1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9115 ]

CONTENTS

Appointment of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9115

Appointment of Deputy Speaker

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9115

Constitution Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 80). Hon. Mr. Chabot

Introduction and first reading –– 9115

Oral Questions

Revised budget. Mr. Stupich –– 9129

Mr. Lauk

Cutbacks in Education. Mr. Lauk –– 9130

Interest-free bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9130

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

section 2 — 9131

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 3 –– 9135

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Williams

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. CLERK: Hon. members, on August 10, 1982, by letter

to His Honour Henry Bell-Irving, Lieutenant-Governor of British

Columbia, Hon. H.W. Schroeder, MLA for Chilliwack, resigned as Speaker

of the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr.

Clerk, I have the great pleasure to move, seconded by the hon. member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that Walter K. Davidson, Esq., member for

Delta electoral district, do take the Speaker's chair and preside over

the meetings of this assembly.

MR. CLERK: Walter

Kenneth Davidson, hon. member for Delta, has been duly nominated as

Speaker of this assembly. Is there any further nomination? Is there any

further nomination? Is there any further nomination?

I declare that Walter Kenneth Davidson, hon. member for Delta, has been duly elected as Speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: I very humbly thank members of this Legislature for the very high honour they have placed upon me this day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to address you for the first time as Mr. Speaker.

move, again seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that

William Bruce Strachan, Esq., member for Prince George South electoral

district, be appointed Deputy Speaker for this session of the

Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES:

Thank you.... Just a little humour I learned from the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). You've got to hang loose in this place.

First

of all, I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new duties

as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. As a former policeman with a

background in enforcement, you will keep order here, I am sure.

you know, it's some months since I was in the Legislature. June 4 was,

I believe, the last time I was here, as a result of recurring athletic

injuries that kept me in bed for about two months. However, I received

some very encouraging support from all members of the Legislature,

particularly the members opposite. Despite the apparent mind-sets that

we have to get into in order to do our duties — partisan duties, that

is — it was very touching to receive a fine letter from those people —

to the person, in fact. Every single one of them signed a letter

telling me to get better. Can you imagine that? And here I am, back and

ready to thank them in as forceful a way as I possibly can. In light of

the speculation that we soon will have an opportunity to get on the

streets, as it were, I think I'll be expressing that sentiment in the

near future.

Seriously, I want to thank the members of the Legislature for their support

during a very testy time for me. At 52, going on 53, I've had my life flash

before me in a very forceful way. I can no longer do the things I used to do

— certainly not physically, You didn't know when you were well off. I think

the old Emery was better than the new one. I've had time to think.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be back, and still with a sense

of humour. Thank you very much. I didn't introduce anybody, but I did

let you know that I'm back on course.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Gracing our galleries today is Mrs. Dorothy Hammond-Innes, the wife of

that renowned international author. Mr. Ralph Hammond-Innes, who is

doing research for another book in our great province of British

Columbia. We'd like to bid her a special welcome today.

MR. WOLFE:

Visiting us in the gallery are old friends of ours, Warren and Nancy

Hansen from Vancouver. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce two visitors to the gallery from

my constituency, who happen to be very good personal and also political

friends. I would like the House to welcome Martha and Hugo Schaffrott

from the city of Kelowna.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would

like the House to welcome friends and supporters from the great city of

Vancouver, Mrs. Tasia Richards and Mrs. Hope Wotherspoon, who are

presently in the gallery.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would

like the House to welcome an extremely important constituent of the

riding of Vancouver–Point Grey who is visiting the House this

afternoon: Mrs. Rosemary Dolman, former president of our constituency,

who has gone on to higher work for the Social Credit Party. Would the

gathering welcome Mrs. Dolman.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, visiting with us today as well are the mother and father of

your newly elected Speaker. I would bid them, and ask you to give them,

a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the bill accompanying

same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rises...

MR. LAUK: ...to debate the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

[ Page 9116 ]

MR. LAUK: If it please the House, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the motion before us is leave to introduce

a bill. That motion has no debate attached to it at this particular

stage.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I clearly

heard the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) move a different

motion. What motion is before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. LAUK:

I want to debate the motion that's before the House, Mr. Speaker. I

don't think it's a timely motion. I don't think the committee should be

asked to meet at this stage to consider this bill.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Neither under standing orders nor under

practice of this House is this particular motion debatable at this

particular time.

MR. LAUK: Could Mr. Speaker give me some guidance about when we can debate this motion?

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. member would refer to the standing orders under

section 45,

he would see that under no place is there any room for debate at this

stage. Debate would certainly be allowed at subsequent stages. Standing

order 45 states: "The following motions are debatable: Every

motion...(

d) For the second reading of a bill; (

e) For the third

reading of a bill...." Hon. member, this does not include the first

reading of a bill.

Further authority would be the

seventeenth edition of May, page 532, which again clearly says that

when a bill is referred to a committee, it is not a matter for debate.

MR. LAUK:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, standing order 45(1)(k), which, being

directly stated in our standing orders, takes precedence over

Beauchesne or Sir Erskine May, says: "And such other motion, made upon

routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the

proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority. the

appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business.

the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records,"

and so on.

If you read 45(2), Mr. Speaker — I urge upon you

the well-known principle de justum generis — it states: "All other

motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate

or amendment." It follows that only motions or like motions dealing

with adjournments are without debate, not references to committees.

MR. SPEAKER:

The member has made his point. Nonetheless, I am guided by both the

practice of this House and the standing orders before us. Practice has

long been established that on the introduction of a bill, mainly

because we have no idea to debate what we cannot have presented before

us....

MR. LAUK: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore could you grant a recess while all hon. member have access to the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Not until a bill is introduced can it be circulated.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Chair has advised members that there is ample

opportunity before us. At this stage of debate the bill is introduced

without debate. At this stage of proceedings the bill is introduced

without debate. That is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I think you have made a couple of comments that need to

cause Your Honour on this first momentous occasion to reflect about

what you said. One of the things you said was "at this stage of

debate," indicating that, in Your Honour's opinion, there is a stage of

debate at this particular time.

Second, Your Honour pointed

out that you do not permit debate upon introduction of a bill, which

relates to first reading. The motion before Your Honour, made by the

Provincial Secretary, was a motion to refer something to a committee. I

think it's clear, as outlined by the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk), that 45(1)(

k) indicates in the broadest possible way that

any such motion, other than those enumerated from (

a) to (j), which may

be required for the observance of our proprieties in the House, the

maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its

officers, its business and everything else is debatable. That clearly

says so. Regretfully, Your Honour has, I think, fallen into the trap of

assuming that, because on previous occasions there may have been

silence upon the referral at this point of a particular bill to a

committee, that constitutes that there be no debate. You cannot make

such a flagrant ruling, I submit, Mr. Speaker, simply upon the

understanding that maybe no debate has taken place on previous

occasions.

I want to say to you, with all respect, that Your

Honour should not permit the government to have its sleazy way in

running rampant over democracy here and in bringing in obviously —

unseen, of course.... Taking the declarations of the Premier a year and

a half ago, in which he said he was going to have an election on his

occasion, that he was going to have redistribution....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would remind all hon. members of the standing rule of this House that

when the Speaker or the Chairman stands in his place, absolute silence

is mandatory. Otherwise, hon. members, there is no way that the rules

of this House can be followed and adhered to. I would commend that to

each member, especially at this particular time.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I have heard a view from two members on

the particular process that is before us. The ruling of the Chair is

that the procedure, having been followed to this time and place, that a

bill be introduced without debate, is to be upheld in this House. Hon.

members, regretfully I so rule.

[ Page 9117 ]

MR. HOWARD: And regretfully that must be appealed. It's preposterous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld?

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

YEAS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, call the Chairman.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the motion as presented by the Provincial Secretary was not voted upon by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion must be read. The point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre is a valid one.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order that needs to be made, Your Honour, is that Your

Honour has already taken the step of bypassing that provision of voting

on that particular motion and has called the Deputy Speaker to take the

chair. I therefore submit to you that you must rule the whole

proceedings up to this time invalid because Your Honour has overridden

them. Your Honour having passed that point, I submit, cannot go back

again now except with the leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The point raised by the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard) requires a moment of consultation. Firstly, on the point

or order raised by the member for Vancouver Centre that the question

would have to be put again and decided upon, the Chair agrees that that

is a valid point of order. On the second point of order raised by the

member for Skeena, the Chair cannot concur with the findings of that

particular form of argument.

The question is, hon. members,

that the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to

a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Brummet

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Leggatt

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, standing order 74 of the Legislative

Assembly states: "Proceedings on Public Bills. Every bill shall be

introduced upon motion for leave, specifying the title of the bill, or"

— as has been done in this case — "upon motion to appoint a committee

to prepare and bring it in...." My submission is that the hon.

