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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2813 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second Reading.

Mrs. Wallace — 2813

Division on a motion to adjourn the debate — 2814

Mr. Barber — 2814

Division on a motion to adjourn the debate — 2817

Points of order

Mr. Lauk — 2817

Mr. Barrett — 2818

Mr. Lauk — 2818

Mr. Cocke — 2818

Mr. Barrett — 2819

Mr. Lea — 2820

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 2821

Points of order

Mr. King — 2821

Mr. Nicolson — 2822

Mr. Barrett — 2823

Mr. Lea — 2823

Ms. Brown — 2824

Mr. Barrett — 2824

Mrs. Wallace — 2825

Mr. Lea — 2825

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2826

Mr. Barber — 2827

Division on a motion to adjourn the debate — 2829

Ms. Brown — 2830

MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): The official

opposition was concerned over the weekend to hear of the temporary, we

hope, illness of the former Premier (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) and we wish

to extend him our very sincere best wishes that his recovery is speedy

and complete.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in Kelowna

at the weekend and learned the same news at that time. I would like to also

express my very best wishes for the rapid recovery of the father of our present

Premier.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning we have Mayor Salvador from Creston. I would ask the House to welcome him here.

Orders of the day.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

(continued)

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat adjourned the debate.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, it's a little

difficult to get oriented on a Monday morning after beginning my remarks on

a Friday afternoon just at the adjournment time, so if you'll just bear

with me I might repeat just slightly some of the things that I have said in

my very first remarks on Friday afternoon.

I had indicated that while I was surprised to see this bill on the order

paper perhaps it should have come as no surprise, because while I had hoped

that we might have some attitudes displayed by this present government different

from the preceding Social Credit administration, in fact of the matter there

is really no difference. It is continuing on with the same ideas that were in

great part responsible for defeating the former administration after some 20

years of government. In those vast few years of that 20-year period that government

had become insensitive to the feelings and the needs of the people of this province.

It does seem a little surprising to me, though, Mr. Speaker, that a newly elected

coalition government such as we have here could so soon become so sensitive to

the needs and the feelings of the people in this province. We have seen over

the past six months of government here in B.C. some of the greatest lack of response

to the feelings as expressed by the electorate and a complete disregard of demands

and requests made by the electorate on this government.

The first example, of course, was the ICBC, where we found a

complete disregard of what people were saying, what people were feeling

and what people's needs were. This has been repeated over and over

again in so many of the things that have been brought forward by the

government. The most recent example, of course, is the B.C. Ferries,

where we have had a disregard of the feelings of the people.

It makes me very suspicious when I see this particular bill brought

before the House, Mr. Speaker, that this government, while they are

prepared to disregard the feelings of the people, are not too happy

about the kind of flack they've been getting. Perhaps it's just getting

a little bit too hot in the kitchen and they want out, and this is one

way that they feel they can do it, by hiding behind this kind of

an Act

which, if it is passed, is going to provide this government with an

opportunity to carry on the major function of government without so

much as a by-your-leave to this Legislative Assembly.

This is very shocking to me, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to

believe in responsible government. I happen to believe in the kind of

Canada and the kind of British Columbia that we have. I don't want to

see this type of government destroyed by a government or cabinet that

is prepared to take unto itself the whole major thrust of making the

laws and making the rules that are going to govern the way in which I

live. This upsets me very much.

I am convinced that this government is prepared to go in its own direction regardless

of what the people in this province say. They have made up their minds that they

have some election debts to pay off, perhaps, or they have some friends whom

they wish to make as sure that their promises are fulfilled, that their coffers

are replenished a bit. We saw some outstanding examples of this when we were

discussing the estimates for the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland). We have a minister who is prepared

to stand in this House and say about the major industry in this province that

he doesn't know what to do. Just like the little old woman in the shoe,

he doesn't know what to do. The best solution he was able to offer this

House was that he could perhaps get the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) to

perform some magical tricks — if you read Hansard you'll see that's

what he said. When we have a minister like that appointed by the Premier of

this province,

[ Page 2814 ]

responsible for major industry in this province,

and that's the best answer he can give this House, I don't wonder that

this government wants to take that kind of thing out of the public eye.

I don't wonder that they want to hide behind the closed doors of the

cabinet and not be responsible to the people. When we have a Minister

of Mines stand up on the floor of this House and three times in the

course of two sessions change his story, Mr. Speaker, I don't wonder

that that cabinet wants to take this behind the closed doors.

This is a dictatorial government and they're wanting to make it

easier for themselves by this kind of legislation. It's an iron-heel

government. We haven't yet seen the Premier of this province take off

his shoe and pound it on his desk as some totalitarian leaders have

done, but it may come yet. It's an iron-heel government and with this

legislation they're taking government behind the Iron Curtain, Mr.

Speaker.

There is no way that we can have this legislation pass this House.

It would be the end of the Legislature; it would make a farce of this

body. If this legislation passes we can just as well forget about

sessions of the Legislature because what we would be able to do would

amount to nothing, as it could be changed in a breath by a stroke of

the pen by the cabinet.

The minister in introducing the bill indicated that the reason for the bill

was, in effect, so they wouldn't have to do the sort of thing that the second

part of this bill is now doing in reorganizing the cabinet, in making the changes

that they have made. This is why I'm so opposed to the bill. I believe

that any government that makes changes should come to the Legislature and have

those changes ratified. It's just not good enough to put that much power

into the hands of a few people — and not just a few people, Mr. Speaker,

but into the hands of one person, because let's face it, when that

cabinet is chosen it's chosen by one person.

I recall after the December 11 election the Premier saying that he

was going to go off by himself for a weekend and he was going to decide

on who was going to be in the cabinet. He wasn't going to listen to

anyone or take any advice from anyone; he was going to make the

decisions himself. That's the way it is, Mr. Speaker. If we put this

kind of power into the hands of the cabinet we are, in effect, putting

it in the hands of one person only, with no recourse to the Legislature.

I'm completely opposed to this. It's iron-heeled legislation; it's

Iron Curtain legislation. There is just no way that this bill must ever

come to a vote, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has appealed to the back

benches. Maybe he has faith in the back benches, Mr. Speaker, but I

don't. I'm afraid if this comes to a vote the back benches are going to

support the legislation and this just must not happen.

This bill must not come to the floor of this House, because if it

comes to the floor and is voted on and passes, then that is the end of

democracy in British Columbia. It's Iron-Curtain legislation; it must

not pass this House, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move the

adjournment of this debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Barrett

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 27

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

Williams

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

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, you may have observed that in the course of

this debate a number of members of this House have been searching far

back into the past to find comparisons, to find historical precedents,

to find other political figures who

might be associated with the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy'

s) bill. People like Joseph Stalin, Huey Long and others have

been suggested; people like Maurice Duplessis have been suggested. I

want to point out one who is still alive today — indeed another woman

who has proposed a bill of comparable magnitude and severity, another

woman who is in power today. I want to describe to you the actions

taken by another woman who also found that her government had committed

an illegal act and who went back into history and rewrote the law in

order that they not be subject to prosecution for it.

The Department of Environment is illegal, Mr. Speaker. It does not

exist in law; no Act of this Legislature was passed to approve it. It

does not exist in law. Indira Gandhi found herself in much the same

position when she was successfully prosecuted for contravention of the

elections Act in India. Indira

[ Page 2815 ]

Gandhi at the supreme court found that her actions were also illegal and went back and changed the law.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Does she have red hair?

MR. BARBER: No, she doesn't have red hair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before, but not after.

MR. BARBER: The point is this, and the point is simple, Mr.

Speaker: an autocratic government taking powers unto itself, powers it

should not have, occasionally gets found out. Indira Gandhi got found

out, was convicted in the supreme court of her own nation for a

contravention of the elections Act, went back, changed the law and made

the application of the law retroactive. This bill does the same thing;

the purposes are the same, too.

This bill proposes to approve retroactively

an act which every

member of this House knows was illegal, that of establishing a

Department of Environment not through the Legislature but through an

order-in-council of that government. It is a very serious offence and

the bill is a very serious attempt to cover it up. The offence is known

and the bill will not succeed.

There is a logical contradiction inherent in the preservation of

this bill. It is very simple. They tell us on the government side that

what they do is legal, proper, sound, just, required, necessary, and

indeed, in the case of this bill, a minor technical amendment. On the

other hand they tell us that the second

section is required in order to

make legal actions they have already taken. Well, they can't have it

both ways, Mr. Speaker. They can't tell us that on the one hand the

Department of Environment, which has been functioning since they took

office, has been doing so in a legal, forthright and proper way and on

the other introduce a bill like this and tell us, as the Provincial

Secretary did in her opening remarks, that one of the purposes of the

bill is to rationalize, to justify and to make legal actions they have

already taken. There is a contradiction, there is an illogic and there

is a lack of proper respect for this Legislature in doing it.

There was a statement recorded by Hansard a couple of years ago. It

was made by the former second member for Victoria, Mr. Anderson. I

would like to remind this House of it; I think it is once again

uniquely applicable. He said, discussing another bill, that what in his

view were the broad and sweeping powers of the bill should have applied

to them a very special test. He said, speaking to the government of the

day, which happened to be established by the party I represent: "These

powers that you ask for perhaps in your hands will be handled properly.

The powers and the authority that you demand will perhaps in your

trustworthy hands not be exceeded or abused. But the problem is you

can't guarantee that your hands are going to be around forever."

