1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2839 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Effect of welfare policies. Mr. Levi — 2839

Supervision of cars on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2840

Trade with South Africa. Ms. Brown — 2840

Funding of Olympic torch-carrying ceremonies. Mr. Barnes — 2841

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second reading.

Mr. King — 2842

On the amendment to defer second reading for six months.

Mrs. Dailly — 2845

Mr. Lea — 2847

Mr.Cocke — 2852

Ms. Sanford — 2854

Mr. Barber — 2856

Mr. Lockstead — 2858

Mr. Wallace — 2858

Mr. Barnes — 2859

Ms. Brown — 2862

Mr. Lea — 2866

Points of order.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2866

Mr. Lea — 2866

Mr. Barrett — 2867

Mr. King — 2867

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2867

Mr. Barrett — 2868

Ms. Sanford — 2869

Mr. Barrett — 2870

Ms. Sanford — 2870

Mr. Barrett — 2871

Mr. Lea — 2871

Mr. Gibson — 2872

Mr. Lauk — 2872

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House and have the House make welcome Mr. H.W. Galbraith from Vernon.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us

today is Mr. Dave Storrie from Campbell River in the constituency of

Comox. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Oral questions.

EFFECT OF WELFARE POLICIES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Human Resources. At the end of May I asked him about

the death of an 81-year-old blind man in an elevator shaft and the

policy of the department respecting funding of a programme. I asked him

again during the estimates, and he said he was going to look into it.

Last week the coroner in Victoria, Mr. St. Jorre, ordered an inquest

into the death of a woman who committed suicide allegedly as a result

of being afraid that her welfare would be taken away from her. I

informed the minister last week, when I saw him on Friday, that I was

going to ask this question: is the minister prepared to report to the

House on what he feels the effect of some of his policies are having

on people, particularly in relation to the two incidents that I've

described?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): The question is: what effect is our policy having on people? Well, I assume that by and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question as I

understand it...and I'll attempt to reply. From the people I speak to

throughout the community and in other parts of British Columbia, I find

that our policy is being extremely well received and that the effect

throughout the department appears to be favourable too, in that

certainly the supervisors, the regional directors, the field people

have received these policies well. They advise me that they are in

effect already showing very beneficial results.

Unfortunately, however, statements do get into the press. We are aware of some,

which I've previously mentioned, and the one which has now been referred

to by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and which are not only erroneous and

very misleading, but damaging to the people who are mentioned in these articles,

and certainly the one that's referred to by the hon. member about someone

apparently, so the item says, having committed suicide because of welfare policies.

I think these statements are also very unfortunate for the relations

and the people who are left behind. In this particular instance these

relations have made it known to me that they feel terrible about these

erroneous statements, these allegations and suggestions made in the

press. I, too, am very sorry that they are being followed through in

this manner in the House here today because it only brings it to the

fore again.

There was no relation, no connection at all from the people that

I've had advice from between the incident and any policy that might

have been adopted by the department.

MR. LEVI: I presume, Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us

that he's investigated both cases and that's how he comes to that

assumption. If he has done that, is he prepared to table with the House

the report on those two investigations? It's fairly clear that the

people in this province are scared to death of your welfare policies

and it's led directly to the death of two people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a very

irresponsible charge to suggest that the death of two people has been

caused by any particular policy from my department. I will not only....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will submit the report which was

given me and which clearly denies any of the charges or suggestions

being made by the hon. member. I think perhaps the hon. member also,

tomorrow after he's had time to think about the ridiculous charges he's

made, should explain and apologize for such an irresponsible statement.

MR. LEVI: A further supplemental. The minister indicates he

is prepared to file with the House one report. Is he prepared to file a

second report on the case of Mrs. Eastman in the Victoria area?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

[ Page 2840 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I

would table the reports, and certainly I will table the reports. The

reports are complete and they will certainly provide all of the

information I think the hon. member is requesting.

Again, I feel it very unfortunate that these names are brought forth

in the House, in fairness to the relations and the friends and people

left behind. I would ask the hon. member to give this very considerable

thought in the future, because this is the third time that it's

happened.

MR. LEVI: There is nothing improper, Mr. Speaker, in

referring to people's names when it's a matter of public record, and

the minister should understand that — nothing improper whatsoever.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that wasn't a question.

SUPERVISION OF CARS ON FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of

the Attorney-General, who has been at meetings, I gather, I wonder if I

could ask the Minister of Transport and Communications, in view of the

fact that a motor vehicle with a man inside fell off the B.C. ferry in

Active Pass on Saturday, if the minister has ordered any specific

inquiry to determine if there is any lack of safety in the supervision

of vehicles on the car deck while ferries are en route between Swartz

Bay and Tsawwassen.

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

Speaker, an inquiry is being conducted. I might, however, add for the

hon. member's information that the automobile in question was one of

the last to board the ferry and apparently was driven off the ferry in

reverse at high speed.

MR. WALLACE: I don't wish to go into the specifics of that

one incident, but with the recent reduction in the number of crew

members on the ferries can the minister tell the House, again with

particular reference to the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen route, by how many

the number of crew employed exceeds the minimum permitted by the

regulations of the Canada Shipping Act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the present number is in line

with the numbers permitted under the Canada Shipping Act. International

convention, however, for similar protected waters applies also to the

Washington state ferries, and there the manning number is 14 and not 31, as in our case.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the

minister to say that, in fact, we now have the minimum number permitted by the

Canada Shipping Act? If this is the case — and I take it to be the case from

his answer — what preparations does the ferry system have in the event of sudden

illness or other such reason on the part of a crew member not appearing on duty?

Would the ship in fact be sailing in contravention of the Canada Shipping Act

and with increased risk to passengers?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in no case has a vessel sailed with less than the minimum required number, nor is it likely to.

As I said previously, the numbers required under the Canada Shipping

Act are the numbers really required for high-seas operation. We're

looking into the numbers required for inland waters operations.

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier.

In view of the recent resolution just passed by the United Nations

condemning the actions of South Africa in the recent violence against

unarmed students in that country, would you tell me, Mr. Premier, what

your government's policy is in continuing trade in South African wines

in this province?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Government of

British Columbia believes that international relations are the

responsibilities of the federal government. We will not use our own

provincial policies, whether with Chile or with Russia or with China or

with South Africa, as an international weapon. What we have done is

present a policy in the LCB that is not political in nature; it's by

demand of the customers in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the federal government permits

provincial governments to take some kind of moral responsibility for

their actions. The previous provincial government took the moral

responsibility of acceding to the wishes of the black South Africans

who said: "Would you please not trade with this country?" Your

government, Mr. Premier, reversed that decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Would you please answer my previous question? In view of the United Nations

[ Page 2841 ]

resolution, what do you and what does your government intend to do in terms of your moral responsibility?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether I was

being lectured by the member, but I want to say that the government

does not politically influence this government. In the government

liquor stores the right to purchase is a decision that's made by the

citizens of B.C. The government allows people to make a free choice in

this province, and that's the only type of government we'll be part of.

MS. BROWN: Final supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier

explain to us why his government is taking away from the people of this

province the right to know what the government is doing through

introduction of Bill 59, which will allow him to carry on business in

private?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Yet he tells us that he's allowing free government in this province.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I point out to the hon.

members that discussion on Bill 59 is a matter of discussion in second

reading before the House and, as such, is out of order in question

period.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

FUNDING OF OLYMPIC

TORCH-CARRYING CEREMONIES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I should perhaps be

making a supplementary because that's a pretty serious matter that the

Premier has evaded, but I want to ask him another question in the

interest of sport.

He's indicated to the province that he will be participating in the

torch-carrying ceremonies from Ottawa to Montreal and that B.C.

Industries, along with the provincial government, will be handling the

cost of some $300,000 for some 24 athletes and himself. I'd like to ask

the Premier, in view of the fact that the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund is now depleted and other means are required in the

province of British Columbia, what percentage of...

Interjections.

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

MR. BARNES: ...the $300,000, Mr. Premier, the people of

British Columbia will be paying in that total amount to carry on that

torch-carrying ceremony.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I might explain to the member

that a request from the committee was before the government when the

new government took over for B.C., as all other provinces, to participate in some part of the Olympics. There was a committee

set up, the decision was made and finally accepted that B.C.'s

contribution, rather than going into a lot of hospitality that

surrounds the Olympics, would be in the traditional flame ceremony, and

we would provide young athletes from B.C. to carry it. I think the

symbolism of the flame ceremony is one of the most important parts of

the Olympics, and what the government has done is accede to this

request. The Provincial Secretary's estimates will be up and you can

get the exact amount, if you wish it. If not, I'll take that part of

your question as notice and bring the answer to the House.

MR. BARNES: Could I ask the Premier if he could also indicate

to the House why he felt that he himself would like to run the first

one kilometre? Assuming that he had no politics in mind and didn't want

to use the public's funds to get himself a little exposure, then

perhaps he could have found a 25th athlete from British Columbia —

perhaps myself, as a member of the opposition. I would have done it for

free, and maybe I would have paid my own way.

Interjections.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You couldn't make it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to tell the member for Vancouver

Centre that I am doing it for free and I am doing it at the request of

the committee, who made the request to myself as Premier, and as...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...we respond to requests to represent the

province at various functions around the province. I certainly feel

it's the government's duty, and myself on behalf of the government, to

recognize reasonable requests. It was upon the request of that

committee that we are representing the province. I'm sure if they had

wanted the member for Vancouver Centre, they would have asked him.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 2842 ]

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

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I want to join my

colleagues on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, in stating my great

alarm about the bill which is before us at the moment, Bill 59, the

Government Reorganization Act. I've looked at the bill, Mr. Speaker,

and I've been appalled by the powers which the government is taking

unto itself, without respect to coming before the Legislature for full

debate, for full scrutiny and for full public understanding of

precisely what it is that the government is seeking to do in this bill.

I'm particularly alarmed, Mr. Speaker, by the authority of a

government which is moving more and more toward the American style of

republicanism, where the Premier apparently conceives of himself as the

president. Perhaps one day some of his cabinet people are going to have

to point out to him that the emperor has no clothes. We find that he's

moving in the direction of feeling that he should have full powers

without any public scrutiny, and we remember the story of the emperor

without his clothes and it having to be brought brutally to his

attention that he was left naked in terms of responsibility, in terms

of obligations to those people whom he represented.

This Bill 59 is a similar statute. It's a statute, Mr. Speaker, that

appalls me, because that group over there, when they were in opposition

and during the election campaign, put forward the proposition that they

were the defenders of freedom in this province, that they stood for

freedom. I think we all remember the emblems of Jonathan Livingstone

Seagull, that free bird flying overhead. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that the people of British Columbia today do not appreciate

what that seagull is dropping on them.

I have great concern with this government that said they would be

accountable, that they would protect the freedom of each and every

citizen in this province, that they would have the gall to come before

this Legislature and say they're going to pass one broad, sweeping Act

that will allow them....

Interjections.

MR. KING: I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has something in his eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's

an Act that will allow them with one fell swoop of

Jonathan Livingstone to seize unto themselves powers allowing the

Premier, the crown prince or the boy friends to manipulate moneys that

are voted by this Legislature for specific purposes. This is the arena

where priorities are set and the allocation of the public's funds, it's

the arena where priorities are set....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You were the best leader of them all.

MR. KING: The Minister of Health is sulking over there. He

was one of the ones who ran into that powerful money machine from the

Okanagan and he's been worrying about leadership ever since.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flattery will get you nowhere.

MR. KING: He thought he could take on that powerful money

machine from the Okanagan, and ever since he butted his nose up against

that, he's been obsessed with leadership. I want to tell him that

leadership on this side of the House is in great shape — great shape;

no problems. It's over there that the infighting is going on.

I want to say that maybe that's another reason that the Premier of

this coalition government is bringing in a bill to seize more

individual personal power for himself, because he's become a bit

paranoid about all the people nipping at his heels. He sees power

brokers all around him — people who would divest themselves and divorce

themselves from party allegiance of long standing, people who would

coalesce into some kind of coalition of convenience for the sole

purpose of obtaining power at any cost. I think the Premier is a bit

paranoid — that's why we see bills of this nature before the House. The

Premier is going to become Mr. President, and then maybe some of

executive council will be chosen from the non-elected, rather than the

ranks of the elected.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have travelled around

British Columbia for the last number of months. And particularly since

this bill was introduced into the Legislature, I have encountered a

tremendous reaction from people in the public service in this province.

I have found people in the field in virtually every department

expressing real concern, real terror in fact, regarding the

implications of this bill. We find people in the Minister of

Environment's branch who are tremendously concerned when they see that

by this one statute authority and moneys can be voted for the

protection of the environment. Arbitrarily, without respect to the

Legislature, without respect to the public for any debated dialogue,

the Premier of this province will be able to, in an autocratic manner,

transfer the moneys that were allocated for environmental protection and

[ Page 2843 ]

emasculate the staffing requirements of that

department which is charged with the responsibility of regulating

mining corporations so that streams and lakes are not polluted with

tailings, be able to emasculate the function of the game biologists and

the fisheries biologists, who are the custodians over preservation of

that tremendously important area of our life, by simply transferring

funds or transferring staff to some other department.

It means, Mr. Speaker, in reality that this government can place

their priorities in a closed-door fashion without the benefit of public

debate, without coming before the electorate in this House and stating

openly what their priorities are. It means that they can simply pay lip

service to the Department of Environment, but by cabinet decree, indeed

by decree of the Premier, completely emasculate the effectiveness and

the whole priority the Legislature placed on that particular

department, and that particular function. I say this is dangerous.

I want to tell you that there are shock waves going through the

public service of the British Columbia government at this moment —

absolute shock waves from one end of the province to the other,

because, believe me, each and every government employee who is

dedicated to his function, whether it be protection of the environment,

whether it be protecting the safety of workers in the Department of

Labour, recognizes that despite the legislation which is on the books,

despite the statutes which require protection in these areas,

executive council authority can now override that statute. By simple

manipulation of the budget voted, their ability to comply with the

statutory law can be completely torpedoed, completely down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that happen in British Columbia before. In

essence, the old Social Credit government passed statutes, regulatory

statutes, pertaining to pollution, pertaining to safe conditions in

factories and plants in this province, and set up a condition whereby

the law was flaunted. The law was flaunted because the Premier of

that day refused to a supply adequate funds to the departments to

engage the staff necessary to enforce and police the law.

We're moving again, I suggest, to a day where that kind of thing

will be possible, only it's a bit more insidious this time, Mr.

Speaker. It means that this government hasn't got the courage to come

before the House and say: "Look. We are changing priorities. We are going to place less priority on the g environmental

protection of this province than we are on economic development" — if

that indeed is the priority. There will be no obligation upon them

any longer to come before the House and openly debate and establish the

priorities through debate and public understanding in this chamber.

They will have the right to tamper with the priorities that have been

set by this Legislature and by statute in an insidious way behind

closed doors through an autocratic, arbitrary imposition — a decree of

the Premier. Perhaps the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is

correct; perhaps we should be calling him Mr. President rather than the

Premier of the province, because that's the kind of system we're moving

to.

I wonder if the real motivation of the government in bringing in

this bill with such extreme autocratic powers is their fear of the

ELUC. Is it the fear of the Land Commission that was set up to preserve

farmland in British Columbia against the tentacles of the speculators

who became rich and fat through no productive contribution to our

society other than the purchase of land while they sat back and allowed

it to increase in value, largely as the result of public expenditure,

to capitalize on the results and to drive the cost of homes and land up

in this province? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that's the real goal of

this government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Tell us about Bob Williams.

MR. KING: Well, why don't you tell us about the telegram that

the Premier read that was stolen? Why don't you tell us about that? If

you're looking for things to dig into, tell us about that.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has come out with

racist remarks this morning. He can't seem to stay down when he gets

knocked down, Mr. Speaker. I wish he'd try to control himself. He'll

have his opportunity if he wishes to rise in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid of these powers. I'm trying to find the motivation

for them. The Premier is virtually setting up an oligarchy in British Columbia,

a totalitarian form of government where public debate in this Legislature is

rendered meaningless. What's really happening is that after we debate, after

we constitute departments of government, after we vote a budget for the functioning

of that department, the Premier — Mr. President indeed — can come along and completely

eliminate that department and can transfer the budget of that department for

any other purpose at his whim. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a complete

negation of the concept of freedom which those people tried to kid the people

of this province that they stood for. It's a complete denial of the basic

fundamental principles of parliament. It's a move towards an oligarchy —

a totalitarian form of government — which should not be tolerated, which should

not be countenanced either by this House or the people of British Columbia.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that despite the interjections

and the catcalls, despite punitive efforts of the government to punish

the opposition by depriving them of the opportunity to even have lunch

— by keeping them all hours of the day — we are not going to be

silenced on an issue of this importance.

[ Page 2844 ]

We demand full debate, and we certainly are here to ensure that a

bill of this kind is brought fully to the attention of the people of

British Columbia so they understand it, so they know what the issues

are, so they know the deceptiveness of this government which said they

stood for freedom and, once having seized power with their overwhelming

coalition, are prepared to thumb their nose even at the parliament of

this province. That's what the issue is; that's what's happening. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the backbenchers in that government should

think very seriously about this bill.

I want to tell you that we would have had a horse of a different

colour were it the NDP bringing in a bill like this! Remember those

favourite phrases that used to be shouted across the floor, Mr.

Speaker? I think you do, because I think there was a familiar voice in

the opposition at that time. Talk about "broad, sweeping, awesome

powers"! My gosh, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in no statute

that the New Democratic Party government introduced in this House was

there a suggestion in any way that the parliament of this province

should be bypassed, that it should be overridden, that indeed it should

be treated with contempt. Because I submit that it is contempt when

this Legislature deals with a matter such as constituting a department

of government, voting a budget, voting salary for staff, only to give

to the Premier of this province the right to completely override all of

those things which the Legislature itself has done. I say this is

shocking and shameless and I'm amazed that a government that used to

stand for free enterprise....

The old Social Credit government used to stand for freedom but this

new coalition for power poses a threat to the freedom and rights of

every citizen of this province, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that we're going

to be here a long, long time convincing them that they're going to have

to take a second look at this very, very serious and very devastating

bill.

The proposition has been put forward earlier by a number of speakers

and I think the point was made well. We are chipping away at and

eroding the basic principles of the British parliamentary system.

Certainly I'm no expert on the British parliamentary system, but I

think most Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, have great

admiration for one John Diefenbaker, an MP of long tenure, the former

Prime Minister of this nation, and whether one agrees with his politics

or not, I think even his opponents have a grudging admiration for his

tenacity in protecting and defending and standing up for all of the

basic tenets of the British parliamentary system. He is prepared to use

parliament as a forum to reveal various methods that the federal

government has chosen to chip away at and erode the rights and the

privileges of parliament. I respect that gentleman, and I think all of

us should pay a bit more attention to him in terms of taking parliament

seriously. I want to say that anyone who takes this parliament

seriously could in no way support an insidious bill of the flavour of

the one that is before us at the moment.

My colleagues have said that the current coalition, which is not a

Social Credit government any more.... It's not a people-based

government; it's a coalition of slick, downtown businessmen with no

grass-roots base in the province like the former Social Credit

government used to have, and my colleagues have said it's moving

inexorably to a more republican, more U.S.-oriented type of

governmental structure.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Not the U.S.

MR. KING: I think that's true, Mr. Speaker. I have....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Follow the great root bear.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the tour guides going around the marble halls downstairs.

My goodness, I think someone has brought me some sustenance. It's

too late now and, besides, I don't think Mr. Speaker would allow me to

indulge in the House, but I appreciate the Minister of Consumer

Services' (Hon. Mr. Mair) gesture in any event. I imagine it came from

him. If that minister could only understand that his department, the

Department of Consumer Services, does not imply his own ingestion of

food in this province but his protection of all of the citizens who

consume, if he could only understand that, we'd have a stronger

government in this province and the people would have protection.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I love "Oh Henrys" but I'll have it later.

I was listening to one of the beautiful young ladies take a group of

tourists around the marble halls downstairs the other day. And would

you believe that their running commentary has changed somewhat? Now

they spend time going around glorifying and sanctifying the role of

ministers in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. KING: We're witnessing a situation where even the

tourists through the parliament buildings of our province.... Buildings

that belong to every citizen in this province are being turned into a

political game for the aggrandizement of the government.

"There's Mr. Premier's office." I expect one day to see, Mr. Speaker, the sign "President" on that office,

[ Page 2845 ]

and I expect to hear the tour guides intoning,

"Curtsy, you're at the doors of the oval room," or some such thing as

that. My goodness, I think that things are coming to a sorry state in

this office. I expect further to see some stuffed replicas of old

politicians mounted over in the museum to the everlasting glory and

aggrandizement of this coalition government.

My goodness, talk about prostituting the powers and the authority of

this Legislature, Mr. Speaker! We're witnessing the greatest debacle

and the greatest travesty of the people's rights and interest in this

province that I have ever seen and that history has ever witnessed.

They're capable of anything.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes down to having people

worship at the door of the Premier's chamber, no wonder we find that

he's bringing in statutes to take unto himself powers that not even the

president of the United States has. They do have checks and balances

within their system which require them to come before congress for

final approval — with veto power! There is absolutely no right of veto

in this statute, Mr. Speaker. It is arbitrary, high-handed and

authoritarian — and this is a government that said they cared about

freedom and stood for freedom!

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else I can say about the bill. I'm

lost for words. I'm stuck for words because I never expected that a

group over there who said they were free enterprisers, kidded the

business people and kidded the citizens of this province that they

cared about freedom and rode on the back of Jonathan Livingstone

Seagull, a free-flying bird with dirty habits.... (Laughter.) I beg

your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, with an emblem such as that,

which certainly inferred freedom and respect for individual rights, I

never expected that they would bring in a document like this.

I want to say how inconsistent it is. The government raised such a

shout on every occasion when a statute was brought forth by the former

government. They tried to make a freedom issue out of every work, out

of every authority of the government. Yet nothing ever introduced was

as far-reaching, as arbitrary, as contemptuous of parliament as this

statute is today. Where are those freedom fighters?

I want to say to the press that they did an effective job, too, of

raising questions in the public mind regarding the Land Commission Act

and the public disclosures Act and things of that nature which sought

to protect the public against abuse by legislators. They were somehow

made a freedom issue. The press worked hand-in-glove with the

opposition of that day to raise bannered headlines and to raise the

interest and the awareness of the citizens of this province. Yet I find

a bill of this nature containing the most unbelievable powers not only

in terms of overriding the rights of parliament but precisely in terms

of overriding the rights of individual property holders, too, and I

find the press and the media not silent but certainly not at the pitch

which was witnessed when our legislation was before the House and

questions of this nature arose in that day.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Maybe they don't agree with you.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to move that

the motion that is before the House be amended by deleting the word

"now" and substituting therefore the words "six months hence." I so

move.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is an amendment that would delete the

word "now" and substitute therefore the words "six months hence." I

believe the amendment to the motion is in order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the whole bill, Hon. Member, would be read

six months hence a second time. I think the amendment is in order and

debate would now be in order on the reasons to defer the reading of the

bill for six months — either that or, if there's no debate, the the

motion will take place.

On the amendment.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, we have not

moved this amendment in a frivolous manner. I am particularly referring

to the word "frivolous" because I was watching a bit on the television

where the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is in

charge of putting this bill through the House, announced that we were

going to be having early morning sittings because of the frivolous

manner in which the opposition was handling the debate.

Now I may not have quoted the Provincial Secretary correctly, but I

wish to point out that she made those comments following our first

debate on the bill which she is in charge of. The very fact that the

Provincial Secretary would use the word "frivolous" in reference to a

debate by the opposition on one of the most serious bills which has

come before this House simply points out that the Provincial Secretary,

who is in charge of this bill, does not realize the full import of such

a bill, or she does realize it, and her government realizes it, and

they are intending to carry on in what they have already shown to be a

very dictatorial manner of running this province.

This is what we find rather astonishing, that a

[ Page 2846 ]

government would bring in a bill, particularly one

section of that bill — I know we are not to discuss it

section by

section — but the issue and the very heart of this whole debate is

giving the government the right to create new departments at will, and

disband, and, of course, transfer money, transfer deputies, transfer

civil servants at will.

What is at stake here — speaking to the amendment, the seriousness

of it and why we are asking for it to be hoisted, this whole bill — is

the whole British parliamentary system which has already been well

canvassed by other members. Any opposition which would not stand up and

defend the rights of our parliamentary system is not defending the

rights of the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. The two go

together. That is why we have debated this bill in second reading

considerably and why we are now moving to hoist the bill because of the

seriousness and the import of such legislation, and the erosion that

such legislation will have on our parliamentary system.

In speaking of the parliamentary system, the Mother of Parliaments

does not have similar legislation. In checking back and reading some of

the methods which are used by the British prime ministers, I am well

aware that one of the Labour prime ministers did create ministers

without going first to the House of Commons, or the Parliament, and to

the House of Lords. However, the difference here is that the statutes

were there which required him to get final assent from the House of

Commons. In the meantime, the ministers which he appointed were not

given any salary, none at all. They were appointed in their positions

but they did not receive any salary as ministers for those positions

until it was ratified by the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, what we do not understand is what this government is afraid of. The point here....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: When the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) stops talking across the floor, maybe I could continue.

MR. KING: He's got a large voice...

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has the floor.

MR. KING: ...and he has a large mouth.

MRS. DAILLY: The whole point here is that this

government...we don't understand what they are afraid of. They have a

majority. Why are they therefore afraid to continue with the rights for

the establishment of these departments in the statutes? They can come

forward to this House — they know they have their backbenchers, as

we've seen, under complete control as far as voting goes, so there's no

problem in knowing they will get passage of these departments.

We have heard no logical argument. We are waiting with great

interest for the Provincial Secretary's closing of the debate so she can

explain to us why such legislation is necessary.

Another point which concerns us is that in the creation of new

departments without having to come before the Legislature, there is a

danger that the creation of a new department can become simply a focal

point in the government's shop window. In other words, a government

might just be reacting to some particular crisis at the time or

reacting to some populace demand within the province for a certain

department. If this goes through, this bill, it means that this

government would be in a position to simply react to a particular group

in the province which manages to create enough pressure, and also the

government felt it would perhaps get them off a particular crisis or

problem which they were facing at that time. The Legislature has no

part, no part at all, in saying whether these departments are necessary

and for the betterment of the people of British Columbia. After all,

this happens to be one of our major roles as members in the opposition

— to have an opportunity to talk about the organization of the whole

provincial government.

We accept the fact that it's the final decision of the Premier whom

he selects for his cabinet. It is up to the cabinet, basically to bring

in their decisions on what departments are needed. We don't deny that

opportunity to any government.

What we do say must be denied is the right of that cabinet to go

ahead in their own cabinet meetings and make these major decisions

which are going to affect the whole province without any recourse to

this Legislature. Therefore we will find ourselves in the invidious

position, Mr. Speaker — following, hopefully not, the passage of this

legislation — of returning to find ourselves involved in estimates of

departments which perhaps, if they had been discussed openly here in

the Legislature, it would have been decided, hopefully, with a

government which would listen, that those departments were not

necessary, or that the opposition had some major points to make on the

basic reorganization approved by the government — or at least brought

forward.

We know that this government said they were going to come in on a

businesslike, efficient way to run this province. If this is considered

businesslike and efficient, to ram this kind of reorganization through

the session here and then leave this government with these rights, I'm

afraid that the cost of being businesslike and efficient is very, very

high for the people of the province to pay, because their basic

parliamentary rights, Mr. Speaker, are being trampled upon.

[ Page 2847 ]

This is something that no opposition can sit quietly by and tolerate. That's

why I was frankly shocked to hear the Provincial Secretary, as I said at the

beginning of my remarks, refer to this particular debate as being frivolous.

We do not consider this a frivolous debate. The very fact that the Provincial

Secretary thinks it is shows an obvious lack of understanding of the whole British

parliamentary system and a lack of understanding of what the role of the opposition

should be in any Legislature.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It is a very high-handed, arrogant approach to government. It's the

kind of approach which no opposition should sit silently by and go

through without debate. We very much resent the implication that we

are being called back for morning sessions because we are dragging out

what is considered to be a frivolous debate. We have no intention, Mr.

Speaker, of dragging on a debate in a frivolous manner. We are simply

here, as I'm trying to do this afternoon, to make points as clearly, I

hope, and concisely as we can without too great, lengthy speeches. We

are deeply, deeply concerned with the import of this legislation.

As you look through the whole basis of the parliamentary system, you

can go right back, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did

very well this morning, talking about back in the days of King James I.

We can go right back to the Succession to the Crown Act which was first

passed. After it was passed, and the Act of settlement...even after

those Acts were passed, which tried to limit the control of the Crown,

it was even decided then that there was not enough limitation on

cabinets and prime ministers under the British system at that time to

make sure that the executive power did not override the legislative

power, which, of course, does lead you towards a more presidential

system than the system under which we are operating.

It's very, very important that the British were able to face up to

the fact, Mr. Speaker, that political reality took charge, in their

minds, and which it must in this House. They made the decision that the

legislative and the executive powers must always be firmly united, and

most certainly the executive powers cannot take precedence over the

powers of the duly elected representatives of this assembly.

That is why we are here and why I'm standing here in opposition to

this bill, and why I'm pleased to support the motion to hoist the bill.

I do hope that the Provincial Secretary and the government that she

represents will listen carefully to our concerns, and that the

government will seriously consider hoisting this bill, giving it some

thought as to the serious import and erosion on our democratic and

parliamentary procedures in this province. My sincere request to the

government is that they do support this amendment to hoist. Thank you

very much.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, when North America

and the world first learned of the Watergate scandal, the one thing that

was said in Canada was thank God that sort of thing cannot happen here

because of the difference in our systems. There are checks and balances

in the British parliamentary system that make it more difficult for the

kind of situation to arise that brought about Watergate and brought

about shame not only on the president's office but on the whole country

of the United States. If that ever happens again there will only be

nine provinces that will be able to say that.

If this bill passes, only the citizens in nine provinces can say

thank God we have a different kind of system than the United States. If

the Americans want that system, fine and well, but I don't believe the

people in Canada want a republican system to operate within this

province. As I mentioned previously in the House, at least in the

republican system in the United States over a period of some 200 years

they have built checks and balances into their system that safeguard

them from the powers of the executive.

What we're being asked to do here is to vote for a bill which gives

us the worst of the American system and none of the good of the

American system. That's what we're being asked to vote on.

I would like just — not to project into committee stage, Mr. Speaker

— to briefly read from one

section of this Act, and not all of the

section itself. It says:

"....and thereupon that money may be expended for those

powers, duties and functions, and shall be conclusively deemed to have been

authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, what this bill is saying is to transfer

the power that has traditionally been the power of this Legislature —

and they're so cheeky that they actually put it in the Act and say once

this passes through the Legislature...and we can do it, because we have

the....

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Section 12B.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the one who is cheeky.

MR. LEA: Cheeky — don't talk to me about cheek. Wait until

you take your place in this debate and defend this clause. Don't sit

there and talk. Stand up, every one of you, and defend this bill —

because it is not defendable.

[ Page 2848 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: The only way you can defend this bill is to take

cheap shots from a sitting position instead of standing in your place

in this debate and defending this kind of dictatorial legislation.

Stand up. You will get around to it.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'm not playing games.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If you were a Liberal you'd be opposed to this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the hall, in the corridor on Friday

when we left, the Provincial Secretary was being interviewed by the

press. That is when she made the statement that the opposition is

acting "frivolous" with this piece of legislation. She went on to say —

now this is an important part — that the actions her government had

taken in adjusting the departments after assuming office had been

illegal. She said it in the corridor. She said her government had acted

in an illegal manner and that this piece of legislation was going to

make okay those illegal acts that her government had taken by

order-in-council up until now. That's what she said. But she justified

it by saying: "Well, so we acted illegally. So did the NDP when they

were in government. So it's all right for us to act illegally if they

acted illegally."

When she was asked to prove that, she said: "I have it right here in

this little group of papers, an order-in-council which will prove to

you that the NDP acted the same way we did." I said: "Why don't you

show it to them?" She said: "Well, I haven't got it here. It's in my

office." As I understand it they were scouting around this morning

trying to find those pieces of paper to make her words true. I was

there Friday, Mr. Speaker, and I already have them. So if you need them

I'll send them over after I use them.

What the Provincial Secretary said in the hall was that they had

acted illegally, not only with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) but with her own portfolio. Now they were taking action to

make them legal, but it was okay because the previous government had

acted illegally also. She's on record as saying that. Now even if she

were correct that we had acted illegally when we were government, does

she honestly believe that that gives them the right to act illegally?

I remember when there was some question as to the legality of the

Minister of Environment and the Provincial Secretary in her other hat

as Minister of Recreation and Tourism. What did the cabinet say at that

time? They said: "Oh, of course not. We've checked it out with the best

legal counsel we can find in and out of government and it's perfectly

legal. So we're okay." That's what they said. You can check back in the

press statement of that day, not that long ago, about five months ago,

five or six months ago, and find that they said everything they were

doing was legal.

Now we have the Provincial Secretary on Friday last in the corridor

saying: "Oh, I'm sorry, what we did was illegal, but this will make it

legal and it will never be illegal in the future."

Now that line, that an order-in-council may be passed to make things

legal at any time they want...and it says when they do pass that

order-in-council that it "shall be conclusively deemed to have been

authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." In other

words, they're asking, Mr. Speaker, to pass decisions in cabinet and

that those decisions by law have the sanctity of being passed in this

House. That's what they're asking for. How can government supporters in

this House back that kind of legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're bored.

MR. LEA: How can they do that? They're taking away your rights too, Mr. Member, and taking it upon themselves.

Now let's take a look at what the Provincial Secretary said was

illegal that we did when we were the government. She was referring to

the appointment of Robert Strachan on May 25, 1973, by order-in-council.

Mr. Strachan, as we all know, was sworn in on May 18. He had previously

been Highways minister. At that time on May 18 I was appointed Highways

minister.

Mr. Strachan's appointment was rescinded by the Lieutenant-Governor,

and he was appointed the Minister of Commercial Transport and

Communications. What the Provincial Secretary failed to mention to the

press, and I have the order-in-council here, by the way — it was

order-in-council 1742, approved and ordered May 25, 1973 — and it says:

"At the executive council chamber of Victoria, present...."

and it names

cabinet ministers who were present,

"To His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

the undersigned has the honour to recommend: that order-in-council 3391, approved

the 21st day of September, 1972, and order-in-council 3392, approved the 21st

day of September, 1972, be rescinded, and to further

[ Page 2849 ]

recommend, pursuant to the Constitution Act, the following persons appointed

by the Lieutenant-Governor as members of the executive council to be designated

as follows...."

starting with the name Dave Barrett.

Then we get down to Robert Martin Strachan, appointed Minister of

Commercial Transport and Communications. Now we all know that at that

time there was a department called the Department of Commercial

Transport and it was perfectly in order, under the Constitution Act,

for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a minister to take up

that portfolio. The Act that we took as a cabinet on May 25, 1973, not

only was morally correct but also was legally correct.

To show further proof that when this party was government we went by

the word of the law, what did we do? When we appointed two new

ministers to take up two new portfolios — the Minister of Housing, (Mr.

Nicolson) as he eventually became, and the Minister of Consumer

Services (Ms. Young), as she eventually became — we did not make those

people ministers — full ministers — until after they had come to this

Legislature and had their Acts approved in the fall session of 1973.

Then on November 8, only after those two ministers without portfolio

had brought their Act into this House and had it approved by this

Legislature, were those people appointed full ministers — the Minister

of Housing and the Minister of Consumer Services.

Another order-in-council, dated July 13, 1973, rescinded the

designation of Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications for

Robert Strachan, and the same order-in-council recommended, under the

Constitution Act that the Hon. Robert Strachan be designated as

Minister of Transport and Communications. As you can see, Mr. Speaker,

every act that was taken by the former government surrounding these

questions of constitution was followed out pursuant to the Constitution

Act, was in order and was lawful. Now we could go on a witch hunt, on a

harangue, and say: "Well, possibly the present Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is illegally constituted. We could also mention the

Provincial Secretary herself when referring to her other portfolio,

that of Recreation and Tourism. We could say that that is illegal, but

I think we would be clutching at straws in reality, because the new

government took present departments and present branches and

transferred those duties and jurisdictions to the Minister of

Environment and to the Minister of Recreation and Tourism.

I suppose, if you wanted to be very technical, we could say, "yes,

the act that they took was illegal," but I don't think it was immoral.

I think they probably took the proper course, and I don't think anyone

would question the fact that they had done that. But that isn't what

they're asking for in this Act. They're not asking to make those acts

legal. That is nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the real intent of

this Act — to get away from this Legislature, to make decisions behind

closed doors, because we have a Premier who has not got the guts to

come in here.

When he was running for election, he said: "We want to make it more

businesslike, run it like a group of businessmen. Well, I've got news

for the Premier: that isn't how parliament should be run. That is how

corporations can run, because they are private, but the government of

this province has to run under the terms of its own constitution and

also under the tradition of the British parliamentary system, and that

is what they are attempting to escape from with this Act.

Have you ever heard, Mr. Speaker, of any government within the

British parliamentary system — or I would probably venture a guess and

say on any other democratic form of government, but I know that within

the British Commonwealth this kind of Act has never hit the floor —

where you go and take powers from the legislature to set up

departments, to change votes in midstride? That's what

section 12B of

this Act says. Under transferred powers and duties, it says that the

cabinet, behind closed doors, can take action b y order-in-council,

and those orders-in-council will be "deemed to have been authorized by

the Legislature to be so paid and applied".

Then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, once the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

— in other words, cabinet — has those powers, what role do we play?

What role do the legislators play in this province unless that

legislator happens to be in the cabinet? What role?

I would like some member of government or some backbencher belonging

to the government party to stand in his or her place and tell me what

role is left for the legislator who is not a government member. If they

can go behind closed doors in cabinet and pass legislation and say that

that legislation "be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the

Legislature to be so paid and applied," then what is our role?

Every spring we can get up and say, "Naughty, naughty!" after the

act. Is that our role, to say: "Naughty, naughty! You shouldn't have

done that," or, "Good boys! Good girls! You made a nice move there.

I'm glad you came here and told us about it."? Because we know that

with a majority they are going to retroactively pass anything they want

— make it okay retroactively. But that isn't what this system is all

about, surely.

I believe there are members on the other side who are agreeing with every word I say but have been....

[ Page 2850 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no....

MR. LEA: Oh, you're not.... I'm sure they don't consult you,

Omineca; I'm sure they don't consult you. You ran for the resource

board up there and didn't make it. You're still peeved about that;

that's your problem. Have you given up being mayor yet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, perhaps you could address the motion, please, and the Chair.

MR. LEA: So what are we going to do, Mr. Speaker? We know

from the attitude that has been displayed by the government

backbenchers that this piece of legislation is going to pass. We know

that that group of people during the last election when they were out

beating the campaign trail were talking about individual initiative and

the rights of the individual and how the individual should not take

second place to government.

A certain amount of people in this province believed them. But now

we see those freedom fighters sitting in the back benches of

government, Mr. Speaker, and every time they are asked to "baaaaa" like

a sheep they jump up or sit down or pound their desks and do everything

they are told.

Where are those individual freedom fighters today? Have they turned into the sheep to be led around by the nose? I would say so.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking those government backbenchers to

support this legislation, because we know that in their own sheeplike

way they will support to a man and woman this piece of legislation

which takes powers from the Legislature and gives them to the cabinet.

In other words, the Legislature has been transferred from this chamber

to the cabinet chamber.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know it's correct.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I know it's correct. If it is not correct, Mr.

Speaker, let them get up and explain 12B if you've read the

legislation, which I doubt maybe you have even read.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No? Explain then. So what recourse do we in

opposition have? What recourse prior to the next election do the people

of this province have if they don't like this piece of legislation? I

would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should seriously

consider putting this piece of legislation to one of the greatest tests

that we can put it to. When this piece of legislation is passed — I

don't say if passed; it's going to be passed by this group over there —

then we have to get some decision as to its constitutional legality

from a higher order than this province.

I think that this piece of legislation is so serious that this must

stand the test of the constitutional courts of this country, because I

believe that it cannot pass that test. That should be our final

recourse in a legal way through the courts.

I believe that the people will turn this piece of legislation aside

at the next provincial election, but I don't think this province should

suffer the black eye that we are going to suffer in the eyes of every

other country within the Commonwealth — any other country that

practises their constitution in the British parliamentary tradition. We

are going to, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, look like backwoods fools for

passing this kind of legislation.

For years the politics in this province have been laughed at. I

remember when they first started the First Ministers' Conferences. We

used to be laughed at in this province because of the conduct of our

first minister; we used to be laughed at. You know, I sometimes think

it would be better to be hated than to be laughed at. Why would Ottawa

take us seriously in our requests with that senior government when we

were actually being laughed at because of the juvenile way in which we

handled ourselves at the provincial-federal level?

Now we are going to be laughed at again and, I hope, pitied by some,

because this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is probably the most

serious piece of legislation that has ever come into this House,

because always before, any action of government such as is asked for in

this bill, always before, under the previous coalition, under the

former Social Credit government, under anybody, any government in the

history of this province, no one has ever asked for the kind of powers

that are being asked for in this piece of legislation.

I said it the other day, but I think we should say it every

opportunity we get, every opportunity, so that people know the kind of

government with which they deal. No Liberal Party would have brought

this in. No government made up of Liberal members would have brought it

in. No Conservative government would have brought this legislation in

and no Social Credit government would have brought this in.

Only the extremists, only extremists of left or right, would have

brought this kind of dictatorial piece of legislation into this House.

No sane, rational, moderate government would ever presume to take the

rights of parliament into the cabinet room and then sit over there and

scoff and laugh and hurl insults at the opposition for having the

audacity and the cheek to even raise the question. "Be good little boys

and girls. Sit down. We have a majority and if you protest

[ Page 2851 ]

this heinous act, if you protest it, then the

Provincial Secretary and House Leader will skip out into the hall and

say we're acting frivolously."

Then, to top it all off, the government says: "You will sit morning,

noon and night as opposition, because we're so interested and concerned

that we take powers that have hitherto been in the hands of the people

into our cabinet chamber that we can't even wait for proper debate in

the regular time allotted under the rules of this House. We are going

to sit the opposition morning, noon and night, and through exhaustion

we're going to have our way and our will and bring the Legislature into

the cabinet."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if I can just interrupt you for

a moment to remind you that we are discussing a motion to substitute

the words "six months hence" and that's the motion we're discussing on

Bill 59.... Could you kindly keep your remarks to that subject?

MR. LEA: Yes. I'd like to know what you thought was out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Okay, thank you. You were just reminding me those

are the rules, is that it? You didn't think I was out of order? But

thank you.

MR. BARRETT: They may be changed by order-in-council.

MR. LEA: Yes, even the rules. So, Mr. Speaker, you know, this

is probably the most frustrating time for opposition because on the

weekend, on Friday, I talked with members of the media and told members

of the media my concern about this legislation, Certain of those media

people said: "How can you tell people that they should be frightened

when their freedoms are being eroded?" When the Social Credit were in

opposition, they didn't frighten them that way. They said: "Your land

is going to be taken by the government, your wedding ring, all your

personal property can be taken by the government because they are a

dictatorial government out willing to take over everything in the name

of the Kremlin. Be frightened out there."

So I was told by people in the media that you can frighten people by

saying "look, the government's going to take away your property,"

because you're dealing with a very real thing that people have and they

can see it every day. But when freedoms are eroded, it's not quite so

simple a message to get across.

How do you tell people who have probably never concerned themself

one day, for the most part, with the jurisdictional differences between

cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the Legislature? How many people

in the province have concerned themselves whether the rule that they're

working under was embodied in the legislation itself or by a regulation

applied to the legislation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after

the legislation had passed the Legislature?

How many people know those fine distinctions of power that keep us

free in a democratic society? Most suppose that the rules would keep us

democratic and free and so knowing, that most people take freedom for

granted, have probably never taken a very good, close look at the

method that our freedom hangs together by. So they're gambling; the

government is gambling that they can get this piece of legislation

through, eroding the very foundation of our freedoms, the British

parliamentary system. They're gambling that they can get it through and

take those powers to themselves and that the people won't know really

what happened to them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of the attitude of Canadians

after Watergate, the smugness with which we Canadians sat back and

said: "It cannot happen here, because we don't have the American

system," I believe that same sense of smugness will rise to the

surface again, but not in smugness — in outright indignation that any

government would presume to have the authority of the people to take

away the very powers that give people freedom and change the system

from one of British parliamentary freedom to the republican kind of

freedom... I don't think people will stand for it.

So I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party, even though we

know this legislation will pass this House because of the sheep at that

end of the room...because they're sheep without the guts of their

convictions, because they will vote anyway cabinet tells them to vote.

Don't shake your head, George — you'll vote any way at all. I say to

you that this party in opposition — and I am sure the Liberal and

Conservative parties and every free-thinking person in this community —

is going to go out in the province and tell them of the kind of

freedoms that this government is taking away. If it takes four years,

if it takes eight years, if it takes 12 years, we're going to be sure

and be out there telling the people what kind of government they have —

not a Social Credit government, not a Liberal government, not a

Conservative government, but a coalition government made up of

opportunists and people who have no philosophic or ideological base to

hold them together except that they want to be in power to help the

friends that put them there.

That's what this bill is all about: a Premier who hasn't got the

guts to come in this House and ask the Legislature for the changes he

wants; a Premier who is afraid; a Premier who wants to make decisions

by closed doors; a Premier who I don't think wanted the

[ Page 2852 ]

job in the first place, except that his dad told

him to go out and take it. That's what it was all about. Would he be

Premier today if his name was Smith or Jones? There were good people in

the Social Credit Party who ran against the Bennett name in that

convention, who didn't stand a chance....

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the amendment, please.

MR. LEA: We're talking about why this bill should be hoisted

for six months. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about

the kind of man who's the instrument behind this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I just interrupt you long

enough to remind you that the scope of debate under the amendment is

narrower than it is on the main motion. We cannot allow as wide-ranging

a debate on the amendment. This is according to the practices. So

therefore I am just warning the member to try to maintain a line of

thought that would be more closely related to the amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, that is fine, because I was almost

finished anyway. I'm going to conclude with the same thing that I

opened up with.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Omineca (Mr. Kempf), would you open those ears for a

change, instead of your mouth, and listen? Here is what this government

is going to do to you, through you, Mr. Speaker. This government is

going to do things in cabinet. They have a

section in here that says

whatever they do shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized

by the Legislature to be so paid and applied. Whatever they do in the

cabinet room under this piece of legislation they can say is deemed to

have been passed by the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, they grin. They sit over there, yawn and grin and act like sheep.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New, Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped

that the bill by now would have been withdrawn and would have been

looked at again under the perspective that has been discussed for the

last couple of days in the House. I had hoped that the minister would

have stood in her place and announced that the bill would be restudied.

It is with a good deal of sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that obviously the

advice that is being offered is being overlooked entirely.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wants very much to do

the job that she was commissioned to do by the Premier, and put a bill

before this House that we've discussed, I think, in great detail, that

has placed far too much power in the hands of the first minister of our

province.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the hoist, we have listened for so long

to that group not only in government but prior, when they were in

opposition, talking about the sun shining in, talking in terms of open

government as opposed to secrecy. I say, Mr. Speaker, where is their

confidence right now? If the bill is great and acceptable out there, if

it's as benign as the Provincial Secretary would like us to believe,

then what have they got to fear? Why don't they hoist it for six months

and let the people in this province discuss the bill and its

ramifications? It's benign; it's not all that important.

If that's truly the case, I suggest that they will agree to hoist

the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise they show a tremendous

lack of confidence that they really have a solid argument. Now I could

agree that they should lack confidence at this point. This bill has

been debated in this House for a great number of hours. The bill has

been used as a tool to thrash the opposition and to buffet us around.

They bring us in early and work us late. We can do that, Mr. Speaker,

don't ever think that any government is going to push this opposition

around.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: We will continue to debate bills or estimates as long as those bills and estimates are before us.

The one thing that I would like to draw to your attention with

respect to this question is, where is their confidence? We hear all the

freedom fighters across the floor remarking from their chairs, but not

one of those mikes has gone up since this bill has been before this

House for debate. Not one mike has gone up! I believe there must be

some fundamental reason for the fact of one mike not going up or a

number of mikes not going up. The reason is that they are ashamed....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier's put a can on them.

MR. COCKE: They are either ashamed of this bill or they have no arguments in its favour.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He has trained them.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trained his dogs.

MR. COCKE: They've been an outspoken government back-bench

group of supporters, and, of course, government members, cabinet

ministers, have

[ Page 2853 ]

been supporting one another for the last two or

three months in this House. All of a sudden they're dumbstruck. All of

a sudden that whole government and its support has become numb. Why

over this bill?

That is one of the reasons why we are asking that the bill be

withdrawn. We're asking that the bill be hoisted for six months so it

can be studied. Mr. Speaker, six months is during the life of this

session. As it's going now, we might still be sitting each day six

months from now. But be that as it may, it's certainly within the life

of this session unless the session is going to prorogue. I doubt that

very much. I imagine it will adjourn some time during the summer — late

summer or early fall.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that they have shown their

lack of confidence. They have shown that there is no great pride in

Bill 59 across the floor of this House. I suggest that we're denying

members' rights and members' opportunities to really debate all of the

questions that should be debated. If passing this bill means that to

me, then I suggest that it should be studied and should be hoisted. It

should be put before the public. Give them an opportunity to react.

I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), that people don't really recognize sometimes when freedoms are

encroached upon. They don't really recognize what their members are

doing here in this House, particularly those on the opposition benches.

Let's give everyone an opportunity here to think it over. Let's let it

out there in the sunshine. Let's give people the right to give us their

opinions.

This Bill 59 was put forward not long ago. Like most of the

legislation in this session, it came late. We are oftentimes asked:

"How come the opposition doesn't roll over and play dead on some of

this work?" Mr. Speaker, it's been coming so late. The session started

late and it was very late when the major legislation came forward. So

there's no chance here. There's no chance here for real public

discussion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, et cetera,

if the member can't be heard, there's no reason why that member can't

stand up after I have spoken and speak right there into the microphone.

There's a large speaker above us that will make him heard by the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the amendment and speaking on that amendment.

I hope that the back bench, although I haven't got too much confidence

in them any more.... I've watched their way of doing business recently.

They are the most well-trained group that I've ever seen. You know, we

heard the Premier say some time ago that "it takes me two weeks to

train my dog." It didn't take him long to train his back bench. It's

taking him a little longer to try to train the opposition, even by his

punishing methods from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to contrast what I'm talking about in terms of

what I'm talking about in open government. For the first time in our

history we saw travelling committees, we saw people moving around this

province between 1972 and 1975, asking people's input.

I'm asking that this bill be given that kind of input — people's

input. Let the bill be shown around the countryside before it's passed

upon. Why are we in such a hurry? Mr. Speaker, if we are in such a

hurry to pass a bill the government wants so badly that they're

prepared to do two things — one, punish the opposition in order to get

their bill through as quickly as they can; and the second thing, hide

it from the people by trying to get it through that quickly — then I

suggest that we all have good reason to put forward the arguments we

have been putting forward the last few days.

Hoist the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do as

Speaker is listen to our arguments and then look over at the government

side and kind of give them a little bit of a nod indicating that you

agree. I'm sure if you weren't in the chair you'd be the first standing

up in this House right now speaking on behalf of this amendment.

MR. KING: Give them the nod, Harvey.

MR. COCKE: I know it. I know, just as I'm standing here, that

one of the reasons that you are in the chair is that you want to see to

it that this debate is conducted in a House that is abiding by the

rules. Mr. Speaker, we also know how fair-minded you are. I would hope

that in some way you could get the message across to that hard-hearted

group that forms the government in this province.

Seriously, let's go for a hoist. Let's go for a six-month hoist. I'm

speaking, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Provincial Secretary: what

have you got to lose? What have you got to lose by putting a six-month

hoist on this bill? It really isn't that much of a problem. We'll be

back here in this House to further debate the bill. Meanwhile we will

have had an opportunity to put it to our constituents, each and every

one of us. Let's hear from the public on a change of our basic

constitution in this province, a change, Mr. Speaker, that has

far-reaching results, in our view. Now if this isn't the case, then we

can come back and debate this bill in relative peace, instead of in the

climate we are debating it in now, a climate that's been developed and

been inflamed by virtue of the government's insistence on pushing it

through, driving it through.

Mr. Speaker, when we got word that we were

[ Page 2854 ]

going to be sitting this morning — the final word

on Friday that we were sitting on Monday morning, were sitting on

Monday night, sitting on Wednesday night, sitting every morning...a day

that starts at 9 or 9:30 in the morning and ends at 11 at night

doesn't provide this province with the kind of legislation or the kind

of debate that should be provided. It's unfair to the province. People

don't debate properly under those circumstances.

In any event, it shows me that there's something more to it, and I'm

worried. Mr. Speaker, I therefore support the hoist put forward by the

hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King).

MS. SANFORD: I agree with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

that it is very important that this bill be removed at this time from

this Legislature, and I agree with the member for New Westminster that

we should take six months in order to travel the province. Let's hear

from the people of the province about the provisions of this particular

piece of legislation.

I've been trying to figure out why the government would want to

introduce legislation which does away with the very basis on which our

parliamentary system is based. Why? Is the Premier, now in his position

as leader of the government, so enamoured with the job that he thinks

he can become a president, or assume the role of a president? That's

been mentioned by many people in this Legislature.

MR. KING: Little Lord Fauntleroy.

MS. SANFORD: Does he feel that he can become a dictator in

this province just because he got elected in 1975? Or could it be, Mr.

Speaker, that he is so afraid to have the moves of this government

analysed and discussed in this Legislature by its members that he wants

to carry on behind the closed doors of cabinet?

I've been wondering about these two possibilities. Could it be that

he considers himself a dictator, or that he was just afraid to come to

this House? I concluded, Mr. Speaker, that it's a combination of the

two. He wants to carry on the steamrollering tactics he has used on the

people of the province now on the members in opposition by calling us

to session at 10 in the morning, making us sit all hours of the day in

an attempt to get this legislation through.

That government has shown very little concern for the people of the

province. They have been using steamroller tactics, with no regard to

what effects their actions have on the people of this province or on

the small businesses of this province. They introduced measures such as

doubling of the ferry rates, Mr. Speaker, without even taking the time

to conduct one impact study on the effects of that measure by any

department. They just went ahead and did it with no concern whatsoever

for the fact that the people in the areas of the province affected by

those increases are now suffering. Small businesses in those areas are

suffering. They're steamrollering. Even in my own riding, Mr. Speaker,

one of the small businesses there, a small hotel, is flying its flag at

half mast because of the actions of this government in terms of

doubling the ferry rates and practically wiping out the tourist trade

this summer.

This bill is an example of that kind of approach. Now they want to

bring in, through this bill, Mr. Speaker, the same kind of attacks on

the people and small businesses in this province, without even

discussing it in this House. That's what this bill is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we're on the amendment and not

the bill. If the line of reasoning that you're following should more

aptly be used in a debate on second reading, then perhaps you should

retain it until then.

MS. SANFORD: All right. In getting back to the reason for

hoisting — and I thought I had outlined that pretty clearly in the

first place — by hoisting for six months we would be able to go to the

people to find out what they feel about legislation of this type, and

at the same time find out what they feel about the lack of concern that

this government is showing toward them and the hardships that they are

being put to because of the actions of this government.

This bill, as has been pointed out by many speakers in the House,

violates the very foundations on which our system is based. The

foundations, Mr. Speaker, go way, way back to the Magna Carta. Because

this bill violates the provisions of that original charter, it should

be hoisted at this time and be reconsidered by the government.

I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Magna Carta, Mr.

Speaker. The provisions of the Magna Carta itself originally were

concerned with restricting the absolute powers of the monarch at that

time. In addition to that, it was concerned about taxation — the way in

which levies were placed on the people at that time — and it was also

concerned with the administration of laws.

This bill, Bill 59, if it's allowed to go through at this time,

violates the basic provisions of that Magna Carta. There are 65

chapters in all in that particular charter. I'm not going to go through

all of the chapters, but I would like to relate, Mr. Speaker, how some

of those provisions relate to this bill and to the reason that we want

to have it hoisted at this time and considered six months hence.

I hope that the back bench is listening to this, because if they

haven't recognized yet the seriousness of the implications of this

bill, then perhaps if it's related to the early foundations on which our

[ Page 2855 ]

parliamentary system is based, they may reconsider and vote along with us to hoist this bill for a period of six months.

Chapter 12 of the Magna Carta says that levies shall not be

collected except by the consent of the General Council of the nation.

That General Council, Mr. Speaker, to the backbenchers who are not

paying attention at the moment, is the forerunner of our modern

parliament. Way back at that time they were concerned that taxes and

matters that concerned money levies should be dealt with within the

parliament itself, the forerunner of our parliament. Now that's very

important. That provision is being directly violated by this Bill 59.

Therefore it should be removed now and discussed six months from now.

Now the old feudal barons who were involved in drawing up the Magna

Carta, they were not dreamers, they were not blind; they understood the

realities of power and that they wanted to have some controls placed on

that power. They took the precautions of putting into the wording of

the Magna Carta provisions so that the kind of the time could not just

simply wave around a charter and say: "Look, I'm following it." They

had set up a council of barons which were watchdogs over the king at

that time, and they also made sure that any money matters were

discussed within the legislature — the forerunner of our present

Legislature. It wasn't called the legislature at that time.

They didn't want a charter to which the king could just pay lip

service; they wanted to make sure that the monarch was prevented from

railroading and from running roughshod over the people of the time. The

barons very wisely said at that time — and that's in this provision,

this

chapter 12 — very wisely said that "the king must come before us

each and every time that he wants to make any changes in this charter

and whenever he wants to make any changes which apply specifically to

the existing provisions."

For that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, we should support this amendment, because it violates those very basic provisions.

Chapter 14 is another example which I would like to impress upon the

members of the Legislature, to point out how important this particular

Bill 59 is in terms of what it'll do to the people of the province, and

in terms of getting it listed at this time for further discussion.

Each and every time the king wanted to raise money from the public

he had to call the precursor of our parliament to tell them what, why,

when and exactly how he proposed to make each levy.

Chapter 14 was very specific on this procedure. It was there, it was

written, and now we're trying to change that by shuffling back and

forth between departments after they've been discussed here in the

Legislature.

One of the points of the Magna Carta which I think applies most

specifically to this particular piece of legislation and to the reason

for having it delayed for a period of six months is that the promises

which were made by the Crown were not open to

interpretation or could

not be misrepresented to the people. This is it, Mr. Speaker, this is

the important point which relates so directly to this bill.

For instance,

chapter 24 said that the knights must not be compelled

to give money instead of promising castle guard. In those days the

knights had to undertake some castle guard duties, or in lieu of that

they could pay money so that the Crown could hire someone to undertake

this castle guard duty. Do you know that they could not be levied that

amount of money — in other words, those taxes to pay for this — without

their specific consent?

Here we are asking that this Legislature approve the right of that

government to transfer this money back and forth to allow ministers to

move civil servants around. That's very similar to what the demands of

the knights were at that time. Mr. Speaker, we cannot proceed with this

bill at this time. It must be hoisted.

The other thing about this is that a cabinet operates behind closed

doors. The press is not there. We in this Legislature as members of the

opposition bring to the attention of the public through our speeches

here and through the press, the media, what is happening, what the

governments are up to.

When decisions can be made after this bill is passed, behind closed

doors, we no longer have any semblance of open government. It will

cease to exist, Mr. Speaker, because all of these decisions will be

made behind closed doors.

There is a basic tenet here which applies way back to the Magna

Carta in terms of what this government is trying to do. We must not

allow these basic freedoms to be trampled. That's what's going to

happen if this government proceeds with this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the press supports this bill. I know that

they would be concerned about what goes on with any government behind

closed doors. They want to know when departments are set up or when

departments are done away with, or when departments are shifted around

when funds are moved back and forth and when public officials are moved

around. They want to know.

They want it discussed here on the floor of the House. They want

legislation introduced so that they can read it and report on it to the

public. They don't want to have it all happen behind that green door in

the cabinet. I'm sure that the press, were they here voting on this

particular bill, would agree with us that this bill should be hoisted.

I hope some of those backbenchers will soon recognize the importance of

hoisting this for a period of six months so it can have further

discussion.

[ Page 2856 ]

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): They all shook their heads.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that you...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: ...would support this bill either. I don't think so.

I speak in support of the hoist and feel that all of the members of

this House should join us in seeking to have the government remove this

bill for a period of six months so we can have proper discussion on it.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I'd

prefer to be speaking on an amendment that would hoist the bill for six

years or six decades rather than just six months. This bill is an

offence to the parliamentary system. If it does come back in six

months, let's hoist it again and again and again until that coalition

is out of power and no future government would ever have the nerve or

the audacity or the foolishness to introduce such a bill.

I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will do for that

coalition what unfortunately, and with far less reason, the Land

Commission bill did for our government. It will mark the turning point.

It will mark the fear and the anxiety in the hearts of the public

towards that government as did, by dint or not fact but fiction, the

Land Commission Act to our government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: In the Land Commission Act, lies were told by

people in this province that the Land Commission itself had the power

of expropriation. That was a lie. It was never true either before or

after that bill was passed; it was never true. No lies need to be told

about this bill, Mr. Speaker, in order to point out how odious it is to

this system. Six months isn't long enough to hoist it, but six months

is at least a start.

I'd like to read into the record the order-in-council description of

this bill. I believe it will serve to add to our arguments in favour of

a six-month hoist. Reading from the Resume of Orders-in-Council

Approved and Ordered volume 3, No. 32:

"The purpose of this bill is to amend the Constitution

Act to enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to restructure the

executive government; establish new portfolios; establish, merge or

separate government departments; and transfer powers and duties under

any Act or part of

an Act from one member of the executive council to

another."

That is an extraordinary power to be concentrated in the hands of

one man. This is a more succinct and a more accurate

summary of this

bill than any other that has so far appeared. I don't know who we have

to thank for it. It appears nowhere in the Act itself, but rather in

the orders-in-council resume.

There is another

section which has to read into the record again and

which is and of itself another sound argument for hoisting this bill

six months or six years:

"...the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order

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

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

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

through the other official, department or ministry to which those

powers, duties and functions are transferred, and thereupon that money

may be expended for those powers, duties and functions, and shall be

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

paid and applied."

We need to hoist this bill for six months, Mr. Speaker, in order to

let the people of British Columbia know that what that

section allows

that coalition to do is to go back and rewrite history, is to go back

and alter the past and the records and the documents, is to go back

and pretend, through

section 12B, that the Legislature actually granted

them that authority. We need to delay this for six months because the

complex and legal language of that

section is at the moment largely

incomprehensible to the people of British Columbia. It will take a good

six months to explain it. It will take a good six months for the

significance of that

section to sink in.

This

section allows that coalition to go back and pretend that our

Legislature — not theirs, ours; it belongs to all of us and not just to

them — approved various expenditures, approved various transfers,

approved the switching of money and civil servants and departments from

one agency to another and back again, if they wish.

There is another logical contradiction in the arguments of that

coalition. If, as the Provincial Secretary said in her opening remarks,

thin as they were, this is merely a technical bill of no great

significance, then why will they object to a six-month hoist? Isn't

that a fair question to ask, Mr. Speaker? If it's only technical, if

that's all it is, if the Provincial Secretary was telling the truth,

then why will they object to a six-month hoist? If it's only technical,

they shouldn't, should they? If it's only a technical bill, there is no

reason why they shouldn't allow it to go back for further technical

study — if that's all.

MR. KAHL: That makes as much sense as you do,

[ Page 2857 ]

Charles.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: If, on the other hand, the purpose of this bill

is to legalize something retroactively that they have already done

without the benefit of law, if the department continues and because we

were perhaps foolish enough to take the word of the minister

responsible that they had consulted legal authority and that it was

correct to establish a Department of Environment, if that, too, is the

case, then what's the hurry? What's the rush? Why do they want to get

this bill through as quickly as they can before anyone realizes what it

means? Why do they want to get it through as quickly as they can before

anyone in the public understands the significance of this?

This is a bill that serves the pleasure of autocrats. This is a bill

that paves the way to tyranny. If it's only a technical bill, they

won't object to a hoist. If it only makes legal something they've

already done, they won't object to a hoist. If there's any other

reason, let's hear it; if there's not, let the hoist stand. Let the

bill stand.

This is as grave a threat to freedom in British Columbia and to the

dignity and the power of this Legislature as any bill these guys have

tried to push through. If it's only a technical bill, let it wait —

another six months of study won't hurt. If it's a bill only to legalize

an action they've already taken, let it wait. There's no hurry, because

the action's been taken, the department exists, they're doing their job

as best they can. Let it wait. They can have no further objection.

If, on the other hand, as we suspect, this is an attempt to avoid

the Legislature because they're scared, inept, inarticulate,

incompetent and bungling, then we need six months to realize what's

going on. I'd like to quote another authority. Let me remind you, this

bill actually says "that money may be expended for those powers, duties

and functions, and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized

by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." They propose to rewrite

history, Mr. Speaker. They propose, on the basis of a blank cheque

issued once at the beginning of every fiscal year — this year in the

amount of $3.6 billion; next year, $4 billion — to go back and rewrite

history and to pretend that we gave them authority which, in fact, they

didn't have.

Let me quote the authority who knows better about this stuff than anyone else:

"As soon as old corrections which happened to be necessary

in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that

number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed and the corrected copy

placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was

applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters,

leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature

or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

Day by day and almost minute by minute, the past was brought up to date.

"In this way, every prediction made by the party could

be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct. Nor was any item

of news or any expression of opinion which conflicted with the needs of

the moment ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a

palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was

necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed had

been done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest

section of the records department, far larger than the one in which

Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track

down and collect all copies of books, newspapers and other documents

which had been superseded and were due for destruction.

"A number of the Times which might, because of changes

in political alignment or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother,

have been written a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its

original date and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books also

were recalled and rewritten again and again and were invariably

reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even

the written instructions which Winston received, and which he

invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated

or implied that

an act of forgery was to be committed. Always the

reference was to the slips, errors, misprints or misquotations which it

was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy. But actually,

he thought, as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was

not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of

nonsense for another."

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows the government to go back and rewrite

history to make believe that we approved something when we never did

or, in the words of the Act, "to conclusively deem that moneys shall

have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied". We

need at least six months, Mr. Speaker. The careful, the Byzantine, the

legalistic manner in which this was written, the ever-so-flighty manner

in which it was presented, are a deliberate attempt to make it

impossible for the people of British Columbia to understand the gravity

of this bill.

If it is just a technical bill, you won't object to six months, will you? If it's only to serve the purpose of

[ Page 2858 ]

legalizing a step you've already taken, there's no

hurry about that either, is there? If there is a more serious and a

more significant purpose, tell us what it is. When you do tell us, tell

us what we know to be the case: this gives you powers that no

democratic government should have, that no democratic-minded citizen

should ever have asked for in the first place.

Do you really want the power to rewrite history, to go back and

pretend that we authorized something that we didn't? Do you really want

that authority? If you don't, amend the bill yourselves and, while you

are doing it, take six months. Consult with the people. Don't be afraid

of public opinion. Go out and solicit it. Go out and ask for it. Go out

and let the public discuss the significance of this bill and see if you

want to let.... Let them tell you if they want you to do this to their

Legislature.

I want to repeat the prediction. This bill will do for you what

public fear and hysteria about the Land Commission Act did for us. In

the case of the Land Commission, those criticisms were not based on the

truth. There never was a power to expropriate; there never was a power

to seize land. That was all a lie from beginning to end.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: There is no lie in our arguments. We are simply

reading the bill back to you, but you are giving the lie to your own

political promises, and the freedom fighters themselves have

counterfeited their own message. Give us another six months. Let the

people tell you what they are thinking and I suspect we will never see

this bill again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie, and before the

member begins, perhaps I could remind hon. members again in their

debate to address the Chair and remind them that the debate is much

narrower than if it were on the main question.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very

short and brief, but I did wish to place myself on record as supporting

the amendment that the bill should be hoisted for six months. As

previous speakers have suggested, I think that the people of this

province, Mr. Speaker, should be allowed the opportunity to voice an

opinion on this type of legislation — the type of legislation that, in

my opinion, erodes from the democratic process, a process that people

have fought and died for over the centuries, to build in safeguards for

this type of system, a system that is not perfect but has been improved

over the centuries because people fought for the rights that we now

have.

I see this bill as removing some of those rights, Mr. Speaker, and I

think that all members of this Legislature would be very remiss in

their duties if they can't or would not support at least a motion that

this bill should be hoisted for six months.

I would like to know why the government is afraid to face the

Legislature, why they can't come to the Legislature if they wish to

make changes in procedures and activities and appropriate funds for

whatever purpose. I think it should be done in the Legislature and not

in the cabinet rooms, Mr. Speaker. I think the full legislative body

must have the opportunity to examine treasury bench decisions. I think,

if this bill passes, that part of those rights will be removed.

So it is not difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to support this

amendment, and I would hope that the members of the back bench on the

government side will take the time to read this bill thoroughly and

understand what they are being asked to vote for. I don't think some of

them do. I hear a lot of chirping over there but I really don't think

some of the members over there have read this bill, frankly, and I wish

they would take the time. I am sure that if they did they would support

us in this amendment to hoist.

I further feel, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion, if the government

is really serious about proceeding with this bill, rather than proceed

with this bill I really feel that they should resign and give the

people of this province a chance to see if they approve of this type of

legislation. Thank you.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my main concern in

supporting this amendment lies in the fact that really I think the bill

— even if delayed six months — is still not the kind of bill that I

could support without some very radical omissions from its present

content. It hasn't been in the House very long — certainly not long

enough, it would appear, for the public to respond or react to the kind

of criticisms which the official opposition, I think quite

legitimately, have raised in debate. Therefore the only hope of getting

a better bill is to delay any further proceeding with the bill through

the second reading and committee reading in the hope that the

particular

section which is so reactionary — and I'm referring to the

part of the bill which allows for the spending of money in a different

manner from that for which it was first allocated by the Legislature,

and the provision of the bill that no matter how the money is spent,

even by a different department or a different part of the department

from the original intent, then the money shall be conclusively deemed

to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied.

That really, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the opposition to this

bill, and it would seem to me that in asking for a delay in decision on

this bill for six months.... The government has no pressing need for

this bill at the moment that we have been made aware

[ Page 2859 ]

of, unless there is further intent of the

government in regard to new departments, which it hasn't yet revealed

to the House, and that would make this debate even more crucial.

MR. LEA: The department of internal security.

MR. WALLACE: But unless there is some pressing need for the

government to set up a new department, which it is not willing to tell

us about at this time, I can see no tremendous haste that's required to

pass the bill as it is now written. Perhaps another question we

should be asking the minister in this debate is whether or not some

hitherto unnamed and unrevealed department is about to be set up

under this bill, or is it simply a bill to facilitate legalizing such

departments as may be required in the future without the government

having any specific intention which one?

But the wording in the bill, Mr. Speaker, dealing with transferred

powers and duties is a most unusual degree of power to give to any

government, particularly in the spending of public funds, without the

precise nature of that funding being open to scrutiny and criticism

and debate by the opposition parties in this House.

I think that while a six-month delay really wouldn't satisfy me, we

seem merely to be using what devices are open to the opposition

parties to try and make the point that this is bad legislation. While I

would only support this bill if certain sections or certain sentences

were deleted completely, at least in the hope that we may persuade the

government to take that famous second look and give the many other

groups, citizens and taxpayers the opportunity to better understand

and react to this bill, I certainly feel that the idea and intent of

delaying the bill for six months is at least a measure of safeguard

which we as opposition members have the opportunity to present. That is

why I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, just a few

brief comments on the amendment. I will indicate initially, though,

that I am fully in support of the amendment, although I agree with

certain of the previous speakers that a hoist of six months is hardly a

solution. It would indicate that we perhaps believe that it can be a

workable bill, but I'm of the opinion that the bill represents an

extremely serious precedent in the province, despite the government's

attempts to indicate that they are not initiating anything new and

that there are precedents such as what they're proposing in other

jurisdictions, and so forth.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, if one were to recall the

pronouncements by this government in the last election, and even prior

to that — those of them who were in the opposition, both in the Social

Credit Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, before they

became a coalition and decided they wanted to form a government — they

were very, very adamant about the weakening of the democratic system,

the democratic processes, which historically we all have enjoyed in

this province. I must say that as a member of the back bench during

those days, I sat with some sense of appreciation for their concern.

I find it curious, though, that in Bill 59 — the bill that attempts

to amend the constitution of the province of British Columbia, the type

of move that usually and in most instances requires at least a

two-thirds vote or better before there is any hope of making a major

change to the constitution of an institution or organization — here we

have a government that is very casually throwing a major piece of

legislation on the table of the House and indicating that it is nothing

more than an administrative, housekeeping bill and that they would see

no cause for even participating themselves, other than the remarks made

by the hon. Provincial Secretary in introducing the bill.

Strangely enough, there's been no one, other than the Provincial

Secretary, to my knowledge, who has risen in their place to speak on

the bill, to assure us that they, too, agree with the minister that it

is nothing more than a housekeeping instrument to facilitate the

people's business and in no way will deprive any of us of our

fundamental rights to be represented by our chosen, elected

representatives in the Legislative Assembly.

I find this a rather disturbing, to say the least, display on behalf

of the government, and that they are sincere in indicating that this is

nothing more than an administrative instrument to facilitate the

government in carrying on the people's business.

What it is is a major overhaul of the parliamentary system. There is

no reason to believe that there wouldn't be a companion piece of

legislation also on the drawing board planning to do away with the

Legislative Assembly itself, because what is left now that Bill 59 has

been introduced — and the indications are that it is going to be passed

— is that there will be no matters of importance for us to discuss. All

the matters of public business will be taken care of by the executive

council without reference whatsoever to the Legislative Assembly. I

think this is cause for alarm.

I would like to remind the House that just a few short years ago

when the now Premier was the Leader of the Opposition, he stood in this

House and stood fast many, many hours suggesting that not a dime would

be passed in this Legislature without debate. At that time he was

talking about the departmental

[ Page 2860 ]

estimates that had to be approved before the

government at that time to get on with the administration of the

various departments. He insisted that there was to be no money without

debate. "Not a dime without debate," I believe was the quote.

He was speaking about the very same thing that we are concerned

about this afternoon . I don't understand what has happened to the now

Premier who at that time felt that he was committed to defending the

rights of the people of the province of British Columbia by ensuring that there be no weakening of the

processes by which the business was carried on, and that he saw no way

in which we could expedite the system, other than through debate, that

there could be no simplistic approach to dealing with the people's

business — everyone should have an opportunity to have input and

feedback, and all views should be heard.

Now this very same member, through his government, has the

Provincial Secretary coming forward with a bill called the Government

Reorganization Act which will do away with the opportunity of most of

us to participate in the expenditures of the various departments. Furthermore, we won't even have anything to say about what

departments will or will not exist. Nor will we have anything to say

about how they will mix the departments, or how they will change them.

In fact, any estimates that come before this House are really just an

exercise in futility because under this legislation as soon as they

go through the House they can be changed, re-assigned, altered, and

so forth, without any further referral back to the Legislature.

I think this is the crux of our concern, that it's the first step

towards complete executive control and management of the people's

affairs without the due process which we are so concerned about.

You know, it is no accident, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is coming

forward. I think, when one takes a look at the kinds of legislation

the government has brought in, it is very close to a philosophy, very

close to an attitude, that I think has been displayed by other

ministers through their remarks in the House and by the legislation

they have introduced, and the general thrust of this government in

the handling of the people's affairs.

I recall the one I find the most alarming and disturbing has been

the activities of the one particular person among all the ministers

and in the department where you would have expected some compassion,

some sensitivity and some real concern about the rights, the

historically cherished rights, of all of us who live in a free and

democratic society. But the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) has consistently brought in legislation that has been

punitive, insensitive, without regard for individual privacy and

their right to live in dignity and the opportunity to participate

with respect in his society.

Some of the legislation that has been introduced — and one of them

we are presently debating, which I am sure will also pass, called the

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, is a bill that has taken away

more rights than it has given and has restricted the people, has forced

them to have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt their rights,

their ability...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: ...to be on welfare. This is again, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. As the hon. member knows,

that particular bill is not before the House at this particular moment,

so you must relate your remarks and your debate to the amendment on

Bill 59 which is before the House, and which is an amendment to read

the bill six months hence.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks. I am only

using that bill — I believe it is referred to as Bill 28 — as an

example of the thrust in which the government seems to be going, and

why we have every cause to be alarmed about Bill 59 which is presently

before the House for debate, and the amendment which suggests that we

hoist that bill for six months, and the cause for asking for six months

to look at the bill and try and get some response from the community and

try and get some indication from the people of the province whether or

not they feel that the constitution of British Columbia should be so

amended.

As I pointed out to the House before, Mr. Speaker, the government should feel

it incumbent upon itself to want assurances, to want a clear mandate, to want

to be beyond any doubt whatsoever that the step it is taking is one which the

people of the province of British Columbia will approve. Certainly it should

want 100 per cent approval from this House just as sure as it intends to

get 100 per cent approval when it rings in this ombudsman. It wants unanimous

support, and I would hope that the same attitude will prevail when it comes to

a bill such as Bill 59.

You're asking the people of the Legislature who have been elected to

represent the people of British Columbia to support a bill that deals

with a major change in the constitution with less than two-thirds

support, which the government does not have, and it could be requesting

full support from the opposition. Unless it gets 100 per cent support

on a bill such as this, they should be in no hurry.

In fact, this is the kind of bill that they should be prepared to go

back to the people on. Go back to the people and ask for a mandate, a

clear mandate, on

[ Page 2861 ]

whether or not they want to change the way of life

that they enjoy in this province, whether or not they want to get rid

of the British parliamentary system and go onto an executive type of

system where, when you elect a government and the premier and the

cabinet are designated, those people have the inalienable right to do

all the governing without any reference whatsoever back to the

representatives who were elected also to participate in this

Legislature — because you are eliminating them with this bill. You are

saying that there's no longer any need now that we're the government to

refer back to the Legislature to get approval before we take acts that

affect the lives of the people of the province of British Columbia.

It's very typical, though, when you consider how the government has

behaved so far in bringing in legislation. It is very typical when you

consider how careless they've been with established institutions and

communities within this province by making irresponsible acts that have

caused disastrous effects both in the social life as well as the

economy.

The people who have made their homes on islands in this province

find that they're paying a dear, dear ransom in order to live there.

They have no freedom of movement, because it's being restricted because

of the increase, Mr. Speaker. This is an example of their

irresponsibility and their lack of concern for the people's ability to

be free of any of the resources in this community — the freedom of

movement, the freedom to participate. In fact, the only people who are

able to come to the Legislature and enjoy these important debates

before they will soon be, of course, removed are the ones who are

already on the islands. The rest cannot afford to come here any more.

I feel that this is an historical opportunity we have to make

perhaps a final pitch for freedom and democracy within the Legislature.

Those of us who happen to be here this afternoon are enjoying perhaps

the last vestiges and gargantuan efforts of the opposition to try and

save this Legislature and the democratic process through which we have

in the past enacted the legislation needed to carry on the people's

business. Because you can be assured that in the future the executive

council will be making the decisions in the privacy of the executive

chambers and what will be coming here in the House will be a matter of

routine. It will have no impact.

What's more important than the finances of the province? What's more

important than those departments that are designated to overlook and

oversee and manage in specific areas of concern in the communities? If

we don't have the right to determine what departments will exist and

will not exist and whether funds will be spent for the carrying on of

the people's activities, what are we here for? Who's going to do that?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You see, this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker.

It's one that unless we can get the time through hoisting this bill to

go to the people in the various regions of this province, to ask their

opinions, to have them realize the full significance of what is

happening with Bill 59.... I'm sure that this bill will pass without

having been fully aired in the communities, and I don't think that that

should happen.

I feel that the people of the province, as happens quite often, you

know, are busy carrying on their daily activities and trying to achieve

the ends that they need on a daily routine basis and haven't had the

opportunity to get the kind of information they require. I feel that

the press and the media and any other carriers of information to the

people will have to be made cognizant of the significance of what Bill

59 is. I think that we're all going to be equally responsible as time

goes on if we have failed to assure ourselves that we have done this.

I'm not suggesting that the people of this province of British

Columbia will not in fact say: "Fine, it's about time we did away with

certain parts of democracy." I'm not saying that everybody wants all of

these democratic processes to continue, but I think they have the right

to participate in whether or not they are going to be eliminated. I

suspect that it'll be a very close vote in any event.

I certainly think that when it comes to constitutional changes we

wouldn't want to do any less than any organization d