Provincial Secretary rose in his place and was recognized, which the

Chair is entitled to do; but the minister is not entitled to ask the

committee to rise until we've fulfilled our mandate under the standing

orders. We have not prepared the bill and we have not conducted our

responsibility to prepare and bring the bill in. That mandate, which we

have been assigned by the House and by standing orders, has not been

fulfilled by this committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order. One moment, please.

Hon.

members, a message bill has been presented to the House and has been

referred to committee. The motion is that the committee rise,

recommending the introduction of the bill. The committee can resolve

itself on that matter, and I therefore put the question.

[ Page 9118 ]

MR. LAUK: That motion is surely debatable, Mr. Chairman, and I want to take my place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, the motion is not debatable. We can either pass or defeat the motion at this point. May I quote the Journals

for February 22, 1973: "Upon a point of order being raised as to

whether or not debate on the motion was permissible, Mr. Speaker

observed that no authority had been quoted to displace the

long-established practice and usage of this House, namely that there

was no debate either in Committee of the Whole House or in the stage of

report from the Committee of the Whole House relative to a message

bill." I so rule.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is not

an ordinary message bill, to which that particular decision by Speaker

Dowding applies. I'm well aware of that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is a message bill; the committee has no other knowledge of the bill.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, it was introduced as an amendment to the constitution. I

refer you to standing order 76: "Any bill affecting the constitution

must be introduced by a member of the government" — well, we're

somewhat assured of that — "or with the sanction of the government."

There has to be proof at least of that presented to Committee of the

Whole before the bill can be passed on. This is a constitution bill.

It's not an ordinary message bill. That's why we have a reference to

Committee of the Whole House. Why would that provision be in standing

orders, Mr. Chairman, without the possibility of debating an amendment

to the constitution? It took Canada 54 years to amend its constitution.

Now they want to do it in five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your citation with respect to

standing order 76. Standing order 76 clearly indicates only that a bill

affecting the constitution must be introduced by a member of the

government, and that is what has transpired. The question before us now

is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

It is a non-debatable motion. The committee can resolve in either the

affirmative or the negative. I so rule, and I am therefore....

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, proceedings have been undertaken

already, presumably with the sanction of Mr. Speaker — or the Deputy

Speaker of before — to authorize carpenters in this building, working

under the authority of the Speaker, to proceed to build seven new desks

for seven new — what the Premier hopes will be — Social Credit members.

That's already underway, Mr. Chairman. Once that action has been taken,

somebody has to take responsibility for authorizing the spending of

public money on building desks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, the committee is now entering into debate on the motion. The

motion is not debatable, as stated in our standing orders. I so rule,

and I will put the question now that the committee....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I noticed the government House Leader

just declaring that I'm out of order. That's the way Nazis operate,

Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A point of order?

MR. HOWARD:

The assumption the Chair was making which was wrong, I submit to you,

Mr. Chairman — was that I was engaging in debate. I was drawing to your

attention that an authorization has been given to spend public funds by

either Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker or maybe even yourself, sir, to

spend public funds to build seven new desks. But why? Isn't that a part

of what this bill is? And aren't we entitled to have some kind of

explanation as to this misuse of public funds before we proceed any

further?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there will be....

MR. HOWARD: Surely, Mr. Chairman, sleaze and dishonesty....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Once again I will remind the committee that this committee has no other

business before it except to pass or defeat the motion that the

committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill. That is the

only business that this committee can conduct at this point. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, could Your Honour then advise the committee who

authorized the spending of money to build seven new desks? Was it the

Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to

take his place. That comment really has no place in the question before

us. It is simply that the committee rise recommending the introduction

of the bill. The motion is before the committee now. I'm prepared to

call the question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point

of order, it is my right as a member to ask the Chairman, through an

appeal to the House on your ruling, to report what has transpired and

that your ruling has been appealed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the first member for Vancouver Centre challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. LAUK: The procedure in committee, Mr. Chairman, is to appeal your ruling to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chairman's ruling has been challenged. And you want me to report it

to the House. Fine. That said, you have that undertaking. I will now

call the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LAUK: Once a ruling has been appealed, the Chairman must forthwith leave the chair and report to the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Thank you.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee is appealing to the Speaker on the motion that the committee rise,

[ Page

9119 ]

recommending introduction of the bill, and they're appealing the ruling of the Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Chair is reporting something which did not take place.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the point of order cannot be raised at

this time, because it's from the committee and it has to be dealt with.

It cannot be dealt with at this time.

MR. HOWARD: I respect that and I understand that, Mr. Speaker. But what I'm saying is...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...that the matter cannot arise until the Chairman reports, and the Chairman is reporting something which did not take place.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon member, the Chair is bound to hear the report from

the Chairman. Any problem that may arise as a result of that has to be

dealt with in committee. It cannot be dealt with this way. It has to be

dealt with in the former....

MR. HOWARD: But the report is erroneous and, I submit, not in order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. We have before us a motion that the ruling

of the Chair be sustained. The challenge was that the ruling of the

Chair was not....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged in

committee. That has now been appealed to the House; the Chair will now

call the question. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be

sustained?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The ayes have it. The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.

MR. LAUK: Division!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is no rule in this

House that permits a vote to be taken when a member is on his feet — none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER:

Equally, hon. members, when a question has been called — when a report

has been made from the Chairman to the Chair — that report will be

heard. That report has been heard. The question has been determined. If

further activity is required at this time. It is beyond the

understanding of the Chair what that could be, other than the Chair

having announced the ruling of the Chairman having been sustained. I

now call the Chairman.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order, please. The Chairman will recognize the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the vote taken on your appeal was.... I asked for a

division. The Speaker ignored my request for a division in the House. I

move, therefore, that the Chairman report that fact to the Speaker so a

division can take place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

the committee is not aware of what has transpired in the House. The

motion before the committee is that the committee rise, recommending

the introduction of the bill. No other motion can be accepted, because

we have that previous motion before the committee now.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, your appeal is not valid once a division has been called

and not taken. We do not know whether your ruling applies or not. Mr.

Chairman is not in order by putting this motion. You have to return to

the House and take a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK:

Your ruling has not been sustained once challenged by a request for a

division. If the newly elected Speaker wishes to overrule our solemn

right to ask for a division of this House, then let him say so in

person and not rush away from the Chair to try to avoid the debate on

this very important issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, I call the committee to order. We are in committee and we have one motion before us....

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I challenge your statement that we have one motion before

us. Your ruling has not been sustained. You cannot proceed with that

motion — it's illegal. The Speaker can't just leave the chair and avoid

standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair

understands that the first member for Vancouver Centre is challenging

the Chairman's ruling that we have one motion before us in committee.

Is that correct?

MR. LAUK: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been challenged and will report to the Chair.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 9120 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a ruling by your Chairman that the committee had only one motion before it, that ruling was challenged.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like it taken into

account immediately — and this is the first opportunity I've had to do

it — that when Your Honour was in the chair a moment ago and a vote

with respect to another report from the committee was being made, a

request was made for a division upon a voice vote, and Your Honour left

the chair without putting that division. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker,

that you cannot escape the responsibility...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order. The member for Skeena is on his feet.

MR.HOWARD: ...that

out of pique, anger or whatever the emotion at the moment was, Mr.

Speaker does not have the privilege of abandoning his responsibilities

to this chamber, which I submit Your Honour did, very regretfully.

MR. SPEAKER:

Firstly, hon. members, after the division was called the Chair heard no

voice request for a division. Secondly, the Chair had been called in

only to preside over a division on the ruling of whether or not the

Chairman's decision would be upheld. That is the only function the

Chair had at that time. It is not the responsibility of hon. members to

bring points of order at the particular time that that is taking place.

That must be resolved in committee. The only way the Speaker is before

you now is at the request of the Chair, to determine whether or not the

ruling of tile Chairman should be sustained. To partake of any other

debate at this time is totally out of order and beyond the scope of our

standing orders.

At this moment, hon. members, we are

determining whether or not the ruling of the Chair will be sustained.

That is the only question before the House at the present time. The

Chair finds it very difficult to acknowledge members who rise on points

of order at a place which is clearly set aside for the one specific

function we have before us at the present time: that is, simply to

determine whether or not the ruling of the Chair should be sustained by

this House.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I've been

following this fairly carefully. With the greatest respect, the error

occurred when you, Mr. Speaker, failed to call for the nays on that

motion. I think the record will show that you only called for the yeas.

MR. SPEAKER:

If hon. members would pay closer attention to what is proceeding in

this House, I'm sure they would see that that was not the case.

MR. HOWARD:

On a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to you that

very close attention was being paid to what was happening in the House

a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet. Mr.

