinion to become formed concerning this bill.

It's like the Revelstoke Dam hearings which started today. The

government and B.C. Hydro, or the comptroller of water rights, I guess,

Mr. DeBeck, in his wisdom saw that once all of that information was

dropped, the public would take some time to digest that information and

then be able to make informed arguments and express their opinions

based on the information — the technological information

[ Page 2878 ]

— concerning the Revelstoke Dam. And so it is with

this bill to supposedly reorganize government departments. The public

should have the time to realize that up until now if government wished

to create a new department such as we did, such as the Department of

Housing or the Department of Consumer Services, it had to come before

the Legislature.

But here we have a Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Have

we had a debate about this government's attitude toward the

environment? No, Mr. Speaker, we've been denied that. We have a bogus

minister who sits there without any real legal qualifications. There

have been some orders-in-council passed, Mr. Speaker, and they've

assigned to him such duties as the administration of the Better Housing

Act of 1946, and he's taken that power away from the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis). The Minister of Housing will not have the

power to wield some of those powers which are contained in the Better

Housing Act of 1946.

How many people recognize that already there's some sort of

centralization going on within the cabinet in which even housing

statutes are not under the control of the Minister of Housing but have

been taken to this minister who does not have a portfolio? He's the

pretender to the portfolio of Minister of Environment. It is quite

pretentious of this government so suggest that they can come in here

and retroactively rectify their wrongs by this. If they've been out of

order for about five months, or six months in this case, I suggest they

might as well continue that pretension, Mr. Speaker, for another six

months. But allow the people….

MR. LEA: You said it was legal when you did it.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): It's against the law.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, that lawyer Minister of

Labour says that it's against the law for this Minister of Environment

to continue, and I believe that those also were the opinions expressed

by the Provincial Secretary out in the hall — that it's illegal — and

now they want to make it legal.

MR. LEA: How did you do it if it's illegal?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should think that they

should kind of compromise and at least have that minister place any

differential between the pay for a minister without portfolio and a

minister with portfolio…. That money that he's received should be put

in trust.

AN HON. MEMBER: In escrow.

MR. NICOLSON: In escrow, yes. Maybe that minister should be

put in escrow, but at least that differential, Mr. Speaker, should be

put in escrow. Then we could continue this for another six months, and

I think the opposition might even agree that 50 per cent of that

amount, if the matter is resolved, could be returned. But really, Mr.

Speaker, the fact that they moved hastily and made mistakes is not a

reason for urgent action in order to rectify these mistakes by making

further mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the reasons why the government is so

anxious to get this bill through and is against the very prudent

recommendation of the opposition of hoisting it for six months I think

is because of some of the company that the Premier has been keeping.

He's been travelling. He hasn't been in this House very much. He's been

travelling in rather heavy circles with some of those Eastern

intellectuals, Mr. Speaker — people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I

think it's pretty well recognized by some great Canadians, like John

Diefenbaker, that Mr. Trudeau is out and trying to…. I think he's sort

of a lame-duck Premier and I don't think that his own party is going to

put up with him till the next election.

MR. GIBSON: Who is he?

MR. NICOLSON: So as a lame-duck Premier he has one mission left, and that is the repatriation of….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mission impossible.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, mission impossible. It's the repatriation of the British North America Act.

MR. LEA: If he doesn't do it, he'll self-destruct.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you please now relate the

remarks that you are delivering to the House to the amendment that is

before the House?

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I should have done that before instead of after making this point. But it will fit in.

MR. LEA: That's where Jim first found out he was a cabinet minister. He got a phone call.

MR. NICOLSON: The First Minister of this government and the

First Minister of our federal government — it will soon be our republic

government — have been keeping company together and I think that some

of the attitudes towards

[ Page 2879 ]

republicanism of the Prime Minister have been

rubbing off on our Premier. I think that is why we see this Act here —

this Act which is a major step toward republicanism, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a fairytale.

MR. NICOLSON: Just as in the federal House there is the

unilateral intention to repatriate, the contemplation of the unilateral

repatriation of the British North America Act, just as they are opting

out of cost-sharing programmes and such unilaterally, here in British

Columbia under this Act there is a rush, without allowing the people to

make the decision over the next six months, without allowing the people

to recognize the gravity of the action and the step which is being

taken here. Mr. Speaker, this is really companion legislation to some

of the acts being taken in Ottawa, the acts away from the British

parliamentary system.

Under the British parliamentary system new departments, for

instance, have received the scrutiny of debate in the Legislature. The

Department of Consumer Services was not only an occasion to grant

powers to a new minister, to create some new title. It was the

opportunity for debate about consumerism, about the cost of living,

about unfair trade practices, about mortgages and various other aspects

of that Act. If we pass this in undue haste, Mr. Speaker, if we don't

hoist this bill for six months…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, a bill which is

before the House in the United Kingdom, unless you can relate that to

the reason to hoist this bill for six months, is not relevant to the

debate that's before us this evening.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm willing to try, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize that and I am listening very closely, but I do suggest to the hon. member…

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. SPEAKER: …that we are on an amendment. We ate not on the

far-reaching debate that takes place in second reading of the bill. So

by the rules of the House, the debate is confined. I would wish that

the hon. member would respect that and confine his remarks to that

scope which is before us at the moment.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the far-ranging thing

that certainly does concern me, because looking six, twelve or two

years ahead, if we move hastily and allow this bill to go through

without careful exposure of the powers within this bill to the public,

we will really…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: …kill a part of the British parliamentary

system. It is a dangerous step toward a republican system of government

which…. I am not here to discuss the merits of it. I would discuss the

merits in my major remarks on the bill, not on the part to hoist the

bill. But what I am saying is that the opportunity for that discussion

to take place, not just in this Legislature but by the people outside

of this Legislature, as to what direction we might want to go here in

British Columbia or to what extent we might want to go with the federal

government in terms of changing the constitution, provincially and

federally…. That wide-ranging debate should, at least, be allowed six

months in order to take place — at least that much.

So the educational system has failed to bring us even an

appreciation of that which we have today, let alone, Mr. Speaker, what

we might wish to change it into. Before we make a change of that

nature….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the educational system of the

province has nothing to do with the amendment which is before the House

at the present time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're doing fine, Lorne.

MR. LEA: I'd say he was right!

MR. SPEAKER: Unless there is some way you can relate that to

the reason for hoisting this bill for six months, please return to the

amendment before us.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's been the inadequacy in the

region of social studies, we might say, in terms of really giving every

person in this province an appreciation of the parliamentary system and

how it operates that precludes people to just listen to news reports

about what might have been said in second reading of the bill, prior to

getting into the amendment to hoist the bill. That type of thing

precludes people from making a very snap decision as to whether or not

the government is doing a prudent thing, and it will take some time.

People don't understand, Mr. Speaker, that we have….

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, the amendment which

is before the House this evening is one which deals with hoisting the

bill for six months — in other words, the bill shall be read six months

hence.

[ Page 2880 ]

The bill is No. 59 which deals with government reorganization. In

second reading I observe that the hon. member has already spoken to the

bill, and now I've asked the hon. member to relate his remarks to the

debate that's before us this evening which is, specifically, the

reasons for hoisting the bill for six months.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not as wide in scope, as the hon. member

knows, as other debates before the House. As a matter of fact, I have

allowed considerable latitude to all the members, and I suggest now to

the hon. member that he return to the matter which is before us,

because to do otherwise is an abuse of the rules of the House and of

the hon. members of the House.

I am, I think, allowing as much latitude as possible in debate, but

I must enforce the rules of this House, so would the hon. member please

confine his remarks to the debate that is at hand at the moment?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that's what I have been doing, with respect.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect, Hon. Member, if your remarks were

in line with the debate that's before us, I wouldn't have brought it to

your attention.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the

present situation without really casting aspersions upon the members of

society, because this something unexpected; this is a departure and

it's the kind of thing that people leave to legislators to decide, and

they don't give it too much consideration from time to time. Only when

they feel very threatened do people become alarmed about certain

measures that are taken in this Legislature. I don't think that the

average person today is too alarmed about this. It will only be, Mr.

Speaker, that people will be in a position…. And without even casting

on the merits of the bill itself, but on the advisability of the people

having a chance to scrutinize and become familiar with the issues at

stake, and for the people to become in an informed position so they

will know whether legislators did well to support or to oppose this

bill — I think it's in that interest that this bill should be hoisted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, some might go out in the community

and might say that it's a real bother to have to come into the

Legislature every time you want to change a bill, every time you want

to change

an Act, every time you want to transfer a power to flood land

from a minister who's supposed to be able to flood land to some

minister who might want to use it for some other purpose. The power to

flood land, which is perhaps granted to the minister in charge of water

rights, might want to be transferred to the minister in charge of water

rights, might want to be transferred to the minister in charge of

Recreation and Conservation so they can enhance wildlife habitat —

that's the type of thing that could happen here.

It's not up to us to go out…not in this debate on the amendment, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not going to say whether that's right or whether that's

wrong for one minister to pass in the Legislature years ago…to have

granted that power to one specific minister for some purpose and for it

now to be just arbitrarily handed over in cabinet. That's really for

the people to decide, to feed back information to their legislators

through letters, through petitions, through public hearings, and for

the people who support the granting of powers like that to go out and

say why it is necessary.

If they want to go out and say that the Legislature has become

obsolete, Mr. Speaker…. If there are people who want to go out and say

that the Legislature is obsolete, and if that member is going to go out

and argue that, he should have time to go out and convince the public

of that argument.