What I would like to point out to the backbenchers of this

government and what I would like to point out to the public of B.C. is

that the same test should be applied to this bill. Those of you who

have yet to lose faith in the goodwill and good intentions of this

coalition might perhaps want to think for a moment about what will

happen when that coalition changes, when its membership alters.

The former second member for Victoria said the government should

apply to the bill — I say it now to this one — what he called "the

Gaglardi test." Would you want this bill to be administered by Phil

Gaglardi, a man who has been repudiated by his own party? The present

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) is proof enough of that.

Would you want a bill like this ever administered by P.A. Gaglardi,

Inc.? Apply the Gaglardi test. Apply the Government Reorganization Act

in your own thinking to the possibility that a Gaglardi might somehow,

heaven forfend the day, come back to power in this province. Apply the

Gaglardi test and you will find this bill most severely wanting.

This is a bill which poses as great a threat to the independence to

the autonomy of this Legislature as any bill we have ever seen. This is

a bill which may well and properly call for disallowal by the federal

government. It may well be that a concerned opposition and a concerned

public might have to apply to the Governor-General to ask him to

disallow this bill.

Anyone who has read the bill knows what it means. It gives this

coalition or any future government, including one headed by any P.A.

Gaglardi, Inc., the power to move moneys from department to department,

from agency to agency. It gives any government the power to change the

title, the authority, the jurisdiction and the purposes of any

department of government without recourse or without reference to this

Legislature. They can apply new regulations; they can reapply

regulations from department to department agency and bounce around as

they wish. Apply the Gaglardi test and you see this is a most dangerous

bill indeed.

Apply any test of concern for the democratic rights of this

Legislature and the rights of its citizens and you may see that

recourse to the Governor-General is the final one that will have to be

exercised. This is a bill that should be disallowed by the federal

government if this coalition government has the nerve to proceed with

it.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they're wise enough to do to this bill

what they did to Bill 22, which is to agree to let it die on the order

paper. Bill 22 was similarly ill-advised and similarly dangerous and

they did wisely agree to let it die.

[ Page 2816 ]

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): We don't have to bring it forward.

MR. BARBER: Well, bring the bill forward if you think it's a bunch of nonsense.

The Government Reorganization Act is a threat to this Legislature.

It's a threat to the British traditions of parliament that we've come

to respect and that that coalition has come to ignore. We ask that they

withdraw this bill, Mr. Speaker. We tell them that if they don't

withdraw the bill, this is very likely one that will go to the federal

government for disallowance. This bill cannot be supported. The only

people who could support a bill like this are people like Indira Gandhi

who've already done the same kind of stunt in their own country, or

people like Huey Long, who did it within his first term as governor of

Louisiana. Apply the Gaglardi test, and this becomes a most dangerous

bill indeed.

In view of the circumstances, because we hope this bill will never

appear again on the floor of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and because

we hope that this government will take the wise and sensible step of

allowing it to die on the order paper, I move adjournment of this

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I draw the hon. member's attention, first of all, that leave was granted to debate this bill at the start of today's session.

MR. LAUK: He's moving adjournment. There's no debate from the Speaker or anyone else.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member remain in his seat until I've finished the explanation?

Secondly, a motion to adjourn was previously moved by the previous

speaker, and defeated. The present motion to adjourn is out of order

and cannot be accepted by the Chair. That's the point I wish to make.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, we challenge that ruling of the Chair.

There's no basis in the rules or May or Beauchesne for that ruling, and

we challenge it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is, Hon. Member, that intervening

business must take place, in the opinion of the Chair, before another

motion to adjourn is in order. That has not taken place...

MR. LAUK: Yes, there was.

MR. SPEAKER: ...so therefore the motion is out of order, but

if the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre wishes to challenge that

ruling....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, a speech by an hon. member is intervening business in any jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately and respectfully, Hon. Member, it

is not in this particular case and these circumstances. If you're

challenging the riding, I'll put the challenge....

MR. LAUK: I withdraw the challenge and move that the Speaker do now leave the chair. That can be moved at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in looking at our standing orders

it would appear that perhaps the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre

is somewhat misinformed as to the proper motion to put if he wishes to

move another motion at this time. There is a rule, No. 62, which refers

to the Chairman, when we're in Committee of Supply, which is improper

at this particular time.

MR. LAUK: No, that's not the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The only motion of a dilatory

nature that I am aware of which would be in order at this time for you

to move is a motion that the House do now adjourn, and not the motion

that you have placed on the floor that the Speaker do leave the chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I find it very disappointing that we

cannot move that. In other jurisdictions, I understand, you can move

any time that the Speaker do now leave the chair.

Having regard for that, I move, Mr. Speaker, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now adjourn. All those in favour say "aye."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, if any.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: A division is called.

Hon. member, it occurs to me that the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre has already participated in this debate. That being

the case, when the hon. member rises to his feet on a point of order, I

have to listen to the point of order to determine what it is, but there

is no provision for the hon. member to rise on a point of order and

then for the Chair to accept from him a motion to adjourn, because of

the fact that he's already taken his place in this debate and has no

right to possession of the floor to make that motion. Therefore I must

rule — I'm sorry to say that there was a delay in the proceedings

[ Page

2817 ]

of the House — that the motion by that particular member is out of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when a vote has

been put to the House and a division has been called, the Chair is to

rule on the motion.

The Chair cannot possibly rule on a motion after a vote of the House has been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, what I am saying to you is that the motion

was out of order, so the Chair was mistaken. I've realized that I should

not have allowed you to put the motion, and therefore I cannot see that I have

any authority to call a division on a motion which is improperly put to the

House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the House is supreme. When a vote has

been put to the House, that is final. A division can only be called

thereafter. You cannot rule a motion already put to the House void ab

initio. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, you don't. Which means that you cannot void a motion put to the House. In other words...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Unless you negative it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Can Mr. Speaker come into the House today and void the divisions

and votes of the House for the past week or the past year or the past 10 years?

No! The rules are carefully laid out and you cannot, Mr. Speaker, rule on a

motion already put to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: What you are really doing is reflecting on a vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member knows that when

he rose on a point of order he used a technique to gain the floor that

has been used before by other hon. members and then moved a motion

which was out of order for him to move. But rather than get into a long

debate on the correctness of it, and without prejudicing the Chair, I

am prepared to put the motion.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

NAYS — 28

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Strongman

Veitch

Wallace, G.S.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, when you moved that motion your right to speak further in this debate was....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: the motion was ruled out of order and he has the right to continue debate.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. LAUK: We voted on a different....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Speaking to the hon. second

member for Victoria: As I recall the proceedings, you spoke in the

debate; you terminated your remarks by moving an adjournment of the

debate...

MR. LAUK: Oh, come on!

MR. SPEAKER: ...and took your seat at that time.

MR. LAUK: What utter nonsense! Gee whiz!

MR. SPEAKER: You, in so doing, had to recognize and realize

that you could be infringing upon the rules of the House and that such

a request may be ruled out of order, which it was. So at the time you

moved that motion you did so knowing that it may be in or out of order,

and if out of order you have then relinquished your right to any

further time in this debate.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense! That's outrageous nonsense. You retain the floor...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's very clear in

[ Page 2818 ]

the rules...

MR. LAUK: ...if you put the motion before you lose your place in debate.

MR. SPEAKER: ...that the member was out of order in moving the

motion. He moved the motion at the conclusion of his debate; the only

way that the member can return to further debate on this particular

bill is with leave.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order: you said that the member took his seat, and that is

correct — awaiting your ruling. Now the rule clearly states that there

has to be a motion put. If the motion is out of order; there's no

motion put.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: So I don't understand this ruling. You've been

in error once this morning — and I have to sustain my colleague against

the Chair. I don't know why, but I did. Now that you've done that,

don't compound it by being wrong twice. We'll have to go back to Oliver

Cromwell to find this kind of ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's very clear to the Chair....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Twice wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: It's very clear to the Chair that the decision

of the Chair is a valid one. The member clearly moved a motion to

adjourn the debate...

MR. LEA: You said it was out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and in so doing has terminated his right to further speak in this particular debate on this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know: if the motion was

out of order, how can it be recorded as a motion? And it only ends the

debate when there's a recorded motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member clearly participated in the debate....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and he's not through.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! He concluded his remarks by

moving a motion which was out of order. Now I suggest to the House that

if he wishes to proceed further, it will be with leave.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: if a person moves a motion

to adjourn debate to the next sitting of the House while he's on his feet,

who is called to speak when the bill is called again at the next sitting of

the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Whoever has possession of the floor, or takes possession of the floor, other than that particular member.

MR. LAUK: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is wrong. It's

the person who adjourned debate on the motion. So by the mere fact that

he moves a motion, he doesn't lose his place in debate unless the

motion is put to a vote and is defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, that is not the ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If the motion was unsuccessfully put, it is

covered under one rule. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member

when concluding his remarks and moving a motion to adjourn therefore

does clearly lose his right to a further time in the debate on this

particular second reading of this bill, so it must be now that if he

wishes to resume the floor he must ask leave.

Interjections.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, my point of

order is that the member for Victoria sat down waiting for the

Speaker's ruling; the Speaker ruled and then the member for Vancouver

Centre got up and moved a further motion. But at least he first said:

"A point of order."

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm listening to the hon. member for New Westminster.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: The member for Vancouver Centre at that time got

up on a point of order objecting to your ruling, so therefore the

member for Victoria naturally retained his seat. But, Mr. Speaker,

because you did not accept his motion to adjourn he was ready to

continue with his speech.