Speaker, I submit that you could not hear the call for a division

because you were leaving the chair,

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, by any stretch of the imagination, members

cannot possibly explain to this Chair that the word "division" cannot

be heard clearly. The Chair heard no such call. That is why the

proceedings before us — that the Chairman return — were the only

proceedings that could take place. Had the word "division" been heard,

certainly the Chair would have rung the bells accordingly and a

division roll would have been taken.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, what you say is correct. However, it is not normal to call for

a division when a member is on his feet addressing the Chair. I was on

my feet, requesting an address to the Chair. The chair was vacant

before an opportunity could take place for the normal procedure. When

no one is on his feet, then a division is called. If a division is

called while a member is on his feet, it is a form of closure and must

be voted on. I was on my feet. The chair was vacated before an

opportunity, when no member was on his feet, to call for such a

division. Unfortunately, I think the Chair acted in a presumptuous

matter in leaving too quickly to allow normal form to take place.

can understand why the tensions are taking place here under this

unscrupulous attempt to manipulate election results. We will use every

legal means to stop that manipulation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, with

all due respect to hon. members, will be borne in mind by the Chair

very closely and carefully in subsequent events in an effort to make

sure that such an incident does not repeat itself and that members have

a full opportunity to call for division.

MR. LAUK: On

a point of order, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman has merely

reported to you that I appealed his ruling that there was only one

motion before the committee. The vote on that, either voice or

division, has not been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members, the question is that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

[ Page

9121 ]

NAYS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Gabelmann

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

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, could we have some explanation before Your Honour

leaves the chair as to why the Premier ducked that particular vote and

abandoned his troops behind him? Why did he run out?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order at this time, hon. member.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.... I'm in something of a

dilemma. We were in committee, and due to a number of interruptions and

points of order....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm on a point of privilege. I'd respect it if the member would let me finish my point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you rising on a point of order?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

A point of privilege. Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance if I can't

rise on a point of privilege. I'd like some advice as to what I could

rise on. I sat through a discussion in committee. It was interrupted by

points of order, by calling back the Speaker, by going back into

committee, by calling back the Speaker and by going back into committee

again. This is the first opportunity I've had to rise to bring this

point before the House. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in one of

his remarks on his feet in this House, raised the issue to our House

Leader, and through our House Leader to all members on this side of the

House, of Nazism. Mr. Chairman, there are....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. HEWITT: There are many people in this hall and many people throughout this province and this country....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has

the floor. He is on a point of order. The point of order will be heard

uninterrupted. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With

many comments made by the member for Skeena I consider their source and

live with them. The member for Skeena is very apt on his feet in making

remarks and comments. I'm sure if he would reflect on his remarks he

would not be asked to withdraw but would offer to withdraw, and I so

request that of him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, on the same point, and just before recognizing the hon. member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard), if that statement was made, your Chairman did

not hear it. If an imputation was made to another hon. member, the

Chair would have intervened had the Chair heard it, but the Chair did

not hear it. The minister has made a point, and now the Chair

recognizes the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to comment upon what the former Minister of Agriculture just said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There can be no debate. To the member for Skeena, is there a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: I thought the minister had a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Yes, and the Chair explained to the hon. minister that had the Chair

heard that and had the Chair felt that any member was offended by a

comment that might have been made or carried, the Chair would have

intervened. The Chair did not hear such a comment. I find myself

powerless to act on that. However, if someone is asking the Chair for a

withdrawal by a member of some statement allegedly attributed to that

member, then perhaps the minister could make his point. The point of

order has been heard, and the Chair did not hear any offending

statement. I don't know what else I can say at this point except to

recognize the hon. member for Skeena if there is a further point of

order.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to assist the Chair in

coming to a conclusion. At the time to which the minister referred,

which Your Honour says you did not hear, let me relate to you what

happened.

You were in the chair. I had risen before being

recognized by the Chair. Before the formal recognition had taken place,

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the

government House Leader. yelled across the floor: "You're out of

order." It, of course, is a function of the Chair to make that kind of

determination, not a presumption on the part of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations so to declare. Because the government House

Leader usurped the function of the Chair in making that determination,

I quipped across to him these words: "That's the way the Nazis

operate." That's what I said.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

No, there's no further point of order. If the hon. member for Skeena

has alluded any improper motive to another hon. member, I'm sure that

the hon. member for Skeena would withdraw. As I said, that statement

was not heard at the time by the Chair. I am powerless to act.

[ Page 9122 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the record will indicate

that the member was on his feet in debate when he made, the remark; Hansard will show that. I wish the member would withdraw. These types of remarks are not recognized in this House, I hope.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. If the Chair hears it, any impropriety by any member

will be brought to the attention of the committee. I'm sure that every

hon. member of the House would withdraw if so requested. If the hon.

member for Skeena imputed any improper motive, or reflected improperly

upon another hon. member, would the member for Skeena please withdraw

or correct the House as to what might have been interpreted.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm not sure what the Chair is saying. You said "if I had attributed

any motive...." The only improper motive or improper action, if there

was an improper action, was the government House Leader usurping the

function of the Chair. That's improper. I think you should ask the

government House Leader to withdraw his offence against the Chair by

making decisions that the Chair should be making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've discussed this quite enough, hon. members. We do have a question before us. It is not debatable.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) rose in his place, he rose on a

question of privilege and the Chairman recognized him. This is the

first opportunity that I've had to rise on a point of order to suggest

to the Chairman that there is no such thing as a question of privilege

in committee; only in the House can a question of privilege be raised.

The Chairman was wrong in accepting a point of privilege at that stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre makes a good

point. The Chair will take that point under reservation.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the record will show if the point of privilege was not in

the proper form. You indicated a point of order. It is not the system

here in regard to how you put the question. It's a remark that many

people in this hall do not find acceptable. The member for Skeena

should resign or withdraw from this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. during the last five minutes, we have heard much debate

about a point of order. With respect to the point of order, the Chair

regrets that the Chair did not hear offensive words or offensive

language. The hon. member for Skeena has said that that comment was not

imputed to another hon. member of the House. The hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre has pointed out a further comment with respect to

standing orders in committee and points of privilege and points of

order, which the Chair has taken under reservation. Hon. members, the

matter is now finished.

We have before the committee a motion that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill.

The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you make an assumption. I'll live up to your assumption, Mr. Chairman.

are at this stage of the proceedings because leave was denied for

introduction of a bill with leave. When one asks for introduction of a

bill with leave, that is a modern practice which circumvents the

ancient practice of introduction of bills. So in order to find out

where we are right now we must go back to very early authorities. I

have read Erskine May's thirteenth edition, which points out that "in

preparing bills care must be taken that they do not contain provisions

not authorized by the order of leave or by the resolutions upon which

the bill was ordered to be brought in...."

We have not seen this bill....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

The Committee of the Whole cannot fulfil its function unless it is in

possession of this bill. Before recommending for or against

introduction of the bill, it is our duty to find out if it contains

provisions which are not authorized, provisions such as.... I'm quoting

from page 383 of Sir Erskine May's thirteenth edition. We must decide

whether it perhaps does not follow some of the instructions which would

find the bill incompetent. Without being in possession of the bill, we

cannot do that. On those same pages it is pointed out that on occasions

there must have been debate under this ancient practice, because it was

also a practice at times to recommend introduction of several bills at

one time, some of which were recommended for introduction and others

were recommended against by the same Committee of the Whole in the same

sitting.

It is impossible for this committee to proceed without being in possession of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that is why we have the motion before us that the

committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill so we may see

the bill. The Chair has already ruled, upheld by the House, that the

motion is not debatable. The Chair has accepted that point of order.

The Chair will accept one more point of order from the hon. member for

Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I accept

that when we are following the normal practice of the House, which is

to expedite proceedings by waiving the ancient practice, we waive all

of this right to have access to the bill. But when one follows the

ancient practice that we're into now, it's very obvious, by reading the

citations in Erskine May, that on March 5, 1911, when the people of

Westminster brought in a bill relating to the slave trade and ordered

its introduction nemine contradicente, they certainly had some

knowledge of the form of the bill being introduced, as they had with

the regency bills of 1789 and 1811. They were founded upon resolutions

which had been reported from a committee to the whole House,

communicated through the House of Lords and then to the House of

Commons.

How could these learned parliamentarians have

recommended such bills, not having had even knowledge of them? We are

now following this ancient practice and I ask the Chairman, what is the

rush? Why can we not at least see this bill before we recommend its

introduction?

[ Page 9123 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point is well made. However, the House has ruled that the motion is

non-debatable. The citations have been given to members of the

committee and to the Whole House.