For those who hold to the thought that government must be

scrutinized, and that new powers of this nature should not be granted

without care, for those who might feel that with these powers the

cabinet could be shrunk to a triumvirate, Mr. Speaker…. Some might

argue that the cabinet could be shrunk to a triumvirate, that….

AN HON. MEMBER: Or expanded.

MR. NICOLSON: It could be expanded.

MR. LEA: To a triumvirate! (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps just the Premier and two very powerful

super-ministers who have taken unto themselves all of these powers.

We've already seen that if a ministry of environment can be created and

if the Land Act and the Water Rights Act and if the…

MR. LEA: A minister of internal security.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a nightclub act?

MR. NICOLSON: …Better Housing Act, 1946, can be transferred

to one person, some people might argue in the community, if given the

time, that the

[ Page 2881 ]

dangers are the erosion of the parliamentary system

which has a cabinet, which has government members and opposition

members, and that certain powers have been granted to cabinet for

orders-in-council, and other things can be done by ministerial

discretion. But in order that people, those who go out from the

government benches and argue that the Legislature just impedes

government…that scrutiny is a waste of time — scrutiny in the

Legislature — that if you don't trust us you can throw us out in three

or four years, that's the type of thing….

Mr. Speaker, I think another thing people will have to consider is: okay, what

will the function of the Legislature be? During this six months some of the

things people can consider are: will the Legislature just be there to pass special

appropriation bills that are motherhood bills, like the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund Act, to add another $15 million, and then there can be great

positive publicity? This would be a good-news place; it would be nothing but

good news coming out of here, Mr. Speaker. And people might want nothing but

good news; they might only want to listen to the news that they ought to hear,

and then people could decide questions of that nature.

In some ways this is a bill to eliminate bad news emanating from the

Legislature, such as when the veracity of statements made by persons of

the cabinet are cause for some confusion when they say one thing one

day, then say the exact opposite the next day, but some member of the

opposition gets thrown out of the House for accusing them of deviating

with unerring accuracy from the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean that this is a bad-news bill?

MR. NICOLSON: I think this is a bad-news bill. Some people

might argue, from the government side, that it is a good-news bill, but

that's the type of thing that the people of this province should have

six months to decide. Do they feel that the only types of things that

should come into the Legislature are special appropriations bills?

Other bills like the Homeowner Grant Amendment Act in which each year….

There will be a Legislature, sure, Mr. Speaker. If the people in

their wisdom, after six months of listening to the pros and cons, and

if the feedback to the government is: "Sure, go right ahead with this;

you should have those powers; we love you and we trust you," well, then

the government goes ahead with the bill and they bring it in.

If they feel that the Legislature is just to be here to raise the

homeowner grant an extra $10, $20 or $30 every year, and there can be

the news go out from that, and that's good news, and the opposition

will vote for it and the government will vote for it, and everybody

will vote for it…. Then, of course, there is the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund; then they'll bring in a bill like the Greenbelt

Protection Fund and maybe appropriate some more funds to the Greenbelt

Protection Fund and various things like that — that is what the

Legislature would become.

I think that is what the Legislature is, Mr. Speaker, in other

jurisdictions such as maybe in Washington state. I notice when I look

at some of the proceedings down in Arizona, and the types of bills that

are brought into that House and the things that are debated there….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please return to the amendment which is before the House?

MR. NICOLSON: To hoist the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. By the way, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Could I suggest to the hon. member that his

debate has to be relevant to the amendment which is before the House?

It has nothing to do with other jurisdictions outside of Canada or

anywhere else, or outside of the province of British Columbia. It's a

matter of zeroing in on the reasons why you, as an individual member of

the House, feel this bill should be hoisted for six months.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It is very narrow, Hon. Member, in terms of your debate.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. Well Mr. Speaker, I certainly didn't get into the Taghum Bridge on this one or Notre Dame University.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I've tried to narrow the field to things which

I feel…. Just because I have a smile on my face, Mr. Speaker, don't

think that I'm not serious about this, because this bill should be

hoisted. It should be hoisted for more than six months — I'll tell you

that.

I am, Mr. Speaker, trying to keep a rather even kind of frame of

mind toward this debate. I'm not trying to raise my voice, as I am very

well capable of doing, particularly under the face of constant

interruption.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: What I have been discussing, Mr.

[ Page 2882 ]

Speaker, are some of the things that could happen

if this bill was hoisted for six months. If the bill is run through the

House in the next couple of days, certainly the people in

Nelson-Creston aren't going to have the opportunity of really becoming

informed. How many people have received copies of this bill? Has it

been printed in the Unity News , Mr. Speaker? How many people even in the Social Credit Party have had the opportunity of scrutinizing the detail of this bill?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Peter McNeill has printed it in his column.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Peter Hyndman hasn't seen this bill, I am informed, Mr. Speaker. So it is a cause for concern.

Just this evening revelations were made…

MR. LEA: Did Phil Gaglardi see this bill?

MR. NICOLSON: …concerning the urgency for this bill by the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). That will be

the subject of some news and some discussion and some editorial

comment, but that bill could well have been ramrodded through committee

stage and third reading and His Honour could be brought in here before

the people would know.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Hitler dissolved their equivalent of

parliament. Others have suspended the constitution before the people

have had a chance to know what has….

MR. SPEAKER: Could I draw to your attention, Hon. Member, that you are on your final two minutes?

MR. NICOLSON: That's regrettable, Mr. Speaker. Who is our designated speaker?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): We haven't had one.

MR. NICOLSON: We haven't had our designated speaker yet, Mr: Speaker, but….

MR. SPEAKER: Not on an amendment, Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Not on an amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: I won't challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But

in spite of the fact that I have a smile on my face, I have a sad heart

to be speaking to this bill. I just hope that the government would

really take the Legislature and take the system — the very delicate

system that they have — a little bit more seriously than they have

shown to date. I would hope that maybe some of the attitudes of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would prevail upon the minister who

has conduct of this bill and, like the Societies Act, this could be

held over to another session in order that the people of this province

really understand the full impact and in order maybe that some of those

government members over there might understand the full impact of this

travesty that they have brought into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't

going to speak in this debate, but I do rise to speak against the

amendment to hoist Bill 59, the Government Reorganization Act.

A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) stated there was nothing like this Act in the

British Commonwealth. I would like to read excerpts from a few Acts

from a few jurisdictions which I believe fall within the British

Commonwealth. The first one I would like to read from is the Province

of Alberta. It is called Bill 110. In the

definitions it states in this

Act…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Order! Order!

MR. VEITCH: …that appropriation means an expropriation of public moneys

of the province. Enactment means

an Act or any portion of

an Act. It goes on

to describe the ministers and their duties and their functions and that they

can be moved from one portfolio to another. It states that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may by order transfer the administration of any enactment from one minister

to another or transfer the administration at any part of the public service

from one minister to the other.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you please relate your remarks to the amendment which is before us?

MR. VEITCH: I will be relating it to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be of assistance to the

[ Page 2883 ]

Chair if you would do that very quickly.

MR. VEITCH: Oh, I'll do it very rapidly, Mr. Speaker. I would hope you would give me the same latitude as you gave the previous speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am trying, Hon. Member.

MR. VEITCH: Thank you. And the same amount of logic, of course.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Oh, yes. This afternoon speaking in the debate the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said:

"We find people who are tremendously concerned when

they see that by this one statute authority and moneys can be voted for

the protection of the environment and can be moved from one department

to the other. I want to tell you that we would have had a horse of a

different colour were it the NDP bringing in a bill like this."

I want to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, and I want to refer to another

Act in another province which will relate to this, and to show why this

bill should not be hoisted. It says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor may appoint under the Great

Seal" — of this particular province — "from among the members of the

executive council, in addition to the officers presented, any officer

to hold office at his pleasure, during the time of his tenure."

It goes further to say:

"Where the administration of

an Act, or any portion of

an Act, or any portion of the public service is transferred to a member

of the executive council under subsection 3, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also transfer to the member for the

administration the whole or any part of the moneys appropriated for the

Act or any part of the public service."

That's the province of Saskatchewan. It was passed on May 5, 1972, and it's Bill 171.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we get on

with the business of the House and reject this nonsense that we have

before us.

MR. LAUK: I'm sure that several members on the opposite side,

if they decided to rise in their place as the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon has done, would be able to point out that there are

other jurisdictions, even within the Commonwealth, that have some

powers. The ones that he particularly described, Mr. Speaker, were

already present in British Columbia prior to the introduction of Bill

59. But there other jurisdictions. Of course, you could even find a

jurisdiction other than in the Commonwealth that may have extraordinary

powers. From time to time, the national government employs the

emergency powers Act. The only party that voted against it was the New

Democratic Party. You'll find from time to time that the only party,

really, that I'm aware of in Canadian history that stood against an

anti-democratic measure by a dictatorial government, against even the

popular feeling of the country, has been the CCF — New Democratic Party.

Let's put it this way: what we're concerned about on this side of

the House, Mr. Speaker, and why we ask this amendment pass, is that

every action in a democratic system should be a public action.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: Every action should be a public action. I ask not

that the government look at what's happened in the past, I ask not the

government to look at other regimes, governments, be they NDP, Social

Credit, Coalition, Liberal, Conservative, and look for some solace

there. I ask them to consider the principle that is under attack in the

latter part of the 20th century in democratic countries all over the

world, There's more secretiveness in government now than ever before.