[ Page

2819 ]

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, so that everyone is abundantly

clear, I will now say once more what the procedure happened to be at

the time the motion was moved. The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) spoke in the debate; he concluded his remarks by moving a

motion. The record will show that he moved a motion to adjourn the

debate, which was out of order. It was following that that the hon.

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a point of order.

The remarks, by the rules of our House, are concluded unless the hon.

member asks leave to continue.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: When a member rises in this House to speak and then when he concludes, he sits down without making any further motion....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. That is exactly what the hon. member did not do; he concluded his remarks by moving a motion.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't interrupt you in your ruling; please don't interrupt me in my point of order.

When a member rises to speak in this House, Mr. Speaker, he

concludes his remarks by taking his seat. If he wishes to continue his

remarks at some later date, he moves a motion to adjourn.

The member wished to continue his remarks at a later date. He moved

the motion to adjourn to signify that he wished to speak at a later

date. He sat down after signifying his intention to speak at a later

date by moving the motion to adjourn. So he had not concluded his

remarks. He had told the House, according to the rules of this House,

that he wanted to speak at a later date and asked to adjourn the House.

Immediately he asks to adjourn the House the Speaker must determine

whether the motion is in order or out of order, and the member must

promptly sit down while the Speaker makes that decision. The Speaker

ruled that the member's motion was out of order. At that point the

member should have been allowed to continue his debate because his

request, through a motion to adjourn the debate, was denied by saying

that his motion was out of order. You cannot, Mr. Speaker, have it both

ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Let me finish, Mr. Speaker. The ruling, according to the rules of this House, is....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, when a member

wishes to continue, the only method of continuing is by moving the

motion to adjourn, and that's what he did — he's being punished for

following the rules. Now you...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: ...ruled his motion out of order. And he has the perfect and absolute right to continue with debate here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition and the other members who have raised points of order, I

have patiently listened to your points of order, and I must say to you

now that the hon. second member for Victoria, when he spoke in the

debate and concluded his remarks with a motion, placed a motion on the

floor of the House. If the motion had been carried, it would have

placed him in a position of then returning to the floor of the House

the next time that bill was called. He placed himself in the position

of having it either accepted or rejected, and at the time, because it

was unsuccessfully moved, as an abuse of the rules....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I must now rule that the only way

the hon. second member for Victoria can return to the floor of the

House and continue debate will be by leave because when he moved a

motion, that terminated his remarks under the rules of this House when

he moved it unsuccessfully.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no further point of order, hon. members. I have just ruled.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order and I want

it clarified. You are saying, Mr. Speaker, that when a member moves a

motion to adjourn, whether that motion is in order or not, that member

loses his right to speak again on that particular debate — that's what

you are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: The unsuccessful moving of a motion terminates the right of the member to speak further in debate.

[ Page 2820 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but....

MR. SPEAKER: I have made the ruling and there is....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: It is exactly correct, hon. members, according to the rules of our House.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my point of order, you are saying that his motion was unsuccessful.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The motion was not unsuccessful because it was never....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: The motion was unsuccessful due to the fact that it was out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, unfortunately, the only way the member can

retain a position in this debate is by leave of the House. He can

either ask for leave, or the opposition can challenge the Speaker's

ruling if that's their desire.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: That's no mockery, hon. member; that is part of the rules of this House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: you are ruling

that a motion to adjourn is unsuccessful because it is out of order —

that is a mockery of the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Shocking incident!

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling is that the member is not permitted to resume his place in this debate without leave of the House, and I so rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Muzzling!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no further point of order; there is only one opportunity or one avenue open to the hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, at this point.... Order, please! At

this point in the debate, there is a course of action open to the hon.

member, as he well knows. That is, if you disagree with the ruling of

the Chair, the avenue open to you is to challenge the Speaker's ruling,

but not raise further points of order which we have already taken

before the House, before I made my ruling.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on your ruling, where you had said....

MR. SPEAKER: There's no debate, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: You refuse to hear my point of order. I challenge your ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must put the question on the challenge.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I must put the question on the challenge that has been made to the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker's ruling....

MR. BARRETT: The ruling is a challenge to his right to make a point of order.

MR. LEA: Are you changing your ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. LEA: Your challenge that I may not raise a point of order — I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has challenged the Speaker's ruling. All those who support the Speaker's ruling, please stand.

[ Page

2821 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, would you repeat that...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I very clearly made my....

MR. LEA: I would like everyone in this House to be very clear

what they are voting on, that I raised a point of order and you said I

may not. And I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made his point. The Speaker's ruling was challenged. Those who sustain the Speaker's ruling....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I gave ample reason, Hon. Member.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A vote is being put.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. You must cite the reason

when asked, by the standing order. Are we going to go by standing

orders in this House, Mr. Speaker?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we certainly are. The Speaker's ruling has

been challenged. All those who support and sustain the Speaker's ruling

please say aye.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

NAYS — 16

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S.

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

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to rule 9, Mr. Speaker, which states:

"Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and

shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House

without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall

state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

Mr. Speaker, since your ruling and the challenge thereto would

appear to set a precedent in this House, and indeed in any parliament I

know of where a Speaker has ruled out of order a point of order without

hearing the nature of the point of order, I should appreciate, sir,

having you quote the authority and the rule under which you made that

decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think it would be well for all of

the members of the House if I were to read that particular standing

order once again, because that's exactly the point upon which I made my

ruling and which I put it to the House without debate:

"Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and

shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House

without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall

state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. members rose in their

places on a number of points of order, many of them repetitions of

points of order already raised by hon. members. I explained the

position of the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) in his

request to regain the floor, and once I have ruled then there is no

debate, Hon. Member. It's a matter of putting the question to the House

without debate, and that was exactly what I was doing and what I did

do, as you observed.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: There is one further point that I must make, and

that is that once the Chair has ruled, then there is no further debate

and no further points of order; it's just a matter of the Chair then

putting the question...

[ Page 2822 ]

MR. LAUK: What question?

MR. SPEAKER: ..."shall the Speaker's ruling be upheld?"

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's no intervening business, Hon. Members. The ruling is there; it either stands or it is challenged.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker I think this is a very important

matter. I don't want to be tedious and I don't want to delay the House

unduly in dealing with this, but I think it's an important principle.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling was not challenged.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. KING: Your ruling with respect to the second member for

Victoria's right to continue debate was not challenged. The member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) stood and called a point of order, and the

point is, Mr. Speaker, you had no way of knowing or anticipating

whether that point of order related to the question you had ruled on or

something else. The point was denied, and I ask that you, in compliance

with the second part of standing order 9, give the authority upon which

you refused to hear a point of order in this House.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of a point of order, or any other business, being out of order when a ruling has been made.

MR. KING: You had no indication that it was the same issue!

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure....

MR. KING: A point of order was turned down for the first time in this parliament!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: What kind of dictatorial power is that?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the....

MR. KING: You're here to preserve the rules, not flaunt them!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that that's exactly

what I'm trying to do — preserve the rules of the House and the decorum

of the debate. I'm sure that Hansard will show the process and the

events that took place.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: On a different matter, Mr. Speaker, some time

ago during these proceedings — and I've tried to be recognized several

times because of the difficulties here — in giving your rulings, twice

you suggested that members had tried to move adjournment frivolously in

knowledge of the fact that they were already out of order. I think that

that's impugning the motive of an hon. member — in one case, the first

member for Vancouver Centre and in the other case the second member for

Victoria. You said and implied — and I think Hansard will show — that

they rose supposedly knowing that they were going to be ruled out of

order. I would say that that would suggest that they were being

vexatious. I think that impugns those two members. It impugns all

members of this House if it impugns hon. members of this House. I ask,

with respect, Mr. Speaker, that you assure this House that there was no

intent to suggest that they did this wrongfully or facetiously.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, Hon. Member, I must say to you that Hansard ,

I believe, will show that I suggested to the hon. members that whenever

they move a motion to adjourn it may or may not be acceptable to the

House. It may be successful and it may not be successful. The fact that

the member moved a motion — I'm not prejudging the motion in any way —

which had been previously moved by another member of the House in

debate, the question having been settled by the House, suggests that

any member would then have to have full knowledge of the fact, when he

moved a successive motion without intervening business, that the matter

of whether the motion would be successful or unsuccessful was something

he had full knowledge of as well as the Chair at that particular point

in the proceedings of this morning's session.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not saying anything about why they lost

their place in debate or the ruling upon which you just ruled. The

point which I tried to make — and I'll examine the Blues and bring this

to your attention — is that I would like you to take it under

advisement and I'd like you to look into it further having reread Hansard ,

because it was my distinct impression that the motivation upon which

these two hon. members rose to make their motion for adjournment was

called into question, not whether or not it was or was not in order, by

yourself in the heat of making the ruling. So I would at least

respectfully

[ Page

2823 ]

submit that Mr. Speaker should consider it, should read the Blues, report to the House on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, as I understand it the

sequence of events was that we raised objections to your ruling as to

whether or not the member could retain his right to debate. You said

that he couldn't. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got up. You

refused him a right of point of order. We challenged your ruling on his

right to raise a point of order. That is what has been dealt with in

the House. Now your ruling about the member not being allowed to

speak is what we're back to, as I understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: We're back to debate on Bill 59.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not. There's still the

matter of your ruling that we must dispose of as to whether or not the

member can speak.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member thinks that he has a valid point

and wishes to challenge my ruling, that's his prerogative. Other than

that, we are back to the debate on Bill 59, Hon. Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, no Speaker has

the right to anticipate what point of order or what argument I present

to give. I rise for my privilege to speak and I expect to be

recognized, not anticipated. Once being recognized, I wish to make the

point that in this particular ruling you're making, you are saying that

that member has forgiven his right to speak on a motion that was out of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Without leave.

