1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2365 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Correction in Votes and Proceedings . Mr. Gibson — 2365

Routine proceedings

Podiatry Act Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 89). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2365

Oral Questions

Possible purchase of Ginter brewery. Mr. Morrison — 2365

Increased contributions to Lions Society for Crippled Children. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 2365

Suspension of BCR auditor. Mr. Wallace — 2366

New ICBC underwriting guidelines. Mr. McClelland — 2366

Insurance coverage during ICBC strike. Mr. Gardom — 2367

New ferry terminal at Gabriola. Mr. Curtis — 2367

Tax rebate and federal subsidy for ferries. Mr. McGeer — 2367

ICBC marine insurance. Mr. Smith — 2368

Point of order

Clarification of procedure in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker — 2368

Point of order

Possible release of Hansard tapes to the media. Mr. McClelland

— 2373

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates

Division on vote 20 — 2376

On a point of order. Mr. Gardom — 2376

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2377

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2378

On a point of order. Mr. Gardom — 2379

Suspension of Mr. Gibson from service of the House — 2382

On a point of order. Mr. Wallace — 2382

British Columbia Recycling Corporation Act (Bill 13). Second reading. Mr. Steves

— 2387

British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act (Bill 14). Second reading. Mr.

Steves — 2390

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975 (Bill 23). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett

— 2394

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

would like to introduce to Hon. Members a sister of a former

Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia,

Mrs. W.A. Duncan of Toronto, my aunt.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Today in the gallery there are 10

students from Houston Secondary School accompanied by their

teacher, Mrs. Sharon Beedle. I would ask the Members of the

House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. D. F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, today I have

the pleasure of having three guests in the gallery: His Honour

Mayor Jack Pinder from Powell River, Captain Thomas Hercus from

Gibsons, and my good wife. Please join me in welcoming

them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the House to welcome four guests from Hope: Mrs.

Gentry, Mrs. Morrison, Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Petersen. I ask you

all to give them a hearty welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, in Votes and Proceedings

for Wednesday, May 14, it is written on page 2:

"Without the committee rising the Chairman reported he had

ruled that the fact of interim supply having been previously

granted did not empower the committee to deal with each vote

other than to pass, negative or reduce such vote and that his

ruling has been challenged."

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if your Honour could, perhaps, take

into consideration the Hansard proofs. My appreciation

of what the Chairman actually ruled in the committee was not on

the substantive point of order but rather that the point of

order itself could not be considered by the committee, and

there is, perhaps, an important distinction there which Your

Honour could look into.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that we all know that the questions of

order of that' kind would have to be taken up in the House as

far as leave. Anyway, I will check that to see what it is all

about. I can't recall it myself at the moment. I will have the

Clerks look at the Hansard proofs.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 89, the Podiatry

Act Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF GINTER BREWERY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Attorney-General. Could the Minister advise the House

if he has met yet with Mr. Ben Ginter?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The pleasure of my meeting with Ben

Ginter will be at 3:30 this afternoon.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental. Could the Minister then advise

the House: do you intend to have discussions with him

concerning the purchase of his brewery?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't expect Ben will

offer the brewery to the government.

MR. MORRISON: What about the other way around?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think his problem is something else. I

think it's to do with another winery, because the Province of

B.C. is a prosperous, thriving economy, and new businesses keep

pounding at our door. Sometimes we have to fight some of these

people off, even with a stick.

INCREASED CONTRIBUTION TO

LIONS SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I trust the

Attorney-General has a stick ready for Ben Ginter.

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I wonder

if he would indicate whether he's now in a position to announce

increases in government contributions to the B.C. Lions Society

for Crippled Children for the cost of transporting people who

are in wheelchairs or otherwise handicapped, and who, at the

present time, have to bear the vast bulk of the cost of

transportation themselves.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, we're still

having discussions about this. We have until the end of June to

get back to them on this.

[ Page 2366 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, may I ask the Minister whether or

not these discussions are with respect to an increase from the

present 14 per cent contribution to something substantially

more than that?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're looking at that, and looking at another

thing, too, which is in relation to a number of other

transportation systems that we're operating, about which we

have started discussions with the B.C. Lions as to where their

role might be in that as well. So there are a number of things

going on at the moment.

SUSPENSION OF BCR AUDITOR

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Premier as

president of the railway: in reply to a question asked

yesterday, the Premier stated that one of the reasons for delay

in presenting the financial report to this House was the

suspension of one of the former auditors by his own

professional association. I'd like to ask the Premier: can he

assure the House that the reason for the suspension of the

auditor by his professional peers was not related to any

failure in his duties as auditor to the railway?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): As a matter of fact, Mr. Member,

it appears that the reason for his suspension was related to

the performance of his duties with the B.C. Railway, and this

is a matter of great concern to us. There apparently were

statements in former B.C. Railway annual reports that were not

totally correct, and this led to the auditor's suspension, as I

understand it, from the professional association and after he

resigned from the railway.

At the time of his resignation a statement was made by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) that there were

political reasons for this. That was absolutely false, and the

circumstances have developed where it appears certain

statements made in the annual reports were not correct. This is

a matter that is undergoing thorough examination by the

railway, and also leads to the delay in preparing the annual

report.

I must say, Mr. Member, that we are deeply grieved by this

turn of events, and I will have to report to the House in

detail all of its implications as soon as the material is

available for presentation.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of that

response by the Premier, can I ask: has in fact, then, the B.C.

Railway lost money because of the actions of one of the

auditors? Is that the implication? Is that the fact the Premier

is trying to tell the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it is question of not

presenting the true picture of the railway loss or profit that

is a matter of concern and under deep investigation with the

new auditors.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary. Can I ask, then, if the

government has put the matter in the hands of the

Attorney-General with the consideration of laying

charges?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Attorney-General's department is

studying the circumstances around the suspension of the

particular auditor, and we're awaiting a report on that.

In terms of the new auditor, we are awaiting the complete

details of accounting under the Canadian Transport Commission

standards for railways. There appears to be some question that,

although it was stated in the annual reports that the CTC

regulations were being followed, indeed they were not being

followed. I say there appears to be some question.

When this report is finalized, I will report to the House

about it. But it is a very grave matter, and the

Attorney-General's department is looking at the aspects

related to the auditor's suspension itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, may I ask

the Premier and Minister of Finance whether or not the annual

report is to be delayed until such time as a full report can be

given within the annual report of the events of past years

dealing with the auditor?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have so instructed, through a board

meeting, that the annual report must reflect the absolutely

honest situation as the matter stands now with the new auditors

and a whole review of what has gone on in the past. That is the

reason for the delay in the auditing statement. I have

instructed, through the board of the railway, to give an open,

honest and total evaluation of the consequences of the former

accounting procedures. You will note that is a matter of record

that the comptroller-general, Mr. Minty, stated in his

report that the former directors did not allow the

comptroller-general to have access to the B.C. Rail

accounts. This was done on the request of the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That report was tabled

in the House — Mr. Ministry's report.

One

section complains that they never had the opportunity of

access to the B.C. Rail reports before. This was a part of the

process that led to the problem with which we are now faced. I

have instructed that everything must be in that annual report.

Hopefully, it will be ready within two weeks.

NEW ICBC UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES

[ Page 2367 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. With regard to

the latest personal-lines underwriting guide issued to

all agents in the province for ICBC, it states that risks in

older or run-down neighbourhoods or in high-crime

areas must be written cautiously, and further says that

wherever there is a moral hazard, that is an uninsurable risk.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us what constitutes an

unacceptable degree of moral or physical hazard under these

underwriting guidelines.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : I couldn't give you a definition, but I

understand that it is standard terminology. The market, as

every insurance agent knows, is experiencing great difficulties

and has been for the last year or so. I have stated publicly,

and I repeat here, that I have no intention of ICBC becoming

the commercial insurer of last resort. We are willing to take

our share of the more risky operations, but we have no

intention of taking all of them. It just isn't a good

safeguard.

I couldn't give you the description of that. I am not an

expert on those

definitions, but I presume that every insurance

company looks at what it's being used for. I suppose that if a

house was being used for bootlegging and they knew it, they

would refuse to insure it — something like that, I

suppose.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to whatever

the Minister said. One of the guidelines for an unacceptable

risk is an applicant who travels extensively, risks affected by

moral hazard or which do not evidence a reasonable standard of

maintenance and housekeeping. I would like to ask the Minister

if he could expand on that definition a little and tell us

whether living common-law or being single and under 25

would constitute a moral hazard, in the Minister's opinion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that.

INSURANCE COVERAGE DURING ICBC STRIKE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to

the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. In

view of the suggested work disruption or strike in ICBC, is the

Hon. Minister prepared to give the general public his

undertaking that insurance coverage for the public will

prevail, notwithstanding any work stoppage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am hoping that any work stoppage can be

avoided. They are still talking at the moment. That's the

report I have.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary to the Hon. Minister, who didn't answer the question. In the event there

is a work stoppage, Mr. Minister, are you prepared to give the

public your assurance that there would be a suspension of

criminal charges for an individual failing to have evidence of

insurance coverage? If there is a work stoppage in ICBC and it

is not possible to crank the paper into the hands of the

general public, people can face prosecutions, fines and

possibly jail as a result of failing to have the necessary

material. I think it is fair that you would be able to give the

general public that assurance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take a look at all the

possibilities.

NEW FERRY TERMINAL AT GABRIOLA

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Transport and Communications, regarding B.C. Ferries and the

proposed terminal on or near Gabriola Island near Nanaimo. I

wonder if the Minister could indicate the current status of

this proposal. Is there or is there not to be a new terminal on

or near Gabriola?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer the question yes or no.

The current position is that it is in the hands of the

Environment and Land Use Committee, and they have their staff

making a very thorough investigation of the social impact,

economic impact and so on that any such terminal would have. So

we are waiting for that report.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

indicated, quite some time ago in fact, according to my notes,

that the ELUC had been requested to examine this. Has the

Minister or cabinet received any preliminary report from the

ELUC with regard to this proposal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

TAX REBATE AND

FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR FERRIES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the

Minister of Transport and Communications: following his journey

to Ottawa, has the Minister been able, to determine whether the

Government of British Columbia will be paid back for the tax it

paid on the latest ferry that it imported from Europe, and has

he made any progress in obtaining a subsidy for the ferries

from the federal government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It wasn't the purpose of my trip to

Ottawa on this occasion.

MR. McGEER: I know that.

[ Page 2368 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've recently had a meeting with Mr.

Stanbury, the former Minister of National Revenue, and I've had

a meeting with Mr. Basford. I am pursuing it vigorously in both

cases — the subsidy of some kind for the ferry system

itself and the repayment of the import duty. I sent a letter

just last week, I think, to Mr. Basford, reminding him of a

previous letter he had sent me. My understanding is that the

request for the money to be repaid to British Columbia is in

the hands of the Treasury Board in Ottawa, awaiting

approval.

ICBC MARINE INSURANCE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Is the

Hon. Minister aware that the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia recently has refused to renew the insurance coverage

on river boats throughout the province, but at the same time

they are prepared to issue and renew coverage on any other type

of marine craft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure that we ever did insure

those river boats. I'm not sure that we did. If we did, then

it's a case of, I would say, a mistake in giving coverage on

that type of craft. These are river boats that are used for

exciting adventure, going through the rapids or down the river

in some way. No other marine insurance company will extend

coverage to them, and I don't see why ICBC should. They have a

very high risk factor. They are very expensive boats, as I

understand it — I think it's around $14,000 each.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and we just don't feel that it's the

sort of risk that we want to accept by ourselves.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental on the same subject, Mr. Speaker.

Why, then, the distinction between a river boat and a 15-

or 20-foot runabout which can be used in the same

circumstances, on the same rivers and on the same lakes under

the same conditions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not going to debate an issue with you

across the floor as to why this one gets insured and why that

doesn't. I think it's obvious that if the use of the boat is a

commercial venture, and the boat is going to be used only for

that purpose, and in what is really a dangerous way, I'm told,

then the risk, the expectancy of being faced with a claim is

much higher than someone who owns a boat himself and maybe once

a year embarks on such a trip.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed on orders of the day, I was asked for

my opinion in regard to the matter before estimate right now, on a point of

order that had been raised in the Committee of the Whole House. You understand

that this is not a ruling, but it is certainly a report on my investigations

of the practice in presenting estimates in this House as compared to the practice

in the United Kingdom, as outlined in May , and also in Ottawa.

I would like briefly to present this to you because I think

it's important in considering the point of order, if it should

arise in the Committee of the Whole House. I was asked for my

comments on the financial procedures used in Committee of the

Whole House as compared to the British practice to be found in

their standing orders, and in particular in May , 18th

edition, at page 717.

Because of the present British standing order 18(5)(b),

their rules include passing what are called "votes on account."

See in that regard page 724 of that edition of May where

it states:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an

advance is sought, may be discussed in anticipation, upon the

motion for the grant on account; though the proper occasion to

examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to

complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House."

And at page 717:

"The motion states the total sum required; and the various

amounts needed for each department, which compose that sum, are

stated in a

schedule appended to the resolution. The question

proposed thereon from the Chair follows the terms of the

resolution, and places the total sum, the aggregate grant,

before the House for its decision; and upon that question

amendments can be moved for the reduction of the whole grant,

or for the reduction or the omission of the items whereof the

grant is composed."

It should be noted in this regard that May states at

page 716 that the British House revised its definition of the

business of supply in rule changes in 1966.

To give an example, in the British Committee of Supply, they

could be dealing with a vote — No. 10, for example

— for 10 million pounds, pass a vote on account for 1

million pounds, and subsequently go back to vote and debate the

remaining 9 million pounds. That procedure results from their

standing order 18, which is not in our standing orders.

In Ottawa on the other hand, Bourinot's fourth

edition states:

"In the Canadian House, on a number of occasions, it became

necessary, owing to pressure of time, to obtain supplies for a

short period before the estimates could be passed in due

course. Consequently, by an agreement

[ Page

2369 ]

between the parties, a certain proportion of the estimates —

one-fifth, one-sixth, or one-third — was passed without discussion and

included with all resolutions previously passed in an appropriation bill which

promptly received the royal assent. Later, the balance of the estimates were

fully discussed and voted in due course."

So you see, there is quite a difference.

Of course, Ottawa has in its standing order 1 a similar

provision, as does our first standing order, yet that House has

developed its own financial procedure, different to the system

described in Britain and, indeed, different to the one used

here. A certain proportion of the estimates were passed without

discussion, and later the balance of the estimates were

discussed and voted in due course. That variation of procedure

developed and was sanctioned by the Chair in many succeeding

years.

May states that the financial procedures are

developed through actions of the Chair over a long period of

time, and the same is true in Ottawa and in this House. The

long-established financial procedure in this House

entails, in matters of interim supply, a bill, in this case now

enacted as Bill 11, Supply Act No. 1, 1975, which has been

given royal assent.

That bill states, in

section 1, as follows:

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be

paid and applied in such a manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine

a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying

the several charges and expenses of the public service of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, not

otherwise provided for, and being substantially one-sixth

of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, as laid before the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the

present session."

Significantly,

section 2 states:

"No sum out of the supply shall be issued to any purpose

other than those provided in the main estimates, or in excess

of the estimate of expenditures therein, and the due

application of all moneys expended under the authority of this

Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

So you see the

different method used here as compared to Britain.

May explains the development of financial procedure

at page 691 of the 18th edition as follows:

"The standing orders cover a comparatively small portion of

the field of financial procedure, and the prescription and the

application of general rules of that procedure are

based largely on practice."

That is a very important quotation, in my respectful

view.

Further down, May states:

"In the case of expenditure by estimate (supply) and

taxation (ways and means) the expression of the financial initiative of

the Crown is not required under any standing order but (as stated

earlier) is dependent on practice based on ancient usage...."

To say our practice is wrong when it developed, as did the

British practice, based largely on practice, is to say all

previous Speakers of our House have been derelict in bringing

before the House a practice contrary to that used in Britain.

Since our practice after 1871 developed from the procedures

approved by the Chair, it would be wrong, in my view, to make

such an assertion as to our long-established

procedure.

As has been mentioned, this House approved a large sum in

interim supply, which is now the law, and the House left it to

the government to allocate and use that money in any

departments in the main estimates, still to be voted, but

subject to: "the due application of all moneys expended under

the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her

Majesty."

If we had Britain's standing order 18, with votes on account, it could not now be made practicable in view of the

present practice and this statute. If it were shifted to the

British practice now, you would have to revise these estimates

daily, a ludicrous and impracticable alteration after 100 years

of a different procedure.

That is my opinion of the matter. It is really not a ruling,

but you will no doubt be encountering this when you get back

into Committee of the Whole House when the Chairman and the

House will have to consider that issue.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the main point that you made, as I

listened to your dissertation, is that when we get into a

situation like this, we go mainly upon the procedure as based

in past parliaments and past legislative sessions. I think that

perhaps in so ruling, or at least pointing this out to the

House — you say it is not a ruling, and I'll accept that

— you fail to make a distinction between what has

ordinarily been the course of events in past parliaments and

past legislative sessions, and the course of events we are now

obliged to follow with regard to supply in this House, which

started with this session this year in which for the first time

we departed from a procedure which allowed full debate on all

estimates on the floor of this House until such time as each

and every vote had been completely covered and the debate had

taken place.

True, we have had interim supply before, but we have never

been faced before with both interim supply, which granted

one-sixth of the total amount of the estimates to be

debated, and a closure of

[ Page 2370 ]

debate so that anything that was left on the order paper or

anything that had not been debated after the completion of so

many days and so many hours would not be the subject of either

debate or amendment. I suggest that when we are in a position

of actually breaking new ground with respect to the procedure

in this House, then there is an obligation upon all of us to

look to sources other than our own standing rules and our own

orders....

MR. SPEAKER: For a solution.

MR. SMITH: For a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: We can't go back to an impractical solution, as

I pointed out, however.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that May at page 717

is quite clear that when we passed an interim supply bill we

did vote $500-odd million of money —

one-sixth of the total — as a vote on account of

the total amount to be debated. Had we followed the normal

practice of continuing debate in the Committee of the Whole

House on each and every estimate, there would probably have

been no need for anyone to question the past practice.

But I suggest to you now, Mr. Speaker, that we have departed

from what we used to do; we're in a completely different set of

circumstances now. I think it's only fair to the Members of

this Legislative Assembly that if we're going to be faced with

the imposition of a closure rule, then each and every vote

beyond that time — even before that time, perhaps, but at

least beyond that point — should be reduced by

one-sixth of the total amount.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's unfortunately not what the law is

at the moment by reason of Bill 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member forgets that in the

Mother of Parliaments they have what you've chosen to call

closure of debate. In other words, they have time limits

devoted to the debate of estimates. They also have interim

supply and they also have the detailed consideration of those

estimates within the time frame. So, really, what was quoted

from May , therefore, is very applicable to case. We're

just catching up, really, with the parliamentary practice

almost all over the world.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out on the point raised by the Hon.

Member for North Peace River where he suggests....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member suggests that because there

are time limits here it somehow is related to the financial procedures, and

that because of that imposition of time limits here, votes on account should

therefore reflect somewhat the British practice. But, of course, the British

practice gives 29 days only for estimates and they have a House with over 600

Members in it.

At any rate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

has a point of order as well, I presume.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the arguments

raised in your judgment, but I would like to draw your

attention to what I believe....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a judgment; it's just an opinion. I

can't make a decision; I can only make an opinion. When the

matter is in the Committee of the Whole House and it has been

referred to me for some advice, I can give that advice, but

it's merely an opinion. Anyone in the House can have an

opinion, I hope, even more studious, if you wish.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in reference to your learned

opinion, Sir, I would like to make one or two points where I

believe you may have been in error.

First of all, the references to Beauchesne and the

practices in the Canadian Parliament are relevant to our House....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. That was Bourinot .