There is more backroom government, Star Chamber judgments going on than

ever before in the history of the democratic process. A great democracy

in the United States, with tremendous traditions, has given rise to

none other than a Watergate scandal in the United States, a most

mammoth coverup. The idea is public view. The idea is that legislation….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The idea….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Has anyone got an idea? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: May I have at least your attention, Mr. Speaker? Are you listening?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the idea behind the

[ Page 2884 ]

opposition to this bill is that we are arguing for a public debate on major changes of structure in government.

The departments, be they established or disestablished…that's an

interesting word. I suppose if we are opposed to this bill we become

the antidisestablishmentarians.

Sure it can be argued, as the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) has stated, that this is more efficient. It takes up less

time of the government machinery. It certainly takes up less time in

the legislative chamber, but we should remind ourselves — all of us

hon. members here — that the Legislature is the people. This assembly,

through our democratic institution, represents the people. The cabinet

doesn't represent the people. The cabinet is the government. The only

body in our parliamentary system that represents the people and is the

people is the Legislative Assembly or the House of Commons.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's apart from the people themselves.

MR. LAUK: I ask you to juxtapose two major issues that have

happened in democratic countries in the last five years. One incident

was a major scandal involving two or three years of inquiry by the

Congress in the United States — two committees of both Houses — to

uncover one of the most elaborate presidential coverups and plots in

the history of that country. Finally he was forced to resign, after two

or three years. Then look at the prime ministership of Willy Brandt — a

parliamentary system where one of his close aides was implicated in an

espionage allegation and he immediately resigned.

The contrast is this, Mr. Speaker: the British parliamentary system

requires that the government — not the people, but the government — is

answerable to the people in this chamber. Their actions must be exposed

to this assembly. It must be argued. We must discuss the issues; we

must discuss their legislation; we must discuss their programmes and

their spending. It must be in this chamber.

That does not mean that we should have all of the secrets of cabinet

laid open in this House; it does not mean that we should know all about

the movements of each cabinet minister in their private lives. No. But

what we must know in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, is what their

programmes are. We must be able to approve, on behalf of the people,

their legislative programmes, their changes in structure of government,

their establishments of departments and their use of public funds.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

That's why I argue that the full implications of this statute are

not realized yet by the members opposite, and that a six-month hoist

would be very beneficial to them. Yes, this system is inconvenient to

the government. I remember sitting on that side of the House and

becoming irritated from time to time at having to put up with a noisy,

obstructionist, harping, critical opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I remember all of us who were sitting in cabinet

were very, very upset at the opposition. It was inconvenient; it was

uncomfortable to be put in the hotseat during question period or during

estimates — and we weren't happy about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now can we get back to the principle of the amendment, which has nothing to do with the previous administration.

MR. LAUK: No, I am pointing out that however inconvenient to

have the Legislature review the structures proposed by the government

of the day, it is a good system that brings justice and democracy to

the people of British Columbia.

Okay, the opposition is not always right when we're opposing

legislation of the government. I'm not saying we're always right in our

judgment. We take the position that we think is in the public good; you

take a position that you think is in the public good, or that portion

of the public you claim to represent — big business. Nevertheless, I'm

willing to say that your intentions are good, and I'm not saying that

we're always right. What I am saying is that the debate must occur in

here. The public must have a view, through the press and through Hansard ,

of all government actions that will directly affect the public. That's

why I think it's important. Sure, it's inefficient; sure, it would take

less time; sure, it's an inconvenience. It would be more convenient to

have a backroom government without public view. But when Thomas More

was a judge…. Thomas More, the judge, do you remember him?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Your dad bought you the leadership.

MR. LAUK: Graham, I'm talking about Thomas More. Now pay attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thomas More, the judge.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Thomas More was being attacked by the king, King

Henry VIII. He was protecting the law of the land, and he said that the

rule of law must

[ Page 2885 ]

prevail, not the king. He didn't say that the rule of law was more

efficient; he didn't say it was more convenient. But he did say it was

just; he did say it would hold the society together in the long term,

and it would survive.

What did Churchill say to Hitler and Mussolini? Did he say, yes our

democratic system is inconvenient and yours is more efficient — sorry?

Of course it's inconvenient; certainly it's inefficient. But the people

have a voice in their legislative chamber, and any encroachment upon

that voice, any encroachment on that right, that privilege of the

democratic system, is a fatal one. Every one is a fatal one. You cut

down tree after tree — as Thomas More says — you cut each law down,

each convention, each protection down until the wind howls through the

valley without protection, and no one is safe…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now, Hon. Member, if we may turn….

MR. LAUK: …and no one is represented….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Oh, don't be pompous! You know perfectly well I'm talking to the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: You know perfectly well I'm talking about the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

[Deputy Speaker rises. ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's obvious to the Chair that

the material the member is covering is perhaps somewhat far afield from

the motion. The amendment is somewhat more restricted than the main

question. I'd like to draw this to the member's attention again, and

will continue to remind the member until his remarks are at least

somewhat near the amendment.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that these issues of

parliamentary democracy are not understood by the members opposite. The

opposition feels duty-bound to bring it to their attention. That is why

we feel a six-month period of time for them to consider these

principles will bring them to their senses and they'll withdraw the

bill, as they must do.

MS. BROWN: It's no guarantee, but it's worth a try.

MR. LAUK: No one argued, from time immemorial, as I'm saying,

Mr. Speaker, that the democratic system, the Legislative Assembly, the

House of Commons was the most efficient one. No one said it was the

most convenient. More didn't say that to King Henry VIII and Churchill

didn't say that to Mussolini. From Athens to Westminster and from Plato

to John Stuart Mill and John Diefenbaker, no one has ever claimed that

the democratic system is the most efficient. No one has ever claimed

that it saves time, and that's the point that I want to get across to

them. But I do argue, as others argued, including Winston Churchill,

that this system is the best possible democratic system and this bill

must be looked at as an encroachment upon the democratic rights of the

Legislative Assembly.

What about the privileges of the House that are affected by this

bill? They're not the privileges of the members of the opposition;

they're not the privileges of all of us together. As Edward Blake said,

the privileges of parliament are the privileges of people. The rights

of parliament are the rights of the Canadian people.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Edward Blake — you know who he was?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): He lives over on Lonsdale Avenue.

MR. LAUK: That's right.

MR. LEA: He wouldn't join the Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't join the NDP either.

MR. LAUK: The rights and privileges that are offended by this

Act don't belong to this chamber alone; they belong to the people as a

whole as their rights. Of course that issue is obscured.

The government asks us to trust them with this kind of legislation.

It's not a question of trust. They must remember that all power is a

trust, and that you are accountable to this chamber and to the people

through this chamber. That's where all the power

[ Page 2886 ]

comes from in a democratic state: the people. Those are the

principles we're talking about in subparagraphs A, B and C of

section

12, the proposed amendment to the Constitution Act. That's what we're

talking about here. We're talking about whittling away the Canadian

democratic system through the House of Commons and the Legislative

Assemblies of the provinces. When that happens it's one step from there

to a one-man government, answerable to no one.

We don't know what circumstances will exist in this province in

years to come. It was a shock to us all that Indira Gandhi suspended

elections in the Indian democracy. It's a shock to us all, from time to

time, when people even in Canada take high-handed actions through

emergency powers and other measures. We don't know that. We're not

equipped with crystal balls. We don't know the future — we're not

clairvoyants.

One day there'll be a time when someone might thank us for putting

up a resistance to this encroachment upon the constitution, upon the

democratic institutions of government. I know they're not appreciated

now. I know that the Marie Antoinette of the coalition government

described us as being fairly frivolous — I guess she's reserving

"frivolous" for some other day.

This is an attitude that's held predominantly by the frontbenchers

over there — that this is just a very soft housekeeping measure. The

Attorney-General, who must be a minister protecting all the laws, the

conventions and the democratic institutions of our province, is very

amused. Just off the racquet court, popping in with a "tennis, anyone?"

attitude, he says: "Oh, well, how can you give us that dreary argument

on this bill? It's just housekeeping, you poor fellow!" Well, it's a

typical dilettantish attitude toward government, a back-of-the-hand

treatment to the democratic institutions that have been fought for so

many years.

Sure, it's all cliches. You stand up and you argue about parliament

and how it came about and how many people fought and died and argued

and lost for those principles to protect the Legislative Assembly's

integrity, its rights and privileges on behalf of the people. It sounds

like it's very cliched, but it's only in this chamber where it all

comes to rest. There'd be chaos everywhere in British Columbia society

if it wasn't for this room. I know that's hard for you to believe. I

know it doesn't seem like there's much rational debate, that there's

much order in this House, but this room stands between order and chaos,

Mr. Speaker, and this bill whittles away the power that this room has

and this room represents. So I urge everyone to support the amendment.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we've

had the opportunity of hearing the government defend the reasons why

this bill is necessary. There have only been two spokespersons from the

government side against the motion to hoist: one, a cabinet minister

who referred only to

section 6, relating to a leasing arrangement that

we have no knowledge of.

We've seen no draft of those leasing arrangements; we have no idea

what the purchase price is, and he's asking us, on his confined remarks

to that section, to hurry up and get it through so he can shuffle

through his deal, whatever that may be. We don't know what that deal is.

MR. GIBSON: He's not even here.