MR. BARRETT: Without leave. You did not, Mr. Speaker, take

again the unprecedented step that you took Friday when you gave a

little talk before you put my motion to adjourn to the House, wherein —

if you will check the Blues — you explained to the House exactly what

the consequences were. Now if you felt compelled, as you said in the

Blues, that because there were new members you had to give them the

explanation before you gave that vote, I ask you, sir, why you did not

give an explanation to that member before you ruled his motion out of

order and asked him if he wished to withdraw.

You cannot give explanations on the argument of new members there —

you have a new member here. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to check the fact

that you did speak before you put my motion. You did interpret my

motion for the new members; however, you did not give the same

privilege to the new member on this side of the House. I ask, Mr.

Speaker, that you check and give a ruling and in the interim we have a

recess until this matter is cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

MR. LEA: On a point of order, if I had been allowed to give

my point of order earlier, I think we may have cleared this up. But

because I was not, we are still into a situation where we are debating

whether or not we can move along with the debate on his bill.

I think when you check the Blues, Mr. Speaker, on his point of

order, you will find that you did rule hat the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) had lost his place in the debate. You had ruled

the motion out of order. At that point, or shortly after, the member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made another motion that we adjourn. We

then took a vote in this House on the motion of the first member for

Vancouver Centre, and it was defeated. We did not vote on the motion

put by the second member for Victoria, but only on the vote by the

first member for Vancouver Centre, so clearly we have not settled his

matter. I suggest that you rule that motion out of order and he has his

right to speak in this debate because we have not settled it. We only

voted on the Vancouver Centre motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that it would bear repeating, as it

seems that some of the members of the House have problems following the

procedure and the rules, that the point is this: the hon. second member

for Victoria can only speak once in debate on second reading of the

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member, when he moved

the motion, concluded his remarks by moving that motion, except that if

the motion had been successful, or not out of order, and voted in the

affirmative, then he would retain his place to reopen the debate and

exhaust whatever time was left to him whenever the bill came back

before the floor of the House.

The point that I must make is this: The hon. member spoke in the

debate. He concluded his remarks with a motion which was then ruled out

of order. The following motion, which was a different motion — that the

House adjourn — was moved by the first member for Vancouver Centre and

voted on. But in each case it doesn't alter the matter, hon. members:

the only way the hon. member for Victoria can regain the floor of the

House to continue whatever time was left to him would be by leave of

the House. But instead of using the rules of the House and asking

leave, it was a matter that I ruled that he

[ Page 2824 ]

had unsuccessfully moved a motion and therefore exhausted his right

to further speech. When that happens, there are no further points of

order because the decision is a decision of the Chair. It can either be

upheld, challenged or defeated by the hon. members of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules, Hon. Member, clearly say so.

MR. LEA: Oh, no. The rules don't clearly say that.

MR. SPEAKER: They do. There is no further business at that particular point of the proceedings.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, if I can repeat your exact words, your ruling was based on the

fact that the second member for Victoria concluded his remarks by

moving the motion to adjourn. Your ruling is based on your

understanding that to adjourn is the way one concludes remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: No, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: I would like to humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that the definition

of the word "adjourn," if I may be permitted to share it with the

House and with you, very clearly is to "suspend indefinitely or until a

later time." Mr. Speaker, by ruling that the member concluded when

he moved adjournment, you are basing your ruling on an inaccurate definition

of the word "adjourn".

MR. SPEAKER: With respect, Hon. Member....

MS. BROWN: May I share with you, Mr. Speaker...?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: You asked me to clear it up, Mr. Consumer Minister (Hon. Mr. Mair). I am trying to do just that for you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You are not dealing with the Consumer Services department right now.

MS. BROWN: No, I am dealing with you, Mr. Speaker, and asking

very, very humbly if you would, now that I have shared with you and

this House the meaning of the word "adjourn," take this into

consideration and bring down a ruling that is more in context with the

correct definition of this word.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order for it to be abundantly

clear to all of the members of this House, I will say it one more time.

The hon. second member for Victoria engaged in debate on second reading

of this bill. At the conclusion of his remarks....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Wait a minute. One moment, please.

...his remarks at that time, perhaps....

Interjection,

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) just refrain from being out of order?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for

Victoria concluded his remarks with a motion and took his seat, Hon.

Members. He moved that we adjourn the debate on second reading of this

bill, and he took his seat, Hon. Member. At that point, that concluded

his remarks unless the motion was successfully carried to set the

second reading of this bill over to another sitting or session of the

House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Because it was out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Speaker is obligated by the

position of the Chair and the rules of this House to deal with matters

that come before the House under our standing orders. It was clearly a

case of doing that earlier in making a ruling and in all of the remarks

that have taken place since then on points of order, which were not,

sometimes, points of order. I believe that now we should return to the

business of the House, which is second reading of Bill 59.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: In following your reasons for your ruling, you

stated that the motion was put by the member and he sat down, which is

correct. The motion was never judged. It was ruled out of order.

[ Page 2825 ]

Once ruled out of order...

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're wrong!

MR. BARRETT: ...then the member, in our opinion, has the

right to retain his seat. It is only when the motion is voided, as you

said, that he loses his right to speak. He does not lose his right to

speak because he has made the motion. It is the test of the motion by

the Legislature, not by your ruling, that makes the decision whether or

not he has the right to speak.

The House did not test his motion. You ruled the motion out of

order. The motion was a request to continue at some later date. You

ruled it out of order. Therefore his only consequence is to continue

now, and that's a very important point.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members....

MR. BARRETT: No way! That's absolutely....

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the Leader of the Opposition, the

test, I think, is the same for both circumstances, although they are

somewhat different in this respect, that once having moved a motion,

and I whether the motion is out of order as a result of offending

against our rules or whether it is a motion to adjourn that has been

defeated, the position is exactly the same in both circumstances with

respect to the speaker who either moved a motion to adjourn

unsuccessfully or put a motion to adjourn to the House which was then

defeated by the House. So I have to deal with the matter before the

House within the framework of our rules. I said that the only way the

hon. member retains a position and can continue in debate is...

AN HON. MEMBER: I think this is a precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: ...with leave of the House. No, I would say, respectfully, dear sir, that it is not.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) has been on her feet a number of times, Hon. Member for Prince

Rupert, I believe on a point of order.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, as another

new member in this House, I have been trying, with every bit of my

attention, to grasp this ruling. Am I to understand then from your

ruling that if you rule a motion out of order, that motion continues to

be a valid motion? Is this what I take from your ruling?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me? I'm sorry. I didn't get the last part of your question, Hon. Member.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm trying to interpret your ruling, Mr.

Speaker. I take from your ruling that a motion which is ruled out of

order continues to be a valid motion, even though you have ruled it out

of order. Is this the correct

interpretation?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's still a valid motion even though it's ruled out of order. Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the worst decision this House has ever made.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Order, please.

Speaking to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, the motion itself

is not an improper motion but the moving of the motion at that

particular stage within debate on this bill is out of order. It's out

of order, Hon. Members, on the basis.... It's out of order and it was

unsuccessful because of the fact that it's out of order. It's a matter

of....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already ruled, hon. members, and I must say

this to you again: the only way the hon. member will retain a position

in the debate is by leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. BARRETT: You said that his motion was out of order.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: On rule 9 of standing orders — which you have ruled

on in my particular case, not allowing a point of order to be heard — I

would like to have this straight, not only for myself for future use so

I will not be out of order in future debates in the House.... As I

understand it, up until now — and it's been stressed to us many times

by the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

and by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and we have been chastized by the Chair,

and I think properly so in some instances — we rise and say it is going

to be a point of order, and when it turns out that it isn't a

[ Page 2826 ]

point of order.... We should know the rules better when we rise, and

I agree with you on that, but it has been pointed out to us, as

members, many times by the Chair, that a member has the right to rise

on a point of order. The Chairman or the Speaker then has to listen to

the point of order and then rule whether that is indeed a valid point

of order, and, if so, then rule on that point of order.

That privilege was not extended to me; the Blues and Hansard will clearly show

that the decision did not apply. So what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a new

interpretation of rule 9, and I think that is a departure, a very wide departure,

from the rules we have worked under in this House previously — until now. I

believe that it's an important departure and could stifle the members'

rights in this House.

I would ask you in all seriousness not to make the ruling that you have the

option of not hearing a point of order. That is what you have ruled on, and

the government members backed you up. You have said now, and you have been sustained

by a vote in this Legislature, that Mr. Speaker and the Chairman can rule on

a point of order without hearing it. I think that is a very dangerous precedent

for yourself to set.

I would like to have rule No. 9 very clear before we go on....

MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be well for all members of the House

to consider the position of the Speaker or the Chairman after a ruling or a

decision has been handed down by the Chair, or is in the process of being handed

down. It is simply this: when the decision of the Chair is stated, there is

no point of order. There is a challenge to the decision, if that's the wish

of the member. But when the decision is handed down, that is the decision and

there is no point of order beyond that.

Now, unfortunately, many people have tried to engage in debate — as has happened

here for the last half hour — on points of order that were probably not altogether

valid points of order. Now let me go over this just once more for the benefit

of all of the members. I am quoting now from May , 18th edition, page 410. It's

dealing with the matter of members....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's dealing with the matter of members

moving an adjournment of the House: "... nor can a Member who has unsuccessfully

moved the adjournment of a debate (or of the House) subsequently speak upon

the question upon which he has made the adjournment of the debate...."

I say to you....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Wait a minute, please. I say to you, hon. members, that there is more than one unsuccessful method or unsuccessful way...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhhhh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: There are two ways, basically, that a member

unsuccessfully moves a motion to adjourn. One is that the motion is put

to the House, which was done by the hon. second member for Victoria....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The motion is put to be Chair,

and the Chair puts a motion to the House, and then it's a decision of

the House. The second is that a member puts a motion to the Chair, which

is out of order and is so ruled by the Chair because of the standing

orders of our House, and the person who moved the motion subsequently

loses their right to further debate without leave.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer services): I have a suggestion, if I may, for the House.

MS. BROWN: Is he on a point of order?

HON. MR. MAIR: I have canvassed the government benches, and I believe that....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. If the second member for Victoria would ask leave, I believe it would be granted, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask what rule it is, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd like to ask the member for Prince Rupert to sit down!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert please

sit down until I listen to the point of order, as I've been doing for

some time now for many hon. members?

[ Page 2827 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I am persuaded that the government benches

would be very pleased to grant leave if the second member for Victoria would

ask it to continue his speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. second member for Victoria wish to ask leave

of the House to continue?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: In accepting the point of order from the

Minister of Consumer Services may I suggest that the second member for

Victoria ask leave, which the government indicates it will give.

Secondly, I would ask the Speaker please to come to this House with a

precedent on his ruling, because we cannot accept the ruling, carte

blanche, without a precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate your suggestion, Hon. Member. I shall do so.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. KING: Just one short request, Mr. Speaker.

I would really appreciate it if Mr. Speaker would bring in a

precedent on the second point that was before this House, and that was

the grounds or the basis on the standing order or rule authority upon

which the Speaker refused to hear a point of order raised by the Member

for Prince Rupert.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request leave of the House to continue in debate on Bill 59.

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: I was thinking of rising during the debate, but I suppose my own point would have been redundant.

However, I would like to point out if I may, Mr. Speaker, in

thanking the House for granting leave, that personally I think it more

important that members be able to rely on the rules of this House in

order to speak rather than on the privilege granted or not granted by

the House.

This started out innocently enough, Mr. Speaker, as a means of

registering on my own part the very serious and very grave concern I

feel about Bill 59, the Government Reorganization Act. One of the ways

that members in this House have of registering their concern is by

moving adjournment. I was advised that if my motion should fail as the

result of a vote I would lose my place and I was prepared to do so. I

was also advised that if it should be ruled out of order I would not

because there had been no valid motion. However, I'm all the same happy

to retake my place in the debate and to continue to speak on what seems

to me to be the two principal problems with this debate.

One of them is the logical contradiction inherent in the arguments

presented by the Provincial Secretary about this piece of legislation

which is, as the House is well aware, retroactive in nature.

It is a piece of legislation which justifies retroactively actions

which that coalition government has already taken — specifically the

establishing of a Department of Environment. Retroactive legislation is

an offence to most jurisdictions which function under the British

parliamentary system.

Crimes cannot be made retroactive. Legislation cannot ordinarily be

made retroactive. On those rare occasions when it should be, enormous

justification has to be provided. No justification has been provided in

this instance, save the rather thin arguments presented by the

Provincial Secretary in her opening remarks that the second

section of

the bill is necessary because of something we already did.

That really isn't good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is not good enough to

justify an illegal and unconstitutional act by attempting to pass three

months later a bill called the Government Reorganization Act. It is not

satisfactory to those of us who believe in a parliamentary democracy

that this should be undertaken retroactively.

The previous government, and indeed the previous Social Credit

government, followed the tradition and the rule which insisted that if

any new department were to be established a bill to authorize such

incorporation of a department would be presented on the floor of this

House.

I would like to point out that in the case of the ministry of

Consumer Services and the ministry of Housing established by our own

government previously, the two ministers responsible were made

Ministers Without Portfolio during the period when their departments

were being established. It was only after that establishment had taken

place, after the bill was on the floor of the House and after this

Legislature had exercised its democratic right to debate the

establishment of such departments that those departments did, in fact,

come into being and that those ministers did become full ministers of

the Crown. Prior to that time they were Ministers Without Portfolio.

There's a very fundamental difference in the approach of that coalition

and our government.

They set up a minister without giving him the benefit of a ministry. They tried to set up a ministry

[ Page 2828 ]

retroactively under this legislation. We have no intention of

letting them get away with it. That's the first of the two major

problems with this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is retroactive legislation.

There is no precedent in this province; there is none....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Name it, my colleague for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl). Name a

precedent which allows retroactively a decision to establish a department to

be approved by a bill like this.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: There is none; it does not exist; it cannot be

found; and this bill in that sense cannot be justified. This is

retroactive legislation, and it should not be permitted by any

legislature concerned about the very dangerous authority that any

legislature might take unto itself to do anything at all retroactively.

I would like to remind the House that there is one other famous woman

parliamentarian who did recently produce retroactive legislation, and

that is the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, attempting to

justify her equally illegal actions by going back and changing the

law of the land.

But there's a second problem, and this is perhaps even more

fundamental, even more crucial, even more significant than the first.

This government will presumably get away with its unconstitutional and

illegal retroactive legislation to recognize in law what they

previously established in fact, which was the Department of

Environment. It is improper, it is wrong and we will vote against it,

and those grounds alone are ample enough, but there are other grounds

inherent in this legislation that concern us very fundamentally.

This is a coalition, Mr. Speaker, which appears to believe more in

the rule of men than in the rule of law. This is a coalition which is

establishing, in a highly American and republican — but without the

safeguards, checks and balances implicit in that system — bill like

this, to give to the Premier — or perhaps the president, as he may come

to be known — to give to the Premier-cum-president powers to establish

and disestablish departments at will, to shift from estimate to

estimate spending authority that has been granted by this Legislature.

One of the major purposes for which we're in business at all in this

Legislature is to approve the expenditure of funds. When we approve

those expenditures, it is our intent that that money be spent for the

purposes for which it was approved and not for some other purposes in

some other departments. Anyone who has read this bill, Mr. Speaker,

knows that this gives the Premier — or the president, as he may prefer

to be known — the power, through his Treasury Board, to approve that an

expenditure granted by this Legislature in, shall we say, the Department

of Consumer Services, be transferred to, shall we say, the Department

of Mines or the Department of Health or any other department, or no

department at all. It is very clear in the language of this bill, which

I shall read again, and it will be read very often in this debate, 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."

Once again, the principle of retroactivity is implicit in this bill.

Once again, the president — or the Premier, as he was formerly known —

of this province has the right to get rid of the Department of Consumer

Services and to apply its money to the Department of Education; or to

get rid of the Department of Education and apply its funds to the

Department of Forestry, or so on. Why does any accountable government

need this kind of power, Mr. Speaker? Why do they ask for this kind of

authority? What is their motivation?

I think the motivation is pretty obvious. It is firmly clear that

certainly some of their ministers, including that minister whose

estimates were abruptly adjourned on Thursday evening, do not feel

entirely capable of presenting competent arguments to this House. They

do not feel capable of making competent presentations on behalf of

their own ministries. And indeed when they do so, we find that their

stories in the House contradict their stories outside the House, which

the next day contradict their stories originally made in the House.

It's fairly clear, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that the

president of this province wants this kind of power is because he is

not satisfied that his own ministers are competent to get what they

need out of this Legislature. They trip themselves up too often. What

kind of government would need this power and why would they need it?

It's reasonable to ask that question. It's reasonable to demand

answers. The only answers we've received so far are thin and trivial

and irrelevant and have nothing to do with the points that we've been

raising.

They need the power because they can't handle themselves on the

floor of this Legislature. They need the power because they are

incompetent in debate; they are inarticulate and inept and they can

persuade no one, including their own backbenchers, of the need for

certain of the measures they've taken. This gives them the power to

avoid this Legislature. It gives them the power to come to us and ask

for a blank cheque — this year, $3.6 billion. This gives them the power

to accept that money with few, if any, thanks and to turn around and

spend it in whatever department they wish, under whichever estimate

they care to place it, and only afterwards

[ Page 2829 ]

come back and say: "Here's what we decided to do."

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): What did you do with it?

MR. BARBER: Historically, British parliaments, and our own

established as the result of that model and that tradition, have had

the right to determine whether or not departments shall exist, whether

or not ministries of the Crown shall be created, and whether or not

they shall be dissolved. The president of this province has now

determined that he and he alone shall have that right, and you have to

ask why he wants that. What weakness does it reveal? What incompetence

will it cover up in the future? What betrayal is this of our British

system?

Since the time of Cromwell Houses of Parliament in the British

system have had the authority to create and to dissolve departments,

agencies and ministries of the Crown, and none other. Not the Premier,

not the Provincial Secretary and none other than this Legislature

itself, because it is widely and well recognized, Mr. Speaker, that

concerns that lead to the establishment of the department must by

themselves be so serious, be so important, that every member in this

House should have the right to share in that debate.

Why do they want the power to do it behind closed doors? Is it

possible that they're afraid to debate their actions within the open

doors of this Legislature? There must be a reason, Mr. Speaker. There

has to be a reason why this kind of trespass on tradition, why this

assault on the British parliamentary way of making decisions, has been

risked by this government. Surely they realized that this is going to

be one of the most heavily attacked and severely criticized of their

bills — surely they realized that. Therefore we have to conclude that

if they're willing to take this kind of risk, if they're willing to

expose themselves to this kind of criticism, if they're willing to

jeopardize the freedoms that we cherish in this Legislature, there must

be a pretty good reason for it.

Let me ask the question again for the third time. What reason is it

so profound, so moving and so terrible that they should feel compelled

to introduce a bill like this? The reason which to me is the most

plausible of them all is that the Premier, or the president, as he may

rename himself, that Premier-president, must view the performance of

some of his own ministers with considerable alarm.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Just wouldn't I? Yes, I wouldn't name some of those ministers were I the Premier.

The point remains that there can only be one reason for bringing forward this

kind of legislation — because they're ashamed and afraid, because they're

frightened of this Legislature, because they choose not to be accountable to

it, because they choose at the will and the whim of the government of the day

to determine what department shall exist or not exist, where money shall be

spent or not spent.

We, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, believe in the rule of

law and not the rule of men. We believe that guarantees of free speech

in this House should not be subject to privilege but should be a right

exercised by members, and we believe that the rule of law established

since the time of Cromwell to allow the Legislature alone to determine

the existence or non-existence of departments, the expenditure or the

non-expenditure of public funds, shall be placed in the hands of this

Legislature only.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't believe that.

MR. BARBER: The British system relies on the rule of law. The system that this coalition is developing in this province does not.

May I repeat myself once more? Those in the back bench who realize

that their coalition one day may fall should ask themselves whether or

not they'd like us to have this kind of power in our hands. Would you

really want us to have that kind of authority? If we had brought in

this bill you would have voted against it.

So I say, let's apply the Gaglardi test. When you do, you'll find

that this bill does not meet the challenge of that test. Because even

you wouldn't want this kind of power in the hands of a man like that,

nor would we. You got rid of him. You were better than we were. We

tried; we failed. You got rid of him. You denied him a nomination, and

the presence of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) is

proof enough of that. You got rid of him yourselves because you didn't

trust him either and neither did we.

A man like that should never be entrusted with this kind of power,

and the problem is, because you've broken the rule of law and you've

introduced the rule of men, you allow yourselves open to that

possibility. You let this Legislature stand open to the possibility

that this bill in the hands of the wrong men can be dangerously and

irremediably abused.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which should be disallowed by the

federal government. It is unconstitutional in every conceivable aspect.

No government should have this kind of power, only the Legislature

itself.

Mr. Barber moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 2830 ]

YEAS — 17

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Wallace, G.S

NAYS — 27

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you in your ruling to

also explain why, when the member moved the motion to adjourn the

debate an hour and a half ago it was out of order, but now it is in

order, although that member's motion to adjourn the House is the one we

voted on.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, Hon. Member. The reason that it

was somewhat different on this occasion than before is that intervening

business had taken place — a motion put to the floor to adjourn the

House by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), and

which was settled by a division and a vote of the House.

MR. BARRETT: But how did he get the floor?

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Yes, how did he get the floor?

MR. BARRETT: How did he get the floor when that member is the one who adjourned the debate?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's the Speaker's fault. The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is how it is that his motion....

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre rose on a point of

order which he turned into a motion to adjourn the House.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. But how could that turn into a

motion when the member moved the same motion that was out of order an

hour and a half ago?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's a point of order and a very important point of order. What we're saying is that every hour and a half....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There are no rules about every

hour and a half or whatever, Hon. Member. The rules are the same and

they are constant.

MR. BARRETT: Be consistent!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, go steal another telegram!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor on Bill 59.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, before I....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor on Bill 59.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show two things: one is that this chamber

is so freezing cold that I am turning blue. (Laughter.) And that's not the

easiest thing to do, I'll tell you.

The other thing I would like the record to show is that we are

working through lunchtime, that we are not being permitted to have a

break even to sustain our frail selves at a time like this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, let the record show that the temperature in the chamber is 69.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MS. BROWN: No wonder I am turning blue — 69 celsius, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not celsius, Hon. Member.

[ Page 2831 ]

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: That's 3 on the.... You had me worried there for a while.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard to proceed.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your intervening on my behalf.

I think it's very important that we should establish that the reason

we are opposing this bill as vigorously as we are, and debating at the

length we are debating it, is because we think something really very

serious is at stake here, that in fact a very basic principle is being

threatened.

I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which this

building is designed. On the floor we have the government members and

the opposition members, and just a little bit above, in a beautifully

carved balcony, we have the press, and above them we have the

galleries, the public galleries. As you know, Mr. Speaker, those public

galleries are open to anyone in the world. There is no charge. It is

not necessary to be a citizen of this country or a landed immigrant.

There are no regulations about one's religion or economic status or

anything — anyone who wants to can come and sit in these galleries, and

they can perceive the business of this province being carried on on the

floor of this House.

That's a very important fact: the business of the province is being

done in the open, anyone who can afford the ferry rates can come across

to Victoria, sit in the public galleries and watch us at work.

On behalf of those people who can't do that, there is the press

gallery which has a very important function, not necessarily to

editorialize on what is going on in this House but at least to get the

information out to all and sundry — across the province, and indeed

across the country — about what is going on in this chamber, the nature

of the business of this government, and the role of the opposition in

seeing that it remains that way.

This, Mr. Speaker, this public arena, this concept of public scrutiny, is what is being threatened by this piece of legislation.

My colleagues have spoken at great length about the separation of

powers in one aspect or the other, but what I really want to talk about

is the introduction of closet government — government in secrecy,

government behind closed doors. That is the area that I would like to

focus on.

I think this government was elected on a very simple platform. They

stalked the countryside yelling one word, Mr. Speaker: freedom. They

were going to reveal secret armies with secret caches of guns. They

were going to open up everything and let everyone have public scrutiny.

It was a promise made by the member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) in search of power. He promised a lot of things to a lot of

people, but certainly to the public at large he promised that there

would be public scrutiny. Once again we see that he is not keeping that

promise and that in his attempt to freeze out the opposition and starve

them to death, among other things, he's trying to steamroller this

piece of legislation through that will make it impossible for anyone in

this province to know what is going on in this House. The press won't

be able to find out what is going on, the opposition won't be able to

find what is going on, and if anyone cares to come into the public

galleries, it will be to look down on the ashes of what used to be a

democracy and what used to be a parliamentary process.

I can hear the words of the guides as they take the tourers around

the building: "There was a time when democracy lived in here. There was

a time when we had parliamentary rules, but that was before Bill 59."

Instead of visitors coming through to see the government at work, it

will be like visitors visiting Stalin's tomb. They will be coming to

look at the relics, at the bones, at the cadaver, at the ashes of

something that used to be.

That's what all of this is about, Mr. Speaker. That is what all of

the challenging of your rulings and the rules of order and the

continuation of debate is all about. I think it's only fair that the

public should know what we are doing down here on this side of the

House. We are fighting to preserve their right, as well as our right

and the right of the Fifth Estate, to know what that government is

doing about the province's business sooner than three days or four days

after it has been accomplished.

This is not frivolous. We are not raising frivolous points of order.

We're not involved in a frivolous debate. We are locked in a struggle

over here, Mr. Speaker — that's what we're doing — to try and see what

we can at least do to slow down the inexorable forces that are going to

close the doings of government to public scrutiny.

This bill threatens. In a way no other piece of legislation even

that coalition government could bring down could do, this bill

threatens the word that they campaigned on: freedom. How can you have

freedom in a country where no one knows what the government is doing,

when an order-in-council comes down two days and three days and four

days after an accomplished act, without any explanation whatsoever? How

can you have freedom under those kind of circumstances?

Mr. Speaker, the press has no voice in this House, so we have to

speak for them. The public has no voice in this House, so we have to

speak for them. That's

[ Page 2832 ]

what we are trying to do, and we are trying to do it within the

rules that presently exist, which we know will disappear once this bill

becomes law.

Have no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker — this House may never be called

into session again except for state occasions. If the Shah of Iran

should visit us, then we would get a little gilt-edged invitation

saying: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council requests your pleasure in

the Chamber so that the Shah of Iran may make a speech to you." Or if

Governor Dan Evans visits again and wants to make another speech to

this House, then we will be summoned to come and sit and listen to a

speech. We will become a mockery — window dressing, Mr. Speaker. That

is all — a symbol without any real force, like that mace on your desk.

In the beginning, that wasn't just a mace. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it

was a very serious weapon used to eliminate one's enemies, and it has

become a symbol. No one would dare to pick that mace up and hit anybody

with it any more. Do you see the members on the opposite sides of the

House with swords drawn? Why are our desks two sword lengths across

from each other? Because there was a time when parliamentarians used to

duel with each other. But now that has become a symbol.

We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, if this bill goes through, of

seeing another symbol evolve in this House. The opposition will become

a symbol. The back bench is already a symbol. It has no function except

to rise when it's told and to sit.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Member for Delta (Mr. Davidson)

knows. That is a symbol and the opposition will become a symbol and in

the same way the press will become a symbol, because they've been

rushing around like everyone else reading orders-in-council, not

knowing what kind of thought went into it, what kind of thinking went

into the evolution of the decision and having no power to reverse it.