MR. McGEER: Oh. The reference to the practices in the

Canadian Parliament are only of value to our House when we have

no instruction from our own standing orders and no instruction

from Sir Erskine May and the parliamentary practices of

Britain. Since we do have that instruction very clearly laid

out, it is my opinion that we are obliged to follow those

instructions. I disagree with the final conclusion of your

opinion in that to follow the British practice would require

daily adjustment of the estimates as being quite incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you would have to amend....

MR. McGEER: Because our supply bill, Mr. Speaker, if I may

just present my argument, very definitely states that we have

allocated one-sixth of the total estimates; that is

spelled out specifically in

section 1 of the legislation. The

time-frame is quite clearly confined to a two-month

period.

For practical purposes, this supply Bill 11 specifies exact

amounts of money for the complete range of estimates that are

in our green books. This is merely a convenient way of dividing

everything in those books by six. But, clearly, what is left,

then, in a subsequent bill is to vote the remaining

five-sixths, which I

[ Page 2371 ]

suppose the government could do if it wished by a single

bill. But if it is to do it vote by vote, which is the

appropriate way in parliament, then it must take the remaining

five-sixths as the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) so aptly pointed out — not to adjust it day by day

but to pass the remainder of the sum. One-sixth has been

completely passed and five-sixths remains to be

passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member permit a question?

MR. McGEER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member advise the House what he

would do with Bill 11, which is not the law of the land?

MR. McGEER: Bill 11 is the law of the land; it's left. We

need a companion bill to cover the remaining 10-month

period or the remaining five-sixths.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not the authority that was given by

House in Bill 11.

MR. McGEER: That's my

interpretation of Bill 11 and I voted

on it, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of that, what's said on page 691

of May , it seems to me, is perfectly clear. The practice

is spelled out in what is our parliamentary guide when our

standing orders are silent. I still maintain that the Member

for North Peace River is absolutely correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you may very well, but I point out also

that the reason I quoted Bourinot is because

Bourinot deals with standing order 1 of the Canadian

parliament and, in effect, with our own standing order, to

point out how a differing financial procedure developed in

Ottawa. What he says there is very pertinent to the very same

development and growth that took place here over 100 years

which varied from that British practice and does not contain in

it the standing orders that they have in Britain.

One thing that Bourinot says — and so does

Beauchesne — is that where you have differing

standing orders, you are not in any sense bound to adopt the

standing orders of another parliament. You may obtain advice

and opinion and decisions of various Speakers, but always when

you look at them you have to do it from a standpoint of their

standing orders as opposed to ours. That is one of the

problems.

The other thing is, of course, that if the purpose of this would be to allow

some debate, the House always has the power by agreement to...for example,

without increasing the amount of time that it is spending in the afternoons,

the Committee of the Whole House could meet in the morning to discuss specified

estimates and these could be voted on in the normal fashion under standing order

45A in the afternoon. That was, I thought, the suggestion of the Hon. Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). But it's not for me to take a position on

such a matter; it's for this House, if it could agree on such a procedure. But

that is for both the government and the opposition to decide.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that where we are obliged to

now pass each estimate without debate and without amendment, we

are really in contempt of our own rules and in contempt of the

supply bill that we've passed, because when we're dealing with

these estimates, the vote that is put before this House and

laid upon the table is the vote for the total amount. Now if it

were possible, we could move an amendment reducing each

individual vote by one-sixth of the total. I think that

would be correct and in order, but since we're prevented from

doing that by rule 45A, which says that the votes must now be

put "forthwith" and passed without debate and without

amendment, I think really that because of this new procedure we

are in contempt of the rules as they should be practised and

followed within this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that if you look at the new

standing orders in Ottawa, standing order 58 deals with this

very question. In that House the adoption of all unopposed

items may be proposed in one motion and there is no debate on

any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on

estimates which have been referred to it, except on an allotted

day, and then in the final 15 minutes all the indisposed

motions or resolutions are then voted on without debate, which

is somewhat similar to our process under standing order 45A,

except that they have sent them to separate committees of the

House rather than to the Committee of the Whole House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate Your

Honour's opinion given earlier on today, but I have to say that

I am puzzled about one aspect of it. If our current system is,

indeed, the valid law of this parliament, then it must be

possible to trace back its lineage, so to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't always do that on standing orders,

though.

MR. GIBSON: But this is not a question of standing order, I

think. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your own citation yesterday

from May , 16th edition, page 686: the financial

procedure of the House of Commons is regulated to a certain

extent by standing orders but, to a far greater extent, on

unformulated ancient usage. You came to the same conclusion

[ Page 2372 ]

today, quoting page 691 of the 18th edition as follows:

"The standing orders cover comparatively small portion of

the field of financial procedure, and the prescription and

application of the general rules of that procedure are based

largely on practice.

" The rule relating to the legislative authorization of

charges is not prescribed by any standing order."

If I understand properly, Your Honour, our standing order 1,

providing that our usages where not otherwise provided by

standing order shall be those of the British House, was adopted

at the institution of the assembly. Unless there was specific

authorization of this assembly at some time pursuant to the

adoption of standing order I with respect to the financial

allocations in this House, it seems to me that we must still be

subject to the general British rule except where the standing

orders otherwise provide, or the sessional orders, neither of

which otherwise provide in this current context.

So to say that the practice is law because it has been done

in the past seems to me not sufficient. One must be able to

validate what happened in the past and say that it had been at

some time authorized by this House — not merely

indirectly in saying that's what has happened but directly in

terms of a specific authorization of this chamber to depart

from the customs of the usages in Bahrain at the time standing

order I was adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: I merely point out that if you read the first

page of Beauchesne it clearly sets out:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or

other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in

force at the time" — as in force at the time —

"shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this

House."

So they have exactly the same standing order as we do. They

have a different financial procedure which they have adopted

over a long period of time by practice, as we have done. It

doesn't seem to disturb them overly in the federal House that

they are doing it this way.

It appears from the ancient practice that as financial

procedure developed in Britain, it also developed by custom and

by adoption by the Chair or by innovation by the Chair from

time to time in presenting the form of the estimates to the

House. I cannot say that that means a slavish conformity to

anything that the House has adopted in Britain since the time

standing order I was first conceived.

MR. GIBSON: Surely something is not right simply because it has always

been done. To become right and law in this House, it must be legitimized by

this House by affirmative motion...

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the obvious answer to that, if you want a

change....

MR. GIBSON: ...but not simply by having done it, to ask:

where is that affirmative action?

MR. SPEAKER: If you want to change any practice in this

House that has been formally adopted or used over constant

practice, it seems to me that the way is to propose a new

standing order that would vary an existing custom. I can't see

any way of doing it by the Speaker pronouncing on it as if he

were some kind of dictator. You can't do that.

MR. GIBSON: No, I agree with you, Sir. What I am asking is:

where in our history was the affirmative action which

legitimized the financial procedure we are using today as

distinct from the financial procedures...?

MR. SPEAKER: In the limited time available I have tried to

trace it. But we don't have any Speakers' decisions on it, so

there is no source there. We don't have any other accounts in

the Journals I can find that so far really explain how it

developed, other than that it has been constant for many years.

I have Mr. Speaker Davie's notes on financial procedure, which

are most industriously prepared and show a long-standing

formula that was adopted by the Speakers of this House in

presenting them in the way they are done now. So there has been

no departure that I can see from what he outlined as he

gathered it from the years of experience he had gained.

MR. McGEER: The departure has been in the last two or three

days where we have had closure on debate on estimates

presented. It is this departure from past practice which calls

on you particularly, Sir, to interpret very carefully what has

gone on in the past with accepted practice in more mature

parliaments. It is in this respect that we are so disappointed

that at a critical time we should simply let unimportant point

for the future be decided on the basis of indifference and

vague past practice which nobody seems to be able to define

precisely.

Here we are bringing before you a case which in the future

will be far more important than the other relatively transient

matters that are being decided by individual votes. The

practice is something which may endure for many, many years. Of

course, we hope that the practice of the last day or two will

be something which will disappear as a very unhappy

chapter in

the legislative history. From it, perhaps something of strength

will emerge. I can find nothing

[ Page 2373 ]

of strength in your decision or your opinion to date, but I

hope that through further consideration something of strength

and enduring merit will emerge.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have been most grateful if the Hon.

Member had actually been able to cite any authorities that

would have assisted the Chair. However, I will give

consideration to the problem. If there is any possibility of a

proposal that I could t make that would be of interest to the

House, I would be glad to make it at 6 o'clock, in regard to

how we could possibly not delay the proceedings of the t House,

which, after all, is presumably the purpose of standing order

45 A, as it is in other Houses, which are called mature

parliaments, where they have similar closure, where they put

the motions — or deem them to be put....

MR. McCLELLAND: All it is is closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's not that way.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is. It's closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think it's clear that the matter of 45A

brings to an end debate, and all motions are to be put without debate

or amendment.

That is clearly what standing order 45A is all about.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Closure!

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, the Speaker and the Chairman are

not allowed to make up a new rule 45A just because you and I may

consider what the subject of the standing order is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing further I can do on the

matter, Hon. Member. Do you have a further point on that? Or

what?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Having now established a precedent, and since the Premier has

refused to make the same comments outside the House that he made in the

House this afternoon, I wonder, in order that the people of British

Columbia could be ensured of a high degree of accuracy, whether you'd

consider making available to the press the Hansard tapes of the answers to the questions put to the Premier by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid you're a little late.

The other question I wanted to mention was that, n view of

the statements made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) last night — and he's not in the House, I

note — I've asked Hansard to make available the

main tape, which has not been moved from this chamber and which

has been carrying on its function here every day, to the Hon.

Member after 6 o'clock until 8:30 tonight to compare he tape on

that with any other tape which has been used in broadcasting

the eviction that took place the other night, because he has

made some statements hat are obviously inaccurate in regard to

that tape.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not even here.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm very sorry to hear that. Very sorry,

indeed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I don't think was

quite clarified yesterday — I realized raised the point in a somewhat circuitous fashion — was

with regard to subsections (5) and (6) of standing order 129.

It's with regard to release of tapes and what is implied in

subsection 1 — that the Speaker has the final authority

to release — but subsections (5) and (6) imply, at least to me, that the individual

Members have some right of protection from release.

So the question that I really want to put is: in the

specific tapes that were released yesterday, I had at first,

thought somebody had obtained a bootleg copy, but was a

specific request made by anyone to have those tapes released? In future

if tapes are to be released upon the specific request of someone...this

is the

second. The first is: did anybody make a request?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. I decided to release them to one agency, and the others requested it.

MR. McGEER: That is to say....

MR. CHABOT: He did it on his own.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the authority to do so, and did so because I thought it was a matter of great importance

publicly that the public of British Columbia know that there

was no agreement by the Speaker with anybody, particularly the

government, to do anything with regard to any Member of this House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Are you suggesting there was an

agreement? If you suggest that, then I suggest

[ Page 2374 ]

that you prove such a thing. It's monstrous to suggest it.

Absolutely monstrous.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is that the tapes clearly show that

the misconduct of the two Members concerned could not be

disputed by any person in the Province of British Columbia if

they heard the tapes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you suggesting there were agreements

between the Speaker of this House and the government? If so, be

man enough to say so, and prove it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That's what the Hon. Member is suggesting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Now I want to get on with the business of the

House. What else has the Hon. Member to raise?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one ever

to make an assertion of that sort, and in asking the question,

I hope you wouldn't think that I was implying anything of that

kind.

My point is a little more long range than that. My

understanding, from what you've said, is that you released the

tapes — or that particular portion of them — on

your own initiative to establish a point which you thought was

valid, and therefore you felt it appropriate to summon the

press for that purpose.

But it may be that on some future occasion myself or some other Member of the

House might be misinterpreted on a tape. That is, our microphones are sometimes

cut off; shouting can take place in the background; it's sometimes difficult

to identify voices. It's conceivable that a tape could be released, a Member's

voice mistakenly identified on the tape and the Member being placed in an embarrassing

position where, if he were given an opportunity to identify whether or not he

said that, he would be able to state unequivocally that he did not, that in

fact it was not him, just as he's given an opportunity to correct any mistranslation

of statements he might have made from the tapes to the written word.

I would hope that you would give a judgment yourself as to whether it would

be appropriate for any Speaker at any future time to release tapes to the press

without the Members' approval so that this kind of understanding could never

occur.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an excellent suggestion. I'll certainly

take it up on the basis that I will see in future that when any

tapes are released, they are with the assent of this House,

where Members are concerned. The Members should, I think, be

consulted about it first. I would be glad to do it that way;

it's an excellent suggestion which I would adopt.

MR. GIBSON: On the other matter we were discussing earlier,

Mr. Speaker, you indicated that you would find it possible to

continue to delve into this question of the financial

procedure. I would ask that Your Honour could pay particular

attention to the forging of that vital link between the

present-day practice, if it is indeed legitimate, and the

practice in the United Kingdom at the time that standing order

1 was passed. In other words, when did this House legitimize

such a change, if, in fact, it did? I submit that if it did

not, it is not valid.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that this went

back before 1871. In the British House their formula

developed by practice and was not really written up. So we're

faced with a similar development here.

MR. SMITH: If I may just clarify my point: at the beginning

of your remarks concerning the matter of the tapes and the

release of them, you suggested that this was done after remarks

made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in

the House last night; we weren't sitting last night.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say they were made in the House.

MR. SMITH: Yesterday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: They were heard on the media and I had a report.... I haven't got the exact details of it, but because I don't

know....

MR. SMITH: The inference was that the Member was in the

House, and I would just suggest that he was not here

yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret that he isn't in the House. You know

the rule: you bring the matter up as quickly as possible when

it arises. Unfortunately, he's not in the House so that I could

get his version of what he had said on radio last night. I am

looking for that now; I hope to have it later.

But in the meantime I have offered to him the access to the

main tape which is in this chamber,

[ Page 2375 ]

which goes on all day, which is still here as it was; it

hasn't been touched by anyone. It will be available under

supervision of Hansard for him if he suspects for one

second that there is anything that is untoward in any tape that

has been given to the press.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just on a further point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if you could tell the House whether or not

you have had more than one opinion and whether you can give a

guarantee that a Member does not lose his or her privilege of

immunity if tapes are broadcast at your direction over the

airwaves.

MR. SPEAKER: In certain cases, this is where I think the.authority of the Chair has to be given great thought —

that is, where something is said in the House and is then given

to the media either in the Blues or on tape. The question is

whether it was done with the authority of the House. If it was

done by the authority of the House, then it might be a libelous

matter. Then, of course, I think that both the Speaker and the

House should proceed with some care on the matter and make sure

that the individuals concerned are not perhaps exposed to a

change in the rules regarding immunity.

MR. GARDOM: How could they be?

MR. SPEAKER: There the question is — if you study the

very valuable report of Dr. McWhinney — that the House in

such cases of libel would have to give some authorization as we

have in the Public Printing Act of 1840 which we adopted from

the British House and that we have in the Bill of Rights....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I say in this case that we just did.

That's why I asked for leave.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just a little further on that

point, there seems to be some doubt in your mind about whether

or not a matter can be libelous even though it was said in the

House. I wonder whether it was wise to allow the tape to be

distributed before we are absolutely sure of the kind of ground

we're on. Who guarantees that a Member of this House might not

be facing a libel charge, whether or not that libel charge

succeeds?

MR. SPEAKER: The authorization by the House is still subject, I think,

to this: the Member concerned certainly has his rights as far as his immunity

is concerned. If there is any doubt of his immunity for anything said in this

House, then, of course, you will agree that it should not be proper to release

those tapes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a further point, the two

Members who were concerned when you released that original tape

certainly didn't have any choice in the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you suggesting they were guilty of any

libels in the House?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I am suggesting that you were guilty of

a serious indiscretion.

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. I thought very carefully.

MR. McCLELLAND: You never....

MR. SPEAKER: I listened to the tapes. For you to suggest

that, of course, is quite wrong, because you obviously don't

know what you're talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On a

further point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you qualifying yourself as a master on the

subject of libel or what?

MR. McCLELLAND: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker,

you have said yourself that the people involved and the people

whose tapes are being released should have the opportunity to

at least enter into discussion. You never gave them....

MR. SPEAKER: Where there is any serious question of libel

involved.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the decision you made....

MR. SPEAKER: Then you were the one who made that decision

today when you decided right now that you wanted the tape...

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't!

MR. SPEAKER: ...issued to the public.

MR. McCLELLAND: What a strange piece of logic that is.

MR. GARDOM: Just on the point the Hon. Member is making

— and I think it's a very valid point — he put the

question to you, Mr. Speaker: does the same privilege extend to

a tape that extends to Hansard ? Now there's complete

privilege....

[ Page 2376 ]

MR. SPEAKER: We'll check it out.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think....

MR. SPEAKER: I think if you look at the report by Dr.

McWhinney on this, you'll see something in there.

MR. GARDOM: If you could give me a copy of that, I'd

certainly appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: You were supplied with a copy.

MR. GARDOM: Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I don't have

the bloody thing here. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I can't be responsible either for the post

office in this provincial jurisdiction, or your own office.

(Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chairman takes the chair, may I say

that I regret that the Deputy Speaker's wife is in rather

serious condition at the moment. He has gone home. I think the

wishes of the House will all be that we convey our sincere

concern.

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 20: police services, $20,131,203 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order. I

won't vote a dime of this vote without the right of debate. I

therefore ask for division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not the practice of committee, and

according to rule 45, the time has expired for debate.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Closure!

MR. GARDOM: You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, if you listened to

my remarks, I am not debating....

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you're going to raise a point of

order...

MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...I would advise you that you should tell me

what rule you are going by.

MR. GARDOM: I am just going by the rule of common sense, Mr.

Chairman, that it be advisable....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We have to go by the rules of this

House. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You said it, Mr. Chairman. You said it!

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules say that the time has expired. You

have no point of order in that case.

Vote 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Gibson

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I think it would only be practical and

useful for future record in this House that there be inscribed

in Hansard a description, at least, of what the vote

consists of as opposed to merely furnishing the bare figure. I

think it would be advisable under these circumstances to read

into the record a description of what this vote deals with. I

see it says this, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't use common sense under any

circumstances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have a point of

[ Page 2377 ]

order.

MR. GARDOM: Bear with me a moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have already made your case, and you do

not have a point of order. Will you please take your seat?

MR. GARDOM: No. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: ...that you would acquit your responsibility

better if you used your ears instead of your mouth until I've

made my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have tried to make your point of order and

you do not have a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: I have not yet made my point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have.

MR. GARDOM: Get back in your chair, Mr. Chairman, have a

deep breath and a glass of water. It's springtime, you know.

There's no need to be so....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I, would ask the Member to take his

seat.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of

order....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Remember him, Garde? He's your

running mate.

MR. McGEER: You're very hard on him, Mr. Chairman. He's got

a bad back...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you state your point of order?

MR. McGEER: ...and he's got to protect his back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you state your point of order?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're finished. I recognize the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I have trouble seeing. I am not as

big as he is and I get stuck behind these chairs and people

bobbing up and down. It's very difficult in the back bench, I

am discovering. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey to tell me what point of order he is

raising and what rule he is raising it under.

MR. McGEER: Order, Mr. Chairman. Order. I am referring you

to standing order 16(2), which states that Mr. Speaker, or in

your case Mr. Chairman, "shall state the question." It's normal

practice in the House for the Speaker and the Chairman of the

committee to state every question before he calls for the vote.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we haven't been stating the question. Vote

16 is not the question. You have to state in total what it is.

I think the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) only yesterday pointed out that the sum which

officially goes into the Journals and which is taken out of

that diplomatic pouch....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have heard your point raised and I

have looked at rule 16. The way the vote is being put is the

way it has always been put in committee and it's always been

the acceptable manner in the Committee of Supply.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, it's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have a point of order! We've

reviewed the rule that you have raised and we've....

MR. McGEER: You are not giving me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There's no debate. You've raised your

point of order, we checked it and....

I ask the Member to take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Members take

[ Page 2378 ]

their seats? They know very well there's no place on the

floor for two people to be standing at once. You have made your

point and you have no point. It is my duty to rule whether or

not you have a point and you have no point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How do you know? You don't listen!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on a point of order.

MR. McGEER: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: He challenged your ruling. What did you

rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That he has no point of order.

MR. McGEER: We'll challenge that, because you have to state

the question. You wouldn't let me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: When you challenge the ruling of the Chair, I

will call the Speaker in to see if the Chair will be

upheld.

MR. McGEER: I'll challenge it. But do you want to hear me

out or would you rather have me call the Speaker? If you want

to hear me out, we can save trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to call for the Speaker, Mr. Member.

You may take your seat. The Speaker will decide whether or not

the Chair will be upheld.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I have asked the Speaker to come in to

rule on the....

MR. FRASER: Iron rule. Iron hand.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While in committee on vote 21 a point of order

was raised as to the manner in which the vote was being placed

and I ruled that there was no point of order. The Member has

challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I don't think the Chairman adequately

expressed to you the concern in the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think we have to put the

question and I intend to do so. The House is aware....

MR. McGEER: The Chairman ruled that there was no point of

order and that the question should be stated before it was put.

Surely to heavens in the House you state a question before you

put it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat,

please?

MR. McGEER: The standing order says that, and to say that it

isn't practice to state a question, Mr. Speaker, is

asininity.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat? The

question before the House is: shall the ruling of the Chair be

sustained?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): While we are waiting to carry

out the division, could I have the privilege of introducing to

the House the federal Member for Victoria, Mr. Alan McKinnon,

who is in the gallery. I would like the House to welcome Mr.

McKinnon.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 28

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

[ Page 2379 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was standing in support

of the ruling being recorded. Or was he just having some

exercise?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that was the purpose of the three

Members rising. Was it?

MR. McGEER: Yes, it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I wasn't sure. You started to wander

around.

MR. McGEER: Just a quick breather before the next

division.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093

— continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

I recognize the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

on a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

since debate is denied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you refer to the rule you are raising

your point of order on?

MR. GARDOM: Debate denied is democracy denied. I ask you,

Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am asking you to refer to the

rules.

MR. GARDOM: You let me state my point of order my way, thank

you very much!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: You are not going to start dictating how I

make points of order in this House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You have to have some order in this

House to be able to function, and you have to state what rule

you are raising to make a point of order. I want to know what

kind of point of order you are making.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You haven't been recognized.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to state the rule you are raising

your point of order on, and make your point as clearly and as

quickly as you can.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GARDOM: You are now insisting, Mr. Chairman, that I

initiate my remarks on a point of order by referring to a

specific rule. I draw to your attention that the rules we have

in this House did not come down a beam of light. They were

invented by man, they have been made by man, they can be

changed by man and they can be interpreted by man!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like the Member to take his

seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You don't begin making a point of order

by making a speech, and I am not going to allow that to take

place. We are on vote 21.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GARDOM: I am asking you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have got a point of order to make, I'll

recognize the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order

is this: is it or is it not reasonable and fair, practical and

desirable that the Hon. Members, the Chairman, this Legislative

Assembly and Hansard , at the very least, be entitled to

an explanation of what the vote is all about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: That is my point of order. I am

[ Page 2380 ]

asking you to read into the vote...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order.

MR.GARDOM: ...a description of the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him finish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I would ask the Member to take

his seat. That matter has been dealt with. The vote is put in

the normal manner. Shall vote 21 pass?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't challenge that, Mr. Member, because

that matter has been dealt with already. It was just dealt

with.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the....

MR. GARDOM: Do you not recognize the challenge?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you haven't got the floor. I recognize the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Chairman, under the authority cited on page 341 of May , at the

bottom of the page....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What edition?

MR. GIBSON: Eighteenth edition. If you would like to take a

moment to look it up...otherwise I can read it out. It is

headed up "Matters Requiring Immediate Intervention of the

House."

"Urgent matters which require the immediate intervention

of the House, may be raised during a sitting of the House, may be raised at

once in spite of the interruption of the debate or other proceedings (except

a division in progress). A complaint on such a matter is entertained by the

House as soon as it is raised, but if complaint is made in committee, the Chairman

reports progress and the Speaker resumes the chair."

Mr. Chairman, this procedure was followed on Tuesday night.

You will find it recorded at page 273-3 slm of the

Hansard proofs and 273-4 slm, if I may just check

that reference.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the public is

entitled to be confused as to exactly what is happening in each

vote here, as so well put by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I would suggest to you

that following the precedent of the other night, and following

the suggestions made several times yesterday afternoon by the

Hon. Deputy Speaker then in the chair, it would be appropriate

for me to move or for you to move, if you wish, that the

committee rise and report progress for the purpose of the

Speaker giving attention to this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, you haven't

established an urgent matter, and the Chair will not accept

that motion.

Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You can't appeal an opinion. You can't

appeal that. We're on vote 21.

MR. GIBSON: There is an appeal to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't established an urgent matter.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find that I can, and have, expressed an

opinion that you do not have an urgent matter, and my opinion

is not appealable.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now

leave the chair, as the only redress available is under

standing order 62.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Chairman, on considering this motion I would ask you to

consider standing order 44:

"...the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, if he

shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of

debate, or of the House...or that the Chairman to report

progress, or to leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and

privileges of the House...he may decline to propose the

question of the House."

[ Page 2381 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order has been made, and

point 44 is raised. The point is well-taken, and I'm not

accepting that motion at this time.

MR. GIBSON: You will hear argumentation on it, or you are a

thug!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You must withdraw that kind of a

statement.

MR. GIBSON: I will not withdraw that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the logic of a brutal ruffian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Will you please take your

seats?

There are rules, standing orders, that we have to go by, and

I would ask the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) to withdraw the statement he just made — without

reservation.

MR. GIBSON: Let me read the definition of the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am asking you to withdraw.

MR. GIBSON: Why do you think dictionaries are kept in the

House?

MRS. JORDAN: He wouldn't know; he never reads them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Member to take his seat.

The question really is whether you used words that are

unparliamentary and offensive, and offensive to the Member in

the chair, and I've asked you for an unqualified

withdrawal.

MR. GIBSON: I withdraw, and replace it with "arrogant

dictator of this House."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'll ask you to withdraw that as

well.

MR. GIBSON: I won't withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member well knows that he cannot make an attack

on the Chair. It is not a question of personalities; it's a question of the

Chair. I ask you for an unqualified withdrawal. You know the rules.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I sought to deal with what I saw

as the deficiency of the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am asking you....

MR. GIBSON: I'm making a motion that you leave the

Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: The House could have voted on that motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: You denied that. What redress do you leave

anyone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the rules. May I ask you to make an

unqualified withdrawal?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to withdraw his

statement; it was an attack on the Chair.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to call for the Speaker to deal with

the matter.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee has had an incident

where a Member has made a statement, an attack on the Chair,

that's offensive. I have asked to have it withdrawn. I have

ordered it withdrawn, and I haven't had that kind of

co-operation from the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano. I ask the Speaker to deal with the

matter.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2382 ]

The Hon. Member knows the rule that we do not speak of each

other in this House in an offensive manner. Particularly, an

attack on the Chair is considered to be a breach of privilege

and a serious contempt of the House and the dignity of the

House. It may be that Members may from time to time disagree

with rulings but all of us are placed in the position some time

or other of having to take the chair at some time in our life,

and we realize the onerous responsibility of having to make

decisions which may or may not be right. Nonetheless, one must

make those decisions. If one quarrels with that decision, there

are ways of dealing with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not with that Chairman!

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

not be able, under our rules, which we all are supposed to

respect, to deal with it immediately. But there is a way of

dealing with it on a substantive motion, and that is the route

that one is required to follow under our rules.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules of this House have been in existence

for centuries and deserve the respect and consideration of

every Member. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member

that one prerogative of the Chair is to determine whether in

the opinion of the Chair a motion is in order, whether a motion

is a repetition or is an obstruction, or should not be called

at this time for any reason that is within the discretion of

the Chair. If the Hon. Member made a motion that the Chair

would not entertain at this time, he was doing so under the

clear powers given to him by the rules of the House.

Therefore the question is, really, that using an offensive

expression against the Chair only undermines the respect and

dignity of the House itself, from which the whole House suffers

— not just the person in the chair.

I am sure the Hon. Member has enough respect for parliament

that he would be magnanimous enough to withdraw the expression

he used and take those remedies that we always have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We don't have remedies any more!

MR. SPEAKER: We do. I pointed out the remedy. It's the only

remedy the Hon. Member has, and it seems to me....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member does not like a rule of the

House, the answer isn't to invite anarchy; the answer is to

apply the remedies we have, one of which is to change the rules

of the House. It's like asking the people of this country to

obey laws that you promulgate, and at the same time not be

prepared to adopt, enforce and respect the rules that you

promulgate for this House. You can't expect the public to obey

our laws when you're not prepared to accept them yourself. How

can you go out to the public and say: "Obey the laws of the

land"?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman has that prerogative. If you

quarrel with that prerogative, then change that particular

standing order; but in the meantime don't undermine the

parliamentary system by attacking the Chair, which has a duty

to the House itself.

Would the Hon. Member please withdraw?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it deeply grieves me to have had to

attack the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure.

MR. GIBSON: I sought redress in other ways of a situation

which I thought was intolerable. I agree with Your Honour that

there are rules in this House that must be respected. When

those rules are abused by those in power and when the redress

provided for is denied, then some other kind of protest and

statement must be made.

The Chairman, Your Honour, declined — not just to me

but to several Hon. Members — to hear points of order out

to any reasonable extent. I sought the only redress I had.

Under standing order 62 I moved a motion which is always in

order. The Chairman, acting under his authority, said that he

would not accept that motion. I do not question his legal

authority to do that; I question his moral authority.

I say to you, Sir, that I then issued a description of that

Chairman as an arrogant dictator, which I will maintain as a

statement of fact, and not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon, Member is not prepared to

withdraw the statement. I am very sorry. I have no alternative,

as you know, but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw from the

House for the day — from the proceedings, I should

say.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask you for

clarification. I have listened over several days to this

wrangle on procedure, and the deterioration that's taking place

is, I think, one of the

[ Page 2383 ]

most serious situations this House must have faced in many a

year, whatever the cause.

One of the reasons, I think, for the action of the Member

presently withdrawing from the House is that we reached the

pitch, a few moments ago, where the Chairman refused to allow a

Member of this House to challenge his ruling.

While one can perhaps argue, Mr. Speaker, as to whether a

Member has a point of order, we surely have reached a very

serious level in this House when, because of the legitimate

tactics of the opposition to fight a cause they believe in,

they cannot even now, apparently, have the right to challenge

the Chairman's ruling. I would ask your clarification. If this

is the case, then indeed the opposition have lost just about

every right they have in this House. I think it would be sad if

the situation were left to deteriorate further.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member must make a distinction

between those particular matters where there is no appeal,

where it relies on the opinion of the Chair, and in some cases,

for example, emergency motions to debate a matter of urgent

public importance. In strictness of the

interpretation of the

rule, the Speaker on such an occasion is dealing with what, in

his opinion — and that is in the rule — is a matter

of an emergency, in that sense the emergency of debate. So it

is left to the Chair to decide that issue, not by appeal from

that decision or opinion.

The same applies when you deal with standing order 44, where

it gives the Speaker discretion to decide whether a motion is

vexatious, frivolous or repetitious, or for any other reason

— for example, in cases of closure of debate — he

may decide that it would not be proper or fair to the minority

in the House that there be closure of that debate. In such case

his opinion is not reversible by the House, or, as I pointed

out the other day, the majority would simply steamroller right

over the Speaker. Therefore he is given and it is reposed in

him that responsibility to rule, in certain cases, that certain

motions will not be accepted at this time.

Now on the case in question, if the House has made a ruling

or decision a few moments ago on the very same point of order,

it would not be proper for a Member to raise the same point of

order when the House has just dealt with that point of order.

Therefore, he would be, in my view, quite correct in not

accepting a renewal of the point of order that the House has

just dealt with.

Now if that is the case, then I would say it would be

improper for the Members to try to raise again That the House

has just given its judgment on.

Which is the case to which you refer, if we are looking at

it in context? Which position are you referring to?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to your

interpretation of the point I was trying to make....

I think, above all else, this House lacks consistency in

judgments from the Chair. Many of the issues which have been

decided and rulings which have been challenged very similar to

what happened 10 minutes ago have been allowed to occur. It

seems, if nothing else, that there is a serious lack of

consistency.

Regardless of that, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I

require leave, but I would wish to move that the House recess

for 30 minutes in an attempt to find a solution to the obvious

impasse which this House is in. I don't know if such a motion

is in order, but I think it is well worth considering at this

point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, before dealing with that and asking

leave, I would point out to the Hon. Member that I was called

back to the Chair to deal with a particular matter of breach of

privilege. The House is really not in session as a House. We

are in Committee of the Whole House and, without the committee

rising, we may deal with this question when the Speaker is back

in the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: The grave difficulty that is being experienced

is the fact that the Hon. Members are not given a fair

opportunity by the Chair to state their point of order.

Everyone, Mr. Speaker, has a different style, a different

substance, and people articulate things in a different manner.

I think it is incumbent upon any Chairman in any Legislature

anywhere to listen to a point of order and to then assess his

judgment and make his decision after he has heard the point of

order.

There is not much to be gained in a democratic society by a

Chairman constantly gabbling in the middle of a Member

attempting to make a point of order. We are getting into a

situation of Mutt and Jeff, up and down, up and down —

and it is almost like a Pinocchio show — before a Member

can finish his point of order. Most of the points of order

— certainly all that have been raised this afternoon

— have been short, succinct points of order. But the Chair

does not give the Member and has not given the Member an

opportunity to state it. Now that's the first point, and that's

probably how this initiated this afternoon.

The other one was this — and I thoroughly agree with

the very unfortunate position that the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was put into, because he

moved, under

section 62 of the rules, Mr. Speaker, a motion

that the Chairman leave the chair — a motion that shall

always be in order and shall take precedence over any other

motion and shall

[ Page 2384 ]

not be debatable. In essence, the Chairman refused to hear

that. He attempted to call a division on it and he couldn't do

it.

Now are you going to suggest to me, Mr. Speaker, that rule

62 does not apply in this House any longer? We faced that this

afternoon when the Chairman was in the chair, and that's not

correct. Either this rule 62 means what is says, or it

doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think you will understand that that

particular motion is known as a dilatory motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, no!

MR. GARDOM: The Chairman never made that assessment, Mr.

Speaker, at all. He only said he wasn't going to hear it, and

started to call the question again.

MR. SPEAKER: Anyway, I would suggest that standing order 62

is always subject to standing order 44. That is that the

Chairman still has the power, if he feels that the motion would

not be appropriate in view of the circumstances that have

transpired....

MR. GARDOM: Then he has a responsibility to state that, and

not come in with a mailed fist, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's not only closure;

it's absolute closure.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, of course, that the Chair should....

Perhaps Hansard will tell us, when the time comes to

look at it, whether standing order 44 was referred to by the

Chair in the course of this event. I can't judge that matter

when obviously this took place in committee.

I refer you to pages 429 and 430 of May for your

future guidance in regard to the effective restraints upon

obstruction that may occur in cases where the standing order 44

is a remedy by the Chair, where it says:

"A Member who 'abuses the rules of the House by

persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the

House,' that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any

of the rules of debate, uses his right of speech for the

purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs

the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House,

is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct."

I didn't say

you were or anyone was. I'm saying that the invoking of

standing order 44 is most often used in those instances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know, since I wasn't here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, rule 44 is a tremendous red

herring — a red whale, in fact. It really has no bearing.

The point raised by the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson)

and the point raised by the First Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) all dealt with the general question of identifying

the vote by reading the words of it. This is a new point

— and I've been in this House for a fair number of hours

over the past few days — not yet canvassed. How could it

become one of those repetitive requests for the same type of

ruling as previously? It could not, because it was a new

point.

Rule 44, which you have thrown into this, simply cannot

apply when a new subject is raised. Had it been the 15th time

or the 60th time or the 67th time — when one considers

the Member for Port Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) — had it

been a frequent occurrence that he had attempted to have this

point clarified, it might well be a different situation. It's

not possible hypothetically after the fact to recreate the

facts of the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore I think we should rather desist on

this subject, because I was asked...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So let me move on, then....

MR. SPEAKER: ...on this point. But I'm not inviting a

speech on the substance of the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, nor am I giving a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules are there. If the Chairman doesn't

apply them, in your opinion, the way he should, you have a

remedy to appeal certain cases.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Where it's discretionary, you don't, as you

know.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we were not

permitted to challenge something which is a new point to the

House at large. So we were denied that right.

Secondly, you do refer frequently to substantive motions.

May I remind you and everybody in this House that, I believe,

it's 18 months since a substantive motion of the type you're

suggesting has

[ Page

2385 ]

been debated? It is an absolute blind alley, a dead end as

far as attempting to have any change or any remedy from the

problem we're faced with today.

Therefore the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano rightly suggested appealing it to the

Membership of the committee, and the Chairman refused. The

Chairman has no right to refuse when new points are raised

about the defining of the vote and how it shall be put to the

House. He has no right whatsoever to deny an appeal to the

Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. If the

traditional method of putting a vote is under consideration, as

you suggest, and that method of putting a vote is then

confirmed to be the method by the House on appeal, then it

would be quite improper....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right! And there was no appeal to the

House; that's the point. There was no appeal to the House. You

have agreed with the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is quite mistaken. There was an

appeal to the House and the House decided that the method of

putting the vote was correct and proper. Therefore for anyone

later to rise on another point of order relating to the same

point the House had just decided would be vexatious and

certainly should not be considered as a fresh point of order at

all. The House had just decided that point.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. The

point of order was simply to this effect: we are having votes

here of enormous magnitude and it was my view that in the

public interest they be recorded at the very least with an

explanation of what the vote is about. The general public are

surely to goodness entitled to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member was then suggesting....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! May I ask the question? The Hon. Member

was asking for a different method to be used than is in current

use?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I was.

MR. SPEAKER: Then he would have been out of order.

MR. GARDOM: No way! No! Let me make my point. I was making my point

with the Hon. Chairman and he constantly interrupted me — constantly. Then the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey got up and started to refer to rule

16(2), I believe it is, talking about stating of the question. Fine and dandy.

But still that did not deal specifically with the point I

had raised, nor has that been dealt with. Then later on, Mr.

Speaker, I got up and I tried once again to establish the

point. The Chairman took the position that it had been

considered. Then I said: "Well you've made a ruling." Then I

challenged his ruling, and he refused to accept the

challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, well, I think the Hon. Member is aware he

should have perhaps put a motion to the House at some date

asking for a different method of putting motions than has been

the custom in the House.

MR. GARDOM: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't do it by challenge.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the few times in the

history of you and I being in the House that there have been

descriptions of votes to the extent they are now described.

This is also the first time in the Legislature in your

experience and my experience that the estimates have not been

debated in the Province of British Columbia. I say, for God's

sake, that the general public is at least entitled to a

description of what a vote is about as opposed to reading

"$27,501,093." We are supposed to be doing a job here, not for

the mechanics of the NDP or for the opposition. We are supposed

to be doing a job for the general public; they have a

right to be informed, and they are not being informed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, all right, now I've got the sense

of your objection. But the point is, as I have said, that you

don't take that as a point of order, and then demand a division

of a testing of the ruling, because it is obvious that the

method there sought to be invoked to record things differently

than at present would have to be done by some substantive

motion.

MR. GARDOM: But, Mr. Speaker, I don't find anything in the

rules saying that you have to refer to the correction services

by an amount of money. Can you find that in the red book for

me? No way, Mr. Speaker. No way!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Chairman is using and adopting a method

of presenting the resolution to the House that has been

customary.... To alter that, I would think it would take more

than his own opinion of how to do it.

[ Page 2386 ]

MR. GARDOM: He has not indicated what the custom of the

House is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore I can't possibly deal with a point

like that, because there is no motion upon which it can be

debated.

MR. GARDOM: I'm just letting you know that there are serious

problems we are experiencing in committee, Mr. Speaker. I

rather agree with the assessment of my friend from Oak Bay.

Perhaps it would be a very good thing if we did have an

adjournment and you could consult with the Chairman. Bring him

up to date on the point.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll put the request for leave on the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay's suggestion, if I may. I think the Hon.

Members realize that all this debate is really by the side for

the reason that in the House, in parliament, you are not

supposed to be debating without a motion before the House or on

a specific point of order that relates to something that is

going on in this place at this time. I'll put the question of

leave. Shall leave be granted on the motion proposed?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. It is my understanding, Mr.

Speaker, that we are still in committee. How is one expected to

vote in committee?

MR. SPEAKER: No, that is not correct.

MR. SMITH: Should we not rise and report progress or report

resolutions?

MR. SPEAKER: Without the committee rising, the House

reconstitutes itself for the purpose of dealing with a matter

that arose in committee. That is what I have done. It dealt

with the matter of the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano. Other questions were raised which I

have tried to deal with simply in the manner of informal

advice.

MR. SMITH: Well, would you put the question again, please? I

was on my feet at the time you put it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was whether leave be granted for

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to put a motion without

notice, and leave was denied. Again, shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: May I get the Chairman back now and go into committee?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Previously the House Leader

did agree when consulted — I'm not sure if it was

yesterday or the day before — because the policy had been

to call the vote by number, not mentioning the name of the vote

or the amount. When the House leader was consulted, she did in

fact agree that the vote could be properly identified. That is

exactly what we are asking for today — not only that the

name, lumber and amount of the vote but that what it consists

of be.... The House has agreed to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair puts the motion, really, on money

resolutions that are presented to it from the House Leader. The

House Leader, in a sense, is the one who puts the motion, which

has become almost a short-form variation over the years.

It's entirely up to the way the motion is moved.

MR. MORRISON: It wasn't a motion when she agreed to it

before; it was a request and she agreed to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not saying it was a motion. I'm saying that

whatever she presents to the table on money resolutions is

usually a short-form type of motion.

MR. MORRISON: This is what it is. This is what we're asking

for. That's exactly what we're asking for.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'll see what the House leader does.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, where

there is a dispute that would require the intervention of the

Chair, there is provision in May for us to rise, report

progress and ask him for advice. This can be done in two ways,

apparently: one by the Chairman himself doing this, as was done

last Tuesday; the second way is, I believe, for a motion to be

put, although that has not yet been done in this House.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the extremely slow progress

and the genuine and serious difficulties that surround this

matter, I would urge that you consider, yourself, having the

committee rise and report to him to ask for clarification.

Failing that, I would move myself that we rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again so that we could thereafter have a

recess, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

[ Page 2387 ]

Wallace).

Earlier this day I wrote a letter to the Premier, copies of

which were distributed to other party leaders, proposing a

solution to our current dilemma. I do believe that this

afternoon's most unhappy developments have only reiterated and

underlined the importance of having a fresh look at the way we

are handling committee activity.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to consider, yourself, rising

and reporting progress so that a motion could then be put to

adjourn or to at least have a recess of 30 minutes. Failing

that, Mr. Chairman, I so move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We would be

agreeable to the motion. However, we would, in agreeing to

that, like the Whips to meet to discuss this matter and we

would like to continue the House work with legislation at that

time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The motion that was placed by the

Member was listened to by the Chair, and the motion should be

that you report resolution and ask leave to sit again. For the

reasons you've stated, the Chair is prepared to accept the

motion and put the motion before the House.

The motion is that the committee rise, report resolution and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee wants to rise,

report resolution and ask leave to sit again. We also report

that there have been a number of divisions that should be

recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall leave be granted

to record the divisions?

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if I

could again ask leave of the House at this point to introduce a

motion without notice to the effect that the House have a

recess of one half hour.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, referring you to standing order 25, this being Thursday, should

we not proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll call public bills in the hands of private Members.

The Hon. Member is quite correct.

Bill 12. The Hon. Member is not here at this

time so we will move on....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the Hon. Member would like to have

an opportunity to speak on it. I would like to move now to Bill

13 so I will move adjournment on behalf of the Hon. Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst).

Motion approved.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RECYCLING CORPORATION ACT

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be

able to get up and support Bill 13.

MR. WALLACE: I hope you are grateful to the opposition for

letting you do this. That's co-operation.

MR. STEVES: Well, thanks for giving me such a great amount

of time to prepare for it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in British Columbia with a

lot of resource waste and a lot of materials that could be

re-used for beneficial purposes — newspapers and so

on that could be re-used rather than being wasted and

filling up our garbage dumps. I envision that we might in the

future have some type of corporation set up that would oversee

the re-use of these resource materials that are now being

wasted and that that corporation would be able to work with

municipal bodies, regional bodies and so on to set up

programmes by which waste materials could be collected, taken

to central locations and distributed to processing plants of

various types that they may be put back into use as useful

products once again. I think that is something that's very much

needed in British Columbia.

Fifty per cent of the waste materials going into garbage

dumps could be cut down, and it would provide much preservation

of our environment and our resource material. At the present

time there are a number of small organizations throughout the

province carrying out recycling on a voluntary basis. I have

received letters and petitions and phone calls from, probably,

3,000 people and organizations in support of this bill in the

past year. I think that it's very popular in the community.

Therefore I would

[ Page 2388 ]

like to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, I must point out to the Hon.

Members that Bill 13 would be out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, no. However, if there's no objection, I

think Members can continue speaking on it, but I must make a

decision on the matter before the motion is put, as you

know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would agree, and

only ask for one minor point of clarification. It seems that

everything is put upon your shoulders, and it would appear to

me desirable that you not make decisions without, of course,

having someone bring it to your attention. Why should you be

the unfortunate individual singled out to perhaps destroy the

child...?

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. I

volunteered for the duty. I have the obligation imposed upon me

to see that the rules are observed, including rule 67.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, Mr. Speaker, but I would correct

you. If my memory serves me correctly, you were dragged,

struggling, to the chair; you did not volunteer for the job. It

seems unfortunate that you should be subjected to the abuse

that might come your way from our friend from Richmond simply

because you had to make up your own mind as to whether it was

out of order. That's the government's job if they think a

private Member's bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. The

standing orders clearly set out that the Speaker has to decide

the issue, not the government, and not the Hon. Member

speaking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

which.... We won't try to take this to a conclusion now

because I'm quite sure you and I could have an interesting

discussion outside this chamber on the same matter. I believe

I'm perfectly right, although I'm listening to your views with

great interest.

But on the bill itself, I think that the Hon. Member has an excellent suggestion

here. There may well be minor changes that we might like to suggest at third

reading, the committee-stage reading. There may well be changes to work in

the municipalities. There well may be improvements that could be suggested from

all sides of the House. But in terms of principle it's clear that this bill

will assist in recycling what are now considered to be waste materials. Therefore,

in that respect we think it's an excellent bill. It comes at a very opportune

time, and I, on behalf of my party, would like to commend him for it and urge

the government, as well as the Speaker, to look with favour upon this particular

piece of legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I, too, would like to rise to support the bill from

the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). One of the problems that we face

in this province, and one particularly the municipalities face in this province,

is the growing shortage of land available for the disposal of the massive amount

of waste that we in our society create each day. In view of the limited amount

of land we have for the development of housing facilities, the construction

of roads and railroads and the conduct of agriculture, the continued use, even

by methods of sanitary landfill as a means of disposing of wastes, is creating

a very serious problem — that, together with all of the problems which are related

to disposal, and in particular the disposal of those substances which have a

poisonous effect on the environment.

Many studies have been conducted into techniques with

respect to the recycling of waste materials. Other nations have

found it essential that they develop these new techniques. The

country of Japan comes to mind where they use recycled paper

for many uses within their society. They produce building

materials out of garbage. I think the time is long since past

when we in this country can ignore the example that others are

giving to us.

One of the difficulties that faces us in such an enterprise

is the lack of research, the lack of facilities and, indeed,

the lack of funds with which such an enterprise can be carried

on. Some private organizations have attempted it with minor

success. Certainly those in the paper industry have attempted

to re-use waste paper that produces serious problems so

far as the ink is concerned.

I think that until government takes the serious hand in

this, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be plagued with these

problems. We will build bigger and bigger piles of garbage, we

will fill more bogs, we will continue to defile our coastal

areas with waste, much of which does not degenerate but

continues largely in its natural state. I think a determined

effort should be made in this regard, and approval of

legislation of this kind would indicate a willingness on the

part of government to concern itself with such an interesting,

indeed essential, occupation.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I think many

Members on both sides of the House really want to commend this

Member for Richmond

[ Page 2389 ]

(Mr. Steves), you know. I don't know if you realize, Mr.

Speaker, if you've ever been in our caucus room, which I don't

remember you being....

MR. CHABOT: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: I don't remember you ever being in our caucus

room.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad you've got a good memory.

MR. ROLSTON: But in the corner of that Member's office

there have been great stacks of newsprint that he takes in his

truck back to the recycling depots in Vancouver. The members of

the press gallery realize that we get probably five or six

journals a day to read as well as our own weeklies throughout

the ridings — in my case that's four. It's just an

incredible amount of paper to go through.

The Member for Richmond, I think, and many other MLAs lament

the fact that there really isn't a place on the lower mainland

.... In fact I can't think of one pulp mill that now will

accept recycled paper. Ocean Falls, which has heavy water

transportation costs, was up until recently — unless I

can be corrected — one of the last places to take

recycled paper. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) has quite rightly pointed out the technical

problems with ink.

I just commend this Member. I realize that if you turn to

the back of the page it does involve the expenditure of money,

but so be it. I think we want to put some onus on cabinet and

on the people who are in government. The community expects this

Legislature to give some direction in the recycling of an

incredible amount of paper.

We used to say in the United Church of Canada we kept one

pulp mill going. Well, I think in this Legislature we probably

keep one pulp mill going. I think it can be done. It should be

known, Mr. Speaker, that Boeing Aircraft, after some of the

setbacks they had in the late 1960s, received some funds to,

among other things, recycle solid and especially paper waste

into various forms of asphalt. They're doing studies on that

right now.

I think that this Member should be commended. Maybe he can

add a few things in winding up the debate. We really are

running out of space for dry landfills. I remember that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs said that there would be $1

million in natural gas money to help the regional districts in

dealing with waste problems, fencing, purchasing of property

and other capital costs. But really I think there's an urgency

and money needs to be spent to see that this corporation can be

established. I certainly commend the Member and support this

bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I too support the

bill. One of the more recent incidents in our community of the

capital region has been a strike of municipal workers, whereby

householders in effect had to deal with their own garbage for

weeks without the normal services. I've heard it said so many

times since the strike ended that there is a real potential for

householders to accept a greater individual responsibility in

recycling a great deal of their waste in the ordinary home. In

fact the municipality of Oak Bay seems to have taken that

comment so seriously that I understand that we're only going to

have garbage picked up once every three weeks. Many of the

Members in the House seem to applaud that idea. It has the

additional advantage of saving the taxpayers in Oak Bay

$100,000, which means a certain number of mills, I'm sure.

They say that necessity is the mother of invention. Much as

I deplore some of the inconveniences of a strike, it's quite

obvious in our community that the strike proved that the much

better, more efficient and more conservation-minded we

are, the more we can accomplish in the handling of our

garbage.

So this short bill certainly embodies these principles:

that, the resources of the globe are finite and that with

increasing population in the world and with the awareness that

we can't just go down the slippery slope without trying to face

up to the problem and come up with some productive or

constructive solutions.

This surely has to be the kind of principle that all the

parties in this House should support. I hope that this bill

isn't so structured that when we give it strong support, and

the Member winds up the debate on second reading, we find some

unfortunate procedural reason why it is out of order. I would

hope that the bill, in fact, has been so carefully structured

that it can meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Members know the Hon. Member

for Richmond has the privilege of winding up the debate on

second reading.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to hear the

wide area of support coming from the opposition Members and

from my fellow Members of the back bench. I really hope that

the government might see fit to find this bill in order, or at

least to bring in similar legislation such as this so that we

could see a recycling corporation set up in the province to get

this project underway. I think it is something that is long

overdue.

We are a resource-rich province, Mr. Speaker, but

being a resource-rich province, I think we have, on the

other hand, some obligation to show the way, show how our

resources can be conserved and protected, how we can try to

solve the problems of waste disposal and re-use the

resources that we have

[ Page 2390 ]

available.

I would like to suggest that maybe the government might

consider bringing this in as government legislation. With that

as an idea, I would actually like to move adjournment of the

debate on second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member

could do so, since he was speaking for the purpose of winding

up debate. Therefore it follows that there can be no one else

speaking on the matter unless he is intending to conclude his

remarks at some future time. If this is the purpose of his

motion it would be possible to move it if that is what he

intended.

MR. STEVES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would intend then, to

conclude my remarks at some future time.

MR. SPEAKER: So the motion would be in order, I take it.

The motion is that the debate be adjourned until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION ACT

MR. STEVES: I am pleased to be able to present to the

Legislature Bill 14, the British Columbia Coastal Zone

Commission Act. This is another private Member's bill that I

have had on the order paper for a year and a half now. It has

undergone considerable debate in the community at large.

It is based largely on coastal-zone legislation

already existing in the United States where coastal legislation

was brought in 1972 in nearly every coastal state along the

western coast of the U.S. and the eastern coast. Many of the

clauses are from legislation in Oregon which I think probably

has some of the best coastal legislation on the continent.

Basically it calls for the setting up of a commission

somewhat similar to the Land Commission that we have had

working in agriculture in British Columbia. The idea is to

protect our estuaries, islands, conservation and recreational

areas in the coastal areas — fisheries, feeding grounds,

and so on, in the Gulf of Georgia and places like that —

from incursions by adverse industrial development or any other

development that might destroy very important parts of the

coastal zone.

Implicit in the Act is that the areas would be studied; there would be an inventory

taken to determine which areas had to be preserved and which areas would have

development permitted to take place in them. These areas could be delineated

in an overall plan for the coastal area.

The government has already embarked upon some aspects of

this piece of legislation since I brought it in a year ago.

Some inventories are in the process of being taken. A couple of

weeks ago, I had a commitment from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) that the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat would start to

undertake inventories on the estuaries in the coastal areas.

This is very important because a lot of the estuaries are the

first ones that developers and contractors and so on,

industrial people, consider for locating their sites —

whether they are port sites and so on. These inventories, I

believe, will be started some time this spring. I am pleased to

see that happening.

One other concern in the coastal zone is that the

recreational use should be considered as well as industrial,

environmental and other potential use, that resource management

should be set up in an overall way that would actually consider

things like Indian artifacts where Indian villages have been,

recreational use, housing along the shorelines, as to whether

people are able to block off beaches and access to the beaches,

booming grounds, industrial development on the estuaries, as I

mentioned, protection of the beaches, shorelines and islands,

and so on.

Some of the stuff that the government has done that relates

closely to this And which I think could be worked in with this

idea are the resource management areas that have been set up by

the government throughout the province.

I think that if the resource management teams were given the

job of setting up some kind of coastal legislation or setting

up some type of coastal management and particularly look at the

priority areas like the estuaries, the islands and so on, we

would be well on our way.

When the forestry and fisheries committee of the Legislature

two years ago met, we looked at stream bank protection and we

said that stream bank protection was very vital to the coastal

fisheries. I think that if we were to meet again or if any

other group was to look at this, they would see that just as

important as stream bank protection to the fisheries and to the

resources of the coastal area are the estuaries. I hope that

either a coastal zone commission such as I have suggested can

be set up or that the resource management areas that have been

set up through ELUC could have their credentials extended to

take in coastal zone management and the concept of the coastal

zone commission — one or the other. I'm really not

concerned that it has to be a commission but I would like to

see the job done.

The idea of setting up a commission has received a

[ Page 2391 ]

fair amount of support in the community; it has also

received some opposition from some regional districts who feel

that they are quite capable of handling management of the

coastal zone in their areas. I would like to point out that one

of the major problems that I foresee in the coastal zone is

that there are so many jurisdictions trying to manage the

coastal area that nobody is able to set up an overall plan.

Basically, we have in my area something like five harbour

commissions in and around Richmond. We've got the Fraser River

Harbour Commission, the North Fraser Harbour Commission, the

B.C. Harbour Commission, the Vancouver Harbour Commission and

the National Harbours Board — that's five all operating

in one part of the coastal zone. Then we have Squamish, Nanaimo

and all the other communities up and down the coast along the

Gulf of Georgia — each one, each harbour commission, each

regional district, each city, each municipality j competing for

more harbour development, for industrial development along the

foreshore, for port facilities, and so on. Not every one of

those communities needs them but each one is looking to have

some kind of development like that to soften their tax

base.

I feel that an overall authority could pull all these

various divergent groups together, give some leadership, and

more or less get them to co-operate with each other so we

have some overall planning rather than them going on competing

with each other for the available industrial development, which

is often to the detriment of the environment and to the

detriment of the communities next door. What may go in on my

side of the river and in my community may be to the detriment

of the people living on the other side of the river in the MLA

for Delta's (Mr. Liden'

s) riding or perhaps in Vancouver or

what-have-you. When you are dealing with waterways,

pollution does not just stay where it occurs but flows back and

forth along our coast.

With that as a brief outline of the proposed bill, I would

like to move second reading.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of

this legislation. I think it's an appropriate companion to the

bill which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) a few moments ago.

While we have gone apace defiling our land with garbage, the

coastal waters which surround our communities have not been

allowed to escape. The value of the estuaries in particular has

for too long been unrecognized by our society. As a consequence

over the years, large areas of estuary have been filled and

converted to other uses: industrial uses, recreational uses,

port and harbour facilities. As a consequence, valuable estuary

has been lost.

Studies now show that those tidal lands — those

estuary lands — are of immense value in the whole marine

ecosystem. From those estuaries come those minute marine

organisms which eventually become the food for the fish in the

oceans and in our rivers. When we carelessly deal with coastal

and estuary areas we do more harm than we recognize.

Studies in other jurisdictions have shown that just the

simple construction of a pier out into the water or of a dike

incautiously carried out results in subsurface changes of dire

consequence. Areas which were fertile as far as marine

organisms are concerned are completely destroyed. When we allow

these to continue, we gradually diminish the capability of our

seas to produce life — life which in turn is essential to

our own. From those tidal lands — from those estuaries

— comes the very beginning of the food cycle, which is so

vitally important to human beings. This bill is an attempt for

the first time in this jurisdiction to rectify the present

situation, to attempt to prevent the proliferation of

structures along our coastal waters which might have this

consequence.

As the Member has said it is in keeping with the action

which has been taken in many coastal states throughout this

world. The sudden realization that no longer can we continue

the practices of the past, and having some proper relationship

between the uses that we must make of access to the water and

of the consequences of that use is, I think, long past due in

British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to support this bill also —

not that I have any great knowledge of all the ramifications in

the detail that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) obviously has — but we have

some real concern about the coastline around the Saanich

Peninsula area and some recent consideration and heated public

controversy about the wisdom or otherwise of a marina which was

to be built.

Having seen some of the other areas, certainly in the San

Diego area, where the value of coastline and the development of

estuaries is being, I think, carried out very wisely, it would

seem to me the time is due, if no