MR. BARRETT: No, he's not even here. He's in a hurry to go

and read the documents that we don't have the privilege of seeing even

though it's the public's money. That's just one part of the bill. The

other was a stirring defence from the member for Burnaby (Mr. Veitch)

who obviously has been put in the front lines because the cabinet

itself is not prepared to defend this legislation, so they throw him in.

Mr. Member, I refer you to

chapter 71 of our own constitution,

section 10, that covers what you were describing in Alberta and other

provinces; we already have that power in British Columbia.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's inappropriate.

MR. BARRETT: The lawyer member over there says that it's

inappropriate. Then, for goodness' sake, please stand up in this House

and say to this House why it's necessary to have this legislation. Just

to call across the floor and say that it's inappropriate, it's not

necessary, means to me, Mr. Speaker, through you, that if he were still

sitting in the opposition, in the Liberal Party, he would be the first

one up standing fighting against this bill against Social Credit. He

would be the first one. If his conscience pricks him to the point that

he must interrupt, then stand up and speak on the motion to hoist. I'll

wait for you with pleasure, Mr. Member, to see your convoluted

arguments that come out after you've changed your policies and changed

your party.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

section 10 says:

"Any powers and duties assigned by law to any of the

officials constituting the executive council of British Columbia may

from time to time by order-in-council be assigned and transferred,

either for a limited period or otherwise, and to any other said

officials by name or otherwise."

It's right there in our statutes. The authority is there

[ Page 2887 ]

to do it.

If it is a matter of just correcting the changes that the government

wishes to make in the cabinet, which is fair enough, then let them

bring in specific legislation amending the Constitution Act so that

each step they want to change is discussed here in the House and

routinely passed. But to use as an argument that this bill must rush

through to validate what they've done when the Act that we are asked

not to hold up for six months gives them the power to do anything they

want to do, notwithstanding any Act, to the cabinet or to the votes of

this House, that's the key to why this has to be hoisted. That's the

key.

We're not opposed to any reorganization of the cabinet. For

goodness' sake, any government at any time may wish to do that and may

have reasons to do that, and all they have to do is bring in

legislation to do it specifically. But why this huge, sweeping bill?

Why this huge sweeping bill — from May to November? If you don't know

your mind after one reorganization of cabinet for another eight or nine

months, all you have to do is call the House back together again,

because we should have full-year sittings with adjournment anyway. If

you want to do it, call us back for a day or two. There won't be an air

traffic controllers' strike every day of the year; we can get back

here. If you want to change it, go ahead and change it, but don't use

any argument that somehow you need these wide legal powers to

overcome….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm coming to that point too. Don't use the

argument that somehow you need this immediate power. Absolute nonsense!

You have the power already to delegate and designate within the

constitution. What are we saying to hoist for six months? We are saying

to hoist this bill because of two sections specifically, before the

other minister threw in the one he was concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention this particular line: "Notwithstanding

any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the organization of

the executive government and the various departments or ministries" at

any time. All right. Do you want that sweeping power? Change the number of cabinet

ministers; send some out; bring some in; change the titles. Do you want all

that power? Do you really need all that power all year, round? Is it that important

to have that at your fingertips 24 hours a day? I don't think so. Certainly

not at the risk of basic constitutional rights in this country that relate to

the performance of the duties in the next particular

section of this bill. This

section says:

"…the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that

all or part of the money authorized by the Legislature to be paid and

applied for the purposes of those powers, duties and functions and

remaining unexpended, as he considers appropriate, be expended by and

through the other official, department, or ministry to which those

powers, duties and functions are transferred…."

That's why, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) raised the question of message bills and the

authorization of the expenditure of money.

There is absolutely no reason why a government with an overwhelming

majority cannot pass votes in this House for any department that it

wishes to have. Why should it need, why is it necessary, after having

gone through the exercise in the House, to have more overwhelming power

to move votes in any direction at any time they want, or to

disestablish a department, Mr. Speaker? Do you mean to say that we have

a prolonged debate on any particular vote only to know that vested

power exists with the cabinet to disestablish that vote and wipe it out

and transfer it somewhere else and make a mockery of the whole debate

on the estimates?

MR. KING: Exactly!

Mr. Speaker, there is a question of the wording of this bill and its

legal implications, notwithstanding any Act. In the opening of our own

constitution,

chapter 71,

section 8 says: "The executive power

continues the same, unaltered by this Act, as it existed on the 14th

day of February, 1871, subject to provisions of the British North

America Act, sections 58, 60, 61, 62, 66 and 67."

Mr. Speaker, legislation that has tampered with the British North

America Act has been the subject of great historical debate leading to

legal action against the specific legislation in many legislatures

throughout this country. The BNA Act has wide overwhelming power of

disallowance that on occasion has had to be used by the federal

government because the provinces, through their lack of wisdom and

foresight, have rammed through legislation without thinking of the

legal consequences or the conflict with the basic freedoms guaranteed

by the British North America Act.

One of the most outstanding cases in point, because there was not a

delay, was the federal disallowance of the Alberta Press Act. Mr.

Speaker, that bill was disallowed by the federal government because it

had taken away freedoms guaranteed to legislators through the British

North America Act, and the federal parliament in its wisdom disallowed

the Press Act. The Press Act was passed by Social Credit in Alberta. It

was an attempt to censor the press and it was found that it was denying

freedom in this country.

[ Page 2888 ]

What you're doing is saying that you want to take legislative

authority for this executive chamber unto itself, behind the green

door, make any changes you want in the cabinet or the expenditures

without having to come to this House to account. If that is not what

you're saying, then what do you need the bill for? If it's not true,

then have the common courtesy to the people of this province to bring

your changes in every single legislative session, instead of giving

sweeping powers to do anything you want through order-in-council.

The federal government in the case against the Press Act referred

back to the BNA and it said to the province of Alberta, and it quoted

directly from Justice Davis…. It quoted the first paragraph of the

preamble of the British North America Act, and it pointed out that with

all good intentions of all hon. ministers, through you Mr. Speaker, you

cannot tamper with the basic freedoms of the people of this country.

"Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, have expressed the desire to be federally united in the one

dominion under the Crown, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle

to that of the United Kingdom…."

And that's why I'm not too anxious to see the BNA return.

There is a safeguard in the very

preamble of the BNA to say that our

constitution must at least by in line with the United Kingdom

constitution and the mother of parliaments. There are examples

throughout this to show where disallowance has taken place because

legislation like this was not thought out legally, was not tested by

constitutional lawyers, but was presented as "housekeeping."

I know very well that they would never trust us with this kind of

sweeping power. That is very true. They would never have trusted us

with this kind of sweeping power. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why should

we trust them with the same kind of sweeping power? Because we're

talking about power that rests with the ordinary people, not with the

executive of the day, not with the ministers of the day, not with the

whim of a Premier of the day, but ongoing principles that were

established at Houses of Commons throughout the Commonwealth and have

given us our own BNA Act on which to model.

I don't want anybody going around this province saying "Oh, well,

trust me," because other people say: "Don't trust them." It's not a

question of trust or distrust. It's a question of responsibility to

tradition. I say, Mr. Speaker, that unless we hoist this we are headed

for a case of disallowance. It is a case of disallowance in the federal

court that could easily be made.

The federal government could combine its power of disallowance with

its authority under the Supreme Court Act to refer provincial

legislation to the supreme court for adjudication. Thus the federal

government, invoking its power of disallowance, could reserve a

questionable provincial statute and thereby prevent it from coming into

effect. What harm would there be, Mr. Speaker, to set this bill aside

for six months and inquire from the federal government whether or not

they view this as a case for disallowance?

Certainly you're not deliberately setting up a situation, Mr.

Speaker, that you want a confrontation with the federal government. We

were told all you wanted simply was the power to establish new

executive council positions. If you really believe that, then bring in

a bill saying what executive council positions you want to create and

we'll debate those and you'll pass them. But don't ask us in the face

of other things that have gone on throughout the world, like the

friendly member for Vancouver Centre said, to come into this House and

give you sweeping authority to do anything you want.

The six-month hoist would at least allow consultation with federal

Department of Justice officials to find out whether or not there would

be a case for disallowance. The present Attorney-General when he was an

opposition member used to give us lengthy discourses on preserving

freedom in this House. Yes, they were very lengthy, very well

documented and a very small bill — not a measure of their worth in the

bill that you presented, Mr. Member, but certainly a small bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting extensively from an

article called "The

Protection of Our Birthright," reprinted by the Winnipeg Free Press

which in 1954 compiled these particular arguments because of an

insidious case in Quebec and the denial of freedom to Jehovah's

Witnesses that was so successfully fought by a CCF lawyer at that time.

"The British North America Act of 1897, our

Constitution, has four sections dealing with disallowance that need to

be tested through a six-month hoist, in my opinion. Under sections 55,

56 and 57 the British government possessed power either directly to

disallow or through the Governor-General to reserve for the Queen's

pleasure any bill passed by the parliament of Canada."

Section 90 of the BNA Act vests in the Canadian Governor-in-Council

— that is the federal cabinet — precisely the same power, Mr. Speaker,

and with that power, unless we have a six-month hoist, we will find

this bill in front of the federal cabinet — precisely the same power

with regard to provincial bills as the British government had with

respect to federal bills, with the exception of the time limit which is

one year instead of two years. That is, the federal cabinet, within one

year of the enactment of any bill by a

[ Page 2889 ]

provincial Legislature, may disallow or annul it by

order-in-council, or the federal cabinet may instruct the

Lieutenant-Governor of any province to reserve the Queen's pleasure on

any bill that may be enacted.

You are asking the Lieutenant-Governor to sign a bill that may be in

direct contradiction to his own instructions under his role in the BNA

Act as has already been defined in previous cases. It's not as if it

were something new. There's been a definition in previous cases where

disallowance has taken place.

One could even define this bill in the

section dealing with

"notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

determine the organization of the executive government…." One could go so

far, Mr. Speaker, to make the case notwithstanding any Act,

notwithstanding the Lieutenant-Governor, you could sweep the powers into the cabinet and do anything

you want by order-in-council. "Notwithstanding any Act, " Mr. Speaker.

In light of what is already known and disallowance under the BNA, they wish

to persist with this on the simple argument that all they want to do is change

a few departments and change a new

section in the cabinet.

If that's all you want to do, bring in a bill to do it, but you

don't need all this fearful power. Now it's all right to go in the

corridor and tell reporters: "Oh, no, we really don't read it that way,

" or "we really don't intend to do it that way." Good intentions pave

the road to you-know-where, Mr. Speaker — you know better than anyone

else in this House where good intentions pave the road to. There is no

way that I intend to take that path to legislative you-know-where. Let

someone else judge who is going on that path. But let law be law; let

freedom be freedom; let protection be protection, regardless of whether

it is Social Credit, NDP or come-by-chance — as half that cabinet is

made up of.

In contrast with the record of disallowance, the federal government

has been involved in disallowance. The right of the Dominion government

in Ottawa to disallow and reserve the legislation of every provincial

Legislature is just as real and potent today as it was in 1867. That's

why it was written in 1867. That's why the safeguard was put there, so

that no small group anywhere in any Legislature would take unto

themselves the power which this particular bill says that this

government wants.

In 1909 there was another case — when Sir Alan Aylesworth was the

Minister of Justice. The occasion was a bill passed by the Ontario

Legislature dealing with mining. He said at that time:

"As I am willing to go this far in annunciation of the views

that I am stating in this House, that a provincial Legislature having, as it

is given to by the terms of the British North America Act, full and absolute

control over the property and civil rights within the province, I might, if

I saw fit to do so, repeal Magna Carta itself."

The reference to Magna Carta in a disallowance case in Canada refers

to not only what the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is saying, but even

to a further

section in the Magna Carta.

The members may think that this is just a simple matter of housekeeping. Why

the big fuss? What's the reason for delay? We're talking about a very

serious delegation of power to a small group of people who may be same today,

but by pressures of office may not qualify for that particular description tomorrow.

Why should we give them this power when no other jurisdiction does? When referring

back to Magna Carta itself, Mr. Speaker, there is a particular

section dealing

very, very well about the point of power and concentrated power.

section 14

of the Magna Carta talked about bringing councils of knights together. I won't

to this particular bill.

Section 14: "…and in order to have the common

council of the realm…." Remember, this was in 1215, Mr. Speaker, outlining the

very basis of our parliament as it is today — long before socialism, long before

private enterprise. Long after will this system live and we must protect this

system, regardless of what political party we subscribe to.

Section 14: "In order to have the common council of the realm…" — that is the people coming together, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me just remind you that it was covered earlier this afternoon, but please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: No, she read

section 12.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And 14.

MR. BARRETT: No.

"In the matter of addressing and aid otherwise than

the aforesaid cases, or of assessing escuage, we shall cause, under the

Seal, through our letters, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and

greater barons to be summoned for a fixed day, for a fixed term, namely

at least 40 days distant for a fixed place.

"Moreover, we shall cause to be summoned in general

through our sheriffs and bailiffs all those who hold us in chief" —

that is, the MLAs in current language, Mr. Speaker — "and in all these

letters of summons we shall express the cause of summons" — why the

MLAs are called together — "and when the summons has thus been made,

the business shall be proceeded with on the day appointed according to

the council of those who shall be present, even

[ Page 2890 ]

though not all shall come who are summoned."

Even though the cabinet sat out for most of this debate, they were

summoned; they were to have a chance to participate, and we are sitting

here. What this legislation is saying is that you are going to take

away that right of the common people — who pay the taxes, who pay the

bills — to scrutinize every single dollar after they take it back in

the green room and change it.

What irony that this group ran around this province saying that they

were the defenders of freedom! What irony that they ran around saying,

"Not a dime without debate"! Now the slogan has changed; it's "Not a

debate on any dime," Mr., Speaker. They'll do it behind the green

doors any way they want to.

Mr. Speaker, even if they don't do it, what is there to be above

suspicion that they are doing it? What is there to cause some dissident

backbencher who did not, because of overwhelming ambition but through

lack of talent, make the cabinet...what is there to stop him from

saying that something is going on back in there that he should know

about? Perhaps one of them may even find themselves on the way back to

the Liberal Party because of disappointment.

I don't understand, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier says in the corridor

that what the opposition is saying is not what is intended in this

bill, then why doesn't the Premier withdraw the bill and bring in

exactly what he wants to do instead of all this power? What's wrong

with that? If you want to do x, y and z, bring in a bill to do x, y and

z, but don't go out in the corridor and say that you don't want all of

this power and that it is being misinterpreted, and not withdraw the

bill.

The cabinet members have not participated in this debate — except

one cabinet minister who got up on

section 6 and said: "Oh, I need to

get the lease through," which we haven't even read. Are you telling

us, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that's the way you want to do

business? We don't even get to read the lease; the newspapers don't get

to read the lease; nobody gets to read the lease. It's like Damon

Runyon and the old crap game — get the tallest guy in the room, get

everyone else down on their knees, put the dice in a hat, look in

yourself and call out the numbers. Damon Runyon had it all figured out;

he never lost a crap game after he got Mr. Tall.

Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we're being asked to do: everybody

down on their knees, they'll put the dice in a hat and call out the

numbers. And we are being irresponsible if we ask: is that a correct

reading? Why, it might even be called a point of order — and you can't

do that too often, especially if you've crapped out on the dice.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You want a glass-bottomed hat.

MR. BARRETT: A glass-bottomed hat. I find it absolutely

incredible that this major debate should take place without a single

cabinet minister giving a justification up to now.

MR. LEA: Nor the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: But there are statements in the corridor,

statements to the press. But the only way to clean it up is to come in

and say: "This is exactly what we want to do. We don't need all the

sweeping power. We've got enough power in the constitution as it

exists."

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this matter found

itself forwarded to the federal cabinet. I wouldn't be surprised if the

precedent of disallowance by the federal cabinet could be easily

applied to this bill. I say a six-month hoist would allow us the time

to have authoritative legal counsel examine this bill and tell us that

these sweeping powers do not conform to the BNA. There is absolutely no

legislative authority that this government needs that it is not capable

of having to settle the particular cabinet changes it wants to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, without a hoist, and with the

passage of this bill, for the first time in the history of this

province, at a time when government is more complex, more diversified,

more confusing to the average citizen, the cabinet wants more power to

say that "regardless of where the Legislature said a certain

expenditure and a certain vote should go, we're going to change it any

way we want."

We are talking about a basic matter of freedom and responsibility,

the responsibility of elected officials back to those people who have

given us the delegated authority to govern. People give up a great deal

through the vote in a democracy. They say: for a period of time we are

authorizing you, whom we vote for, to do our business and spend our

money, to do it openly and honestly and to the best of your ability.

But I do not believe that by the transfer of power through that vote

they want the cabinet to have this kind of power, and that has been

tested in the past with the British North America Act and found that

the BNA has upheld those four basic principles of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, how can this government say that it is interested in

protecting the rights of the individual? How can this government claim

to say that it is just a housekeeping bill? How can they sit there in

silence when the very sweeping powers in this bill would give the

cabinet more power than any cabinet anywhere else in Canada? And the

difference is in

section 12B.

Yes, they have the powers, as the member for

[ Page 2891 ]

Burnaby-Willindon (Mr. Veitch) said. Yes, you read those sections

right and we already have that power, through you, Mr. Speaker, here in

British Columbia. But if the bill is not sinister, if the bill doesn't

encroach on the freedoms, if the bill doesn't do all those things that

the opposition's been saying, why doesn't the Premier stand up in here

instead of in the corridor and say exactly what he intends to do with

this power?

MR. LEA: Because he's afraid.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill has to be hoisted. It has

to be tested legally. We have made two inquiries with constitutional

counsel who indicate that this is a potential case of disallowance.

Why should this be rammed through now? It's their first year in

office, they're fresh with the blush of victory, they ran on a campaign

of freedom, they had the emotional support of some of the most

hysterical editorials every written in this province in some

newspapers. Now, seven months later, we have this kind of legislation —

blank cheque, wide, sweeping powers, blinding authority, an

embarrassment to people who left other parties, who like all converts

become more committed to their conversion than the originals who were

born into the faith of Social Credit, zealot commitment and zealot

silence. Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous power. I'm suggesting that the

only honourable way to deal with this matter is to hoist it for six

months. Bring in specific legislation for any changes you want in the

cabinet and we'll deal with those, but don't force us to leave this

House with this kind of power behind us. It's not good for this

province.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I rise

to speak against the amendment and probably do it with a little bit of

hesitation, being a new member in this House.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): So you should.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I read

section 12B, which I think

is the one the opposition is dealing so heavily upon, I would say this.

As I see it, gentlemen, we approve the estimates of the various

departments and the various ministers: The comment has been made: "Not

a dime without debate." I think the estimates get fair debate and

finally reach their approval. As I read 12B, Mr. Speaker, it states:

"Where, under

section 10 or 12A, powers, duties and

functions of an official, department, or ministry are transferred to

another official, department, or ministry, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that all or part of the money

authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied for the purposes

of those powers, duties and functions and remaining unexpended by and

through the other official department, or ministry to which those

powers, duties and functions are transferred and thereupon, that the

money may be expended for those powers, duties and functions…."

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I read that….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Finish it!

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, may I have order, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, may I have order in this House so I may

finish it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm trying to assist you, Hon. Member, if you'll just….

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we established, I think, an

admirable precedent a few moments ago when the last member who was on

his feet had excellent attention. Let's do the same for this member.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the last

section of that

paragraph, but the point I'm trying to make here is that estimates are debated

and approved. They deal with money of the province of British Columbia and they

deal with responsibility of ministers and officials. Should those powers and

duties be transferred to another ministry or official, then the money has to

be transferred to carry out the duties and functions to that new department

or official. I see nothing heavy-handed; I see nothing out of the ordinary with

that. No money is being spent on any other function or duty than was originally

debated in the estimates, Mr. Speaker.

Dealing with the last part, as I see it — "and shall be conclusively

deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and

applied" — as I read that particular section, it does nothing more than

to give authority to transfer those funds and make it legal for the

transfer to be made and the funds expended as an agent to his master.

It is no different in my mind. We are not using the money for any other

duty or function that was debated in the estimates, Mr. Speaker, as I

read that section.

[ Page 2892 ]

If that is not correct, I'd like somebody to point out to me how

come the whole

section applies with duties, functions and powers that

are transferred and the money that goes with it.

MR. GIBSON: Sit down, Jim, and I'll tell you.

MR. HEWITT: All that it is saying is that we are giving the

order-in-council the authority to act as the agent for its master, in

my simple opinion, Mr. Speaker. There is no sweeping authority under

this section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. HEWITT: The opposition is making a prime effort at

delaying debate in this House. In my mind, as a new member of this

House, they've done it ably. We've wasted the time of this House on

just a lot of absolute nonsense.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the principle.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker,

section 12B, to me, is as clear and

concise as it can be, and it is considerably, as far as I'm concerned,

a smokescreen on the part of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: It's delaying tactics, and I would like them to

consider for a minute, when they read it in its entirety, that it

doesn't do anything else but transfer duties, powers and functions from

one department to another, if it is so deemed, and in doing that, it

has to have the money to carry out those duties, functions and powers.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask them in all honesty and sincerity to withdraw the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Absolutely incredible!

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the bill and against the amendment….

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: Don't try to confuse me.

MR. LEA: Pretty hard to do.

MR. KERSTER: I'd like to first correct the first member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she said earlier today that this

bill copied, verbatim, the Manitoba legislation.

MR. LEA: She didn't say that.

MR. KERSTER: This is the…. Read the Blues ! The $100 million man should read the Blues instead of singing the blues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please address the Chair.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member, he

should read the Manitoba statutes and he would know that I'm quite

correct in correcting that first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEA: Except she didn't say that.

MR. KERSTER: She said that it was radical, it was destructive

changing — just utter nonsense. The amendment is totally utter

nonsense. That hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard also stated that

Charles II — and this again is a correction, Mr. Speaker, through you,

to the hon. member who is not in her seat — Charles II was continually

at war with his counsellors. To quote her: "We should give thanks to

him for the establishment of the cabinet system as we know it today."

She says this bill threatens this system by sweeping constitutional

changes threatening the constitution. Again that's nonsense. To correct

her the parliamentary system as we know it is said to have begun with

the reign of King William III, William of Orange, and the acceptance of

the Declaration of Right, which was the great landmark in democratic

government, but the parliamentary system owes its beginning to Robert

Spencer, the Second Earl of Sunderland, famous for his complete

unscrupulousness — you should recognize that, Mr. Member — and

political ingenuity….

MR. NICOLSON: Where's the Mackenzie Valley?

MR. KERSTER: Oh, listen to Karl Marx over there!

It was he who pointed out to the Dutch monarch that if he chose his

ministers from the strongest party in the House of Commons, then the

party would have to back him in order to stave off the next election

for as long as it could. This was the beginning of the two-party system

as we know it, and that's the end of that lesson for the first member

for Vancouver-Burrard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the principle, please.

[ Page 2893 ]

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: Listen, I'd rather look like Groucho Marx than

sound like a retarded Karl Marx. (Laughter.) That's directed directly

to that hon. member, the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson),

through you, Mr. Speaker.

Again speaking to the amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), he said money spent other than — and

this is a direct quote — "authorized by the Legislature," was the crux

of this bill. Well, the member for Oak Bay also said that the transfer

of powers and duties should be open to scrutiny and debate by the

Legislature.

Bill 59 says simply that the government can transfer or combine

ministerial duties without undue delays which may be inordinately

costly — and all these delays are costly — to the taxpayers of this

province. Historically, the opposition say, we have had open

government. Well, this legislation doesn't change one thing in that

respect. As the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) stated,

the bill is simply a housekeeping bill, which disturbed him, because he

says: "We're overhauling the legislative system, doing away with the

Legislature." Again, utter nonsense. He should know better. It's the

same old fear tactics and convoluting that's been engaged in by that

double-standard opposition, Mr. Speaker.

Also, you know, we've heard the term "Not a dime without debate."

MR. GIBSON: That's right. Who said that?

MR. KERSTER: All through the discussion of this amendment

we've heard that term — or this proposed amendment — "Not a dime

without debate." Many times during this afternoon's discussions this

came up.

However, if the opposition was interested in being constructive for

a change instead of destructive, through you, Mr. Speaker, to them,

they would either read the bill or have some of their learned

colleagues who are barristers read it or ask, if they can't understand

the bill themselves, for some sort of consultation and constructive

criticism of the bill from barristers who can understand it.

The democratic rights of this Legislature and of the people of this

province are not curtailed by this bill. The opposition alarm, through

their amendment expressed so sanctimoniously today, is just another of

their false alarms. The changing of the duties of a minister by

order-in-council is hardly a threat to democracy — rather a form of

insurance that the best people will be doing the best possible job.

MR. LAUK: Where's your brother?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KERSTER: That's a switch that cost that particular opposition the government. It put them where they are today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are the best people?

MR. LAUK: Where's your brother?

MR. KERSTER: Well, the estimates are the extent of the

expenditures and they're passed by the Legislative Assembly. I don't

think that if a minister assumes some of the duties of another

minister, a transfer of funds allotted under the original estimates to

the minister who is assuming those new or additional duties, is any

threat to democracy. But then I wouldn't want to muddy up the waters of

the opposition's debate on this amendment by suggesting that for once

they inject a little pinch of common sense or logic into their line of

debate. That would be terrible. That would be some sort of impugning

their what-do-you-call-it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be asking too much.

MR. KERSTER: Now they suggest that we should have the

unanimous support of this bill. They should bow their heads in shame

that they've been responsible for such irresponsible waste of time by

introducing this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're anti-democratic, my friend.

MR. KERSTER: The people's money is being wasted…

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about democracy?

MR. KERSTER: …by obstructive, destructive tied-up debate on an

amendment for the major part of this session, let alone this inane

amendment to a very good bill.

MR. LAUK: Did they have democracy in Maui?

MR. KERSTER: Ask the hon. minister for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I'd like to remind that gentleman,

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), that ignorance of the

law excuses no man, particularly from practising it, as he well knows,

even though he can't….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would make that reminder.

[ Page 2894 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, not to bother him; we need the votes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Well, it appeared to answer the hon. member for Prince Rupert on the "he needs the votes."

MR. LAUK: Press on, George.

MR. KERSTER: It seems to me that I came through the front door of this Legislature and not on a parachute through the back door.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: You came in on a coattail. You are going to leave feet first.

MR. KERSTER: Well, I'll tell you something. We had several

people here. Talking to the amendment again, Mr. Speaker, talking to

the opposition — we had many, many situations where they say that this

bill is a destructive bill and this bill is creating problems, but we

had four actual Ministers of Finance…. It was kind of a

catch-as-catch-can Minister of Finance situation under the former

government, and again, I would like to point out — and I would be happy

to table these documents because they are orders-in-council and these

are things that….

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: The first member for Vancouver Centre, I suggest

that a great many people think that they are thinking when they are

merely rearranging their political prejudices.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KERSTER: In that member's case, Mr. Speaker, through you to him, I think the prejudices of Bill 59 are not rearranged but rather…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KERSTER: …disarranged.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member now to proceed to the amendment or else we may have to ask you to use different material.

MR. KERSTER: This is good material, Mr. Speaker. It is to the

amendment. I will stick strictly to the amendment. To these

orders-in-council approved on — let's see — July 2, 1973…. This was an

order-in-council: "The undersigned has the honour to recommend the

appointment of the hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

as acting Minister of Finance, made by order-in-council No. 2393,

approved July 10, 1973."

MR. LAUK: You're an idiot.

MR. KERSTER: "That pursuant to

section 11 of the

Constitution Act" — and that is the sneaky part of the thing — "being

chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, the hon.

Minister of Education be appointed acting Minister of Finance while

said hon. Minister of Finance is absent from the capital or unable from

illness to perform his duties." This is signed by the Provincial

Secretary. It wasn't signed by anyone else.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I ask you for the

third time: please move to the material that you have that is relevant

to this amendment.

MR. KERSTER: Right, to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

We've discussed this amendment and the fact that we were purported

to be assuming some sort of dictatorial powers. I just wanted to point

out, by way of correction and by way of clarifying the amendment, of

the hypocrisy that has come out of this debate, and some of the

convoluting and outright fabrications that have maybe misled the people

of the province of British Columbia.

Now to the amendment: again I would point out that we've had four

different Finance ministers without the assistance of a bill that would

make such a situation a legal situation. We had the Minister of Human

Resources as the acting Minister of Finance. The former Minister of

Human Resources (Mr. Levi), the $100-million man — through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the opposition — he was the Minister of Finance. Now, to me

that is like putting an alcoholic into a bar as the bartender. But he

was Minister of Finance. And there's another one right there, an

order-in-council, and that was approved in April of 1974 — April 16.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: I think I'm making the former Health minister

(Mr. Cocke) a little ill with this, because the truth is finally coming

out. But then again, there is that connotation of this all the way

through. Nevertheless, here's another order-in-council where we had

another one: the hon. Minister of

[ Page 2895 ]

Labour, now the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) — and

to the amendment, Mr. Speaker — was acting in the position of Finance

minister, again by order-in-council, and not brought before this

Legislative Assembly. Everybody was signing everything here.

Here we have a case where the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall)

was Minister of Finance on five different occasions. None of this was

brought before this assembly; this was all done by order-in-council. So

I just suggest that these people withdraw this stupid amendment and get

down to the government's business. We're not here for laughs and

conversation, like some of these comedians on the opposite side of the

floor, through you, Mr. Speaker, and to the amendment, would have the

people of this province believe. It's more convoluting, it's more

academy award performance acting and nonsense, and I ask them to

withdraw that amendment, or I wholeheartedly will vote against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we recognize the next

member, I'd like to draw to the attention of all hon. members that just

saying in your speech the phrase "to the amendment" does not make the

material relevant. Therefore when I interrupt any hon. member, which I

hate to do, to remind him that his material is not relevant, really the

next statement is that your material is out of order. I would trust

that the members would take this advice.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, to the

amendment. (Laughter.) Now that might be the only point on which I will

say that, but I am glad to help you. (Laughter.)

You know, Mr. Speaker, presumably as members of the Legislature we

do have to have some knowledge of how Acts are put together, and some

background. I appreciate that the previous speaker was somewhat late in

getting here and wasn't able to take advantage of the Speaker's

orientation course. Maybe he was. If he was, he must have been asleep.

But he made quite a point of going through the orders-in-council in

terms of ministers who may be out of town, and then you have to have an

acting minister. I don't really quite know what that had to do with the

amendment, Mr. Speaker, but he made quite a point of that. Obviously he

doesn't know the legislation; he doesn't understand the way the

government is run, and he somehow thinks that when ministers leave town

everybody herds and eight people run 17 portfolios.

But in terms of the research in terms of this, I think it is

important that if the few government members who have got up to speak

are going to use the argument that somehow there is a similarity

between the legislation we have before us — the one that we want to

hoist because of some very serious concerns…. So there's a suggestion

that the legislation we have before us is similar to legislation that

exists in other jurisdictions.

It is very difficult for the people on the other side to rely on the

research as only the opposition does. I noticed that they spent quite a

bit of time quoting from the Blues .

I think a comparison between the

bill we have in front of us, and our desire to have it hoisted, and a

comparison of the legislation that is presently in force in

Manitoba…. What is interesting in comparing the legislation is these

two sections which give us a great deal of anxiety — on two occasions

in the present bill the phrase "shall be deemed to be the official…"

and then lower down in another

section of the bill "…shall be

conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature." Now,

the Manitoba legislation, Mr. Speaker, those phrases do not appear.

We had a debate from the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr.

Hewitt) and he was quoting the actual legislation before the House. He

only went as far as actually putting in context of his quotation what

was in the Manitoba legislation. I think it was only because we

insisted that he continue with his quotation that we saw the

difference. Of course, the previous speaker didn't have the benefit of

going into the library and getting a copy of the Manitoba legislation,

so he really wasn't aware that the legislation is vastly different. It

is, in fact, as other speakers have said, extremely sweeping.

This evening what concerned me was that we had the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) getting up and telling us

that we need this legislation almost at 10:55 or midnight because in a

few days we're going to lose our chance of getting some kind of income

tax opportunity as a result of dealing with the ferries. Well, we have

previous legislation in this House in respect to the deficit financing

bill that came before the House. We were told that it had to be passed

within two days; otherwise the earth would collapse. Now we are told by

the Minister of Transport and Communications that we have to do this

now because otherwise we're going to lose out. We've had a series of

pieces of legislation like this, and almost at the very last minute

we're told that it's urgent and that it's in the very best interests of

the province. It may be that it's in the best interests of the

province….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have a little less noise?

MR. LEVI: Well, it's a quarter to eleven, Mr. Speaker — they are getting a little tired.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just trying to help you, sir.

[ Page 2896 ]

MR. LEVI: They'll be okay. You and I can communicate. That's all that counts, as long as Hansard is listening.

If they're going to come and use the excuse, which really came out

as a result of the minister happening to tell us all of a sudden why it

is — this kind of brinkmanship legislation — that the only real reason

for getting the legislation through now…this relentless driving,

trying to get the legislation through at the last minute, when actually

there was ample opportunity. Certainly from their point of view, if

they wanted to have brought in a separate bill, that would have been a

much better kind of thing. However, bringing in a separate bill might

have just prolonged, presumably, the debates around the ferries which

presumably are going to be debated in two or three areas of

legislation, plus the minister's estimates.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the difference between the

legislation is profound in terms of the impact of the legislation that

we have before us. After all, it is not often in a bill that has come

before this Legislature that we have such phrases as "who shall be

deemed to be the official" and further down in

section 12B, "and shall

be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature."

Really what it is doing in that kind of statement — I'm not a lawyer

and I was hoping the lawyers would get up and tell us — is that somehow

in a post facto basis they are saying that what didn't exist before

exists now because we say so in the legislation. This really, Mr.

Speaker, is an exceedingly dangerous process. If, as they have said,

that the legislation in their minds is similar to the Manitoba

legislation, they would go with the Manitoba legislation, but they

haven't, Mr. Speaker, gone with the Manitoba legislation. They've gone

with a completely new piece of legislation.

We could benefit from some legal advice from the lawyers on the

other side as to what these phrases mean. What is the intent of the

phrase "shall be deemed" and the phrase "shall be conclusively deemed"?

They sound very ominous. They sound exceedingly ominous. When the

minister brought in the bill, she said it was a kind of a housekeeping

bill, nothing too serious, but then when we start really looking at it

and examining it, we will need to have from that minister a very clear

explanation. But you know, Mr. Speaker, explanations are not

forthcoming. That's why this amendment is before us — because if we

don't have the time to examine exactly what the impacts of this

legislation are, it will be too late. In any case, as has been pointed

out by the Leader of the Opposition, we appear to have here an

excellent example of the kind of legislation in which we can approach

the federal government to have them set it aside. That really is

important to do that.

What we've had in the debate from some of the people on the other

side is first of all to tell us that other legislation of other

jurisdictions exists exactly like this. Well, that's not so, Mr.

Speaker. That simply isn't so. This piece of legislation is unique.

It's unique in its wording, and it's unique in its intent. Perhaps — we

still have 15 minutes left before we adjourn, I hope — some of the

members on the other side those two diabolical phrases mean, one being

"shall be deemed" and the other being "shall be conclusively deemed."

There's no way that they can get away with telling us, Mr. Speaker,

that this is the same as other legislation, because it simply is not.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for

Vancouver-Burrard just told us that this piece of legislation is

unique, and indeed it is. The opposition has been making a case for the

last several hours of debate in this House as to why it is so unique

that it should be suspended for a period of six months before any

action should be taken on it. I propose to comment specifically on the

comments of the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) and the hon.

member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and finally the Minister

of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

The Minister of Transport and Communications, who incidentally had

an extraordinarily weak argument, I thought, was the only official

representative of the government who has seen fit to speak on this

particular amendment. To me that gives some information as to the

ground that the government feels that it stands on.

The member for Coquitlam said, and I scribbled this down. I hope I

quote him reasonably accurately. He said: "This legislation doesn't

change one thing." Mr. Speaker, I think that the kindest thing I could

say is that he has studied his subject from A to B, and that's about

all. He wasn't listening to his own Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) who told this House that among other things this legislation

changes the fact that the rest of the bill wouldn't have had to be

brought in at all, had the first

section been in effect. What this

legislation changes is that from now on, if it passes, the government

will have the right to establish, disestablish and otherwise vary

executive departments of government without let or hindrance or debate

of any kind by this Legislature, and that's wrong.

MR. KERSTER: So it's been done by order-in-council for years. What are you talking about?

MR. GIBSON: An hon. member interjects across the floor: "So

it's been done by order-in-council for years. What are you talking

about?" It's very kind of him and generous to give us a lecture on

parliamentary democracy, but the fact of the matter

[ Page 2897 ]

is that it has never been done by order-in-council in this province.

It is not done by order-in-council in any province in this country. It

is not done by order-in-council in the federal parliament. It is not

done by executive order in the United States of America. The fact of

the matter is that executive departments are not established and

disestablished by executive order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're doing a splendid

job. Would that other hon. members opposite showed 10 per cent your

degree of perception, perspicacity and the many fine attributes…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be very careful.

MR. GIBSON: …that you bring to the Chair.

The hon. member has kindly sent across some orders-in-council. They

are very interesting here. Perhaps I should read them to further the

progress of this debate. The first one seems to be out of Victoria,

July 31, 1975, pursuant to

section 24 of the Revenue Act. The Minister

of Finance is certifying something. He is certifying that amount of tax

shouldn't be paid and a refund is claimed under

section 24 of the

Revenue Act. What on earth does that have to do with this bill, Mr.

Speaker? Is that an indication of the understanding that this hon.

member brings to this bill — refunds under

section 24 of the Revenue

Act? Here is another page….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are out of order.

MR. KERSTER: Who was the Minister of Finance?

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand.

Here is another

section 24 of the Revenue Act. Again, the hon. member

is saying across the floor: "Who was the Minister of Finance?" I have a

pretty fair memory, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance in those days

was the present second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). If you

are talking about the acting Minister of Finance, the acting Minister

of Finance of the day — I can't read his signature. He was a bad

writer, whoever he was. But the acting Minister of Finance was provided

for under the Constitution Act, Mr. Member, as it exists today. There

is no need in this bill to provide for that. Acting ministers have been

the custom and the rule in our province for many years while you were

out of the province, but it nevertheless has been the law here,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. Please address the Chair and please make sure your remarks are in order.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was really doing my

best. Then unfortunately these interjections come across the floor. But

I did appreciate the lecture in parliamentary democracy we got from the

hon. member for Coquitlam in any event.

We also heard in due course from the hon. member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) . But before going to him, I want to

say something about the words of the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), who thankfully is in the House at this

particular moment and therefore….

AN HON. MEMBER: Thankfully?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, thankfully, in terms of this talk, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.

MR. GIBSON: Therefore he will be able to explain his

extraordinary remarks earlier on this evening. He gave what was

represented as being the only consequential remarks of the government

as to why there should not be a six-month hoist on this particular

bill. His argumentation was that sometime within the next week there

must be entered into a lease with a financial house, the Royal

Trust-us, with respect to the ownership of the Queen of Coquitlam , a

fine ship, Mr. Speaker, that was built only a few hundred yards from

the boundary of my riding. (Laughter.) I attended the christening.

Those were other days, Mr. Speaker — halcyon days, as they are now. But

the minister said in any event that sometime within the next week if

this Act didn't pass the province of British Columbia would lose $1

million. I say that's nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I said $18 million, not $1 million.

MR. GIBSON: Eighteen million? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was $1 million — perhaps over the next year is what you meant.

HON. MR. DAVIS: A million a year.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: The $1 million annual man.

[ Page 2898 ]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that minister two questions. Will he stand up in

this House and table the documents that substantiate that claim? That's

the first question, but that's really a pro forma question because I

assume he has documentation and naturally, therefore, he will table it.

That's excellent.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: He didn't pay his last fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: The second question is more important, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Oh, you're back, Mr. Speaker.

The second question is more important. What has changed in the last

few days that puts a one-week deadline on that? The federal budget that

the minister is concerned about came out some time ago. It put a

deadline on these kinds of leasing arrangements. What else has changed

recently? What is going to be different one week from now?

I ask that minister if he will stand up in this House and stake his

seat on the fact that if this bill is not passed within one week

British Columbia will lose $1 million in the next year. I say that if

he will not stand up right now, before 11 o'clock — and we have five

minutes left — and stake his seat on the fact that we will lose $1

million in the next year if this bill is not proved in the next week,

then I say it's a fraud and sham and it's nonsense! The minister has

but to nod his head to indicate that yes, he's going to stand up and

certify to this House that he will stake his seat that if it isn't

passed in the next week, we'll lose $1 million. That's all he has to do.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That's all he has to do.

There's no nod of his head, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking across there.

There's not a single motion of his head except some blinks of the

eyeballs. He's nodding his eyeballs, Mr. Speaker — could that be what

it means?

I say it's a fraud, Mr. Speaker. I say he was trying to politically

blackmail this House with a one-week deadline. The one-week deadline is

utter nonsense and a six-month hoist is a good idea.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Withdraw the word "fraud."

MR. GIBSON: I won't withdraw the word "fraud." It's a fraud, and you know it's a fraud, Madam Member. You stand up and make your own speech in this debate that you disagree with it; otherwise be quiet.

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

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll address the Chair if the rest of the unruly members over there will do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The other unruly members do not have possession of the floor, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: I certainly hope not, Mr. Speaker. It happens at times, but I hope not now.

Mr. Speaker, since I'm still looking at the Minister of Transport

and Communications and he still hasn't nodded his head, I can only

assume that he's not prepared to back up with action the nonsensical

words that he gave to this House earlier on, so I will now turn to the

remarks of the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) .

The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen suggested that the powers

to transfer votes between departments were well precedented. I would

like to refer to him some of the precedents from the Mother of

Parliaments which we take as our basic law as of the time of

Confederation, unless our standing orders otherwise provide, or unless

our law otherwise provides. I would first of all refer him to Erskine

May, 18th edition, page 702, remarking on subdivision of votes.

Subdivision of votes, of course, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the

member, relates to the particular headings under which we vote through

the estimates, as I'm sure he's well aware. In the Mother of

Parliaments there are two parts to each vote. I think that one needs to

remark that before making this particular quotation:

"Each vote is divided into two parts:

"Part I specifies the services for which the estimate is presented and the net amount of the grant demanded from Parliament.

"Part II sets out under subheads the items of

expenditure and receipts (if any) which make up the total amount

specified in

Part I, gives comparable figures for the previous year,

names the department which will account for the expenditure of the

grant under those subheads and states the gross expenditure in

connection with the service for which the grant is made. In a footnote

is stated the expenditure borne by other departments."

Just interrupting that quote for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would underline that portion of the phrase: "names the departments."

[ Page 2899 ]

It's very important as to exactly which kind of department will

expend certain money, under which general rubric, under which general

head the administration of a vote is to be obtained, because…. Let's

take, for example, our situation here in British Columbia where all of

a sudden out of the blue there happens something called the Department

of Environment that had never been heard of before and yet was supposed

to administer, in some way or other, things which had been, for

example, under the purview of the Department of Lands. Now the

Department of Environment presumably has a different kind of

orientation towards the world than did the Department of Lands. It has

a different — what did the hon. member for Dewdney used to say? — a

different mind-set, a different look at the world. And yet somehow the

votes are supposed to be transferred and spent the same way as they

were originally voted by parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Member. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is on his feet on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I yield to him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the clock.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. BARRETT: I was on a point of order! He had the floor and

it was my point of order. I brought it to the attention of the Speaker.

He's got to leave the chair. There is no motion. Are you trying to ram

through this legislation? Shame on you!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I draw all of the members' attention….

Would the hon. member take his seat, please?

MR. GIBSON: I'll stand up if you don't rule the right way. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Speaker Dowding ruled in a previous

sitting of the Legislature on exactly the same type of a situation that

a routine motion of the day is in order after someone has drawn the

Speaker's attention to the clock. It is a routine motion of the day

that's in order and it is recorded in the Journals of the House

on a previous ruling by the Speaker of this House. The motion is

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

All those….

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you will not put that vote! If

anyone is to move adjournment it will be me! I tell you, sir, your

attention was drawn to that clock. Once the attention is drawn to that

clock, then all orders under consideration at that time are dropped.

The orders are….

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter of accepting a routine

motion of the day is dealt with in our own Journals of the House, 1973,

March 22.

In dealing with this same situation at that time Mr. Speaker ruled

that this is so implied by the fact that May indicates that another

member who has not spoken at the hour of interruption may stand and

move adjournment of the debate. The Chair allowed the hon. Leader of

the Opposition to interrupt the debate on a point of order, and at that

point the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson),

yielded the floor to the point of order….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Whenever there's a point of order

the member on his feet yields the floor. The hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

…had possession of the floor in debate at the time the Leader of

the Opposition drew the Speaker's attention to the clock. There is

still an opportunity for a member to move a motion of adjournment. One

moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please. I think, hon.

members, it's quite clear that an ordinary, routine motion of the day

can be accepted by the Speaker after the time that his attention has

[ Page 2900 ]

been drawn to the clock at the ordinary hour of adjournment. This was done by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Does the hon. member for

North Vancouver-Capilano, who has the floor, and had the floor before I

recognized the point of order by the hon. Leader of the Opposition,

wish to continue? Proceed.

MR. GIBSON: I will proceed. I shall indeed proceed, and I

will remind Your Honour that your attention has been drawn to the

clock, and when your attention is drawn to the clock you must leave the

chair. I want to quote you standing order 3, which I'll do as soon as

you've finished consulting.

M R. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, may I draw to

your attention the fact that while you were on your feet another hon. member

rose to his feet to draw the attention of the Speaker to the clock?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. At that particular time the

hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, took possession of the floor

to draw the attention of the Speaker to the clock. So at that point

your remarks were terminated, and the only thing that could transpire

beyond that point is a motion of routine nature, which has been fully

covered by the Hon. Speaker Dowding…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

…to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House. It

was clearly discussed and clearly outlined by a previous Speaker of

this House, Hon. Member, and I must put the