But the most symbolic of all will be the people who sit in your

public galleries, the numbers already denuded by those incredible ferry

rates which the government introduced. They will disappear. The

galleries will be empty. Why should anyone sit there? No business will

be done on the floor of this House. Why should they care to listen to

the pious mouthings of a government that makes all its decisions in

closets and behind closed doors and that will not allow its business to

be opened to public scrutiny, that will have deprived them of a voice,

that will have deprived the press of a voice, that has already deprived

its back bench of a voice?

Why do we have elections anyway? Once we have set up this system

whereby we have a presidium of people who make their decisions without

any kind of input, as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) would

say, or any kind of influence by anyone, why would we bother to have

elections and elect members of the opposition?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Why would we bother?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right. Then will come the day, Mr. Member, when there will be no orders-in-council. Why bother?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just decrees.

MS. BROWN: Right. This is not science fiction. It's already

happening in other parts of the world. Have you ever heard of Idi Amin?

How do you think he runs his country?

MR. BARRETT: He's the Social Credit of Africa.

MS. BROWN: Right. That's right. Let the records show. "He is

the Social Credit of Africa," as the member has rightly said. Mr.

Speaker, that is what, in our own way, within the rules of the House,

we in the opposition are trying to prevent. Now I know that it's not

necessary for me to go into details with you about the history of how

we came to be the kind of parliament we are and the sort of legislative

process that we have. I know that you know....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I am sure you appreciate the rules

of the House. You just said so in debate. Now I would ask that you

refer a little more closely to the principle of the bill, if you

wouldn't mind.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw what I said about your

understanding because, clearly, with a ruling like that, surely it must

indicate that you do not understand the principles that are at stake

here. Please permit me to share my concerns with you on what is the

principle of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as you stay within the rules of the House and relate your remarks to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: Every single thing that I have said to this point,

Mr. Speaker, every single thing that I have said to this point has to

do with the principle.... That's what we're fighting, the principle of

this bill. I am not even referring to sections of it. We'll get around

to that in time. The important thing is the principle of this bill

which is forcing an end to public

[ Page 2833 ]

participation and public scrutiny in this province. That's what I am concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, I was about to tell you that every year there is a

class of students in government from Kitsilano High School, which is in

my riding, who come to this Legislature. Every year when they come,

invariably I ask the Speaker.... They haven't come this year but in the

past Mr. Speaker Dowding would have them in here and he would give a

history of the parliamentary process. He would give the students a

history of the parliamentary process — how we came to be the kind of

government that we are with the safeguards built in. The students

really looked forward to it.

I have often thought that kind of history is what every new member —

and a lot of the old members in this House — needs to have too. So I am

going to try and do a little historical thing, Mr. Speaker, to place

into perspective the kind of root that this bill is threatening, the

kind of system that this bill is going to destroy. If I can quote Mr.

Bishop Stubbs, he said that the roots of the present system, the

parliamentary system as we know it, are deep in the past. Now as you

know, in primitive societies there usually was a single leader. He was

called either a chief or a king or, if it were a female, I think she

would be called a chief, too, but she would be called a queen. Yes,

chief, okay.

MR. KING: Where's your chief?

MS. BROWN: That person, that individual who was the chief,

would be responsible for all the power within that society, within that

country. He would be the person who made all the decisions, the person

whose rulings would not be debatable, almost in a way that Mr. Speaker

is, except that the role of the Speaker, of course, is carried out with

more compassion and understanding; so I wouldn't want to compare the

Speaker to a chief. But then, as one went through the evolutionary

process, Mr. Speaker — and democracy, as you know, is a Greek word

meaning "people" — the concept of people participating in the decisions

that are made affecting their lives started to evolve. That really was

the beginning, wasn't it, of the parliamentary system — the idea that

the chief should not have sole power for decision-making any more and

that everyone should be able to participate. But that's cumbersome,

isn't it? If we had not even all of the millions of people across

Canada but just the population of B.C. coming together at one time to

make decisions for all of the province, that would be extremely

complicated. It would be too unwieldy, and so a system had to be

evolved. This system which was evolved, of course, was the

parliamentary system.

It came out of the Anglo-Saxon concept that the wisest people in the

country should come together to advise the chief or advise the king, as

the case may be. Maybe it's the old concept of, you know, two heads

being better than one, or no one person being as wise as all people put

together. So we find that in the earliest of European communities the

free assembly of wise people, elected representatives, came together

over a thousand years ago, Mr. Speaker. This piece of legislation

threatens an institution that is over 1,000 years old.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

In the year 1213, King John summoned — and he was the one who went

on the delegate status idea — he wanted four knights from each of the

shires in Great Britain, in England, to come together and speak with

him about the business of the kingdom. Then we move on — and I see we

have moved on to another Speaker in the chair — to the year 1295, when

it was Edward I who developed the first model of the parliament which

we are using today. He was the one who directed that the shires as well

as the cities and the boroughs, and whatever they were called, should

hold elections and should send two representatives out of this process

to meet with the king and to sit down and discuss the business of the

kingdom and to be his advisers.

This system, Mr. Speaker, that is under attack and that is being

threatened by this legislation, isn't something that just grew up. It

evolved over the years with people's understanding of the importance of

decisions about their lives being made in an open manner with dialogue

— free dialogue. Sure there are parts of the world where this has still

not been accepted. There are a number of dictatorships, and other

members have discussed those, so I'm not going to touch on them. I want

to concentrate on the British parliamentary system because that is the

one which, until the passing of Bill 59, is the one which we have known

and have come to live by and respect in this particular parliament.

That is the system which is under attack, Mr. Speaker.

This is the system which, in the year 1888.... Do you remember, Mr.

Speaker? It was William III who drew up the first bill of rights. Did

you know that? It was in 1888. Would you have believed that possible?

If William had gone off in a closet somewhere and locked himself up,

would it ever have occurred to him that this country, his nation,

needed a bill of rights? But that's not the way it was done. Because

people knew what William was doing, because people knew what their

parliament was doing and could relate to it, speak to it, exchange

ideas with it — dialogue — we had something as far reaching and

outstanding as the introduction, in the year 1888, of a bill protecting

the rights of people. That's really very important to our system, and

what we have before us today in Bill 59 is a bill that threatens, a

bill that absolutely

[ Page 2834 ]

threatens the rights of people. From 1888 to 1976: an era — the

beginning of an era, the end of an era. I would have hoped, Mr.

Speaker, that that era would have been longer, that those kinds of

freedoms enshrined in that bill could have lasted past my lifetime

anyway, and my children's lifetime, and yours. In fact, the hope was,

I'm sure, that democracy would have lived forever; that public

scrutiny, open government would have been a way of life of this

province forever.

No one dreamed, even in their wildest dreams, that there would be

introduced in this, the 31st parliament, a piece of legislation that

would say that the business of this province will no longer be carried

on in the chamber so that the public and the press and the opposition

and the back bench would know what is going on. No one would have

imagined it — certainly not the people who published their posters that

said: "What you vote for on December 11 you live with for the rest of

your life." Not even those people who financed and paid for that

fantastic campaign would have dreamed that what they were voting for

and living with for the rest of their lives was a closet government.

Mr. Speaker, I always prided myself on being a very brilliant

speaker, but I have emptied the chamber. There is no quorum — one, two,

three, four, five, six, seven, eight. What are we going to do? There is

no quorum.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I am speaking to you because you are the ones who need to hear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has drawn to

the Speaker's attention the lack of a quorum. Would you just be seated

for a moment and let me count?

MS. BROWN: Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There appears to be a quorum. Would you please proceed?

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I will start counting again.

Ten of us plus the Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten including the Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The people are up there.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I will accept your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I just read the ruling for you?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I would appreciate it if you would do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing order 6: "The presence of at least

10 members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to

constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers."

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to do was to show

the link between the Bill of Rights which was introduced in 1888 and

the bill which will destroy our rights which is being introduced by

this government in the year 1976, and to assure you as well as the

government members — certainly everyone who is in the gallery, the

public-at-large and the press — that everything that we are doing in

the opposition is to sound the alarm. We are trying to send a message

out there that something really terrible is about to happen.

I see that the Premier, who I refer to in my fondest thoughts as the Idi Amin of B.C., is back in this seat.

We are trying to see, Mr. Speaker, whether at the same time reason

would not prevail on the part of the government and they would not

consider withdrawing this really dangerous piece of legislation.

I have heard all of the discussions about the ministry of

environment being set up illegally. I can understand a piece of

legislation being introduced in legalize the ministry of environment.

But certainly Bill 59 is not the legislation that is introduced just to

do that one simple act.

What is this government trying to do that would force it to

introduce this concentration of power in the hands of one person? Why

are we going back to the beginning of time to the most primitive of

societies where only the chief made all of the decisions? Why are the

people being excluded? Why are the people's representatives going to be

excluded? Why is the people's mouthpiece and their ears — the press —

going to be excluded? What does this government have in store for us as

a province that it would introduce this kind of legislation?

I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, from de Tocqueville, who said: "It is

both necessary and desirable that the government of a democratic people

should be active and powerful. Its object should not be to render it

weak and indolent, but solely to prevent it from abusing its aptitude

and strength." That's what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker — two

things. We are trying to prevent that government becoming indolent. It

is already weak; there is nothing we can do about that. It was born

weak; it's going to remain weak as long as it exists, which hopefully

will not be too long. The indolence is what we are trying to come to

grips with. This is the final indication of its insolence and

indolence, that not only will it not do its business in

[ Page 2835 ]

public, but it may cease to do any business at all, quite frankly.