I will again tell you that

it is the practice and usage of this House that there is no debate

either in Committee of the Whole House or in a stage of report from the

Committee of the Whole House relative to a message bill that is before

us. We have a simple question now that the committee rise, recommending

the introduction of the bill. That is the motion before us.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you indicated to the hon. member for

Nelson-Creston that he was entitled to only one more point of order. Is

that a ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that was not a ruling, and it was not intended for the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. HOWARD:

Just before you proceed, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who levelled some accusations earlier, has now

disappeared from the chamber, therefore absenting himself from any

responsibility to this committee for what he said. What he said, which

I personally find offensive, is that it's okay for the Premier to label

thousands and thousands of people in this province as Nazis, which the

Premier did and which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

approved. It's okay for that to happen, but it isn't okay for a member

in this chamber to make some oblique reference to the manner in which

this bill is being proceeded with.

I find that demand for

double standards by this government and that Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs to be offensive. I wish you would order him back into

the House so that he can be challenged for making those kinds of

accusations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair dealt with the

point of order as stated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, and also allowed the point of order and a comment from the

hon. member for Skeena. That matter is now finished with. What has

happened outside this committee is not known to this committee. I will

tell all members of the committee that the only item before us now is a

motion that the committee rise and recommend the introduction of this

message bill. That is the only item we can accept at this point.

MR. HOWARD: On a further point of order, what is the Chair going to do with the point of order that I've raised?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What point of order? I did not hear a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order that I raised earlier, sir, which you listened to very attentively — or wasn't the Chair listening?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll advise the hon. member for Skeena and the committee that the Chair

ruled the matter finished, that in the mind of the Chairman the points

of order raised by the minister and the hon. member were finished, and

we are now dealing with the motion before us.

MR. HOWARD:

It was a brand new point of order that I raised. Mr. Chairman. To

repeat, it was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

levelled some accusations and a demand for double standards, which I

find offensive, and I ask him to withdraw that accusation. I ask the

Chair to find out where that minister has absconded to. What is he, a

hit-and-run driver, that he can smear people and then run and hide?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please. I'll ask the Provincial Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition to come to order.

Hon.

members, the point of order raised by the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs and the member for Skeena was dealt with to the

satisfaction of the Chair. Following that, a point of order by the hon.

member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was heard, and that was dealt

with by the Chair We now have only one item before us, and that is the

question that the committee rise recommending the introduction of the

bill.

On a point of order on the motion, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston — and there is no debate.

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm not on a point of order. I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion cannot be accepted. We are in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Mr. Speaker, during committee the member for Nelson-Creston moved that

the House do now adjourn. The Chair ruled that the committee cannot

accept such a motion; that ruling has been challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair has been challenged. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

[ Page 9124 ]

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LAUK: I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That motion is unacceptable and not allowed, hon. member. There is already a question put.

MR. LAUK: I challenge the ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order before the challenge....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling has already been challenged by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: On the ruling being challenged, the question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

Curtis

NAYS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Barnes

Passarell

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

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On, a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that today

the House has been in a very bad state. I further bring to your

attention that the responsibility of your majestic office as Speaker

requires you to take action. Standing order 9 says that "Mr. Speaker

shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of

order...." I bring to your attention, sir, that the House has been in

disorder, and there has been absolutely no decorum. It's about time the

House was brought back to order and to the movement of business, in the

interests of the public. We've been held up two hours today by an

opposition that's using every means possible to delay the actions of

this House. I believe the Speaker has the right. The government stands

on what it does. It stands on its policy and the Speaker shall, I hope,

make a decision.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of

order, as a member of this House for 14 years, I feel very badly that

the Speaker has been insulted by the member for Dewdney, and is being

accused of not keeping the House in order. Valid points of order have

been raised and I would suggest that the member for Dewdney was totally

out of order in making that accusation.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

On a point of privilege, it is a clear distortion of the facts when the

member for New Westminster says I insulted the Speaker's office. I had

no intention to do so, and did not, by any conception. A distortion of

the words merely points out the despicable state of the opposition

today.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before us, hon. members, is that the House do now adjourn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: On the motion put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston, may I remind members that standing order 44 states:

"If

Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall

be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the

House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or

do leave the chair, is an abuse of the Rules and privileges of the

House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or

he may decline to propose the question to the House."

[ Page 9125 ]

The Chair chooses the latter, and proposes not to put the question to the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, page 274 of Erskine May's thirteenth edition says:

"In the midst of the debate upon a question any member may

move that this House do now adjourn, not by way of an amendment to the original

question, but as a distinct question, which interrupts and supersedes that already

under consideration. It need scarcely be explained that such a motion cannot

be made while a member is speaking, but can only be offered by a member who,

on being called by the Speaker in the course of debate, is in possession of

the House. If this second question be resolved...the original question is

superseded."

That is a test, I would submit, of the will of the House as to the order of

business presented to this House today; that is, to consider, without being

in possession of a bill, the introduction of a bill, through the ancient practice

of the House. It was not out of frivolousness that I proposed that motion, but

with a very deep purpose: that is, to prevent this action. The official opposition

— and not one member, but obviously 26 members — wish to see that some sort

of justice is done in the introduction of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair stands.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. LAUK: Seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson), I move to amend the motion by the hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) now before the committee, stating that the

motion of the Hon. James Chabot be amended to add, after the last word

thereof, the phrase: "six months hence."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the motion is not subject to debate, as the committee is

well aware. It is also not subject to amendment, and I so rule.

MR. LAUK: Where does it say that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 45.

MR. LAUK: With respect. Mr. Chairman, you can't make it up as you go along.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I draw the committee's attention to standing order 45(2), which says:

"All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided

without debate or amendment." We do have a motion before us now. I will

now call....

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

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 9126 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has already been called, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: No, we have a motion before the committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before the committee that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, on a point of order then, Mr. Chairman, a similar circumstance

occurs in Committee of Supply when the motion is that supply be granted

to Her Majesty in the amount of so many dollars on each vote and each

ministry, say in the amount of $1.5 million for the minister's office.

That is the motion that's under consideration, but of course the

committee can always move that it rise, report progress on that motion

and ask leave to sit again. It does not kill the motion. The motion is

still active in the committee. Then if we were to report to the

Speaker, the Speaker would ask you, I would presume: when shall the

committee sit again? Or he would ask the House Leader, or perhaps the

minister: when shall the committee sit again? One would presume it

would be next sitting, Mr. Speaker. It does not kill the motion that's

before us; it simply reports progress of the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

In Committee of Supply, hon. member, debate is allowed. On the motion

that is presently before this committee debate is not allowed. That has

already been established. Therefore we have the motion in front of us

that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill, and

that is the only motion that can proceed at this point.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, what has been determined so far by way of

challenge has been that the committee will not adjourn. This is a

committee reporting, which is the practice now advocated by the member.

There has been no ruling today, or prior to today, to prevent a

committee from entertaining a motion to report. There's been no such

motion made today during committee. What the member has pointed out has

been the practice of this House ever since I've been here. During

committee it is possible for any member to stand up and ask that the

committee report. We're not asking the committee to adjourn. It's the

normal practice of asking a committee to report, which has never been

refused a vote in this House. The member is asking that the committee

report, not adjourn. There's a distinction and the member's point is

well taken. It is correct that a motion to report from committee has

never been rejected at any time in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair cannot accept the point of order as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition.

The

motion before us now is clear — that the committee rise and recommend

the introduction of the bill — and is not subject to debate or

amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the Chair to cite

to the House the authorities that demonstrate that a motion for the

committee to report is not in order at any time — not to adjourn, but

report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, once again I will

refer you to our standing order 45 (2), which clearly states: "All

other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without

debate or amendment."

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has in essence proposed an amendment to the motion, the motion being that....

MR. NICOLSON: No.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Leader of the Opposition to please come to order.

Progress

presupposes debate, hon. members. Therefore clearly under

section 45(2)

we must move to the question before us, which is that the committee

rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LEA: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged and will be reported to the Speaker shortly.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the ruling of the Chair under

section 45(2) be sustained.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order on the division, when the Chair has been

challenged, I submit that the Chairman, being challenged, cannot vote

in the House on that challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

member, the long-standing practice and tradition of this House is, has

been, and will be that the member may vote in the House. He always has

been able to vote, and nothing would preclude him from voting on this

particular issue.

We could further address this subject, but

I would like to have this division taken at this time, and then we

could possibly entertain further discussion on the point if that....

MR. LAUK: Reserving my right to raise it after the division?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

[ Page

9127 ]

NAYS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order, as I stated before, was that the

Chairman, being challenged in committee, should not be allowed to vote

on that appeal to the House. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you are of a

different mind; your views may vary from mine on this subject. May I

have a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: For the information of the member, the previous remarks of the Chair will stand.

MR. LAUK: I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER:

The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. I would also bring to the

members' attention that it is most inappropriate to consume any kind of

food in the House, particularly when one is addressing the House.

Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) was not counted in the roll.

MR. SPEAKER: He was not in the House, hon. member.

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

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, if the member for Coquitlam-Moody was not in the

House during the vote, how did he get into the House during the roll?

Did he come through the gallery and climb down? If the doors are not

secure, then there was no division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is very

capable of explaining the situation to himself if he feels he has been

wronged. He is conspicuously staying in his place. I think that should

speak in itself.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, standing

order 16(2) says: "Upon a division being called the division-bell shall

be rung.... No member shall enter or leave the House during the stating

of the question, nor leave the House after the final statement of the

question until the division has been fully taken, and every member

present shall vote." It's not up to the hon. members to know when a

vote is being taken as they enter the House, but it is up to the

Speaker to control the situation and make sure that standing order 16

is adhered to.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will look into the matter. In any case, the member referred to was not in his place when the division was called.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, in order to assist the committee I have been

diligently reading "Procedures in Committees of the Whole House," on

page 453 of Sir Erskine May's thirteenth edition, the paragraph just

above the bottom. It says: "A message from the Crown which has been

referred to a Committee of the Whole House and resolutions which

regulate its proceedings are read by a Clerk at the table so soon as

the committee has been entered upon."

I therefore submit

that the committee cannot proceed until the Clerk at the table has read

the resolutions and message from the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that is not the practice of the House. Nothing can be read

with respect to the bill until it is introduced. The bill has not yet

been introduced. That is the stage we are at now, with a motion before

this committee that the committee rise. recommending introduction of

the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, standing order

I says: "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 shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

Certainly this is quite applicable. Surely there must be some bill

written down somewhere, and surely the Clerk can read the message from

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to the House. So it is applicable.

It is not covered by other usages in this House. It is the usage in the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Mr. Chairman,

this is a very simple request for a conformation to the forms of

parliamentary practice.

[ Page 9128 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, with respect to your comment that the Clerk should read

the bill, the Speaker has already introduced the message bill. With

respect to your comments about practice, in

summary: "B.C. Speakers'

rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and

officers may be guided. Such precedents are collected, and in the

course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, what is the authority that is being quoted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The authority is Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by MacMinn.

We are on a motion. The committee sees no other reason to accept any other point of order.

The hon. member for Okanagan North (Mrs. Jordan) rises on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, I really seek your advice, using standing order 43 as a

possible reference, where it addresses itself to the tedious and

repetitious use of arguments either by an individual member or by other

people. In relation to this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, my concern is on

behalf of the public and the taxpayers of British Columbia. They're not

concerned about whether it's a matter of pronouncing it "clerk" or

"clark" or of the parliamentary rules of Ireland and Great Britain a

hundred years ago. They sent us here this afternoon to deal with some

of the very serious economic and job problems of this province.

[Applause.] Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the applauding and the

misunderstanding of the omission here by the opposition members only

further enhances the concern of the public of British Columbia that in

fact there is a responsibility in this House, that the members' conduct

this afternoon is totally preoccupied with technicalities, and that

they are proving themselves....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll

ask the hon. member to come to order. Standing order 43 has been stated

by the hon. member for Okanagan North. The point is well made. The

point of order will be accepted in the House by the committee. The

committee is well aware of standing order 43. I would commend it to all

members of the committee.

Hon. members, we have before us now a motion....

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, is the Chair suggesting that one can be too

tedious or too repetitious in the defence of parliamentary practices

and procedures which have served very well throughout the British

Commonwealth, going back to the 1200s? Is that what the Chair is

suggesting? If he is, I suggest that he resign his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The record will show — and I would commend this to all

members of the committee — that the member for Okanagan North and the

statement made by her with respect to standing order 43 were well taken

by the House. The hon. members may look at standing order 43 and they

will see that the Chairman or the Speaker, from time to time, may

embark upon one action or another. The Chair's only comment was that

that point of order was well taken by the Chair from the member for

Okanagan North. I'm sure standing order 43 is explicit to all those who

wish to read it.

Are you ready for the question? The question is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the report be adopted.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, that's not the proper motion, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is that the proper motion? I see three nodding heads. I withdraw my objection.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Wolfe

[ Page

9129 ]

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Bill

80, Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, 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

REVISED BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: The moment we've all been waiting for.

question to the Minister of Finance. Late in July the Minister of

Finance, when he presented the report for the first quarter, told us

that there was a possibility of a shortfall of some three-quarters of a

billion dollars. Early in August, the Conference Board of Canada

predicted....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. It's very difficult for the Chair to hear

the member for Nanaimo, who is placing a question to the hon. Minister

of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Early

in August the Conference Board of Canada predicted that the B.C.

deficit could be $1.5 billion, and speaking in the same month — early

in August — the Premier said that it could be as much as $1.7 billion.

In view of the shocking variation between these figures and the figures

presented in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on April

5, does he intend to bring in a revised budget for 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo, no, I do not intend to bring

in a revised budget for the 1982-83 fiscal year. That was an indication

that I gave to this House some months ago, and that still stands.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, does the same minister admit now that when he introduced

the budget on April 5 it bore little relation to what he actually

expected would be the results for this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

If the question from the hon. member for Nanaimo suggests that I

produced a budget which I did not expect would survive the year, I

would refer him to earlier questions and answers and debate in my

estimates, I believe. Certainly Hansard shows quite clearly

that the budget which was presented some months ago to this House for

this fiscal year — was a budget which we believed would survive the

full fiscal year. Perhaps in another question or at another moment I

could expand on that. I trust the member is not inferring that the

budget was not produced with the greatest of care in view of what

forecasts were available to us at that particular time. I think while

the member served briefly as the Minister of Finance he did not produce

a budget for the socialist government, but the Leader of the

Opposition, who is not in the House at the present time, did produce

budgets during the socialist administration, He would know, if he were

here, that you prepare a budget on the basis of the best possible

forecasts you have available to you plus, on the expenditure side, the

necessary expenditure restrictions which clearly are in place at this

time.

MR. STUPICH: Is the Minister of Finance telling

the House that the deterioration in the first quarter was of such a

magnitude that he was $1.5 billion out in his estimates?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member will be relieved to know that unlike the socialist

government from 1972-1975, notwithstanding deterioration in revenues,

this government and all members of the treasury benches and Treasury

Board itself have continued to work cooperatively to reduce

expenditures. to continue the program of restraint announced by the

Premier on February 18. We are achieving considerable success in

reducing the projected shortfall which would be the case if we had

decided to simply sit back and let events run without any interference

whatsoever by the government. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the member

must know, in asking the question — and I think this House should know

— that we continue to examine every possible area of restraint

throughout government in order to close the gap between revenue and

expenditure for this fiscal year.

MR. STUPICH: One final supplementary. What is the minister's current estimate of the shortfall for 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will be in a position to report more fully on

that on another occasion. This government, as the members know, introduced quarterly

reporting. I can tell this House and the member who has asked this question,

as well as others, that our savings thus far this year are in the area of some

hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR. LAUK:

To the same minister, when the Minister of Finance prepared the budget

for the spring, he ignored the forecasts being made throughout North

America and in trade publications about the downturn in our British

Columbia economy. Has the minister decided to direct the $500 million

that the government is not paying the British Columbia Railway for the

northeast coal project toward saving Education and Health programs?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

It will be difficult to resist commenting on a forecast that was

referred to by that member in particular, one which we all remember

with a degree of....

I feel that the question is based on an

incorrect assumption. It assumes that health care and education in this

province are in jeopardy, and they are not. The care with which this

government, and particularly the ministers responsible for those areas,

have worked not only within their own ministries but with other

ministers suggests that the question is based on a completely incorrect

political assumption.

[ Page 9130 ]

MR. LAUK:

I don't want to belabour the point, but I wonder if the minister can

direct his mind to the question. It's based on our information that the

government has decided not to pay the $500 million to the BCR, as

promised. Are they going to take that money to save Education and

Health programs that are presently being cut? In Education all 75

districts, and in Health most of the hospitals, are suffering from

these cuts. This is widely known, and documented in detail. Is the

minister deciding to take that saving" If he's going to renege on the

BCR, can he not use that money for health and education?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The three items are not interrelated — that is, BCR, Health and Education.

MR. LAUK: I see. Well, $500 million is good currency for hospitals and schools, just as much as for railroads.

CUTBACKS IN EDUCATION

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Education. Some predictions

indicate that Education programs cut now will create a generation of

unemployed. Has the minister calculated the welfare costs to government

in the long run as a result of current Education cutbacks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

School boards across the province on average have 18 percent more money

now than in 1981. That's the increase in moneys available to school

boards.

Granted, school boards will need to make adjustments

in certain programs. We've already heard from a number of school boards

that they've been able to meet the challenge of making those changes in

a way whereby the educational process is not affected, and there are no

layoffs or rollbacks in teacher salaries. We've heard from the school

boards of Kamloops, the Gulf Islands and several others that have

complied and done well. We're looking to all school boards to act

likewise. I expect that education in British Columbia will not only

continue to flourish, but will get better still and offer more

opportunities than ever before.

MR. LAUK: School boards today, this year, have about 16,000 percent more money than they got in 1910.

any event, the minister has suggested that the 18 percent is an

increase that was gratis, given by the government. That is to pay the

fixed costs and user charges, many of which are imposed by this

government on the very school system. The school board budgets were

first approved by the minister in January of this year. They were cut

back in April. Schools suffered further cuts in July. Over half of the

1982 budget had already been spent by July. Is it now government policy

that the education system will be funded on a month-to-month basis

rather than on an annual basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Responsible governments are required to take certain

actions during a fiscal year, and responsible local governments respond accordingly.

It was a responsibility of this government and my ministry to ensure that school

boards respond to the economic conditions in the province and the country and

make certain changes to their budgets. I expect responsible school boards will

act accordingly. I not only expect this, but the evidence we are receiving in

the office now would indicate that they can.

MR. LAUK:

Can the minister advise the House whether he thinks it is fair to cut

back programs to our children in our school system and at the same time

pour money down the drain in the northeast coal project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I think our young people in school today can be very grateful for

living in British Columbia, where there are still a number of economic

activities taking place which will offer them a future after they get

out of school.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister not agree,

as most educators and industrialists today agree, that even to obtain

an ordinary job the average British Columbia young person has to

receive grade 12 and subsequent training and that, therefore, education

cuts will preclude our children and our British Columbia kids from

getting those very jobs that he's talking about?

INTEREST-FREE BONDS

MR. STUPICH:

To the Minister of Finance, has the government decided on the interest

rate it will be offering to attract investors to the interest-free

bonds which the government has announced they will be floating in the

marketplace?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is in the negative. We have not decided on the rate.

MR. STUPICH:

Has the government decided to recommend purchase of these bonds in the

same way that the Premier endorsed and recommended purchase of BCRIC

shares?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I assume that the member knows the difference between stock and bonds; perhaps he does not.

MR. STUPICH: Our concern is whether or not the government and the Premier recognize the difference.

Has

the government decided to respond positively to those British

Columbians who have offered to buy the new government bonds if the

government will accept as consideration their BCRIC shares at original

face value?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not aware of any discussion relative to that matter.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to move the

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance, namely the depression-level state

of the economy brought about by the Premier's endorsement of high

interest rates, with the resulting 126 percent increase in unemployment

in one year, bringing the number of officially recognized unemployed in

British Columbia to 181,000, plus an additional hidden number of

85,000, for a total of 266,000, the highest number ever in the history

of the province, thus giving an 18.1 percent rate of unemployment, as

announced last Friday, and resulting in 228 businesses driven into

either receivership or bankruptcy in the past month alone.

Knowing

that there is a limit on this introduction and that I must confine my

remarks very closely to the motion, I had expected, Mr. Speaker, that

the House would have been called back today with the first order of

business being to deal

[ Page 9131 ]

with those British Colombians who are losing their homes and possessions because of unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. As the hon. member is well aware, the provisions of

standing order 35 do not give us an opportunity to canvass the merits

of the resolution presented to the Chair. It is up to the Chair to make

that decision at this time. The member has already briefly explained

the context of his standing order 35 motion. No further debate can be

allowed, in accordance with those guidelines.

MR. BARRETT:

That is why I kept the motion brief. But the urgency is just as stark

as the motion. Just surviving in office is not what you were elected

for, and you had better remember that, to your peril.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to bring back a decision on this

at the earliest opportunity, without prejudice to the motion put

forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to take a few moments, as minister responsible for ICBC, to make a comment under

section 2.

Probably

more than most people in this House, because of the responsibilities I

have with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, I get involved

in the problems that result because of those who drive a car after they

have consumed alcohol. We in this province have some of the most

difficult roads and terrain to travel. That, mixed with alcohol, can

cause some pretty serious problems.

The statistics that I

have indicate that in 1981 approximately 37 percent of all the deaths

incurred in automobile accidents were alcohol-related. I've heard

figures that have been used by the task force that was put into place

by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams), and ICBC to deal with the problem of motor vehicle

legislation and the stiffening of the penalties that are in place now.

The one area that I think is most important deals with

section 2, where

we have people driving with over .08 blood-alcohol content. If I read

the

section properly, if the blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in

100 millilitres of blood.... Not being a person conversant with metric,

I deem that to be .08; but I do sometimes get confused with the metric

language.

The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if people are

going to drink, we all hope they drink in moderation. If they drink and

consume alcohol that takes their blood count above that .08, they are

driving a lethal weapon. They are of no benefit to society and

themselves, and the results of their action can be devastating. A lot

of people seem to think that it's nice to say to your guests: "Have one

for the road." It's nice to be a big shot and say you can handle it,

that you can drive the car, even though you've consumed several beers

or cocktails. You stagger out of the cocktail lounge, beer parlour or

neighbour's home, get in your car and step on the gas. Everybody in

that traffic line, or lane, from that point until you arrive home is in

danger.

This section, Mr. Chairman, deals with the fines

involved in this. You commit an offence if you've been found to have

over .08 blood-alcohol content. You're now liable to receive a fine of

not less than $100 or not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment of not

less than seven days and not more than six months, or both. I think

that as time goes on and as this legislation is enacted and is carried

out, there'll be the odd individual who complains bitterly that by

being put in jail because they've committed this offence, because

they've been impaired, it impacts on themselves, on their family, on

their job, and there'll be some "bleeding hearts" who will say, "Well,

let's forgive them this time" or "Let's not be quite so severe." Mr.

Chairman, we've tried that. Governments have tried that for years and

it just hasn't worked. It comes to pass now where the laws have to be

severe and people have to recognize their responsibility and the

privilege they have in driving a car. They cannot mix alcohol and

driving. They cannot do that, because they do not have that right. If

they do, they are subject to the penalties that are laid down, and in

this particular case, those penalties are severe and will get more

severe in the future if we can't control the carnage on our highway and

the carnage that is involved where alcohol is involved.

spoke on this bill during second reading and I probably am repeating

myself to a certain extent. But I wanted to bring home to the members

present that in my role as minister responsible for lCBC, the

statistics that we see, the letters, the stories. the scenes that are

brought home to us indicate that we must have severe penalties and we

must have legislation like this to ensure that loved ones are

protected, and that in some cases we are protected against ourselves. I

just wanted to make that comment with regard to

section 2, Mr.

Chairman, dealing with the blood alcohol count and the penalties that

are stated under

section 2 of this legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I, too, like many other members of this House, have spoken at some

length on second reading of this bill. We don't want to go through that

again. The opposia tion of course supports this bill. The previous

speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, discussed

statistics. I want to tell you that as our transportation critic, I do

have the opportunity of going over these statistics at some length.

They are horrifying.

However, penalties will help alleviate

the problem, and this bill deals primarily with penalties if people

don't do certain things and submit to blood tests and that kind of

thing. But penalties are not the whole answer to this problem. I know

that penalties in some countries and some states are much more severe

than they are here in British Columbia. Nonetheless. that hasn't solved

the problem there either.

The Crown corporations committee

just recently submitted what I consider to be a fairly good report —

short, concise and readable. In the State of Washington, since they've

gone into different ways of dealing with drinking drivers and traffic

violations, their rate of accidents due to alcohol on the

[ Page 9132 ]

highways

has actually dropped, according to the Crown corporations committee

report. I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions on this

section. Would he tell this House, if he's looked at those

recommendations — I'm sure the minister has — whether he intends to

eventually implement some of those recommendations — of course, if the

people over there are still in government after the next month or two.

There

is a series of nine recommendations contained in this Crown

corporations committee report, and perhaps the minister could

indicate.... More specifically to

section 2 of this bill which were now

discussing,

part 5 provides that a "defendant may with leave of the

court require the attendance of a person who made the certificate for

cross-examination." We think that leave of the court ought not to be

necessary. It would certainly create additional delay in the justice

system, which is already overloaded, as you well know. The context

suggests that you have to appear first to seek leave to get the author

of the certificate into court on a subsequent occasion; and I wonder if

the minister could explain why that was done. I'm told by legal counsel

on our side of the House that in other areas this type of manoeuvre or

procedure is not allowed in the justice system. Perhaps the minister

could explain that situation.

Ordinarily I'd sit down right

now, but I do want to say one more word on this whole matter while

we're discussing this particular bill. In reading the Crown

corporations committee report, it's really quite horrifying to see the

figures put to us in the way they are. The committee reports that from

1978 to 1981, motor vehicle accidents. Injuries and fatalities

increased at an annual rate of 10 percent. If this trend continues, in

each week of 1982, 18 people will die, 930 people will be injured and

5,680 automobiles will suffer property damage.

Quite

frankly, this trend simply cannot continue in this province. I'm

stressing to the minister, although I know I'm a bit out of order when

I'm saying this, Mr. Chairman, to read this report and to consider

bringing in, at some future legislative session — presumably the next

one — legislation to follow at least some of the recommendations

brought in by the Crown corporations committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm fully supportive, as I hope all members of this assembly are, of

this particular measure. I think the message we have to articulate to

the driving community in British Columbia is a simple one. This is a

warning, a very strong warning to all drivers in our province. If they

wish to drink, fine. If they want to drive, fine. But if they wish to

drink and drive, that cannot be permitted in British Columbia, because

doing both is a crime. This has to be recognized as a criminal act.

This

bill is essentially proposing, in my view, to do four things. Because

of its very strong message, it's proposing to save lives — and it can,

if the message is heeded. It is proposing to prevent injury — and it

can, if the message is heeded. It is proposing to lessen damage — and

it can do that as well, if the message is heeded. And it also provides

a mechanism for society for those of us who do not wish to be killed or

maimed, or to suffer damage, as the result of the criminal activity of

a drunken driver. It gives those people in society an opportunity to

better prosecute and bring to strong sanction that kind of criminal

activity. I think that is the message we have to herald across the

province.

MR. LEGGATT: Needless to say, we on this

side of the House endorse the sentiments that the government House

Leader has just expressed. However, I want to raise a concern. I'd like

to see this bill be effective; I want it to work. I'm very concerned

with a

section of the new Canadian charter of human rights which says,

under

section 7 (c), that no person shall be compelled to be a witness

in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence. I'm

afraid this legislation is going to be challenged. Just as the

breathalyser

section has been challenged in Ontario, I think we're

going to face a legal challenge with respect to the bill. We support

the bill and we want the bill to work.

I want to suggest to

the Attorney-General that there be a provision under the Motor Vehicles

Act that all persons applying for a licence or licence renewals provide

the necessary consent at that time that a sample of their blood be

taken so as to avoid the problem of whether the bill in fact violates

the Canadian charter. I don't want to see this bill struck down on a

legal argument based upon the old principle of self incrimination. It

seems to me we have a route around it. I'm sorry, I haven't prepared an

amendment. I'm only making a suggestion to the Attorney-General. He may

have some legal opinions that he's satisfied with, and I certainly

respect that. But I have some concern that there will be a serious

challenge to both the existing breathalyser legislation and this new

legislation under blood sampling, which I don't want to see succeed. I

happen to agree with the government House Leader and with the

sentiments expressed here that we've got to be serious about drinking

and driving, and that blood is the best way to test alcohol content.

It's better than the Borkenstein breathalyser. It's always been the

right answer in terms of producing cogent evidence at trial.

make the suggestion that serious consideration must be given to

amending the Motor Vehicle Act in terms of licence application. Every

person who applies for a licence should at that time provide consent

for a sample of his blood to be taken, so that the challenge can be

met. I think it will come: defence lawyers will challenge this on the

old principle of self-incrimination. I think the public of British

Columbia would be very happy to say: "Yes, you can take a sample of my

blood. I don't mind that at all if it's going to save any lives in this

province." I just raise that as a suggestion. I suspect a lot of this

legislation is going to be challenged under the new charter. This is

one way to get around it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I rise

to support this bill. I don't pretend that I'm going to support it on

technicalities. I've spent seven years dealing with technicalities from

the chair. I would like to discuss this bill not from the point of view

of whether $100 is too much or too little for a minimum fine. I'm not

interested in discussing whether or not $2,000 is too much or too

little for a maximum fine. I don't think I'm so concerned about whether

seven days of penalty in jail is the right amount or whether it is too

much or too little. I'd like to discuss the bill from its necessity in

the first place.

I have a brother who has served in the

emergency vehicle road services. The stark truth is this: you have

imbibers, you have those who imbibe to excess and you have those who

have a blood-alcohol content of beyond .08. They aim their vehicles

down the road and disaster occurs, damage is done, bodily injury occurs

and lives are taken. The sad part of it is that it's not the person

with the blood-alcohol content who suffers alone because, according to

my brother, each time

[ Page 9133 ]

there

is a more-than-single-vehicle accident there is an innocent bystander

who pays a supreme price, sometimes with his life and at other times

dismemberment.

Therefore we have to discuss the importance

of the bill in the first instance. This particular

section 1s the one

that is going to provide the deterrent if there is to be one. Those who

have worked in my profession — the one when I wear the other hat — have

to deal with people who do not understand why they as innocent

individuals should have this great indiscretion heaped upon them. Those

who stand at the graveside of an innocent victim don't understand why.

They would be the first to say that .08 may not be low enough. They are

the first to say that roadside suspensions at .05 might not be low

enough.

I think that in supporting the bill we need to say:

"Let's try these measures and see if they provide a strong enough

deterrent." If they do not, then let's have the courage of our

convictions to change them to even more stringent levels. To believe

that all men would be responsible enough that they would subscribe to

the ideal and that each one in turn, having consumed enough alcohol so

that he himself might be suspicious as to what level his blood-alcohol

content were, would then refrain from driving, would be great. But

human nature being what it is, a deterrent is going to be necessary. I

hope that this deterrent in

section 2 is going to be the deterrent that

is required for 1982. If it's not good enough for 1983, I say let's

change it. I hope that every member in this House sees the importance

of this bill and this particular

section and will support it.

MR. MITCHELL:

I too want to join the government in supporting this bill. Like the

previous speaker, whom I was happy to follow, I talk with another hat

at times.

I think it's important that we look at what we are

embarking on. Changing the evidence.... Really this is what you are

doing: enabling the law-enforcement authorities to gather real evidence

that will be presented in court. Maybe the minister can answer this

later on. For those who have studied the operation of the breathalyser

machine, the figure of .08 was derived from what type of reaction a

person would have from a breathalyser. They will find from actual tests

that the .08 level of alcohol in the blood will give a lot higher

breathalyser reading. So actually what you are getting is higher

evidence with less consumption.

This is the important part.

None of this legislation is of any value unless it is advertised and

the people really understand it. I know that this side of the House has

condemned this government for wasting a lot of money on propaganda. But

I think that this is an opportunity that police have always used. All

accidents are caused by what we call the three E's: lack of education,

lack of enforcement and poor engineering. A lot of drunken driving is

caused by the lack of the three E's — lack of education for people

understanding how little alcohol being drunk at a party can affect the

blood-alcohol level in their body. There are a lot of people who really

don't understand that a slightly built person of 130 pounds drinking

three or four drinks will have a far higher blood-alcohol level than

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I think

this is the type of education that should be sold to the public so that

people understand that the effect of alcohol is based on the size of

the person and the volume of blood in the body — that a 150-pound

athletic person will have more blood than a 150-pound person who is a

fat slob and an officer worker.

These are the actual facts.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can drink far more

than some of his colleagues because he is in excellent shape; he is

healthy, muscular and has a lot of blood. The volume of alcohol that he

may drink would give him a lower alcohol content in his blood.

This

is the type of education and information, like the breathalyser van,

that should be given out to the public so people really understand what

is happening to them when they drink, so they can analyze their own

physical condition. These figures are all based on the healthy,

150-pound person. But there are a lot of wives of 100 pounds and 110

pounds who go out with their husbands, and they think they can drink

along with a husband who is working hard in construction, and they

can't. They get mad at the old man; they stomp out of the pub; they

take the car, and they wonder why they blow some of the ridiculous

figures they blow. As they are small in stature, they have far less

volume of alcohol and they have a higher reading. This is the type of

information that the government should promote in a positive manner so

people understand that you are now bringing in a piece of legislation

that will help the law enforcement authorities get proper, solid

evidence to stop drunken driving, so that the public understand what is

going to happen when they start giving a few samples of blood. I think

that in supporting the legislation there is a real challenge for the

government to explain again. The only type of education that has any

value is repetition of positive facts, not scare tactics, given out in

a constructive manner in such a way that people understand how little

alcohol for a lightly built person can affect them when they get on the

road. I think the education needed is there.

I know the

minister would have this side of the House support that type of

education — I don't say propaganda — of what is going to happen. Again,

from one who has been actively, involved in the problems of drunken

driving, I welcome it.

MR. LEVI: I have some trouble

only with the sanction side of this bill. This is the best nonpartisan

issue we can deal with in this House. Even on the subcommittee of the

Crown corporations we had some very excellent meetings and good

exchange and produced a good report. We were a little apprehensive at

the time we issued the report because there was no coverage on it.

However, subsequent to our concerns. about three weeks ago there were

three or four very excellent articles in the press.

I am not

one who believes in the deterrent principal, because I don't think it

works. I spent many years in the criminal justice system, and was

always concerned about that. However, what I am concerned about is that

if you're going to deal with individuals who are thoughtless and

undisciplined, and will go out and create deaths — they are really

murderers — then we should be looking at sanctions much more Draconian

even than those in this bill.

It amazes me that we have not gotten to the stage.... The

unfortunate part about this bill is that it's the second piece of

legislation we've had around this question. Alongside that, we had a

committee of the Crown corporations looking at the whole safety

question. But unfortunately we've done little bits of sticking-plaster

with it. Had we been able to put it all together, we probably would

have then looked at the whole

[ Page 9134 ]

question

of sanctions. I'm talking now about Draconian sanctions. I'm not

talking about whether somebody should pay $100 or $2,000.

About six weeks ago the Province

had an editorial which to me was a great attention-getting editorial.

It said it's amazing that in this province we, unfortunately, have the

worst drivers, the worst accident rate, and such a high death rate —

last year §some 780 people. And they put it in a different way. They

said, what kind of public reaction would there be if there was an

airplane crash in which 780 people were killed? That's a rather

Draconian example, but when you think about the number of people that

are killed, we may have come to the time when we have to treat people

who drive while they're drunk in the same way as we treat people who

are charged with attempted murder. In some states in the United States,

they're using the mechanism of confiscation of the vehicle. If you are

convicted, you forfeit the vehicle. In many states in the United States

legislation is such that you go to jail. The question of fines is

inequitable anyway, because if you make a good enough living you can

pay the fine. If you can't, you go to jail.

The only

shortcoming in the bill, unfortunately, is first, that we don't have

the Draconian measures that are needed to deal with this, and secondly,

one of the better recommendations from that Crown corporations report

is the creation of a safety commission. One thing that needs to be done

is that the whole question has to get much more focus. From time to

time it gets a great deal of focus, when the BATmobiles are going

around, and it's great. Unfortunately, we were told in some of the

hearings that there isn't enough money to allow the BATmobiles to go

out as often as they should go out. If we can't do the enforcement in

that way, then we should be looking at much more Draconian measures.

It's

a great pity that we tend to do this kind of legislation in a piecemeal

way. It's a start and it certainly has to be supported, but somewhere

down the line, I hope in the not too distant future, we can put all of

this together and come up with much better enforcement and preventive

legislation. I am not optimistic. A sober person does okay. They get

into a car if they're not drinking, and they drive carefully. Everybody

should drive carefully, whether they drink or not. The trouble is that

when you get into the use of a drug, you are no longer responsible.

That's the great tragedy. We have not got that across. We simply have

not got that across to the people who drink. A great tragedy, one which

is always shocking, is that every time we have somebody killed and we

look at the record of the driver involved, my God, it's terrible. I was

in New York last week and there was a report on those two actresses who

were involved in an accident in San Francisco. A truck driver hit them,

and my God, that fellow had 19 convictions and he's back on the street

again because his bail was only $1,500.

I keep emphasizing

the word "Draconian," because I think this is what it really needs. We

cannot be that easy with people about this. We deal with people who are

convicted of attempted murder in a very, very serious way, but we tend

to make a distinction when the weapon is a car. I personally feel that

we should be looking at offences of the nature of motor manslaughter,

that kind of thing, because then we put the seriousness of the problem

in the right order. It's as serious as committing capital murder, in my

opinion. The attitudinal thing is the whole process of education, and

that means a lot of exposure through the media, in the schools.

Nevertheless,

I am just emphasizing that we tend to need much more Draconian measures

than we have. We can't expect to put into a bill that if you don't

conform and take a blood test, you might have to pay a thousand

dollars. That to me is not a Draconian measure. There are many people

who are bright enough to know that it's better to pay a thousand bucks

than take the chance of having a blood test and finding that you were

impaired. That's the unfortunate part about it. It's a way out for some

people. However, it's a beginning. I hope we can put it all together in

a much better form than we have now.

MR. COCKE: I too

support the bill. As a matter of fact, I spoke at some length in second

reading of the bill. I think the most important aspect of the

section

that we're talking about is the fact that peace officers can make a

demand for a blood sample. I think that is a real breakthrough. The

fact of the matter is, until now, many people who are in the habit of

drinking and over-drinking and driving have a pact among themselves

that the way to obviate any kind of problem with respect to disclosing

their blood alcohol is to say that they've had a head injury and ask to

be taken to the hospital. Once in the hospital, they're totally

protected by virtue of the fact that the hospital would be charged with

assault if in fact it took blood against the patient's will.

think this is an excellent situation. I'm very pleased to endorse it. I

would also like to know, however, when the government proposes to

proclaim it. I know that's the next

section and I don't want to speak

on too many sections, but does the government plan to proclaim this

bill immediately? If not, why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I don't wish to repeat the debate on second reading, but I would like

to say that I support the comments which have been made on all sides of

the House. Some interesting aspects were raised, and I would like to

respond to them because some of them touch upon my ministry.

The

hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked why it was that the

court, by leave, could permit the examination of the person who

produces the certificate of the taking of the blood or analysis

thereof. The answer to that question is that we could have deemed the

certificate to be evidence beyond question; but in our experience that

is inappropriate because it excludes proper questions which may be

asked by persons who are resisting charges brought under this

legislation. I think it is fair and just that cross- examination of

persons who can give fundamental evidence should be permitted.

The

hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised the question of

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no question that we will

receive a challenge to this legislation, either under the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms or under the BNA Act, as to whether or not this is

criminal legislation and therefore solely within the jurisdiction of

the federal government. We are satisfied, based upon our constitutional

experts' opinions, that this legislation does fall within the

jurisdiction of the provinces in the matter of traffic safety and that

we can successfully meet such a challenge. Indeed, the recent decision

of the Supreme Court of Canada in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon goes a

long way to confirming the accuracy of that opinion. But we will

certainly have questions out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

under the self-incrimination concept. That is a challenge

[ Page 9135 ]

which

has presently been raised with regard to the breathalyser legislation.

This legislation will not escape. However, likewise, we believe that we

can successfully resist that challenge.

The member suggested

that when applying for a driver's licence the person should be obliged

at that time to consent to the taking of a sample of blood in

circumstances such as those described in this bill. I know that the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and members

of his staff are considering that aspect, as are the governments in

other provinces that are looking at this legislation. In a subsequent

amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, at the next session, I trust that

members will see that change as well, which will remove part of this

problem.

It should be clearly understood that this

legislation is narrowly cast, We are trying to close that last gap that

exists for a person who is injured or — as the member for New

Westminster says — alleges injury and therefore escapes taking the

breathalyser test. This will give us this opportunity.

Questions

have been raised about whether this is an inappropriate approach to be

taken by our police officers. I just want to assure the members of the

House that with the range of opportunities that police officers will

have available to them, this legislation would be usable only in those

cases when other means of dealing with drinking drivers are not

available, namely when the person has been injured and is in the

hospital and therefore the taking of a breathalyser test is not

possible.

There are sufficient safeguards, we believe, in

this legislation to overcome many of the concerns which have been

expressed. I think that when it has had a fair test it will be seen to

withstand any of the challenges made to it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I thank the members of the committee for their remarks and observations. There are just a couple of comments I'd like to make.

The

Crown corporations committee report. We're looking at it and studying

it. I think they made some good observations. Basically, they are

recommending that a permanent board or commission be set up, as I

understand it. The government is still looking at that. While we're

talking about that, I would say that the government has an existing

committee. It was the task force committee, instituted in 1978, that

this bill and a lot of this legislation came out of earlier this year.

That committee is still in place and is continuing, so we aren't at a

complete standstill because we haven't jumped and formed a board or

commission. That committee comprises staff from the Attorney-General's

ministry, Health, ICBC and this ministry.

The other observation I'd like to make is on a message to the public that

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) referred to. It

is our intention.... I think we all have a responsibility, but the government

certainly does. to advertise the fact of the seriousness of drinking and driving.

We certainly intend to pursue that in that manner. With those few remarks, Mr.

Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, but we would have to pass the

section first. Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. COCKE: When does the government propose to proclaim the bill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The bill is in the hands of the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, but this problem of proclamation is one that is arising from

the Ministry of Attorney-General. Members will note in the new

Section

220.2 that we have the problem of defining classes of persons who may

take the blood sample and the method by which it is analyzed. We have

had discussions with the medical fraternity with respect to this, and

we believe we have almost solved the problem as to which class of

persons, other than medical practitioners, can take the blood sample

and the appropriate test to designate for the making of the analysis.

We want to be sure that we have practitioners who are in all parts of

the province so that this legislation will work in all parts. We

believe that we will have this problem resolved very shortly and that

legislation could be proclaimed.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

69, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete

without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada