British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 22, 1975 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 5th Session)
30p 05s 750522p
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1975
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page
2525 ]
CONTENTS
Privilege Correction of facts from previous debate. Mr. Chabot —
Routine proceedings
Credit Unions Act (Bill 82). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction
and first reading — 2526
Oral Questions
ICBC strike effect on issue of driver's licences and permits.
Mr. Fraser — 2526
Appointment of B.C. Hydro head. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2527
Closing of roads to Can-Cel operations. Mr. Wallace — 2527
Sahara Development home grants. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2528
Government leasing of office space. Mr. Chabot — 2528
Ottawa share of oil taxes. Mr. Gibson — 2528
Details of highway mileage. Hon. Mr. Lea answers — 2529
Student jobs in Mines department. Hon. Mr. Nimsick answers — 2529
Eligibility for renter's grant. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2529
Annual meeting of B.C. Association of Strata Corporations. Hon. Mr. Nicolson
answers — 2529
Changes in renter's grant legislation. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2529
Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates Division
on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2529
Motions On the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Chabot — 2530
Subamendment to the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Gibson — 2535
Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2535
Point of order Possible conflict between motion 16 and standing order 45A.
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2536
Routine proceedings
Motions On the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Gibson —
Division on the amendment to motion 16 — 2541
On motion 16 as amended. Mr. Phillips — 2541
Amendment to motion 16 as amended. Mr. Gibson — 2544
Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2545
Point of order Possible anticipation of later motion. Mr. D.A. Anderson—
Routine proceedings
Motions On the amendment to motion 16 as amended. Mr. Gibson
— 2547
Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 2547
On motion 16 as amended. Mr. Dent — 2547
Amendment to motion 16 as amended Mr. L.A. Williams — 2549
Point of order Clarification of intent of motion 16. Mr. L.A. Williams —
Routine proceedings
Motions On motion 16 as amended. Hon. Mr. Nimsick —
Motion 15. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2553
Appendix — 2555
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I have the pleasure
to introduce to the House, first, Mr. Warren Allmand,
Solicitor-General of Canada, great and good friend — or target — of Dr. Morton Shulman. (Laughter.)
May I next introduce the other representatives of the
provinces attending the corrections conference? M. Robert
Norman, le Sous-Ministre de Justice de la belle province. Le
grand Jerome a été très occupé.
Mr. Bud Boyce is the Minister of Corrective and
Rehabilitative Services of Manitoba, and Howard Pawley is
Attorney-General of Manitoba. The Hon. Roy Farran is the
Solicitor-General of the Province of Alberta, and the Hon.
Paul Creaghan is Minister of Justice of the Province of New
Brunswick. We haven't had so many Conservatives in the House
for years. We also have Alan Sullivan, Attorney-General of Nova
Scotia, and Alec Hickman, Minister of Justice of
Newfoundland.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Who are you?
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Attending the corrections
conference are three prominent members of staff from the
corrections department — another one attached to Mr. Allmand's
department — and they are the three people with whom I was in
jail. They've all gone on to successful careers — Mr. Pascal
O'Toole, Mr. Lloyd Pisappio and Mr. John Braithwaite — and
myself. It shows what rehabilitation can do, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the official opposition, we would like to welcome the
distinguished guests who are on the floor of our House this
afternoon and say that we welcome you to the Province of
British Columbia.
The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was a little
lethargic in not turning on the sunshine and warm weather that
we like to brag about in British Columbia, but that's his
problem. You take it up with him — knowing the Hon.
Attorney-General, he'll try to do something about it
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: I'd like also to welcome the Hon. Ministers,
and say that you must, after all, believe in capital punishment
if you're staying on the floor here. (Laughter.)
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. Yesterday while speaking I had an exchange with the Member for Shuswap
(Mr. Lewis), and there appears some erroneous information in Hansard , page 476-4-MS.
I was speaking about my participation in the standing orders and private bills
committee. The Member for Shuswap said: "You were only there one day." The Member
for Columbia River said: "That's a bunch of nonsense." The Member for Shuswap
said: "That's the truth."
Mr. Speaker, I have searched the records in Hansard
as to the number of meetings, and the attendance as well, I
find that this committee had six meetings. During those six
meetings there was an absence of the Attorney-General for three
meetings, an absence of the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves)
for three meetings, an absence of the Member for North
Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) for two meetings, and the
Member for Columbia River was absent for two meetings and the
Member for Shuswap was absent for one meeting.
I just want to....
MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member....
MR. CHABOT: Before you interrupt, Mr. Speaker, I'm just on
the verge of closing.
MR. SPEAKER: I shouldn't interrupt that.
MR. CHABOT: I just want to correct this record so that this
erroneous information won't go out in the countryside of this
province.
MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that in
future, matters of that sort are points of order that should be
raised at the time and corrected at the time, not the following
day.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On that same
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't on the committee.
(Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: Do we correct this tomorrow?
AN HON. MEMBER: It was North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.
Gabelmann.)
MR. SPEAKER: I see.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
wasn't aware that acknowledgements and welcoming to the House
had concluded. I would like to draw to the attention of the
Members today the visit of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Soicher and their
son from Montreal. This is their first visit to British
Columbia.
[ Page 2526 ]
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting
somewhere in the gallery is the person who keeps the Brown
house ticking over while I'm sitting here doing the business on
behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard. She has often
wondered just exactly what happens in this House, so I invited
her to come over and see what's going on. I would appreciate it
if the House would join me in welcoming Mrs. Ursula
Reudiger.
MR. SPEAKER: I'd also like to welcome, from my own
constituency, 52 people who live in the New Vista Society
dwellings in Burnaby-Edmonds who are here.
Introduction of bills.
CREDIT UNIONS ACT
On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 82, Credit Unions
Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the
House after today.
Oral questions.
ICBC STRIKE EFFECT ON ISSUE
OF DRIVERS' LICENCES AND PERMITS
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the
Minister of Transport and Communications. What arrangements
have been made to issue drivers' licences to people who need
them for the first time?
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and
Communications) : No arrangements have been made to issue
drivers' licences for the first time. No arrangements can be
made because of the strike situation now in place by the
workers for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.
MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can these people,
then, drive without a licence and be assured they will not be
prosecuted?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. No one can drive without a valid
driver's licence without being prosecuted.
MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact
that no mobile homes can be towed because they cannot get
temporary permits, what is the Minister going to do to
accommodate the people who are in dire need of housing?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take that question as notice.
MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister on the same
subject — the ICBC difficulties of the moment.
I would cite for the Minister order-in-council 3831,
November 22, 1973, which is the regulation governing the
automobile insurance operation. Page 659 of The British
Columbia Gazette for 1973 also makes reference there to the
definition of an insured driver — that is "one who holds a
subsisting driver's certificate." Would the Minister indicate
to the House, Mr. Speaker, if it is correct that persons who do
not have valid driver's certificates — not licences but
certificates — are in fact uninsured by ICBC during this strike
situation?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I have already clarified that
particular point. There is no problem related thereto.
MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister tells
us one thing but the statutes, as I understand them....
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the Minister could indicate if the
statute has been altered. Has a regulation been issued since
the beginning of this week to cover this contingency?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest to the Member that he read the
legislation covering the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,
the Automobile Insurance Act, and all of the regulations. You
will find that there is room in there to do what is being
done.
MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My supplemental is addressed
to the Minister. Just a few seconds ago he informed the House
that you could not get a driver's licence for 16-year-olds. I
would like to make sure that he is sure of his statement,
because five minutes before coming into the House I phoned the
motor vehicle branch and they assured me that a 16-year-old or
anyone from out of province could come into the motor vehicle
branch, could write the test, could take the road test, could
get a learner's permit, can get a driver's licence, and the
branch merely cannot give them a certificate. They can get the
licence and they can get the test. I wouldn't like the public
to be misled by what the Minister has just said.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: A learner cannot...
MR. MORRISON: Yes, he can.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...get a driver's licence that is
acceptable in any way, shape or form, for the
[ Page 2527 ]
very simple reason that while it is possible to renew a
driver's licence, because that is not related to a document
that requires action by ICBC, the initial driver's licence does
require a document related to ICBC.
MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I think we should clarify that
point.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a time for
argument.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have already clarified it, but I will
check again just to be sure.
MR. MORRISON: I think there is a considerable difference
between a licence and....
Interjections.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. I won't check. I won't check.
How do you like that?
MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, could I join in
welcoming these distinguished legal gentlemen here today? We
haven't had so much legal talent in this House for a long time.
I assure the Hon. Solicitor-General that if he stays around
long enough, our own little step will be taken to abolish
capital punishment when we wipe out the guillotine rule on
debate 45A.
APPOINTMENT OF B.C. HYDRO HEAD
My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water
Resources. I would like to ask the Minister in his capacity as
a director of B.C. Hydro: have any discussions been held
recently with a view to selecting a successor to the head of B.
C. Hydro, Dr. Cass-Beggs?
HON. R. A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):
With respect to the directors, no, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I did not specify
specifically a meeting of directors. Could he then specify at
what meeting the discussions did take place for a replacement
for Dr. Cass-Beggs?
HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I have no comment, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is clear there were such discussions.
May I ask the Minister a supplementary? Was one of the points of difference
between the government and Dr. Cass-Beggs the question of re-opening the Columbia
River treaty and Dr. Cass-Beggs' opposition to re-opening the Columbia River
treaty?
HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: That's absolute nonsense, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I won't make a
political speech but I will welcome our friends from the other
provinces. Regarding the Conservatives in our midst, you are
most welcome. It is only a matter of time before we have a few
more over here permanently.
AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you didn't want to make a political
speech.
MR. WALLACE: I sure didn't want to make a political
speech.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
CLOSING OF ROADS
TO CAN-CEL OPERATIONS
MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water
Resources. With regard to the notification by the Nishga tribal
council to the Minister that roads to Can-Cel operations will
be closed starting June 1, could I ask the Minister how many
loggers are likely to become unemployed as a consequence? Of
that total, how many are native Indian people?
HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I don't have specific figures, Mr.
Speaker. A fair number of the Nishga people have worked for
Canadian Cellulose, however.
MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the
Minister if he has set up any arrangements to meet with the
Nishga council prior to the meeting which has already been
announced by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)
for June 26 and 27?
HON. R. A, WILLIAMS: It's currently a matter between
Canadian Cellulose and the Indian people in that region, Mr.
Speaker. As the Member is aware, the Hon. Minister of Human
Resources is responsible for these other matters.
MR. WALLACE: A final quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is
the Minister then taking a hands-off attitude? Is there not the
thought that perhaps, since this negotiation meeting has been
set up for as soon as June 26, we could ask the Nishga to
reconsider the decision to close the road pending the outcoming of the meeting on the 26?
[ Page 2528 ]
HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I regard it, Mr. Speaker, as a matter
for direct action between the officers of Canadian Cellulose
and those people.
SAHARA DEVELOPMENT HOME GRANTS
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
a question to the Minister of Housing. His department has had
under consideration for over two weeks the matter of certain
judgments taken under the home acquisition grant Act by people
who had been involved in the project known as Sahara
Development. I wonder if the Minister could advise what result
that examination has produced.
HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Member, I
have just today signed a letter to yourself which indicates
that the work is still proceeding. There is one person working
on it full time. I cannot hurry it along at the risk of his
work being incomplete, so I am looking for something very soon.
I have hoped by this time to have had his report.
GOVERNMENT LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE
MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Public Works. Can
the Minister confirm that in January this year his department
leased for five years office space located at 59 West Pender
Street, Vancouver?
HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I'll take that
previous question as notice; I've noted the details.
The day last week when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Bennett) was in, he asked about property rented in Vancouver.
He asked if I would confirm that the government purchased last
November a seven-storey building located in the 600 block Bute
Street in Vancouver. We didn't buy a building listed as such.
We did acquire, for the Vancouver Community College, a property
at 1190 Melville Street, and this was turned over to the
Vancouver Community College for their use and renovation. I
understand they have been doing that since.
MR, CHABOT: Supplementary question. The annual rental on
this space at 59 West Pender Street is $45,000 per year,
triple net. In view of the fact that this space has stood
vacant for almost six months, can the Minister give the House a
reason for the apparent waste of more than $20,000 in rent for
unused space?
MR. SPEAKER: I think it's obvious that your supplementary
should patiently wait in the sideline until you get the answer
to your first question.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: As many of the other questions that have been asked
by our friends across the way....
MR. FRASER: They haven't been answered.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: They have all been answered, and this one
will be answered directly, as all the others have. But it's
impossible to take an address like that.... We'll probably
find out it's another Kentucky Fried. (Laughter.)
MR. CHABOT: Shocking waste of taxpayers' money.
OTTAWA SHARE OF OIL TAXES
MR. GIBSON: A question for the Premier. When the Premier
came back from one of the federal-provincial conferences on
natural gas, one of the great victories he brought back was
that our government was going to pay Ottawa directly for the
deemed profit taxes by the oil companies so they couldn't
launder and shrink them. Now I'd ask the Premier, in view of a
statement by the head of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. reported in
this morning's Province that a bill is to be submitted
to the Legislature that will enable the corporations to
reimburse producers for extra taxes demanded in this way by
Ottawa, is this a major change in government policy?
HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, not at all. We're still
negotiating with Ottawa as to the method of payment. We still
believe in the principle that the oil companies should not be
allowed to launder and shrink their money as they are in other
provinces. We'd like to see the people get a fair shake here,
and we're negotiating with Ottawa as to how the payments are to
be made.
MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the
Premier if payments have been made to Ottawa, then, without
legislative authorization?
HON. MR. BARRETT: No payments have been made yet. It shows
that the oil companies haven't earned the amount of money to
have payments — on the basis of their arguments.
MR. GIBSON: Yes, but....
HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got to give a full answer, Mr.
Speaker. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: I wish one would take his seat.
HON. MR. BARRETT: The deal that we offered Ottawa would have
given them 33 per cent of the increase in the oil price. The
deal accepted by Ottawa
[ Page 2529 ]
is 25 per cent. We have not paid anything yet. That's the
federal Liberals for you; they shrink the money themselves.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the question.
DETAILS OF HIGHWAY MILEAGE
HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Answering the Hon.
Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the
answer is 3,558 miles of road through some of the most
precipitous territory in this province. I really believe that
if this Member has integrity, if he's going to level with the
people of this House, the Members of this House, and the people
of this province, he will tell the House right now: what is the
question? (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to answer that
question?
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, I'll
take the answer as notice. (Laughter.)
STUDENT JOBS IN MINES DEPARTMENT
HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): I believe it was the
Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who asked
me a question in regard to student employment in my department
between 1974 and 1975. In 1974 there were 52 jobs. In 1975
there were 20.
ELIGIBILITY FOR RENTER'S GRANT
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
under the renter's resource grant tenants are entitled to apply
for a renter's grant after June 1, 1974, and if this
entitlement still exists in law, can the Minister please assure
the House that the applications by persons who are eligible but
have not received a grant in the last 12 months will indeed by
honoured?
HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, they'll be honoured.
In fact, senior citizens will, in effect, be getting a
double grant for this year. The other, of course, will be
pending the changes promised in the budget to the other
renters.
ANNUAL MEETING OF
B.C. ASSOCIATION OF STRATA CORPORATIONS
While I am on my feet I might answer the question brought up by the Member
for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I am advised that the B.C. Association of Strata
Corporations has a membership of 200; 63 members attended the annual meeting
which was held at the B.C. Institute of Technology on September 14, 1974.
CHANGES IN RENTER'S GRANT
LEGISLATION
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In light of the Minister's reply to the
first question, could I ask him why letters are going out
refusing to pay the renter's grant on the grounds that there
may be legislative changes in the future, despite the fact
that at the present time there is legislation which entitles
these people to the grant? May I ask him whether his department
has adopted the policy of simply not honouring legislation when
they have suspicion that it might be changed sometime in the
future?
HON. MR. NICOLSON : Well, the change is certainly going to be
to the benefit of the renters who need this type of assistance.
Of course, I know there has been no effort spared by some
Members of the opposition to create anarchy and to delay the
business of the House, but we are quite concerned and we are
taking this remedy of delivering this for the senior citizens
of this province. Not only will they be getting this year's
renter's grant but they will also be getting double for this
year.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE Attorney-GENERAL
On vote 21: corrective services, $27,501,093 — continued.
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and
Communications) : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,
report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 27
Barrett
Strachan
Nimsick
Stupich
Hartley
Calder
Brown
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Levi
Lorimer
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
Lea
Young
Radford
Lauk
Nicolson
Skelly
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
[ Page 2530 ]
Anderson, G.H.
Steves
Lewis
NAYS — 13
Smith
Phillips
Chabot
Fraser
Richter
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Wallace
Williams, L.A.
Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the
division in the Journals of the House.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress
and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a
division took place in committee and requests that it be
recorded in the Journals for posterity.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it being private Members'
day and the government always observing private Members' day to
the fullest extent, I would like the House to move to motions
and adjourned debates on motions, and I would ask consent of
the House to proceed to the adjourned debate on motion 16.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on motion 16, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a
pleasure to take my place in this House and debate the
amendment to the motion which is before us at this time. What
we are debating in fact is the closure patch up motion and
amendment brought on and caused by an arrogant government, led
by an iron-fisted Premier of this province, a man who not too
many weeks ago suggested that he would never deviate from the
arbitrary standing order that was introduced last session
limiting the right of people in this Legislature to question
the government on the expenditures of tax dollars — a right
that has been historical in this House and a right that is
historical in most democratic parliaments. Yet we saw the
attempt on the part of that government, and the people of
British Columbia should recognize what that government was
attempting to do when it arbitrarily set up the maximum of 135
hours for the scrutiny of the expenditures of over $3.2
billion.
We warned the government last year when they brought in these dictatorial standing
orders that took away from the Members the right to question the expenditures
of tax dollars, but the government would not heed the advice from the opposition
regarding this new dictatorial standing order restricting the right to question
the expenditures.
Now, with the government's indication of acceptance of the
amendment to the motion, we see that the Premier has finally
taken the step backwards into restoring a little bit of
democracy back into this Legislature.
We saw the route march that took place not only in the
committee but in the statements from the Premier. The farce of
an estimates
schedule was set up by the government on April 15
restricting the rights of Members of this House to question
Ministers — some as little as two and a half hours — denying
the right to properly scrutinize the expenditure of hundreds of
millions of taxpayers' dollars. Over $2 billion were being
denied the right by that government over there...
AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a third billion.
MR. CHABOT: ...the right on behalf of the people of this
province to examine the expenditures of two and one-third
billion dollars. The greatest increase in the source of revenue
in the budget this year is from personal income tax from the
back pockets of the taxpayers of this province. And the
government's not going to allow us to fully scrutinize this
increased ravaging of the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of this
province.
Yes, three and a half hours here on the Minister of Health's
(Hon. Mr. Cocke) $716 million. That's all that government was
prepared to give us to question the expenditures of tax
dollars.
MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It was your own doing.
MR. CHABOT: It was a farce! Now the Member for Shuswap says
that it was our own doing. Well, he was in the committee, and
if he doesn't know what was going on, well, it's not my
fault.
I listened very attentively when the Premier spoke
yesterday, when he talked about the fragile system in which we
live. Oh, it's a fragile democracy in which we live, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier was telling us. But the Premier wasn't
telling us, Mr. Speaker, that he disrupted that fragile system
of democracy we were accustomed to in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right!
MR. CHABOT: He is the problem, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!
MR. CHABOT: He caused the problem by his
[ Page 2531 ]
dictatorial actions of limitation on the right of debate in
this House. And then he comes in, in his calm, rational, social
worker approach, trying to smooth the waters. "Oh, fellows,
we'll give you a little bit of democracy back. But we must be
rational about all this." He's trying to kid the people of this
province that it wasn't his doing — the establishment of the
arbitrary 135-hour limit on debate of estimates. He caused the
problem. Now he's trying to show this government as a rational
government.
The Premier talked about correspondence that he's receiving
in his office. He says the bulk of the correspondence says: "A
plague on both your houses." I'd like to challenge that
statement from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, because I suggest that
the bulk of the correspondence he was receiving was a plague on
his house.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. CHABOT: That's what it was, a plague on his house for
his undemocratic actions, irresponsible actions in the
introduction of the standing order regarding debate.
If the Premier feels that the correspondence said, "A plague
on both your houses," I'm sure he'd have no hesitation
in wanting to table the correspondence so that the Members as
well could look at it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. CHABOT: We never received any correspondence saying
plague on us for fighting for democracy in this House. I'm sure
the Premier received a lot of correspondence telling him that
his actions were irresponsible in not allowing the right of
people to examine, to scrutinize the expenditures of tax
dollars.
I'll tell you, it's not only the correspondence that the
Premier has been receiving. I suggest that there has been a bit
of a rebellion in his party as well that forced him to bring
back a little bit of democracy in this Legislature.
Now the leader of the Liberal Party, who's absent at the
moment....
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): What's left of it!
MR. CHABOT: Yes, what's left of it. He wrote a letter to the
Premier regarding the motion and the amendments which we're
presently debating, and he said: "I propose that the hours from
10 to 12 every day, Monday to Thursday inclusive, be devoted to
Committee of the Whole House for the examination of estimates
in the traditional manner." Well, he has me slightly confused
because I've always believed that the estimates have been
debated in Committee of Supply, not in Committee of the Whole House. And the fact
that he says "examine" rather than the amendment which we're
debating which gives us the right to debate....
Now no one's yet clearly pointed out to me what is meant by
the right to examine in Committee of the Whole House.
Interjection.
MR. CHABOT: But it's amended, yes. And thank God for that!
It's amended to put it back where it rightfully belongs: in
Committee of Supply, with the right of Members to debate — for
a limited period of time, for two hours a day, between the
hours of 10 and 12 on a daily basis. That gives us the ability
to question government expenditures for eight hours a week.
Now if one was to take a hypothetical figure and look at the
number of hours required for completion of the examination of
the estimates, and if the hypothetical figure is 80 hours, it
appears that unless we lift rule 45A, this parliament will be
sitting two hours a day until some time in August. So I feel
certain the government will go all the way, and I urge the
government to go all the way to remove 45A so we can have
unimpeded discussions and unimpeded debate and questions and
answers from the government regarding the expenditure of these
tax dollars.
Oh, I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, talking about the
right to debate and talking about the Committee of Supply when
I was in the committee, the standing orders and private bills
committee which the Member suggested I had not attended, but
the record clearly shows that my attendance was substantially
better than many of the Members on the other side of the
House.
But I remember the regimentation and how they hammered those
standing orders through against the objections of the Members
of the opposition. I remember that very clearly. I remember the
laughter that came up from those Members in that committee when
I said that with the implementation of these new standing
orders a little bit of democracy had died in British Columbia.
They laughed! Now they are seeing the error of being tied to a
harsh party line in these committees.
When they vote on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, they will be
repudiating the undemocratic action they took in that
committee, repudiating the undemocratic action they have taken
in this House as well — and thank God for that.
But I suggest that to make this amendment to the motion
really functional, there is an urgent need to reconstitute the
Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills
so that we can again examine, again have the opportunity of
restoring free
[ Page 2532 ]
speech in this assembly. I want to urge the government to
reconstitute that, to remove these obnoxious standing orders
that impede free speech.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt, but I
point out that you must stick to the amendment which deals with
only two propositions in the amendment — changes in
wording.
MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: And there is already on the order paper motion
18 which deals with the subject you are now trying to
debate.
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there was a fair amount of latitude
allowed yesterday in the debate here on the question of the
amendment to the motion. And I'm talking about the right of
debate; I'm talking about the Committee of Supply. I'm
suggesting that the committee be reconstituted so that we can
look at the matter of Committee of Supply and the right of free
debate in Committee of Supply. I want to make sure this House
once again becomes civilized, once again becomes democratic and
once again has responsible rules.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers of this
province demand that that action be taken.
HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
when speaking in this House, I think the Premier tried to bring
some calm to this House, and calm to the Province of British
Columbia in political terms.
MR. CHABOT: He caused the problem.
HON. MR. LEA: Now I think if we could have ended the debate
on that note, I think the Members in this Legislature and the
people of British Columbia would have been better off for it.
But what has happened since then is more political rhetoric
from the official opposition.
So I think what we have to do is re-examine what has taken
place in this House over the past month or two.
When those new rules were brought into this House, yes, the
Members of the opposition did say what the Hon. Member for
Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is saying today. He said that it
won't work. We on this side of the House were crazy enough to
think that it would work because we thought we were dealing
with a responsible official opposition.
Wherever there are time limitations, as there are in other Houses, if the time
is used wisely then there is ample opportunity for Ministers' estimates to be
scrutinized and debated. But it became very obvious to me, and I think to a
great many other people, that the official opposition decided at the outset
that they would handle their
part in the estimates frivolously, that they would
handle them frivolously so that they could come to the point where we did come
in this House, into chaos — chaos brought about by the official opposition.
Now they can bite their tongues because I would like to talk
about that amendment. Did you see the expressions on their
faces when we accepted it? Oh, they didn't think we had an open
government. We accepted that amendment. Then they thought: "Now
what can we do? Gee, we're going to have to go back and talk
about estimates, which we don't want to do. All we want to do
is make political points in this province." That's what it's
all about, Mr. Speaker.
Now there isn't the issue any more — the issue they brought
about by handling the estimates frivolously in this House,
wasting the House's time, wasting the taxpayers' money — the
taxpayers whom they are so fond of saying that they support.
That's what they were doing.
Now we have said: "Okay, if the official opposition cannot
act in a responsible manner, of course that rule won't work."
We're going to have to take a look at those rules because of an
irresponsible opposition.
I believe that the people in this province have suffered
because of what has gone on in this House, brought about by
that official opposition. I believe the Premier is right, Mr.
Speaker. I believe the people in this province are saying: "You
know, there's a political hassle going on in the House, I don't
think we like the Conservatives, the independents, the
Liberals, the Social Credit or the NDP." I believe that it is
dangerous to our system to have the people out there thinking
in those terms, and I believe they are. I think it's going to
get to the point where they don't vote for the party or the
candidate they like the best, but they are going to end up
voting for the one they can't stand the least, that's all.
That's what's going to happen.
MR. McCLELLAND: What a stupid statement!
HON. MR. LEA: And I'll say that the official opposition has
brought politics in this province to an all-time low level
because what they are doing is ruining the faith people have in
politicians if it can be ruined any more. They had Watergate in
the United States, and what that official opposition is trying
to do through their handling of the estimates in this House is
to give us a scandal in this province that will make the people
in this province not respect Canadian and British Columbian
politicians. And they don't care; all they care about is
trying to get back into power because they are just so upset.
You know, they think the people of the province made a
mistake.
[ Page 2533 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: They have already done that.
HON. MR. LEA: That's what they think — it's a mistake if
they aren't in power. So I would say that on this amendment
that the only thing that has really happened is that we have a
very surprised official opposition. They didn't want this
government to accept that amendment; now they are going to
figure out how they can vote against it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
HON. MR. LEA: But I don't see how they can. They're stuck
with their own mess, and that's the way it should be.
MR. G. F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Hon. Minister of Highways was imputing motives to
this side of the House which he has no need to do to explain
the actions of anyone on this side of the House in opposing the
closure situation we have seen here this spring. There is
nothing wrong at any time in taking the strongest action one
can to defend the rights of the Legislature. I suggest to that
Minister of Highways that that is what we have been doing.
MR. CHABOT: Right on!
MR. GIBSON: The Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace), speaking
to this House on this question yesterday, said that this was an
issue on which we should seek compromise. I respect the
Conservative leader, but, with deep respect to him, I say that
this is not an issue for compromise. This is an issue for doing
the right thing. If someone comes along and says: "I have for
you two propositions. One proposition will take away half of
your rights and the other will take away a quarter of your
rights. Shall we compromise at three-eighths?" That is what the
government is asking this House to do.
The Premier, in his well-put talk yesterday afternoon said a
number of things that I have to take issue with.
AN HON. MEMBER: Take a look at Ottawa.
MR. A. V. FRASER (Cariboo): We're in British Columbia, never
mind Ottawa. Let them run what they want.
MR. GIBSON: He suggested, in effect, that because the people
in the rest of the province....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. GIBSON: He suggested that because people in the
province, outside of this chamber, might not understand the
chapter and verse of what we are talking about — although I
think he underrates the public a bit in that regard — that, in
effect, because it's not a public issue it's not important. Mr.
Speaker, I suggest to you that it's tremendously important;
it's like the rules of a courtroom. I am not a lawyer, but I
know enough of the rules of court to know that they are more
important than any given case. If in a court, counsel were to
be denied, for example, the right to cross-examine witnesses —
which is very similar to what we attempted to do with Ministers
on estimates — then that is far more important than any given
Minister or any given estimate or any given government. And no
government has the right to make that kind of change. The Premier went on to suggest that there had been sins in
the past. He went through the history of all-night sittings. He
said: "Would this House like to go back to those days?" I
suggest to him that the sins of the past do not justify the
sins of today or the sins of the future.
He spoke of the fragile system we live under and the need
for respect for the rules of this House. I am as one with him
on that, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest to him the fundamental
proposal that the whole question of the rule of law presupposes
the consent of the governed. The consent of the governed — in
this case of the unanimous opposition of this House — was not
obtained in the bringing in of these particular rules we are
debating today. Unless there is governance by consent, then the
rule of law cannot be expected to easily obtain.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this particular amendment
and amended resolution, if it is amended, that we are debating
today is one which will not effect the changes that speakers on
the government and the opposition side of the House have said
that they hoped it would do. Yesterday, just before the close
of debate, I raised a point of order for Your Honour's
consideration, which you looked at briefly and had a few things
to say about and, I think, didn't come to any final
conclusions. I have since then had a chance to study further
the exact language of this motion as amended and as it applies
to rule 45A.
I think there is no question but that the main motion — the
motion as not amended — would have been in order. I strongly
disagree with it, but that's not the question at the moment. It
would have been in order; I believe that.
The motion as it would be amended relates not to the
Committee of the Whole House but to the Committee of Supply.
That would mean, Mr. Speaker, that each morning, were this
resolution passed, we would go into Committee of Supply at 10
a.m. The Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would call
Committee of Supply. The Chairman
[ Page 2534 ]
would be compelled to turn to page 18 of our standing orders
and commence at once to put votes with no debate, amendment or
reduction of any kind. I suggest, Your Honour, that that rule —
that iniquitous rule — must be followed by the Chairman unless
he is otherwise explicitly authorized. I suggest that the
language of this amendment does not so do.
The second part of the amendment would have changed the word
"examine" to the word "debate." It may be that the mover of the
amendment felt that this would guarantee debate and would
override standing order 45A. I submit that it would not and
that it is necessary, in order to make this motion effective,
for this House to include specific language overriding standing
order 45A which I will propose before I sit down.
I would go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think if we try
and suggest to ourselves that this motion would eliminate
closure on the consideration of estimates, we would be
deceived. I point out to you, Sir, that this resolution, if
approved — and even if standing order 45 were suspended for the
purpose of the morning session — would permit only an
additional eight hours per week of estimates debate.
Let us say that this House in the ordinary course of its
legislative considerations — its other business — perhaps has
before it another three weeks. I pick the figure out of the
air. Some may argue two; some may argue five. It doesn't
matter; take any number of weeks around that quantity. Three
weeks at eight hours a week is 24 hours' or so worth of
estimates consideration — an extension, Mr. Speaker, of less
than one-fifth of the time originally allotted to the
consideration of estimates. During that original 135 hours we
passed less than one-third of the total estimate allocation. I
don't suggest we need three times as much time to conclude that
discussion but I do suggest that 24 hours is certainly not
enough.
Therefore, what happens if this amended resolution were to
become the law of this House? You will note that the last
clause of the resolution suggests: "...this order to be
effective so long as the House has fixed the date for its next
sitting unless otherwise ordered." That admits of two kinds of
changes and two possibilities for the invocation of
closure.
First of all, the government may any day it so chooses
otherwise order and thereby suspend the protective effect of
this resolution — any day.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Every day.
MR. GIBSON: Every day, if it wishes, as the Hon. Member for
Saanich points out.
The other point is that it is effective....
Interjection.
MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about the language of the main
motion now, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), not the
amendment. The other point is that it's effective only so long
as the House has fixed the date of its next sitting. When the
House decides that it's time to adjourn for the summer and does
not fix a date for the next sitting but rather leaves it to the
call of the Speaker in consultation with the government, again
the protective effect, such as it is, of this resolution would
disappear.
That day the House would again go back into regular
Committee of Supply in the afternoon. Closure, the guillotine,
would fall again; votes would be put again, one after another,
without any possibility of debate, which is the very thing that
we have been fighting against.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that eight hours a week for, say,
the next three weeks, is in no way going to avoid that problem.
The government is fooling itself and this House is fooling
itself if it thinks that this represents the solution to the
problem. It does not. The solution to this problem is to allow
this small, 55-seat House, supposedly full of full-time MLAs,
to sit here and debate and question the $3.2 billion
expenditure estimates of this government for so long as is
required to get the kind of answers the opposition and other
Members of this House feel they may need. That is what is
required.
I might say in passing, and I will elaborate this more fully
when we come to debate the main motion, if we do, that this
situation makes no redress of the fact that we have already had
to pass certain votes under the closure rule with no
possibility of discussion. I refer to the vote of the Hon.
Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). We were given
two-and-a-half hours to debate the estimates of that gentleman,
who is responsible for some of the most important
administrative questions of the government of British
Columbia.
Interjection.
MR. GIBSON: One of the Hon. Members down there in the NDP
backbench says: "Whose fault was that?"
MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Ernie Hall's.
MR. GIBSON: It was the fault of the Hon. House Leader (Hon.
Mrs. Dailly), your Minister — that is whose fault it was, Mr.
Member. That is who it was that brought in that allocation that
said two and a half hours for the Attorney-General, and I
think it was three and a half hours for the Minister of Health
(Hon. Mr. Cocke) and so on and so on and so on.
Interjections.
[ Page 2535 ]
MR. GIBSON: Seven hundred million dollars in three and a
half hours. That's right, Mr. Member. That's whose fault it
was, Mr. Member. You stand up and make your own speech and try
to wriggle out of that one.
Mr. Speaker, this makes no provision for getting those votes
back and getting the chance to properly debate them which we
have never had. It is unacceptable for that reason, if for no
other. But its gravest defect, with respect to you, Sir, and
whatever further ruling and consideration you might wish to
make, is, I suggest, that it does not get around the problem
that rule 45A takes effect immediately the morning session
starts or the afternoon session, because it is nowhere
otherwise ruled out by this motion. Unless it is explicitly
ruled out, the plain language of the standing orders must
apply, iniquitous as they are.
Secondly, even if that problem were surmounted for the two
hours each morning, it is not going to provide us with enough
time to properly discuss the estimates of this government by
the time the session ends. We will again be back into
closure.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move a subamendment to this
motion, of which I have a copy here, substantially in the
following words:
That this House should strike the words "from this order" through
to "otherwise ordered" of motion 16 and substitute the following words: "until
the estimates shall be regularly disposed of, without invocation of rule 45A."
That is an attempt to clarify and, I hope, to put into
better language — and probably better language still can be
found — what I think to be the wish of most of the Members on
the opposition side and what I hope to be the wish of the
government in its apparently conciliatory frame of mind
yesterday. I would be glad to send a copy over to the Hon.
Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) if he so wishes.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member's amendment would be
out of order at this time for a variety of reasons — first,
because we are considering an amendment to an amendment.
MR. GIBSON: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, it says to strike the words in the
original motion, does it not? Isn't that what you mean?
MR. GIBSON: No, it is to strike the words in the amended
motion. If you will note, it says at the top: "Subamendment to
motion 16."
MR. SPEAKER: This is the motion of the Hon. Member for North
Peace River (Mr. Smith) that you are proposing to amend...
MR. GIBSON: That's right, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: ...by striking the words "this order".... There are no
words to that effect in this particular amendment, so you are really
dealing with an amendment to the main motion.
MR. GIBSON: I would have considered it as an amendment to
the amendment which was given, but perhaps you might....
MR. SPEAKER: There are several grounds why this would be out
of order at this time. First, it is considered out of order to
make an amendment when there is on the order paper.... It
would be anticipation to propose that there's an amendment on
this motion when it's on the order paper in a separate form.
Secondly, it would be incongruous at this time to try to put it
in and have the House consider it when, in effect, it would be
altering the amendment which is presently being debated.
Now I'll read the present amendment before the House, which
proposes that the main motion, 16, be amended by deleting in
the first line the words "a Committee of the Whole House" and
substituting therefore "the Committee of Supply," and to
further amend by deleting the word "examine" in the third line
and substituting therefore the word "debate."
The House must deal with that amendment, either approve it
or defeat it, and, indeed, I may have to put the questions
separately because each of these contains a separate
proposition. Then, before dealing with your amendment, which
would purport, really, to alter the substance of the original
motion by deleting the words that are in the original motion:
"this order to be effective so long as the House has fixed a
day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered".... Now you see you have
definitely moved into the main motion, and you're purporting to amend
that. Therefore it is out of order at this time to propose that while
we have the present amendment before the House. To give you the
authority on that, may I cite Beauchesne at page 173....
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, just before that, could I ask if
leave might be given to change the wording somewhat in a way
that might make it acceptable by adding before it the words
"and to further amend by" — in other words, more or less a
continuation of the current amendment we have. And I would
suggest, Your Honour, that that might well be considered in
order up until the time Your Honour makes a decision as to
whether it must be severed or not.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a reference in.... Oh, yes, I had it
marked here before because this problem
[ Page 2536 ]
has arisen before.
At page 172 of Beauchesne it says: "It is out of
order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion
standing on the order paper as a notice of motion."
Therefore, it would be anticipating the decision of the
House on something that's been ordered for consideration, and
that is one ground. Even though you may cure it with the other,
we are still faced with that problem. It seems to me that you
have the opportunity to move that once the House has dealt with
this amendment, and then we're back on the main motion. I would
suggest that even then it would be out of order. But once the
House has dealt with the main motion, then we come to notice of
motion 17, which proposes precisely what you're suggesting:
that this House suspend the provisions of standing order 45A,
Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session. Surely
that is what is the intent of your amendment.
MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Speaker. The intent of my amendment is
that this resolution which we are currently debating can be
made operational by exempting this resolution from the effect
of standing order 45. I argue that without that exemption this
motion is of no effect even if it were passed, because the
rules for the Chairman in Committee of Supply are quite clear,
and this motion does not waive those rules. I would suggest,
Your Honour, that they cannot be waived without explicit
reference to them. To argue otherwise would be to say we can't
change the rules of this House even if everyone agrees.
MR. SPEAKER: I would also cite for you, on page 169 of
Beauchesne , on the question of amendments:
"Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the
amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the
amendment, but it should deal with matters that are not covered
by the amendment. If it is intended to bring up matters foreign
to the amendment, the Member should wait until the amendment is
disposed of and move a new amendment."
That is somewhat in line with what I've already suggested,
that the time is not now. You will have the opportunity to
speak again on the main motion, since you're speaking on the
amendment, and you can then propose an amendment on which you
can speak, I would presume, providing we don't run into that
other rule about anticipation.
MR. GIBSON: Right. There might, indeed, be some merit in
that, Mr. Speaker. It will give the government a little chance
to consider this if they wish to consider it. I will be glad to
move that at what you indicate would be the appropriate
time.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order. On a question of
anticipation, I believe that the motion itself, as has been
explained by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.
Gibson), would indeed be very difficult — in fact, impossible —
to operate unless we concurrently suspended the operations of
rule 45A. It's not a question of waiting until some subsequent
time when a separate matter is taken up, as you have indicated,
even though it happens on the order paper that there are two
motions.
In actual fact, the motion we are currently discussing,
motion 16, simply could not operate effectively, no matter how
we put it in force or voted on it, unless within that motion we
excluded a rule of the House which would otherwise make this
motion a nullity or an absurdity.
So referring you not to Beauchesne , Mr. Speaker, but
to our own primary authority of May , on page 381, on the
relevancy of amendments, I think you would have to agree, if
you examine the bottom of page 381, that this would be a
relevant amendment, and the later motion really does not affect
the fact that the Hon. Member has proposed an amendment which
deals directly with this particular motion 16, and which,
unless it is considered, would probably make motion 16,
regardless of whether it is passed or not, irrelevant in any
event.
So I would urge Your Honour to consider, when you are taking
this matter under advisement, as you promised us you will, page
381, 382, 383 and 384 of May , where the questions of
amendments are dealt with, and where I think you will see that
a later motion in no way can prevent a valid amendment to the
motion on the order paper and under discussion at the present
time.
MR. SPEAKER: I point out on your point of order that it
cannot be concluded, first, what will happen to motion 17 when
we come to it, and it is obviously ordered for today.
Secondly, I point out.... If the House wishes to take some
action on that, it has the opportunity afforded to it to take
that action that would, in effect, dispense with standing order
45A if the House chose to adopt that motion, which is already
there and which we are anticipating. You are anticipating that
difficulty before the House has dealt with it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Secondly, I point out that standing order
45A(3) reads: "At the conclusion of the 45 sittings...contemplated under this standing order...." — that is a
specific group of sittings that are contemplated — questions
will be put without amendment — or debate. Therefore it
identifies the sittings to which that standing order
refers.
The motion before us deals with an entirely
[ Page 2537 ]
different set of sittings, in the mornings as specifically
pointed out, between 10 and 12 o'clock. The proposal of the
amendment before us deals with Committee of Supply as a change
instead of Committee of the Whole House, and to debate, which
would be, in effect, contrary to standing order 45A, which says
without debate — "not being subject to amendment or debate."
Therefore it follows that it is clearly singled out as a
different meeting of the Committee of Supply in which different
rules, apparently, would apply. They can't be mixed up together
by reason of the wording of this proposal of motion 16 and the
amendment made by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr.
Smith).
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,
on the two questions you raised: one is anticipating, and the
second is the 45 sittings.
The question of anticipation, I think, should be looked at a
little more generously than perhaps you have done so. You have
stated that it would be anticipating a future motion if we
amended this one. I would suggest to you that it would be
anticipating a future motion if we failed to amend this one to
make it, in itself, intelligible and workable. If we pretended
that because of some future motion on the order paper we would
be unable to use this particular motion, it would indeed be
anticipating....
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is anticipating trouble which
may not exist...
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I trust that I am.
MR. SPEAKER: ...if you are incorrect. These are entirely
separate matters, the two propositions set out to the House,
the one contained in standing order 45A and the other contained
in the proposal for a sessional order which is now being
debated.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the second....
MR. SPEAKER: Between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock. It surely
cannot have any application to the ordinary sittings
contemplated.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the second point I would
like to comment on.
On the first point, Mr. Speaker, I accept your correction.
Perhaps we are anticipating a motion and we should not do so;
therefore we should simply consider what amendment will make
this particular motion intelligible. I certainly accept your
correction there. We won't make any further reference to any
later motions.
But the second point of the 45 sittings: as rule 45A states at the present
time, it is at the conclusion of 45 sittings that rule 45A(3), on page 18 —
I specify on page 18 because we happen to have three rule 45(3)s, and a very
badly worded rule — says that we would have to proceed to a vote.
Now you are quite correct, Sir, in indicating that we are
talking about a separate meeting of the committee in the
mornings. Whether we talk about a separate meeting of the
committee in the morning or not, it doesn't alter the fact that
the 45 sittings contemplated in rule 45 have indeed come to an
end, terminated, and these other sittings have no bearing on
whether or not those 45 are....
MR. SPEAKER: And the proposal before the House is to proceed
on a sessional order that would make it possible to have
meetings of the Committee of Supply in the mornings between
specific times and to debate certain votes before that
committee. Therefore, in effect, it seems to be supplanting to
some extent the operation of the other standing order. I
doesn't mean that there is any incongruity, providing that you
identify in your mind which sittings you are talking about.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's the end of 45 sittings.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on the particular and new point of
order, that somehow it is possible to compartmentalize
Committee of Supply and have a Committee of Supply to which
rule 45 does apply and a Committee of Supply to which is
doesn't apply, I would ask Your Honour to cast your mind back
to the day when the 45 sittings ran out. One of the questions
before the House at that time, on which you ruled, Sir, was:
when is "forthwith"? And "forthwith" was found to be an elastic
word....
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and I'll tell you why. Parliament cannot
so tie its hands, or the Speaker should not try to construe the
rules so as to tie the hands of the House so inexorably that it
is unable to do other business when it wishes to do it.
MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Therefore when it is to embark on the course,
it should proceed with it. But if it wishes to rise, it should
have the right to rise simply because it would be, really,
incredible that the House could find itself going on day and
night without even breaking for dinner.
MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am
prepared to accept the rule, if you wish, for the moment that
"forthwith" is when you say it is. But that isn't what I was
discussing.
What I was saying is that that obviously casts forward in
time the application of rule 45A. Rule
[ Page 2538 ]
45A clearly does not depend only on the first 45 sittings of
the Committee of Supply, or the first 135 hours, whichever is
the later. Rule 45A continues in effect until it is exhausted,
and continues to apply to every meeting of the Committee of
Supply unless otherwise ordered. It is not, respectfully, I
believe, otherwise ordered in the terms of the resolution that
we are debating. Therefore I am saying that the resolution is
not effective unless the amendment that I have proposed is
somehow put in there, or something is put in to achieve that
same purpose.
MR. SPEAKER: May I answer the part about pointing out that
the inclusion of the word "debate" proposed in this amendment
makes it clear that the purpose of the committee meeting in the
morning is for an entirely different purpose than it would
normally in the normal sittings. Debate must imply that there
is a motion before the Committee of the Whole House in Supply,
that there is some resolution to be made of the debate, with
the motion relating to a particular vote in Supply being
debated and concluded with a resolution, and reporting back to
the House the result of that debate.
Now I must infer that from the terms and the working of this
amendment, I can't see anything else but that that was the
intention, unless somebody can draw another conclusion from the
use of the word "debate" because, as you know, it is a rule of
this House that there cannot be a debate without there being a
peg upon which to hang it, other than points of order.
MR. GIBSON: But it would....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I was just saying that if any Members have a
point to contribute, they make them to the House at this moment
because I have to consider every submission on this.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest — and I
thought I had dealt with this in my initial remarks — that the
inclusion of the word "debate" adds nothing new because surely
that is what all of the estimates have been about; we've been
debating the estimates all along. The whole purpose of the
Committee of Supply is to debate.
MR. SPEAKER: I have had to take it that when the proposal is made by
the Hon. Member for the opposition to put in the word "debate," he meant to
change the word "examine," and the word "examine" does not have the significance
that the word "debate" does, presumably, because debate means that there is
a resolution before the House or the Committee of the Whole House, the Committee
of Supply, and that there is debate on that resolution. The
resolution must deal with the vote that is presented for
consideration by the Committee of Supply, and the only things
that are referred to the Committee of Supply are those
estimates and the votes that have not net been dealt with.
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On that
point of order, Mr. Speaker — and I am pleased that we are not
going to have any inexorable tying of hands because I wouldn't
want that to occur — I agree wholeheartedly with what you have
just said as to the meaning of debate. It makes it quite clear
that this amendment proposed by the Member for North Peace
River (Mr. Smith), once passed, means that the Committee of
Supply, between the hours of 10 and 12 on the four stated days,
will function as Committee of Supply has always functioned.
But, Mr. Speaker, unless you are prepared to accept, as a
further part of the amendment, the suggestion put forward by
the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), you are
not going to avoid the consequences of rule 45A as they
presently are on our standing orders.
Now I appreciate what you have said about the words "at the
conclusion of the 45 sittings or the conclusion of the 135
hours contemplated". I suggest to you, Sir, that the word
"contemplated" refers to the 135 hours and not to the 45
sittings. "The 45 sittings" is very specific in subsection 1 of
the limitation on Committee of Supply. "The 135 hours" is only
allowed to come into play upon certain circumstances.
It is, therefore, quite clear why subsection 3 was so
carefully worded. It says: "At the conclusion of the 45
sittings, or at the conclusion of the 135 hours contemplated...." — the 135
hours can only come up for contemplation as the case may be. To suggest
that the 45 sittings was somehow or other contemplated as being
so-called normal sittings, I have to suggest to Your Honour that that
interpretation cannot be placed by you.
MR. SPEAKER: On due reflection I agree with you that you are
probably correct on that, as I see it.
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Because on one occasion Your Honour was
obliged to recess the House rather than go into a second
sitting on the same night. That became one complete sitting on
that day rather than two; we had to take account of that.
So it is 45 regular sittings of the House, however they may
be. Under the rules of the House, the House can provide that it
will sit at 10 o'clock the next morning or at any time of the
day, as may be the case. We could have gone into three sittings
a day or four sittings day.
[ Page 2539 ]
So the 45 sittings is an absolute figure. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, if we leave this a motion with the amendment presently
before the House, if we go into Committee of Supply, which will
function as Committee of Supply always has in the past, in the
hours 10 to 12, rule 45A is still in force.
There can be no debate or no amendment. As a consequence~,
the very amendment that we are discussing is in direct conflict
with the standing orders of this House. Therefore, until we
can somehow or other suspend or deal with these matters without
the invocation of 45A, we have a conflict which is not capable
of resolution.
MR. SPEAKER: May I also point out that on proper notice —
and this has been done on proper notice with the main motion —
under the rules, amendments to the main motion can be made on
the floor, as has been done. The effect of the motion proposed
to the House is to adopt an alteration in the standing orders,
and to do it by, in effect, another sessional order, which
would then supersede the existing standing orders insofar as
supersession is the result.
In other words, so far as that supervening effect of the
sessional order bears upon any standing order, it to that
point, or that amount, supersedes the significance of that
standing order.
Let me point out where it supersedes. Standing order 45A(3)
says: "...such questions not being subject to amendment or
debate." To that extent the Committee of Supply has been
altered under this proposed sessional order to permit
debate.
I have already suggested that it would be implicit in the
word "debate" that there is some resolution before the
Committee of Supply. We know there are resolutions before the
Committee of Supply to be put to the Committee of Supply.
Therefore that is what is being debated. When they have been
debated then they will be resolved, because that also is the
duty of the Committee of Supply.
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of
order, do I understand your judgment to be this: this
particular motion, with its amendment, if adopted by the House
would result in the establishment of a Committee of Supply
sitting between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12? Effectively, as
the word "debate" is included, 45A is implicitly suspended
during those hours.
MR. SPEAKER: Insofar as it in any way contradicts this
sessional order you are proposing to adopt, yes.
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Then when the hour of 12 o'clock comes, if the committee
is still sitting, the suspension of 45A is lifted and 45A again becomes imposed.
MR. SPEAKER: It could take effect again in the afternoon in
another sitting, providing the House doesn't order the
committee to rise and report progress without putting any
further questions in the afternoon.
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Right. So if we have from 10 to 12, we
have that 45A does not apply and if we sit as Committee of
Supply again in the afternoon, it does apply.
MR. SPEAKER: Simply because of the first precedent sessional
order which said: "The Committee of Supply shall take
precedence over all other business until completed."
MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: I see. Mr. Speaker, that being your
ruling, I think there is a better understanding. I would like
to engage in the debate some other time, because I think there
are some matters which arise out of that.
MR. SPEAKER: May I also point out that the rule regarding
anticipating another motion on the order paper still would
appear to be involved.
The House will have to consider that part of it if the House
adopts this particular amendment and this particular motion.
Presumably they still have to come to the notice of motion
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me if in fact this
resolution would overrule standing order 45 in some
particulars, then in fact we are anticipating motion 17 to that
extent. In other words, the anticipation to a certain extent is
inherent within the four corners of the resolution we are
debating.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but this is what can only be a partial
suspension by the proposal to debate. It does not completely
change the import of standing order 45A, as you will note,
where it deals with other matters — amendments, for example. I
have already suggested that you still have the right in this
committee in the morning, if the word "debate" means what I
suggest it means, to move the reduction of the vote, or vote
against the resolution, or vote for the resolution, which you
always have.
MR. GIBSON: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. The only point I
am trying to make is that there is a partial anticipation in
the motion we are discussing and that my amendment as well
dealt with a partial anticipation.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think you are probably
[ Page 2540 ]
correct on that too.
MR. GIBSON: Therefore, I would hope that you wouldn't rule
it entirely out of order at this time because I may wish to
bring it back later. If there are no further points of order
right now, I will just conclude my remarks...
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, would you proceed? Thank you.
MR. GIBSON: ...and say that until some kind of an amendment
of this kind is accepted, that does restrain the operation of
rule 45A and eliminate closure....
MR. SPEAKER: May I first say that the Hon. Member did sit
down, not on a point of order, as I thought, but having
concluded his remarks, saying that he was reserving the
amendment until later. Did he mean then to conclude his remarks
at that time?
MR. GIBSON: At that point the Hon. Second Member for
Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) whispered to me that he had a
point of order and he stood up on a point of order at that
time.
HON. MR. COCKE: You sat down.
MR. GIBSON: ...but it is not a matter of consequence in any
event because....
MR. SPEAKER: I think I should ask leave of the House under
the circumstances. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed?
MR. GIBSON: I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, and I have no
intent of abusing the privilege. I meant merely to finish the
sentence and say that without a full and complete suspension of
the closure provision and some kind of guarantee that we will
have more than just eight hours a week and then at the end of
the session that is dead, I have to vote against this amendment
at the moment.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, what we
have really witnessed this afternoon, what we so often witness
in this House, is the carrying on of a superficial debate
around the real issue. It is saddening because that is the way
the 135 hours was used up, precisely in the same way.
You know, yesterday the government, with every bit of goodwill it could muster,
having being treated to virtual anarchy in this House, in view of all of the
other jurisdictions around us that have given us a great deal of precedents,
accepted an opposition amendment which was an amendment that did not certainly
meet in every way with our thrust. Our thrust has been to bring order out of
the chaos in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: Ho!
HON. MR. COCKE: We saw that last session of the Legislature
treated to filibuster after filibuster. Mr. Speaker, the Member
for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) talked about the fact that the
government has been harsh, the government has taken autocratic
power and that kind of thing.
MR. FRASER: Well, they have.
HON. MR. COCKE: Yet, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is
that it is the very opposite.
AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha!
HON. MR. COCKE: It is the very first time the House has ever
known free speech with the ability to question Ministers every
day....
MR. FRASER: Garbage! Garbage!
HON. MR. COCKE: And, Mr. Speaker, despite all this, we felt:
let's get on with this whole question. That is why we supported
the opposition's amendments to that resolution. Did they put it
in good faith?
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Let's get on with
it.
HON. MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker, we would like very much....
Oh, yes, let's get on with it, that Member says, that Member
for South Peace River who can speak for hours and hours and say
nothing.
MR. PHILLIPS: Let's get on with the amendment.
HON. MR. COCKE: We would just like to suggest that this
Legislature has rules. Those rules have been abused. We hope
that the rights of the Legislature won't continue to be abused.
We hope that when the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.
Gibson) talks about the rules of the courtroom not to be
broken, he'll think about that in terms of the rules of this
House, whether he likes them or does not like them. Does the
rule of law only apply, Mr. Speaker, when it's a rule that you
enjoy? Or should a rule of law apply across the board? Mr.
Speaker, that's what
[ Page 2541 ]
we're talking about here.
But in any event, Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a
great deal of patience, and I hope that the opposition will
show just a little bit of credibility on this issue. And maybe
we can get to the issue as quickly as possible.
MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House I submit in two
motions, actually, because you may have different views on each
part of it.
The first question before the House is to amend motion 16 by
deleting in the first line the words: "a Committee of the Whole
House" and substituting therefore the words, "the Committee of
Supply."
Amendment approved on the following division:
YEAS — 38
Levi
Lorimer
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
Lea
Young
Nicolson
Skelly
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Barrett
Strachan
Nimsick
Stupich
Hartley
Calder
Brown
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Steves
Lewis
Anderson, D.A.
Wallace
Williams, L.A.
Smith
Phillips
Chabot
Fraser
Richter
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
Dent
NAYS — 1
Gibson
MR. SPEAKER: The second question on the amendment is that
motion 16 be amended by deleting the word "examine" in the
third line and substituting therefore the word "debate."
Amendment approved.
On motion 16 as amended.
MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say at this time that we....
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Point of order. That Member has
already spoken on the main motion. This is the main motion
now.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I moved the amendment
and he spoke after....
HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'd check that out.
MR. SPEAKER: I have a note that the Hon. Member for South
Peace River (Mr. Phillips) spoke on the amendment.
HON. MR. BARRETT: You want another 40 minutes, go ahead.
MR. PHILLIPS: The time limit is 30, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say that the official opposition are pleased
that the government did accept the amendment, and just point
out that the stand of the official opposition has never changed
from the very beginning. We recognized the error of the
government's ways, and I'm glad to see that they recognized the
error of their ways and have accepted our amendment. I'm
pleased with them, and I hope that the same conciliatory mood
will prevail when we move on to motion 17 and motion 18, which
are still standing on the motion paper, it being private
Members' day, so that we will not only be faced with getting
back 25 per cent democracy but that the Premier in his
conciliatory mood will allow us to have a committee and allow
us to re-examine the rules of the Legislature.
I might add, while we're at it, since the government is in
such a conciliatory mood, that they might withdraw Bill 61,
the Emergency Programme Act, so that we won't have that hanging
over our heads. I'm sure that the Premier, after attending the
convention last week and being given certain guidelines to
follow by the convention, will allow us to carry on, as soon as
this motion is passed, to debate motion 17 and motion 18,
standing in the name of the Member for North Peace River (Mr.
Smith) on the order paper.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few
words on debate on this particular motion.
I have been in the House quite a number of years. My
colleague who sits on my right (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has been here
even longer. Together I think we have about 49 years' service
in this House, but in the course of those years I don't
recollect a situation that has developed in this House similar
to the one that we have just been through these last few
weeks.
I regret what has happened these last few weeks very much.
I've listened very closely to the debate. I've listened to the
accusations that have been hurled about closure, refusal to
allow discussion or examination of estimates, and all of the
other phraseology. I have listened to the uproar that has been
created in this House. Certainly in the past there have been
occasions when there has been uproar, but never as a deliberate
attempt of any group in this House. Any time there was uproar
in this House in the past it was because of a specific
situation that developed around a particular debate on a
particular
[ Page 2542 ]
occasion. Never has there been any sustained attempt to
create in this House in those years the kind of situation that
we have been facing in this House in the last few weeks.
I became really disturbed. People have attitudes, people
have things they believe in, and I think people should fight
for what they believe in. Mind you, I think there has to be
some valid justification for that belief, and I think there
must be at least a modicum of truth attached to the accusations
related to that situation and that statement of principle.
I was very disturbed when I read in the paper the other day
that a Member of the official opposition, speaking in my
constituency, indicated to that group.... The press report
indicated that he spoke with apparent delight of the present
chaos in the House. "'It was bedlam,' he said, laughing." He
spoke with apparent enjoyment of the chaos.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it was in quotes. I don't know.
Maybe the papers are wrong, but it said, and this is in quotes,
"the stagnation of debate."
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay. I hope it is wrong. This is
why I was so disturbed when I read it. I hope it is wrong.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, anyway I'm just quoting you. It's
in quotes. It's not a paraphrase. However, when I hear these
statements made that, "no chance to examine the debates, no
chance to examine estimates, no chance to question the Minister....
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the Blues of one sitting of
this House during the discussion of estimates. There were 47
sittings taken up — that's 47 times that amount of foolscap —
that occupies a stack of paper almost three feet high of talk
in this House about debates, about estimates, about individual
examination. So there it was. It was three feet high. Then
people say that there was no opportunity to question
Ministers.
Now they muffed the opportunity or they didn't know how to
utilize it, but I've examined that three-foot stack and there
are very few questions. There are repetitive speeches, which
was how we got into that position of the fact that it would
take a stack of foolscap three feet high.
MR. PHILLIPS: How long did we have on your estimates?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is why I get disturbed when I hear
the accusations that we have not been allowed and this House
has not been allowed to examine the estimates.
MR. PHILLIPS: How long did we have on your estimates?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm telling you exactly what happened.
There it is — page after page after page. As I say, Mr.
Speaker, I have never....
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have never seen such a situation which
obviously was deliberately created. I certainly....
MR. PHILLIPS: You're embarrassing the Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member for South Peace River please be
silent?
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member be silent?
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has been out of order on a
number of occasions. Yet he was permitted to make his speech
and he made his speech. He can't make a second one from his
seat.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I was proud of the Premier
yesterday. With an effort to try and make our system work he
outlined an attitude towards our parliamentary system. He has,
I think, implemented a promise that I made to the people of
this province in the last election that we would make our
system work. I sat through that 20 years, as many others did,
when it wasn't being allowed to work, when we couldn't get
caught up with the changes that were required in our
parliamentary system.
We didn't have the Blues; we didn't have a Hansard .
Mr. Speaker, for any group or any person to accuse this
government of trying to take away the rights of any opposition
or the rights of this House...the record proves completely
opposite. I went through 20 years where we had no
Hansard , where any time you got up and reminded a
Minister of what he had said, he would say: "I didn't say
that." Under the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, as you know,
if a Minister or another Member stands up and says, "I didn't
say that," under the rules of this House you must accept
that. I always accepted that
[ Page 2543 ]
statement from any Member.
We find that we've been through a period where Members of
this House are not prepared to accept the rules with the result
that we were into that situation. While we've had our fights
over the years, we finished up recognizing the fact that this
must be a House of rules. If any one group sets out to defy
these rules, they're on the way to destroying this House.
Mr. Speaker, as I say, I admired the Premier for what he did
yesterday. He fulfilled a promise we made that we would make
this system work. We've started up that road with
Hansard , with the oral question period, with a rational.... The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)...I remember
a few weeks ago we were discussing this different kind of House
we had. I recollect that he said to me: "This is much more
civilized in the way of hours than what we had previously."
Much more civilized than we had previously. The all-night
sittings....
I remember that at 4 o'clock in the morning the Minister of
Mines' estimates were called in Supply — at 4 o'clock in the
morning! That wasn't an isolated occasion. We tried to bring
some rationality and some civilization into this House. There
may be people here who, because of lack of experience, are not
prepared to live with a civilized Legislative Assembly. But let
me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier and this government
are determined to make this a civilized House. I admire the
Premier for taking this rational, reasonable position, because
he, as I am, is determined to make this House work.
I support this amendment. It's an indication of faith in
democracy, faith in the system by this Premier and this
government. I'm proud of the Premier, I'm proud of this
government and I'm beginning to be a little bit proud of this
House again. I'm beginning to get some of that pride I had in
this House returned to me again. With the unanimous passage of
this motion and the determination of every Member, perhaps we
can make it the civilized House I have always dreamed it could
be.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Transport and
Communications just told us that what was happening earlier on
in this session was that the opposition — the collective
opposition, I assume he means — was on its way to destroying
the House. He was talking about respect for the rules. I
respect what he said, because with his introduction he
indicated how long he has been in this House; I know that to be
a fact. So in no way trying to be disagreeable, I just want to
suggest to him that it is at least possible that what the
opposition was trying to do was to save some of the rights and
privileges of this House and not trying to destroy them.
Both the Minister of Transport and Communications and the
Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) had great talks about
respect for the rules.
Mr. Speaker, we do have respect for the rules, I hope. But
in this case, with this rule — the closure rule — I ask you who
made the rule?
MR. FRASER: Right on.
MR. GIBSON: The government made the rule.
MR. FRASER: That's right; you don't want to forget that.
MR. GIBSON: In most of the legislatures of this country and
in the democratic world, it is accepted that the rule of the
majority prevails in matters of legislation and things like
that.
It is equally accepted that in the more fundamental
questions of procedure the changes in rules are made by the
careful process of negotiation and gradual agreement between
the government and the opposition. That was not the case with
respect to this closure rule.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hammered through!
MR. GIBSON: It was hammered through over the unanimous
opposition of this side of the House...
MR. PHILLIPS: Snuck in on the last day.
MR. GIBSON: ...brought in on the last day of the last
session as a fait accompli.
MR. PHILLIPS: Snuck in in the dark of the night.
MR. GIBSON: So I would suggest to that Hon. Minister that
what the government overlooked in this case was the fundamental
precept that the rule of law works best with the consent of the
governed. The government did not go out of its way to get the
consent of the governed. It overrode the objections.
The Premier in his speech to us yesterday explained some of
the history of that. He suggested that there had been a
generation's gap in this House where the give and take of
negotiation between government and opposition on rules hadn't
happened. I was not in the House during that period, Mr.
Speaker, but I say that that is all the more reason why this
existing government and the Premier who was in the House at
that time should be exceptionally sensitive about the way the
changes of this kind are brought in.
The Minister who just spoke referred to the rights of the
opposition that have been brought into this House by his
government. I congratulate him for those: the Hansard ,
the question period and other things. But what is the
fundamental right of Members of this House? It has been the
right to debate, to search, examine, ask questions until
satisfaction was
[ Page 2544 ]
achieved or until exhaustion set in, one or the other. But
there was no let or hindrance put on that right to debate.
I will agree that in chambers such as the 260-some-odd seats
in Ottawa, and the 600-and-some-odd seats in the United
Kingdom, it is necessary to have time limits on debates. There
are five times as many Members in Ottawa and a budget 10 times
as large. But here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where we
sit less than six months of the year, there is another six
months of the year available to consider any questions and
estimates that aren't considered in the first six months.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier says we are full-time MLAs.
MR. GIBSON: The Premier says we are full-time MLAs. There is
no reason, Mr. Speaker, to curtail that freedom of speech in
any way in the British Columbia Legislature. While the Hon.
Members of the government opposite are throwing around
precedents, they might recall that the Manitoba government, a
New Democratic Party government, eliminated all restrictions on
debate. I don't hear that precedent being cited.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution we have before us now is not a
guarantee of the time that is required. What it is is an
agreement by the government that as long as this House sits for
other reasons unrelated to estimates, as long as it sits for
other business, we will be given eight hours a week to debate
estimates. That is all it means — eight hours a week. Recall
that we got through a third of the estimates in 135 hours, and
we are being given eight hours a week.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are lots of weeks.
MR. GIBSON: We've got lots of weeks, says the Hon. Minister
of Transport and Communications. How many? Could I have your
guarantee, sir, that we have as many weeks as it needs to
finish the estimates? That is the guarantee that is not there,
Mr. Speaker. That guarantee is not there, Mr. Minister. What
has not been given? That is what has been given, eight hours a
week. What has not been given is protection from closure. That
is the fundamental battle that has not been won. That is the
fundamental freedom that has been taken away from the
opposition. Eight hours a week for a few weeks, as the
government night decide, is not going to compensate for the
restriction of the right of debate in this Legislature
unnecessarily by a closure rule that still remains on the books
under the terms of this resolution.
AN HON. MEMBER: You want to go home on a holiday or
something?
AN HON. MEMBER: You tired or something?
MR. GIBSON: Since this resolution at the moment does not
provide that fundamental protection, Mr. Speaker, I will seek
again....
AN HON. MEMBER: At $50,000 a year and you want to go
home.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North
Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.
MR. GIBSON: ...to move an amendment that I hope will give
the House the protection it needs from the closure provision
under the terms of this resolution without, I hope — and I have
tried to word it that way — trying to ask the government to
back down, without asking them to take their 45A off the books
or anything like that, but simply to give us closure protection — you might call it anti-closure protection — during the debate
on the estimates for the rest of this session as contemplated
by motion 16.
I therefore move an amendment to motion 16 which I hope Your
Honour might find in order now dealing with the question of
anticipation as I suggested. I think this argument, perhaps,
found favour with you that the motion, as it is currently
written, does, indeed, purport to some extent modify rule
45A.
I would suggest that my motion does not extend that
modification but rather clarifies and does not, thereby,
anticipate resolution 17.
Therefore, I move again that the words "from this order"
through "otherwise ordered" should be stricken out to be
replaced by, "until the estimates shall be regularly disposed
of without invocation of rule 45A." I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it's the same amendment and there is still
the question I must consider of there being anticipation of
notice of motion 17 which is to the same effect — that is, that
the House suspend the provision of standing order 45A,
Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session.
The other thing is that the words that you propose to strike
out are the following: "This order to be effective so long as
the House has fixed the day for its next sitting unless
otherwise ordered," and to replace it with the words:
"Until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without
invocation of rule 45A."
I would suggest that the first part of the proposition you
propose would be in order, just to delete. But I still must
maintain, I think, the rule that if the purport of your
amendment is to anticipate the notice of motion 17, then we
would have to await that stage, debate it and, if it were
passed, it would have the effect that you desire in this
amendment. I
[ Page 2545 ]
can't see how I can overcome that anticipation.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, your ruling, if I understood it
correctly, was that the word "debate" in the amended motion we
are now dealing with overrode the provisions of standing rule
45A.
MR. SPEAKER: That's right.
MR. GIBSON: The intent of my motion is to suggest the way in
which, and a time framework in which, that overriding shall
take place. In other words, not simply as long as a day for the
next sitting of the House has been fixed, which Your Honour has
already indicated is in order.
MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt to ask this question? I am
trying to get the intent of your amendment. If your purpose is
to say that during the mornings, between 10 and 12, that rule
45A is not going to be invoked — if that is what you meant,
during that period, because this motion deals strictly with
that time, between 10 and 12 — if that was the purpose of your
amendment I can't help but say I have already indicated that
during those times rule 45A would not be invocable, if that's a
word — cannot be invoked.
MR. GIBSON: No, Sir, that is not the intent of my amendment.
The intent of my amendment was to provide that the protection
afforded by this resolution should not terminate at the time
when the House has no longer fixed a date for its next sitting
because that says that at that time the closure rule then comes
into effect so that we can get all the estimates passed.
What this motion says, or what this motion asks the House to
say, is that debate under this system will be continued until
all the estimates have been passed. In other words, it
clarifies the timing. It makes it clear that this order must
remain in effect until all the estimates are disposed of under
the terms of this order. Do I make myself clear?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but I am afraid the result...if you read
it — and let me read it to you and the House as it would be if
this amendment were put and adopted. It would read that: "The
House shall sit as a Committee of Supply from the hour of 10
a.m. until 12 noon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
to debate any estimates now referred to the Committee of Supply
and not previously agreed to in that committee."
That means all the estimates have been referred. Then to go
on until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without
invocation of rule 45A.
Now I presume from the wording of that that you are placing a limitation or,
actually, I suppose, a qualification upon the sittings of the Committee of Supply
in the morning because it doesn't say anything about the regular sittings contemplated
in the standing order 45A. It refers only to the time that the House will sit
as Committee of Supply in the mornings, and estimates now referred to them may
be debated in that time.
Further to that you are saying: "until the estimates shall
be regularly disposed of without invocation of rule 45A." I say
that I suggest it would be redundant to raise the question of
rule 45A in the context of the morning sittings. But if you are
purporting to say that there shall be no invocation of rule 45A
for the afternoon sittings, which must be called under the
priority motion in the afternoons, then you haven't made it
clear by this and you are infringing upon a motion which is
presently before the House for consideration in notice of
motion 17. Therefore it would be out of order if you went as
far as you've gone here by mentioning "without invocation of
rule 45A."
MR. GIBSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm not purporting to
infringe on rule 45A except insofar as is follows: the effect
of this as I read it, were the House to pass it, would be to
insist that all estimates would have to be considered at the
morning sitting until all estimates were disposed of. It does
not deal with the afternoon sitting except to say that
estimates will not be passed in the afternoon sitting under the
authority of rule 45A. In other words, if the government means
what it says about giving us the right to debate these
estimates in the morning sitting, this guarantees us that
right.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think in interpreting the wording — not
of your amendment but the words you propose to strike out — the
words you propose to strike out say: "this order to be
effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next
sitting." In other words, as long as the House is operating,
surely. Because the House, if it doesn't fix a date for its
next sitting, means that it's not operating at all. And the
words "unless otherwise ordered," are usually put in all
sessional orders, although that, again, is not a matter for me
to comment on. I can't see that the thing is in order because,
no matter what you say, it still anticipates notice of motion
17, and we can't transgress on that according to the rules.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on
17. Surely, we are dealing here with a most important motion,
amended, I think, by the official opposition in a manner which
they find satisfactory. This happens to be an extremely
important motion. To suggest that we should somehow pass what
has to be a critical motion which
[ Page 2546 ]
would make major changes to the way this House operates and
which takes care of a festering problem that we've had for 11
months, actually, but in particular for the last month, and
then to suggest somehow that you're going to leave it
incomplete, you're going to leave it with a major flaw within
it simply because under the rule of anticipation another motion
later on deals with some aspect of the problem dealt with by
motion 16, is, I think, an extension of the rule against
anticipation to an unfortunate length.
Surely we should deal within this motion with all problems
that occur in relation to extending hours. Surely within this
motion we should anticipate potential problems in the future
and attempt to deal with them. Then if some other motion later
comes up — then some other motion later comes up. But surely
the rule against anticipation should not be employed, as it
might be interpreted as being done, to somehow prevent us from
completing this particular motion 16 which obviously is going
to be critical to the proper functioning of this legislature
for the remainder of this session. Surely we cannot leave this
thing half done, or three-quarters done. Surely we cannot leave
portions of it untouched, ignored, because later on down on the
list of motions there happens to be another one which deals
with some aspect.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might call upon the mover of the
subsequent motion, without violating the rule on anticipation,
to have his view. Surely, all these things must be dealt with
together because, if in a later motion there are amendments
made, or indeed the motion itself is accepted, we may find that
we have two motions in conflict, and somehow because we have
been interpreting strictly the rule against anticipation we
have allowed that situation to develop. Surely good sense
requires that we deal with all aspects of this particular
problem at the present time and not lead ourselves into a trap
whereby at some future date we could put forward conflicting
motions.
I think, in addition, Mr. Speaker, you should weigh most
carefully the precedent that is being established at the
present time. If any Member can, by putting a motion on the
order paper, prevent full examination of some other matter of
major importance to the government and opposition, if that is
the case, then we are running into some very tricky business
indeed and I suspect your ruling in future years will be one
that will trouble many subsequent Speakers.
The fact is that the rule against anticipation, which is a
good rule, should be used with restraint and discretion so that
it does not prevent a proper examination of the existing
motion, which occurred prior and is before this House at the
present time.
MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of the amendment that is proposed is to expand
the generality of the rule that has been adopted as amended, to in effect delete
the operation of another standing order.
I would point out another feature to this, and that is that
almost next to this particular motion that we are considering
and have amended is a motion dealing with the subject that the
Hon. Member now wants to put into this and embody in the
existing motion before the House, knowing that it is already
ordered on the order paper for immediate consideration
following this motion. It appears almost as if it was a case of
lifting somebody else's motion from the order paper and
incorporating it into a motion before the House. Perhaps that
may explain why it is generally frowned upon in the rules to
anticipate a motion on the order paper which may relate
somewhat to the same subject. It is obvious this relates
towards the same subject but, as I said, it expands the
amendment to the rules proposed in this sessional order, which
is motion 16 as amended. It expands it. To do that seems to me,
with respect, to be contrary to the rules on such
amendments.
MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I have listened carefully to
the debate of both the Members of the Liberal Party in
opposition and to your remarks concerning this particular
motion. I would not be adverse to withdrawing or asking leave
to withdraw motion 17 standing under my name in the order
paper, provided I felt that it would accomplish something of a
tangible nature with respect to a debate in the House. But as I
understand and read motion 16 as it is before the House now, we
have amended it to sit as Committee of Supply for two
additional hours of the day on specific days — Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday — at which time the rule, standing order
45, will not come into effect. So we are sitting as we
ordinarily would in afternoon or evening sessions whenever
Committee of Supply is called and have the same privileges of
debate, the same privileges to move motions, to move a
reduction in a Minister's salary, or whatever other rules would
have ordinarily applied in Committee of Supply.
I hesitate to ask leave to withdraw my motion....
MR. SPEAKER: I agree with the Hon. Member.
MR. SMITH: I feel that it is quite specific in No. 16 that
we are only dealing with the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 noon on
specific days.
MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you that it is redundant.
MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that it is and I submit
further that frankly we anticipated the problems that might be
involved in the sittings of the
[ Page 2547 ]
House from this point forward and that is why motion 17 and
motion 18 now stand under my name in the order paper. The only
thing that we do not have is any assurance from the Hon. House
Leader or the government that they intend at any time during
this session to call those motions.
MR. SPEAKER: Well, this is private Members' day and I think
I should remind the Hon. Members of a quotation on this so that
that will not become an issue in this consideration. If you
look at the procedure of the House of Commons in Redlich, page
33, third volume, it says:
"At the sittings assigned to private Members, the end of the
routine business is followed by notices of motion instead of by
orders of the day. The notices of motion are substantive
business for private Members' sittings. Not until they are
disposed of does the time come for dealing with the orders of
the day."
I put that to you now so that you will understand that this
is private Members' day.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification. I
would say that if I interpret that in the way I believe you do,
we can anticipate, at least for the remainder of the session,
that we would be debating motions standing on the order paper
in the names of private Members or others.
MR. SPEAKER: Unless the House adopts some other priority or
precedence matter that would shunt aside private Members' day,
which for 20 years seems to have been the practice.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Not now, I hope.
MR. SMITH: If I am correct, as motion 16 stands before us,
we are really dealing specifically with an additional session
each day from the hour of 10 a.m. to 12 noon, and that
something that would occur in the afternoon or the evening
sessions covered by motion 17 or 18 would have to be dealt with
as a separate motion. Is that correct?
MR. SPEAKER: I think I must agree on that. I think that the
import of what the Hon. Member is doing is invading the
sittings of the Committee of Supply in the morning with
something that we have already, I hope, agreed on — the
redundancy of standing order 45A(3) in those morning sittings.
If it's redundant, then you are trying to expand that
amendment, which you are not permitted to do.
In any event, you would still be offending against the rule
of anticipation, which says that notice of the motion is next
practically on the order paper for the House to consider. Therefore I must agree with the Hon.
Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and rule the amendment
out of order at this time. The Member is always entitled to
speak on the question when we come to the effect of standing
order 45A.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the latitude
you have given in the discussion of this point of order, which,
I think, is an important one. I have no intention of prolonging
that any longer, you having given your ruling. I would simply
respectfully appeal that ruling to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Now you've broken it. That's the first time
I've had one of those for two years. I don't know whether to
collapse or walk out. I can't get my thumb on the bell.
Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following
division:
YEAS — 36
Barrett
Strachan
Nimsick
Stupich
Hartley
Calder
Brown
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Dent
Levi
Lorimer
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
Lea
Young
Nicolson
Skelly
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Rolston
Anderson, G.H.
Steves
Lewis
Williams, L.A.
Smith
Phillips
Chabot
Fraser
Richter
McClelland
Curtis
Morrison
Schroeder
NAYS — 3
Gibson
Anderson, D.A.
Wallace
MR. SPEAKER: Now is there any further debate?
MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a most
important debate that we are having this afternoon, and I would
just like to say a few words on this motion.
The motion is clearly one of seeking to bring the kind of
compromise that has glorified parliament and been a credit to
democratic countries down through the centuries. I would like
to make a couple of points in regard to some comments that
have been made in regard to this whole debate and this whole
issue of the changing of rules.
First of all, there was an
article which appeared in the
Vancouver Province on Thursday, May 15, quoting the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in this way. He
said:
" 'They" — meaning the government, I
[ Page 2548 ]
presume — "are taking away the traditional rights of
parliament which are the modern equivalent of what people once
went to battle for,' Bennett said. He cited the Magna Carta and
Oliver Cromwell in calling for unlimited debate on the
estimates, and suggested any thought of time shortage could be
accommodated by the legislators working full time."
He refers to Oliver Cromwell. That is true what he said,
that Oliver Cromwell was one of those who resisted the power of
the king of that day. The outcome, of course, ultimately was
the death of the king and the supremacy of the successive
parliament in that issue, as was in a more lesser way the Magna
Carta. On that point he is correct as well.
As a student of history, and as a former social studies
teacher who taught these things on many, many occasions, I was
naturally taken by this point.
There is something that is not said here, and I think that
is important. It is that Oliver Cromwell was not only on the
side of justice opposing oppression on the issue of the power
of the king, but having succeeded in putting down the power of
the king, he then became himself an oppressor. One might
question what his motives were in the whole exercise in
resisting the power of the king.
It is clear that moderation did not triumph in that conflict
between Cromwell and his allies and the monarchy of that
day.
Similarly, there's another period in history — there's an
analogy — and that is with Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon
Bonaparte was also on the side of justice against the power of
the king of that day in France, Louis XVI. For a period of time
he was on the side of justice. However, things broke down.
Disorder resulted after the power of the king had been broken,
and Napoleon Bonaparte became himself an oppressor, a dictator.
He took power unto himself and became a dictator, and in many
ways was a worse oppressor than the one he had put down.
Then in this century we have the case of Joseph Stalin, who
was, again, on the side of those people who were fighting the
oppression of the king of that day, Tsar Nicholas, and again
moderation was defeated, common sense was defeated, and a new
oppressor arose in that situation.
We are not fighting here. There is no oppression on the side of the government
in this case. There is no oppression of parliament by an outsider, by a dictator.
This is the will of the parliament, of the people. Therefore it is the very
will and power of the people that is involved through their elected representatives
in the normal democratic process. There is no oppressor to begin with, and parliament
— and we are not speaking of the government when we are speaking of parliament
— has many people in its numbers who have a very excellent record of fighting
oppression, Nazi oppression, during the Second World War. I
just want to mention a few.
The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L. A.
Williams) served in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Second
World War with distinction and fought the Nazis. The Hon.
Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) served in the Canadian army in
the Second World War with distinction. The Hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) had part of his left
breast shot off by a Nazi bullet in the Second World War,
fighting for freedom against Nazi oppression. The Hon. Member
for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) was in a situation in which he
was in an enemy action with a Nazi U-boat. What was he doing
there? He was risking his life, fighting for democracy, for the
rights of parliament, for the rights of the people of British
Columbia.
Interjection.
MR. DENT: And one further: The Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr.
Kelly) served six years in one of the finest regiments of
Canada, the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, in which also the
former Attorney-General, Mr. Robert Bonner also served as an
officer. Both of these men served their country with
distinction, fighting the Nazis, fighting against
oppression.
How on earth can any Hon. Member here charge other Hon.
Members, who have served their country with distinction, with
oppression? It's nonsense. It is not an issue. I would like to just conclude by quoting Lord Balfour in the
debates of 1902, January 30. Lord Balfour, a Member of the
House of Commons in the United Kingdom, 1902, January 30, in a
debate on rule changes in the British parliament...and I just
want to read one line from his remarks. Lord Balfour, Member of
the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the Mother of
Parliaments, was debating a rule change similar to the one we
have been facing recently, and these are his words:
"The truth is that with the changing circumstances of the House, in itself revolutionary, our
rules, which were originally framed, as it were, to promote a
fertilizing and irrigating flow of eloquence, are now, it
appears, required to dam up its vast and destructive floods,
and to keep them within reasonable limits."
Those are the words of Lord Balfour.
I would suggest to you that parliament, in its wisdom, is
seeking to reform itself in order that all Hon. Members will be
accorded their rights to speak, will be accorded the kind of
freedoms that men on both sides of this Legislature fought for
in the Second World War. I might add, in closing that I, too,
served in the Second World War, even though I was
[ Page 2549 ]
underage, and I'm proud of that record, and I resent anyone
suggesting that we on this side of the House are not interested
in fighting for freedom and fighting for the right of free
speech.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with what
the Member for Skeena has just said. I was a little concerned
for a moment. I thought perhaps he was suggesting that the
House Leader was either Cromwell or Napoleon or Stalin, but I'm
glad he cleared up that problem. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. BARRETT: Strachan.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, the House Leader. That's right.
There have been a number of occasions, as you well know,
over the past several years when this House, on matters of its
own procedures, has come to a crisis. Like most illnesses that
plague human beings, once the crisis is passed there is not
only relief from the disease but for all who are involved there
is tremendous relief. Any of the Members here who are fathers
and mothers know what it's like when a child goes through the
crisis of a raging fever and then, when it finally breaks, the
tremendous relief there is not only for the child but also for
everybody involved. I think that we are passing through a
similar situation. It has taken a few more days than it has on
previous occasions but I think this motion, as it is presently
amended, will most likely have that same effect. I compliment
the government for bringing this motion forward in an attempt
at a compromise. I don't think it matters whose victory it is;
it is the House's victory, really. I also compliment the Member
for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) for bringing forward his
amendment, because it has made that motion even more meaningful
to everyone who is here.
I just want to make a further suggestion to the government
which I think is not going to affect rule 45A and the control
that the government needs to have over the House and the
committee, and I hope it will be considered seriously in the
way in which it is given. We have now arrived at the situation,
Mr. Speaker, based upon your judgment, that on the four
mornings of the week when we will sit from 10 until 12 the
operation of the Committee of Supply will go on as if 45A never
existed. I think that everybody on all sides of the House must
welcome that opportunity. However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that we are unduly limiting ourselves in this respect.
As I said a few moments ago, I think with this crisis passed that there will
be some general relief. It seems to me that occasions may arise when it will
be quite obvious to Members of the House that two hours a day for four days
is just not sufficient. There may be good reason why the government should be
able to utilize other sittings on those days for that same
purpose. The motion, as presently amended, still includes the
words "unless otherwise ordered," and still gives the
government the right to exercise control responsibly, as we all
hope the government will act. Since we are making only a
sessional order I don't see the wisdom now of saying that there
is something special about two hours on Tuesday morning which
does not apply to three hours on Tuesday afternoon if the
circumstances require it — the same on Wednesday and the same on
Thursday. I am prepared to say to the government that Friday is
your day if there's a particular problem.
Therefore, without saying anything more on this matter, and,
as I say, based upon the feeling that I get and I've had this
feeling before when these crises have arisen in this House — I
think that we are going to embark upon a period of real relief — I would like to move an amendment to motion 16 as it's
presently amended by deleting the words: "from the hour of 10
a.m. until 12 noon" and substituting: "at its duly ordered
sittings." The consequence of this amendment, if accepted,
would be that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the
House, at its duly ordered sittings, could sit as Committee of
Supply and deal with the business of that committee in the way
in which the motion contemplates, but still leaving that the