The decisions being made over this may actually end up being as in

primitive societies, concentrated in the hands of one person who is not

necessarily the chief. The chief is a front — that's the person we see,

and we hope that what we see is what we get. But we're never sure about

these things, are we, Mr. Speaker?

The role of the opposition is going to be rendered almost

unnecessary — or quite unnecessary, quite frankly — because one of the

things that the opposition can do, as long as government is carried on

in public, is focus attention, to say: look, this is what the

government is trying to do; this is what it is not trying to do.

One of the roles of the opposition is to sound the alarm within the

rules of the House, and that's what we're trying to do at this point,

because if this piece of legislation goes through it makes a mockery of

voting on anything. Why vote for vote 103 when the government behind

its closet can suddenly decide it really should be vote 105, or it

doesn't need it after all and that money should be spent somewhere else.

These kinds of private wheelings and machinations, Mr. Speaker, can

never be brought to the public attention, because no one will ever know

that they're happening. The opposition really does become a mockery and

fails to do the job it was designed to do, which is to protect the

nation's interest, to protect the people's interest.

Mr. Speaker, if I can refer you to another member of parliament, and

I'm speaking about King James.... I know you're very familiar with him

because he was responsible for that very beautiful edition of the Bible

which I believe you still use, and certainly is far superior to any

translation that's been made since then.

He was the one who brought into being the whole business of

taxation, foreign policy and the whole idea of the rule of parliament

and the opposition dealing openly with concepts like taxation, because

previous to that point a King could decide that he needed X number of

dollars and levy taxes without any kind of consultation. But it was

King James who brought this into open debate in the parliament for both

sides of the House to have their input, and the whole concept of

foreign policy.

These are the real issues to us. Sure it has come down through the

ages in the form of a budget debate and estimates, and it is true that

we find ourselves here at the end of June not even halfway through the

estimates. But certainly it's not the system that's wrong. It's just

that we have been burdened in this province with an incompetent and

inept government which has not been able to get its job done.

But that is not reason enough to destroy the system. And taking it

into privacy, locking it up in a closet and making decisions about

these things in a closet, isn't going to set the matter right. It has

to stay in the public scrutiny.

Of course it's painful for the government to have to sit there day

after day and have the opposition, the press and the public at large

see its mistakes, watch its bumbling and ineptitude. Of course it's

painful, but that is the way democracy works; that is the only way we

are going to ensure that, hopefully, the bumbling will end and the

ineptitude will cease, not by removing it from the public purview and,

if I may again use my statement, taking into a closet, making decisions

behind closed doors and making decisions where no one, not even their

own back bench, certainly not the opposition or the public at large,

would ever be able to know who is having input into these decisions, if

anyone is, or what the decisions are until long after they have been

made.

Mr. Speaker, I think one cannot speak too strongly about the history

and the development that went into ensuring that this system runs as

smoothly as it does, or of the safeguards that were built into it, and

which came as a result of experience.

The system didn't come full-blown suddenly one day out of nowhere,

but as it evolved from the beginning and experiences happened, as

mistakes came to life, they were checked, they were fixed, they were

amended, and a system evolved. We have a responsibility to build on

that and to improve it. Our responsibility is in the direction of more

openness — not in closing it down, not in making it more elite and more

private, but with public scrutiny making it even more so. We should be

thinking more in terms of a greater education of the community at large

so everyone is better able to participate in the decisions being made

by their government. It's a responsibility.

Now I'm not suggesting that we go the Australian route and legislate

that everyone at least must vote in every election. I'm not going that

far, Mr. Speaker, but I'm saying that if the government is really

concerned about building on that democratic process that we have, on

that parliamentary system, it should be introducing legislation that

would ensure that the public is better informed, that the public has

more understanding about what the government is trying to do, and that

the public has better access to influencing the decisions of

government, to having their input into it, to ensure that it really is

government of the people and not just government by one person in terms

of his or her

interpretation of what the people should have.

You know, we really have come a way from 1,000 years ago when the

parliamentary system started to evolve. Why is this government

introducing legislation that is taking us back rather than taking us

forward? It has done a lot of other legislation that takes us back, but

as long as we have open dialogue we can deal with their other backward

steps. But when the dialogue is cut off, when the open scrutiny ceases,

[ Page 2836 ]

what happens then? What happens to the people's business then?

If one is to take seriously the statement made by someone who has

been quoted so many times that her name is forgotten, about absolute

power corrupting — because only a woman would understand how absolutely

absolute power can corrupt, Mr. Speaker — then it becomes even more

imperative, through you to the Premier, that this piece of legislation

be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, even if the Premier, in a last ditch attempt to prove

that his legislation has the support of everyone.... He first of all

has to allow everyone opportunity to read it, to understand it, to have

some dialogue surrounding it. He has a responsibility to go out and

explain to the electorate who elected him because he promised open

government. He has a responsibility to go out and explain why, having

been Premier for five months, in his infinite wisdom he has decided

that, in fact, open government is not good enough for the people of B.C.

He has a responsibility, as a responsible adult, to explain not just

to his own constituency, not just to his own caucus, not even just to

the members of his own political party, but to everyone. We all have to

know why after more than 1,000 years of democratic parliamentary rule,

in a system which was open to public scrutiny, this particular Premier

has decided that that was not good enough for us. This particular

Premier has decided that the better, the superior way of doing things

is behind closed doors and that closet government such as Idi Amin has

instituted for his country is the kind of government that we should

have.

Mr. Speaker, rather than use my two minutes in again exhorting the

Premier to reconsider this piece of legislation, what I would like to

do is to ask, to move, Mr. Speaker, that the House and the press and

the galleries spend the next two minutes in silence for the death of

democracy in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): The point of order

is a matter of clarification more than anything, Mr. Speaker. I would

just like to have clarified, after that brilliant essay by the first

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) on open government and history

and responsibility, freedom and democracy, whether the member could

confirm whether or not the party which her mother founded in Jamaica

has just arrested three members of the opposition and thrown them in

jail?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a point of order;.

MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I bring it to the attention of

this House that I am a Canadian citizen? May I bring it to the

attention of the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that I am a

Canadian citizen by choice, that I became a Canadian citizen as an

adult, that, unlike many other people — maybe including the member for

Langley — I am not here by accident of birth, but I made a decision?

I refuse, Mr. Speaker, to accept the member for Langley referring to

the government of Jamaica as my government. I am a Canadian, Mr.

Member! Will you withdraw that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of that government over there deciding who....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: May I say for the benefit of all the members of

the House that the point raised by the hon. Minister of Health was not,

in fact, a point of order of the House, and neither was the reply from

the hon. member for Vancouver Burrard.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought I made

it absolutely clear that the member for Langley referred to the

government of Jamaica as my government, and I want that withdrawn. I

thought I made that clear, Mr. Speaker. Now will you please protect my

rights as I stand defenceless in this House in the view of this

legislation which, when introduced, is going to throw everyone in this

province in jail because we won't know what is going on over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Did the hon. Minister of Health

refer to the government of Jamaica as the hon. member for Vancouver

Burrard's government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't. I referred to the

government of Jamaica as the government which arrested three members of

the opposition and threw them in jail. It is a government which, I am

told — if the member wishes to deny it — her mother helped to found. I

am sure she must be proud of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing with the hon. Minister of Health and the

statement concerning the government of Jamaica, the hon. member for

Vancouver-Burrard seems to be concerned about the statement which you

made. She feels it should be withdrawn. I would suggest that as an

honourable member you do that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that by

[ Page 2837 ]

allowing the Minister of Health to bring up my mother's name on the

floor of this House and accuse her of forming a government — which I

don't know whether she knows anything about — you are allowing a

dangerous precedent? May I suggest that the hon. Minister of Health be

asked to withdraw two statements: one that the government of Jamaica is

my government, and the second that my mother, who is not here to defend

herself, was responsible for the government of Jamaica?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has explained that he did not

refer to the government of Jamaica as your government, and we take the

hon. minister's word for that.

The other matter about the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard's

mother being involved as the founder of a government is offensive to

the hon. member. Would the hon. minister please withdraw that statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that her

mother had anything to do with the government of Jamaica — only a

political party in Jamaica. If her mother didn't have anything to do

with that political party, and she is denying it, then I'll withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, I would like you to just withdraw

it without qualification on the basis that it was offensive to the hon.

member for Vancouver-Burrard.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Everything she said in her speech was offensive to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Fortunately no one got on their feet to bring that to the attention of the Speaker, Hon. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister withdraw on the basis that...? The hon. minister has withdrawn the statement.

MS. BROWN: I have not heard the hon. minister withdraw. I

have never even questioned anything about the hon. minister's mother or

any of his relatives. His statement was offensive, and I would

appreciate it if he would not only withdraw the statement, but refrain

from bringing various members of my family onto the floor of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: I sit in this House, Mr. Speaker — not my family.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member take her seat.

Hon. Minister of Health, I must say to you that the hon. member for

Vancouver-Burrard has taken offence at a statement that you made

concerning her mother. Will you withdraw it without qualification?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

MS. BROWN: Wait till my mother hears this! (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave, Hon. Member.

MR. KING: With leave of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada