1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1617 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Agricultural Produce Grading Act (Bill 23) Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Introduction and

first reading –– 1617

Oral questions

Bribe to Crown prosecutor. Mr. Macdonald –– 1617

Railcar subsidies. Mr. Gibson –– 1617

After-hours lighting in government buildings. Mr. Wallace –– 1618

Student summer employment. Ms. Sanford –– 1619

Coastal ferry service. Mr. Lockstead –– 1619

Loan to B.C. Steamship Company. Mr. Wallace –– 1619

Food industry inquiry. Mr. Gibson –– 1620

Elk hunting rights. Hon. Mr. Bawlf answers –– 1620

Matter of urgent public importance

Administration of justice. Mr. Wallace –– 1620

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1620

Mr. Barrett –– 1621

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Gibson –– 1622

Mr. Barrett –– 1625

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1629

Mr. Macdonald –– 1631

Mrs. Jordan –– 1633

Mr. Lauk –– 1636

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1638

Mr. King –– 1640

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1646

Mr. Wallace –– 1646

Tabling documents

Telegram to Premier from G.D. McKinnon. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1650

Crown counsel brief to Attorney-General. Mr. Wallace –– 1650

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt) : In the gallery today is a group of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by Leslie Johnson. I would like the House to bid them welcome, please.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox) : I would like to introduce to the House today two constituents from Courtenay, Stan and Judy Hagen. Stan Hagen is the chairman of the board of school trustees for School District 71. 1 would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Introduction of bills.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GRADING ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Agricultural Produce Grading Act.

Bill 23 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.

BRIBE TO CROWN PROSECUTOR

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East) : Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, in view of the very serious charges that have been made by a senior Crown prosecutor in Vancouver, Mr. McKinnon, that he was offered what he says was an outright bribe of a salary increase of 33 per cent if he would keep his mouth shut about the chaos in the Vancouver prosecutor's office and, secondly, that if he talked to the media he would be unavailable or cut out of ad hoc Crown counsel work, which would be intimidation, will the Premier immediately instruct that a judicial investigation be conducted without delay?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I'll be meeting with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , who's holding meetings in Vancouver all day today, partly on this subject. I'll be seeing him on his return to Victoria regarding the whole area of the Crown prosecutors.

MR. MACDONALD : Inasmuch as Mr. McKinnon says that the name of the person

who was alleged to have offered the bribe and engaged in the intimidation would

be given only to the Premier, has the Premier received that name?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, a telegram was received late Friday at my office requesting such a meeting. As of yet, my office hasn't been able to set up such a meeting that would take place with myself, the Attorney-General, the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Mr. McKinnon, which I am prepared to do. When such a meeting can be set up, when we can contact him, such a meeting will take place.

MR. MACDONALD : Apart from the question of the meeting, which I'm glad to see, however late it may be held, the Premier has been named as the person who could receive the name of the person. Will the Premier take active steps to see that he gets that name, even before a meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Speaker, we can't get the name before we can contact Mr. McKinnon, which my staff is trying to do. At that time, I'd be willing to receive such information as he is prepared to give, whether it be on the phone or in a personal meeting.

RAILCAR SUBSIDIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano) : Mr. Speaker, a question also to the Premier on behalf of the mayor and the people of Squamish, and 265 Railwest jobs in that community. Now that the federal government has offered a $5,000-per-railcar subsidy for the manufacture of 100 cars at the Railwest plant, will the Premier offer on behalf of the province to match that with an additional $4,000-per-car assistance if the order can be boosted up to 300 to make it economic and save those jobs for the coming year?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I don't know if the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was in the House the other day when my estimates were on. I mentioned that when I met with Hon. Mr. Lang, I offered a provincial subsidy to try and increase the order. That was before the order was given. I believe that was on the 9th, and I said we needed a minimum order of 500 cars in order to facilitate the tooling up, which would have been 25 per cent of the order, as there are four car plants in Canada. At such time, I said, we'd be prepared to deal on a provincial basis. I never had a response to my offer.

The next thing we realized, the order had been placed. Right now we would be hopeful that additional car orders could be placed, giving the B.C. Rail plant some business to prevent layoffs.

[ Page 1618 ]

MR. GIBSON : On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate to the House the dollar figure per car that he put on that subsidy and whether he would be prepared to negotiate something slightly lower than 500 if we could at least get some cars - a minimum of 300 - to save those jobs.

HON. MR. BENNETT : No limit was put on the offer.

MR. GIBSON : You say that you offered an unlimited subsidy per car. What was the dollar figure?

MR. GIBSON : A final supplementary: since the Railwest management has indicated that they would need about $4,000 extra beyond the $5,000 federal subsidy offered, will the Premier undertake to offer that $4,000 and see what happens?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, Mr. Speaker, we're still negotiating, but I want to assure the member that there was no restriction put on that could in any way hamper British Columbia getting the order in the first place. Negotiations are still underway. The surprising thing to me was that our original proposal so that we could achieve a part of the original order wasn't accepted.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : A supplementary: would the Premier clarify his statement? Are negotiations underway on the original 2,000 contract or future contracts?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I would think that the original contract has been let. I don't know how they're going to withdraw a guarantee of, say, the Hawker-Siddeley or one of the eastern plants where they had layoffs of 1,000 people last year. What we're asking for is supplemental orders. As far as I can ascertain, the original contracts have been let. What we're trying to get is additional car orders for British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that negotiations were underway. What specific negotiations are underway, if not on the first contract?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Discussions are still going on with the federal Transport minister.

MR. BARRETT : Well, Mr. Speaker, the question that I had was on negotiations on a specific contract. Discussions and negotiations are two different things.

AFTER HOURS LIGHTING

IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : To the Minister of Public Works with regard to the Belmont Building, which has seven office floors, and with regard to the new government building at Blanshard and Pandora: it is very obvious that evening after evening all the lights in these buildings burn for hours. I've left this particular building on the last two Sunday evenings, for example, Mr. Speaker, and every light on every floor of the Belmont Building was burning. In view of the government's commitment to conserve energy and restrain operating costs....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health) : If you were the last one to leave, you should have turned the lights off. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE : Well, this is usually around 7 p.m. in the evening, Mr. Minister of Health. It is a recurrent feature and I wonder if the minister can tell us, first of all, who is responsible for supervising the lighting in these buildings and what measures the minister is taking to conserve lighting.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works) : I'll take that question as notice and bring an answer back to you.

MR. WALLACE : To the Minister of Energy....

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, is this a supplementary or another question?

MR. WALLACE : A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm sorry. If it 's a supplementary on the same subject, hon. member, I must point out to you the decision that I handed down in this House, and that is that supplementary questions would not be permitted to questions taken on notice.

MR. WALLACE : Well, could I ask a new question and not a supplementary to the Minister of Energy?

MR. SPEAKER : Well, hon. member, I think that you've already participated in the question period; it's now the duty of the Chair to go back to the official opposition.

[ Page 1619 ]

STATUS OF

CONSUMER PROTECTION OFFICES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard) : Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confirm that the storefront operation in the Kingsgate Mall in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard and the debtors' assistance office on Thurlow Street in the riding of Vancouver Centre are being closed down? Could the minister confirm if that is happening?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) : They are not being closed down, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI : As a supplemental question, it's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that these offices are going to be closed down. Now is the minister saying that they are not going to be closed down and are not going to be moved to another government office? Is that what he's saying? Perhaps he's not aware of the fact that they're going to be closed down.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I think you're becoming argumentative. I believe the minister answered the question that you asked.

MR. LEVI : He said that they're not going to be closed down.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MS. SANFORD : My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister advise the House how many applications the government has received for student summer employment? In case he takes it as notice, I would also like to know how that compares with the number of jobs that are available.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour) : I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : I have a choice.

COASTAL FERRY SERVICE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie) : My question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I wonder if the Ministry of Transport has carried out a feasibility study regarding the new coastal service utilizing the Queen of Surrey.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, such a study is underway.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : Could the minister inform this House what the cost estimates may be for provision of overnight accommodation on the Queen of Surrey?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, estimates are being prepared in that connection. I understand they run to several million dollars.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, have the feasibility studies recommended a Kitimat terminus?

HON. MR. DAVIS : We're still awaiting the results of a particular study. It was let by the B.C. 1-Harbours Board.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : I have a supplementary to the same minister. Could the minister reassure the people of Prince Rupert that the service to Prince Rupert will not be cut regardless of recommendations from the study group?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, we'll be awaiting the recommendations contained in the report but I would be surprised if the service as it's been established in recent years would be reduced.

LOAN TO B.C. STEAMSHIP COMPANY

MR. WALLACE : To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: I notice that the British Columbia Steamship Company has been given authority to borrow $3.73 million and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been authorized to advance the funds. Could the minister tell the House the specific requirement? Why is this sum required at this time?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, essentially that sum of money was required in order to, in effect, change bankers. The province of British Columbia is now the banker rather than the Crown Development Corporation and one of the credit unions. That sum of money is required both to cover the capital costs of the past and to operate the Princess Marguerite through one more season.

MR. WALLACE : Could the minister tell us which fraction of that $3.73 million is related to operating deficit?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, the operating deficit, including capital charges, was approximately $1 million last year. The estimate for the coming year is approximately $750,000.

[ Page

1620 ]

FOOD INDUSTRY INQUIRY

MR. GIBSON : I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The minister was to have received a proposal from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about one week ago, I think, requiring the form the inquiry into the food industry was to take. Can he inform the House as to what conclusion has been reached?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, the conclusion has not yet been reached. We're hopeful that we'll have the format of the review by the middle of this month.

ELK HUNTING RIGHTS

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation) : Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would just like to reply briefly to a question raised in question period a few days ago.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BAWLF : This is with regard to a question from the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) relating to the opening up of hunting rights for elk in the North Island area and the Nanaimo lakes area. She was inquiring whether I was intending to do any specific advertising in order to ensure that all hunters will have an equal opportunity to participate. The answer is yes, we intend to issue a public news release if and when the decision is made in late May to proceed with this.

Further, she had asked where the draw will be held. The answer is Victoria. When will it be held? It will be held within 10 days after the closing date, which is usually July 15. As to whether or not it will be a public draw - yes. As to whether or not the winners will be announced, this is public information. A list will be made available to those requesting it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. WALLACE : I ask leave to make a motion under standing order 35 for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER : Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Speaker, public statements over the weekend, together with information I have gained by personal inquiry of Crown prosecutors, police and the judiciary in Vancouver, show that a crisis situation exists with regard to the administration of justice.

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE : The senior prosecutor, Mr. McKinnon, stated Friday that half the 36 prosecutors are planning to resign and the offer by the Finance minister on Friday to raise salaries by 5 per cent has not changed the attitude of the prosecutors. An urgent telegram to the Premier on Friday requested a meeting

TO DISCUSS THE PRESENT CRISIS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

SALARY PROBLEMS ARE ONLY SYMPTOMATIC OF THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY AN INEQUITABLE

AND INFLEXIBLE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE. THE

CRITICISMS RECENTLY EXPRESSED IN THE MEDIA ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY SHARED BY

ALL THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

The existing backlog of cases awaiting trial is highlighted by the directive from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to Crown prosecutors to drop charges which have not been proceeded with inside of 181 days. This existing problem, in conjunction with the likelihood of mass resignations of Crown prosecutors, shows that the administration of justice may well virtually grind to a halt. Such an imminent situation demonstrates that a crisis exists today which is of definite public importance.

Deputy police chief Bob Stewart reported that 66 per cent of police called to court find their evidence not required, and this costs $693,000 per year. Mayor Volrich, as police commissioner, has appealed "for immediate steps to avert serious consequences." The Vancouver Policemen's Union has expressed concern "over the deteriorating situation." This serious breakdown in the administration of justice is causing the judiciary, the police, the prosecutors and the public deep concern, as indicated by their several statements in the media.

Judges, by virtue of their role, cannot enter public controversy but I have confirmed they are deeply concerned. Prosecutors and the judiciary have stated to me that criminals are free who would have been convicted if the system of Crown prosecution were efficient, and this is leading to low police morale.

Debate is indicated now, Mr. Speaker, since debate of the estimates of the Attorney-General, according to the list given to opposition leaders, will not take place until the estimates of 12 other ministers have been debated and passed, which will be several weeks from today.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, speaking to your request for adjournment of the House under standing

[ Page 1621 ]

order 35, 1 think that you are aware of the fact that it's not for the Speaker to determine the urgency of the matter but it is for the Speaker to determine the urgency of debate at this time. It's not a matter of making a decision on the matter itself; it's a matter of whether it qualifies under standing order 35 for an emergency or immediate debate.

In commenting on your request I would draw to your attention a statement in question period by the Premier which indicated that the Attorney-General is presently in the city of Vancouver meeting with people and, I presume, the judiciary, which is certainly concerned and involved at this very moment. I would also draw to your attention the fact that many times in this House a request for a debate under standing order 35 - and there are many precedents - has been refused on the grounds that there would be an opportunity, either immediately or in time, to discuss the matter.

While you have indicated in your notes that the estimates of the minister will not be debated or passed for some time, I presume that's a matter open to change. But there is also a situation with respect to the fact that the minister can be asked to answer questions about this matter at any time under the rules of the House, particularly during question period. I would have to say to you respectfully, hon. member, that on the basis of the rules we work with in this House your request under standing order 35 fails to meet the matter of urgency as set out in that particular standing order. I therefore must refuse your request for an emergency debate, and I so rule.

MR. BARRETT : Had I known that you were immediately making a ruling, after making a statement which obviously expects some response from the members, I would have asked to point out to you, sir, that the matter has indeed been made even more urgent under the standing orders because of the statement made by Mr. McKinnon today: "It was an outright bribe to keep my mouth shut about the low pay for prosecutors and the intolerable administration of criminal justice in Vancouver."

Mr. Speaker, that added information is what, indeed, in my opinion, necessitates an emergency debate. Because of that, the plea made by the member for Oak Bay should, I think, be given even greater examination under our standing orders. Because that alone, in conjunction with his statement, makes this a matter of urgent public importance. The whole question of daily criminal justice delivery system, decision by decision, is imperative to be discussed if we are looking at the system.

MR. SPEAKER : As I pointed out to the hon. members, it's a matter for the Speaker to decide if the proposition brought before the House is one for an immediate debate that would allow us to set aside the other business of the House, I have ruled that it does not qualify, and I have given you my reasons.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : I'm sorry, hon. member, that is not a matter to be challenged, as you will find in our rules. There's no appeal against the decision of the Speaker, on a manner of a debate or the lack of it, under standing order 35.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please! There's no further debate.

MR. LEA : On a point of order, I'd like to have some clarification from the Chair. I admit that I'm a bit of a novice to the Legislature, but I have yet to see where anything has ever been allowed. I would just like some undertaking by the Chair to explain to us how anything would ever be allowed under this standing order.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LEA : It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what it is you rule it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : It's not a proper point of order.

MR. LEA : I'd like to know what it would take to put it in order.

MR. SPEAKER : It's not a proper point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA : Well, could you explain it for the members?

MR. SPEAKER : I'm sure if you read the Journals of the House you will find occasions when debates have been allowed and others have not.

MR. LEA : The only time I ever saw it allowed was when Speaker Bill Murray did it and the Socred government voted him down.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. LEA : It's the only time I've ever seen it.

MR. SPEAKER : Take your seat, please.

AN HON. MEMBER : Doesn't bribery qualify?

Orders of the day.

[ Page 1622 ]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 -

continued.

MR. GIBSON : On Friday last, there came before this committee one of the most astonishing revelations of the true approach of this government, and in particular the Premier, to the manner of functioning and the role of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, on that occasion the anti-democratic bias of the Premier came

out of the closet and went on the floor of this committee for all the world

to see. I had to remark in the prayer opening our proceedings today the phrase,

"the long history and the slowly developed heritage of parliamentary government."

That has to be, to all of us in this chamber, one of the most precious things

that we preserve: our democratic heritage. It's perhaps not the system that's

best for all countries, I don't know. It's not our business. But it

is absolutely best for us in Canada and in British Columbia, and Canadians and

British Columbians are absolutely dedicated to it.

I say to you, sir, that on Friday the Premier mounted an attack on this institution.

Mr. Chairman, the democratic system under which we live should be the most sacred

trust and diligent concern of all politicians, because without trust in that

system and in its fairness and in its responsiveness and its integrity, you

have nothing. You have nothing in terms of the trust of the citizenry in their

country and in their government. Whoever strikes at that system, in my opinion,

commits a crime against society, to a greater or lesser degree. Some do so for

their own purposes. Let me tell you why I think the Premier did so on Friday.

If I may set the scene, we live in British Columbia under a variant of the British parliamentary system, which, among other things, provides - whatever the political science theory may be - for an elected dictatorship of a term not exceeding five years. The purpose of the Legislature is to control that elected dictatorship as best it can through the seeking of information, the making of propositions, the posing of questions. But let's be very clear: as long as the backbenchers stand up and sit down when the government says so, the government has absolute control of this House.

Nevertheless, we can try in one way or another to make this House function

better, to make it serve the people of the province better, to act as a better

check on the government. We should all know and the people of this province

should all know that you can ever afford to trust any government of whatever

political stripe. This chamber must be the recourse of he people of the province

in auditing the activities of he government of the day.

Last Friday I made what I thought was a modest proposal that the potential of the committees of this house, be they the standing committees or special committees which might from time to time be struck, was being under-utilized.

There are a number of questions about the province on which we could perhaps mute some of the partisan aspects of our usual debate, which is set up by the system in here whether we like it or not, and find through the committee structure some of the things that unite us rather than divide us, pose genuine inquiries and the eliciting of information on various subjects, and make constructive suggestions to the government on these problems. I suggested some of the things which might e looked into, including the operation at B.C.

Hydro, the marketing boards, municipal finance, juvenile problems and a number of questions that I think are of genuine concern to British Columbia. I believed then and I believe now that the committee system is one of the best ways of obtaining information, ideas and constructive suggestions on these problems.

Having made those statements, which I thought were modest enough and which I might say in my belief have a good deal of support in the Premier's own back bench, I had to leave for a previous meeting. I was astonished to hear later of the comments that the Premier had made in reply. Those comments, in my opinion, were such as to show his rue opinion of this Legislature and his reaction to constructive suggestions that the role and functioning of this Legislature be improved. I want to quote from some of his words on Friday. He says this sentence:

However, I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature

show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of members of this

Legislature in the way they've conducted themselves so far.

T hat comment on the operation of this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, comes from a Premier who has systematically refused this House information of the greatest importance for the rational debate of all kinds of questions touching this province. He has the effrontery to criticize the performance of members in this House when he has denied them the kinds of information and the kinds of staff backup necessary. To me, Mr. Speaker, the standard of debate is about what one would expect, given the information and resources that this government makes available.

But then he goes on to make another statement which is even more objectionable. He speaks of the view of the public of MLAs:

I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy. I think it's something that's going

[ Page 1623 ]

to have to be earned.

"Going to have to be earned, " Mr. Chairman. If the Premier was any

kind of a democrat, he would know that that was earned hundreds of years ago

and it was earned in legislatures different from here of which we're the

inheritors of the traditions. It was earned in many cases by blood, and it's

not going to be taken away by the whim of one man sitting across the floor saying

that the participation of members elected by the people has got to be earned.

As to the system, it was earned hundreds of years ago. As to the right of individual members, it was earned on the day of their election. The Premier may or may not agree with the colour of their political affiliation, he may or may not agree with their ideas or how they part their hair, but they have those rights. And that man cannot take those rights away.

Then he went on to twist a suggestion that I made and a suggestion made immediately thereafter by the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . He is now referring to my words:

He suggested that, in fact, we should be looking for work for the members of the Legislature. The other alternative is that if they're not prepared to work, perhaps this Legislature should be looking at the other suggestion - that is, cutting our salaries. If we're not working a full year, perhaps we should only be paid for half a year and go back to the single session pay that most legislatures work on.

What a twist that was, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't the Premier love that? Wouldn't the Premier love for MLAs on this side of the House to only pay attention to government operations for however many months of the year this place sits? Wouldn't that be pleasant and convenient to the government if the opposition members just faded away into the background the day the session was adjourned?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : We could vote by proxy - not even meet.

MR. GIBSON : The hon. member beside me suggests that perhaps the Premier would wish we could vote by proxy and not even meet. That would be a lot more efficient and convenient. You just mail out a mail ballot at the beginning of each session: "This is the Speech from the Throne. Check yes or no. 11

They don't like questions, Mr. Chairman, and they don't like this Legislature because it's sometimes embarrassing, it's sometimes inconvenient, it's sometimes slow and awkward, but, Mr. Chairman, it's the best we've got. I say we've got to improve it, not take the attitude that that Premier is taking of finding ways to emasculate it.

MR. W. DAVIDSON- (Delta) : How's the mail service to Maui?

MR. GIBSON : I don't know if the Premier's a republican, but I know what I think of that member. I hope he will stand up and give us his contributions to the democratic institutions of this House before we're finished.

AN HON. MEMBER : One-termer. Pipsqueak.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I can see now that I've been naive. I've been very naive.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan) : That's a nice way of putting it.

MR. GIBSON : I had hopes for this Premier and this government when the auditor-general and ombudsman legislation was promised. I thought, "well, perhaps there will be some real contribution to democratic institutions-, " but I think now that was just a pay-off to the three former Liberal members. Those were long-time Liberal promises.

Then we started to see things happen. We started to see an attempt, right off the top, to cut opposition staff. I was naive. I said to myself, "well, I don't think this is right, but maybe this is just an aide talking, " because the initial memorandum to the Speaker, you'll recall, was signed by Dan Campbell. Then we saw some political firings - very serious political firings - for example, the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. There was a first-rate public servant.

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON : That was a strictly political firing, and I said to myself: "Well, maybe that's just the Premier pleasing the minister. I'll look on the best side of it." Then when the Legislature bogged down a little bit last spring, we heard the Premier say across the floor of the House, as he was trying to discipline this Legislature with sittings at various times and extended hours, that it took him two weeks to train his dog. Then I said to myself: "That's perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words."

MR. LAUK : Yes it was!

Interjection,

MR. GIBSON : I have sufficient testimony from people who did. Do you deny you said it? Stand up and deny you said it.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBER : Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

[ Page 1624 ]

MR. GIBSON : Of course the Premier said it.

MR. BARRETT : Naughty, naughty!

MR. LAUK : I heard it.

MR. GIBSON : And then - let the Premier deny this - at the Social Credit convention last fall, the Premier waved in the air a piece of paper and said this was the last NDP budget - or words to that effect....

MR. LAUK : That's what you said, and it wasn't true.

MR. GIBSON : It was a $4.8 million collection of figures and the Premier gave his audience to understand, and the reporters present to understand, that this was what the province would have been faced with had the NDP remained in power. Later on it was revealed that this was nothing but a collection of departmental requests and not a budget at all. I said to myself then - still trying to look on the best side - "Perhaps it was just bad advice. Perhaps he didn't really understand what that document was."

Then when he wouldn't repudiate the de facto separatist comments of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , I said to myself: "Maybe he's just being protective of that minister." I was still trying to look on the best side.

MR. WALLACE : He's a minister who needs protection, that's for sure.

MR. GIBSON : Yes, he is a minister who needs protection.

Mr. Chairman, now I see I have been naive. Now I have no further doubts. I believe the Premier of this province is a man who is not a friend of the democratic process, and as a politician who believes in that process, there are no stronger words that I can use. You can say of a Premier - and perhaps of this Premier - that he believes the establishment should run things, that they know best; or that he's a technocrat; that he's a bottom-line man; that he doesn't have a feeling for people.

All of them are harsh criticisms - and I happen to think true criticisms - but they all pale before the essential fact that he is an enemy of that system of checks and balances which, if allowed to operate in the fullness of time, put all of those things right. That is our legislative system when it works as it should.

Mr. Chairman, I was naive. It's the same old Socred game - it's just a bit smoother. I thought the Premier would be better than his father, and now I fear he will be worse in these terms. The members of this House who have been here for many years will recall better than I the years of division and class against class, the bitterness, the game of "polarize and rule" in the province of British Columbia. Men and women who spent years in this House show the scars of those days, and you can see those scars when you talk with them. They're on both sides of this House.

When I think how some of today's ministers in that cabinet are acquiescing in the kind of treatment of this Legislature by the government when some of them suffered those scars - again, on both sides of the House - from that Premier's father, I'm aghast. It is simply renewed evidence of the corrupting potential of power.

There are not just people in this House, Mr. Chairman, who show scars of that way of operating a Legislature and a province. British Columbia shows the scars. We have a terribly polarized society as a result of the way Social Credit operated this province for 20 years, whether it's labour against management, or whether it's the lower coast versus the interior or any of the many ways of divide and rule that used to be played and that we're getting back to. Teachers and doctors are set one against another. The scars show in our lack of a secondary economic base.

They show in some of the attempted and some of the effected resource sellouts. All of those things happened because the proper operation of this Legislature was frustrated by the old Social Credit Party, and now we see that the new Social Credit Party has exactly the same way of thinking.

It's a simple game, Mr. Chairman. It's the game of how to stay in power by making sure there are no alternatives. It's the game of using your influence as government to keep the Legislature so nasty, so petty, so uninformed and so fractious that people will come down to the polls and say: "We have no other choice. We have to go with this group because look at the way that House operates." The man who has it within his power to make this House operate in better ways, in gentler ways, in better-informed and more civilized ways, chooses not to proceed in those directions.

Mr. Chairman, the father did it for 20 years and got away with it for 20 years. Finally the people couldn't stand it any more and they threw him out. I thought something had been learned from one generation to another. What do the backbenchers think about it?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney) : I think you're totally wrong.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Whip, have you been talking to your own backbenchers?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I don't think the

[ Page 1625 ]

Whip knows what his backbenchers think about the potential usefulness of the committee system in this House. They want to contribute something. They don't want to be just cannon fodder and stand up and sit down, and get briefings by ministers every once in a while in caucus, and ask a few questions, and hear the important announcements the day they come out. Some of those backbenchers want to make a contribution. It might not hurt the Whip to talk with them.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam) : We all have that opportunity.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this is the game. You keep the Legislature a place that is as nasty as you can make it by the way you operate as government. You deny information; you

schedule business at the last minute; you change sittings at the last minute; you make it difficult to have sufficient time to do research because you don't even know what the business of the day is going to be, let alone when the sittings are going to be. You're as partisan as you can be, you're as vengeful as you can be towards the last government. You do everything you can to tear down their works, good or bad, and then you say: "That place isn't operating well. The people of British Columbia don't have any respect for it. The people of British Columbia don't want them to have a direct influence on policy." I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia think.

The Premier is responsible for making this system work better for people, and that means making the Legislature work better. In that context, the government must take the lead.

The government, if it feels itself to have been wronged, should turn the other cheek. The government, if it feels this place lacks information, should provide information. The government, if it feels that there are vexatious public problems to be solved, should use this instrument, rather than setting up phony committees comprising exclusively government MLAs as if they were genuine sounding boards for the wishes of the province. What a contempt to this Legislature that Bawlf committee was!

That's the duty of the Premier: to make this system work better for the people. Instead, he's out to make the system work better for him.

Mr. Chairman, last Friday we had a glimpse into the mind of the Premier insofar as his attitude toward our most democratic institution is concerned. Mr. Chairman, I was sickened by what I saw.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for North Vancouver-Capilano for making that statement on not only the basis of tradition of this House but for everybody who is both in the House or aspires to be a politician.

I too was shocked by the reports I read in the newspaper as to the Premier's statements. I was asked by one reporter to comment and I said that I would prefer to read the Blues first before I made any statement. I have indeed done that.

Before I go to the Blues, I must say that I was shocked at the attitude that was displayed by the Premier in response to what appears to be not a very provocative debate. As I understand, there was no heat of emotion or exchange that led one to say things at hot temper that perhaps in cool temper would not have been said. Apparently these statements were made in all deliberation, in calmness, and there appears to be some forethought to them. Because of that, I share the disappointment - but not the shock - of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

The catalogue of statements from the Premier over the past three years, prior to becoming Premier and since becoming Premier, have indicated a tendency to stray when under pressure, to make half-statements of allegations and then to back off, or when confronted with an unpleasant situation, rather than to come right up front and say exactly what the situation is, to differ.

My friend, whom I oppose because of philosophical differences, has made the essential point about this place: philosophical differences are to be decided by the people of the province, not by the Premier or the cabinet or any individual member. As a matter of fact, one of the most sanctified rules of this Legislature is the presumption that once somebody is elected, they are honourable. That presumption is seriously guarded by every single rule that we have in front of us in the standing orders.

MR. DAVIDSON : Did you bear that, Gary?

MR. BARRETT : The presumption to be made on anybody's honourableness, regardless of their past or their future, is something that makes this whole system work. We do not personalize, even by calling each other - as the Chairman will point out to us on occasion when we slip - by our legal names but by the constituencies we represent. The system is psychologically structured to temper us, to make us understand that we are not infinite, that we come and go at the whim of the voters. We come and go at the whim of those people who pay the bills and who ultimately suffer the consequences or enjoy the consequences of considered acts of members of this Legislature.

And the particular line that upset me, Mr. Chairman - I'll refer to it in a moment - brought to mind the Premier's approach to any kind of criticism, to any analysis of any situation he sees - that quick jumping from one foot to another, that quick-to-blame, quick-to-run, quick-to-hide approach,

[ Page 1626 ]

rather than facing the issues squarely in terms of the esteemed office that he holds.

The office has been held, in the scheme of things, by a large number of people. The office remains constant; the players come and go. The determination of the players in that office must and always must remain in the hands of the free men and women who make up this great province in this country.

My good colleague states a catalogue of events that he reminds us of in terms of statements that he hoped would bring about some reflection, some sense of, perhaps, anguish, or a little touch of guilt about statements. I recall on one particular day in this chamber when a most unfortunate statement was made by the then Leader of the Opposition about the parentage of a member of this Legislative Assembly. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was a particularly unpleasant exchange in this chamber. A perhaps unwise joke was made about the Premier's father, but that's currency considering the political history of this province.

In response to that particular moment of heat, the Premier shot back across this floor the statement: "At least I have a father."

I was very angry that day. The remark was not addressed at me, but it was addressed at a colleague of mine. I was very angry that day. I left the chamber, and I thought the matter should rest there. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, as he was then, was biting his tongue that he made such a statement. In a moment of heat or passion such comments are passed and then best forgotten.

Shortly after the election an interview took place between the present Premier and Allan Fotheringham. That interview was written in the Weekend Magazine. That exchange was raised with the Premier by Allan Fotheringham. During the course of the interview the Premier did not only not show any remorse for having made that statement, but he gave cause to Mr. Fotheringham and every reader to believe that he had indeed planned to make that statement. In the article, his excuse or pride in making that statement was to say: "When you're in a hockey game, you learn your opponents, and you use anything that's necessary." Then he went on to quote in the

article that he "never had any trouble from that minister again." With a sense of pride and with, frankly, a shallowness, a reflection of no depth whatsoever of the understanding of the dignity of individuals who let their names stand for office, successful or defeated, he was proud of the fact that he threw across a remark to a member that he could coldly discuss months after the remark took place, and explain it by saying to the newspaper interviewer: "I've never had any trouble from that member again."

It has bothered me for some time that this did indeed take place. I had shared my concern with my colleagues. I had said that I might raise it, and they said: "Let it go. Let it go." And I did. I put the matter aside as perhaps a measure of the depth of the man who holds the office of Premier of this province. Perhaps other citizens would not be as harsh to judge him. Perhaps the rationalization of having made that statement would again prick his conscience and force him to feel, in his private or quiet moments, that he had initially been wrong to cast that remark to the member.

He had been wrong to rationalize it in the second case by saying: "I didn't have any trouble from that minister any more." But Friday's event, Mr. Chairman, compels me to speak in the vein that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has spoken in today.

Oh, yes, we can deride little things such as the Premier leaving an automobile and, when asked by a cameraman standing there with a camera, "Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?", the Premier saying: "There wasn't one." And then the camera pans to show that indeed there was a seatbelt in the car.

Yes, we can show some amusement over the Premier, in the exuberance and emotion of standing up in front of idolizing fans at a provincial convention of a political party in that heady moment and saying, "here's a budget, " only to be asked by the press if that was indeed the case and to discover five hours later that it wasn't.

Yes, we can share some amusement at the Premier's embarrassment at not giving us correct figures at a press conference related to Thanksgiving. But Friday was too much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to read from the Blues. I hope that the Blues are wrong and the Premier's words quoted here are incorrect. But as I see them, and as reported in the newspaper, they come back to me this way. The Premier said:

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano made a strong plea for multiple-use of a lot of legislative committees. I can only say that the government has standing committees. Committees have been used with varying success in the past. Committees will be challenged in the future.

Fair enough. That's a good statement. The record of this government is that we do have committees looking at personnel for the auditor-general, and I think another post as well.

We have not been given any real substantial work by this government and the member's complaints about earlier years are absolutely correct. As a member of this House for 12 years before our election as government, I do not recall one instance where any significant matter was given to a committee outside of this chamber over those 12 years. When we were elected to government we put the committees to work and they were admired in the press as having delivered answers on very difficult problems on a non-partisan basis.

[ Page 1627 ]

But it's the next statement, Mr. Chairman, that bothers me. I quote again from the Blues: "However, I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far." I'll deal with that separately. But to go on, Mr. Chairman, the following statement is the one that gives me great concern: "I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy. I think it's something that's going to have to be earned."

May I work with those three statements made by the Premier? First of all: "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far." That's a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman. I have people tell me they don't have any confidence in this government. They make particularly saddened remarks about individual cabinet ministers, as well as members of this Legislature.

Feature articles are written by newspaper columnists either criticizing or praising individual MLAs. Frequent radio or television interviews are had and hotline shows give analysis of separate MLAs. But every single time someone makes a comment about the government or the opposition that is their opinion. It is to be respected as their opinion but not to be taken as anything more than an expression of opinion and not a matter of judgment by the government.

We don't run governments by popularity poll on every given day, on every given whim. Governments are elected under our system to govern for a constitutional period of time. If the Premier wanted to make a decision on the behaviour of the members related to what the public response is, he would have to resign, if he read my mail. People come to me and criticize the Premier every single day. They write letters to my office criticizing particular members of the government.

When he says, "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far, " that could be truly said about any member, any cabinet minister or anyone who holds public office anywhere in this country. That's part and parcel of the system. But for the Premier to leave the impression that he's making a decision about evaluating the performance of any individual MLA based on the popularity polls of that individual man or woman in this House is frankly absurd.

The popularity polls that I receive are different from his. If they've got a complaint about the Premier they write him and send me a copy. I have never evaluated the performance in this House by varying comments that I have received from the public about this House. To make such a statement casts, in my opinion, a reflection that the Premier is making his judgment on the members of this House based on what he perceives to be individual citizens' evaluation rather than the production of the House itself. Let us deal with that.

We are seven weeks into a session and not one committee has met, not even the public accounts committee. Who is responsible for that - the public, the MLAs of this House? Not at all. The Premier is the leader of the government. Has he issued instructions after seven weeks of half-days available for the members to work here in the chamber that those committees be asked to sit? Not at all. For the Premier to say, "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members in the way they have conducted themselves so far, " is nonsense. It's nonsense. You haven't called the committees.

The determination from that to say, "I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy, " is a vicious statement, in my opinion. Who is the Premier or who is any individual human being to say who should or should not be on a committee? It is the time-honoured tradition of the British parliamentary system that the people who have the authority and the responsibility in any given jurisdiction to select representatives to an august chamber such as a legislative assembly or a House of Commons....

It is their ultimate right to pick men or women whom they choose to represent them, not the Premier's. Only in a dictatorship does one man or one woman determine who goes on committees; only in a dictatorship does one man or one woman determine who should or should not have input in policy; only in a dictatorship is the measure of the value of someone to sit on a committee the absolute responsibility of one man or one woman.

The democratic process is tried and true. It has made mistakes and it has been correct, but hindsight is the judge of that, Mr. Chairman, not an individual man or woman.

If the population of any jurisdiction determines to elect a certain group of people to represent them, then those people must be unfettered in their rights and their responsibilities to participate in policy. Policy is not only made in committee, Mr. Chairman; policy is shaped and formulated, albeit slightly, in this very chamber in such committee debate as is taking place here today.

Then we come to this last statement - and I think it is the most shocking one of all. I suppose it can be glibly set aside by saying that the Premier may have been under some pressure when he said it, but the next statement he said was: "I think it's something

[ Page 1628 ]

that's going to have to be earned." Mr. Chairman, he said: "I think it's something that's going to have to be earned." Mr. Chairman, every single man and woman who sits in this chamber, however short, however long, has not earned the right to be here. They have been ordered to be here by the citizens of their constituency.

Once any public servant - whether it is in municipal office, provincial office, any board, or any administrative level in a democratic society - has been ordered by the due process of democratic vote to present herself or himself to the performance of their job it is not a question of defining whether or not it is earned by that person who happens to be leader for that particular day. It is an honour-boundary legally bound responsibility of that person to serve.

I don't like this, Mr. Chairman. I don't like the creeping attitude that somehow, somebody has the right to determine who has earned to do what in this place. It borders on privilege, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. It smacks as if somehow, some definition of worthiness - i.e. obedience or conformity - is to be the criterion of the present holder of the office of Premier.

One hundred years from now we will be the curious sights of school students who, I pray to God, will be involved in this same system, in the same manner, in the same legislative centre, in these very same precincts, walking by looking at pictures of people who held these positions. One hundred years from now we should be the object of curious discussion, of evaluation, but time will have passed and other human beings in good health, in good presence of mind, will be ordered by the voters to be in this chamber to make decisions about lives and times that are involved at that particular time.

But never before, not now or ever, should there be in our legislative process any one person, once the House has been decided by the electors, to say that this member or that member has not "earned" the right to be on a legislative committee. No one person, man or woman, in our society has the right to have an absolute opinion about the behaviour, the participation, the worthiness or lack of it of any individual who has stood for office and has indeed become successful in that campaign for office.

The seeking of office is one thing, Mr. Chairman -and many, many people seek office, and that is good - but the acquisition of office is something else again. The acquisition of office automatically changes the character and the role of responsibility in morally placing acts by every individual man and woman in our society. To broadcast the opinion by the leader of the government that he thinks it's "something that has to be earned 'misses the whole point of the august and grave nature - despite the humour, despite the levity - of the responsibility given to men and women who do put their name for office.

We must never insult people because they aspire to office. It is our responsibility to challenge and debate philosophies, attitudes, points of view and opinions, but I tell you this: every free man and every free woman has the right to hold their opinions whether they be in any spectrum of the political scale.

Who was it, Mr. Chairman, who made that statement: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it. I I?

MR. MACDONALD : It was Voltaire.

MR. BARRETT : Voltaire it was. Thank you, Mr. Member. Perhaps it would be worthy of the Premier to read some Voltaire and understand that in this time and in this place we are not the initiators of the great freedoms we have. We happen to be the inheritors. As my friend, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, said, blood was even shed at one time for us to reach this point.

There is a sense of history and a sense of proportion that is missing from this government. It has to permeate from the Premier right down to the rest of the cabinet ministers. When my colleague says that a certain member made disparaging remarks about Confederation, that is a matter which the member has a responsibility to raise with the Premier.

When other events take place, such as where certain cabinet ministers make disparaging remarks about groups of people because they happen to be handicapped by lack of income in our society and are welfare recipients, that, too, beggars the call from the leader of the government of the day to clarify how he or she feels about the responsibility of the role of individual citizens. It is the meekest, it is the mildest, it is the citizen on the lowest bottom of the scale who must depend upon every single man and woman in this House to protect their dignity.

That can only be done when every man and woman in this House has their dignity understood and protected.

I have no quarrel with the Premier or with any member of this House expressing his opinion. But to then express an opinion and put that down as law goes too far. I have some opinions of the government that I don't fear to express, on many occasions. I think the government is pretty awful, and I've said so and I've given my reasons why. But I don't think the Premier is pretty awful. I don't think the cabinet ministers, as individual human beings, are pretty awful. I don't think the backbenchers, as individuals, are pretty awful.

I might say that I never thought that I would be standing here in this chamber almost on the edge of reflecting on my own experience in that office, but when I held that office, I found it tempting on many occasions to make personal comments back when I received personal comments. I attempted to restrain myself, because for temporary holders of that office

[ Page 1629 ]

there is a certain aura of behaviour that is expected, related to the office. Not that every individual becomes perfect because he holds the office. The office itself is a role and us striving to reach perfection.

But I find it shocking, I find it shallow and, frankly, I find it very threatening that the Premier of this province, at this particular time on this particular day, would stand in this chamber and say: "I think it's something that has to be earned, " in terms of committee participation. That is not a matter of a question for the Premier to comment on. That is a decision made by the free citizens of this province.

Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps many other things that could be said or perhaps left unsaid. But I must tell you that I was moved by the words from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, whose philosophy was shared by that member and his father. Jests are made about that relationship, just as jests are made that way, but that's never affected judgment. I respect you, Mr. Member, all the more for what you've said today. I hope that it's seriously understood by all members of this House - who, whatever their role, in the passage of time and in relative terms hold positions temporarily - that someone else beyond will decide about us.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, while I can agree with some of the comments of the members who spoke today, I must disagree strongly where they put their own

interpretation and when they make comment, especially by two members who were not present during the sitting.

MR. LEVI : Don't be ridiculous! What do you think we've got Hansard for?

HON. MR. BENNETT : The member for North Vancouver-Capilano - if the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) can contain himself -is indeed a great one for putting his own

interpretations on what people say. He's even convinced the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . I listened very carefully. A member of this government - that is, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) - "made disparaging remarks about Confederation." The Minister of Education has never made any disparaging remarks about Confederation. He offered his suggestions about how to make this a stronger country. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to continue to twist, as he has and continues to do, the words of others, and if the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, continues to wish to put his own

interpretations on the statements of others for his own convenience, then let them. But let them not join in their little game together of agreeing with each other's

interpretations without an answer from the government or the members to whom they wish to interpret.

The Minister of Education in this province is as strong and fine a Canadian as I've seen. His contribution in this House and in this province in the private sector and in his chosen field recommends him as an example to all British Columbians. I don't think he needs defending. But I do find it strange that in an attempt to mount an attack, the Leader of the Opposition would say he made disparaging remarks about Confederation. I'd like him to name those remarks to the Legislature because in the comments I've read, and in my

interpretation, the Minister of Education has made suggestions on how Confederation could be made stronger so we can build a stronger country.

I'd like to deal with what went on in this Legislature last Friday, because we did have some suggestions fro m the member for North Vancouver-Capilano on expanding the committee system. The committee system has functioned every year and, as I said in the Blues, has functioned with mixed success. I also said the committee system would be challenged in the future in this House, which it will. The members appointed to those committees will have every opportunity to acquit themselves well, as will the House upon their recommendations.

I did say, though, that there is a tendency for parties and members who profess great loyalty to the British parliamentary system to forget the very nature of the system, and that is that a government is elected to govern. The policy of the government is the policy that they earned at the ballot box. When I say you earn a place, a direct say in policy, that is exactly where you earn it. If I was one member, only a single member of a very minority party, I would be concerned if I hadn't earned my say at the ballot box to direct the policy of the province.

I'll go back to my quote - I don't particularly want to have a direct say in policy.... That's exactly what the people said on December 11,1975. They elected a government to bring about policies. It was the policies we advocated that they voted for; it was the policies of the last government that they voted

[ Page 1630 ]

against; it was the policies of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that they didn't consider.

You earn your way at the ballot box. If our policies and if the government we provide isn't satisfactory, when we go next to the electorate we will not earn a second chance. That will be between the voters of British Columbia and all people who seek election, for whatever party, when that date comes. But I do say you do have to earn a say for policy. That's the British parliamentary system. Governments are elected to govern. That governing, in fact, means putting forward policy and passing it into law. That is the role of government. That is what elections are all about and you earn your place at the ballot box.

The member complained about not being sufficiently utilized, I agree there are lots of opportunities for MLAs. There are many MLAs in this House who are more than full-time MLAs, who go beyond the normal eight-hour day, who go beyond the 365-day year. They live in their constituencies, work in their constituencies, maintain contact in their constituencies and in fact do their utmost to represent people. They're not just part of government or the Legislature, but they represent those people to laws that have been passed by other parliaments and other legislatures. They help them deal with government regulations and government departments. To those MLAs, I say they're never paid enough.

But the member wasn't speaking for all MLAs. He was suggesting that perhaps some MLAs didn't have enough to do. I only took him at his word, and said that of course another alternative is, for those MLAs who don't have enough to do or haven't been able to fill their time in working for their constituents, perhaps to consider a cut in salary. That's one of the alternatives if that member maintains that as a problem. It's his suggestion. I'm not advocating it; I throw it out as one of the alternatives he forgot to mention.

When the public asks about the conduct of the Legislature, I made it quite clear that it wasn't my personal attack on this body. In fact, I reiterated what the Speaker said to this Legislature a few days ago. He admonished the Legislature on its conduct. I take responsibility for any criticism of this Legislature upon myself as part of this body. It is true.

We all receive mail, and as Premier perhaps my mail is heavier. Because I'm the Premier of the government in power, perhaps the criticism I get is all aimed at members not of my own party. But my mail has been running very heavily in criticism of the conduct of some members of this Legislature. Again, I bring it before this body. The government and the opposition all have a responsibility to make the legislative system work.

I think the Leader of the Opposition described it a bit when he said it's hard when the government is put in a reactive role quite often in the Legislature. He is a person and reacting to comments. The level of debate and the level of conduct is always reactive on the part of the government.

I think we have a responsibility as individuals to make the system work. My statements were not an attack. My statements were, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, said very calmly, not in anger, but in response to various statements and suggestions that had been put forward by members of the opposition and of this assembly during the sitting last Friday.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about the committees not having been formed that they have been formed; they have been awaiting the call of the convenors. Perhaps he wasn't here last week, but Votes and Proceedings _ of Wednesday, March 2, lists those committees and the convenors. As such, the committee system will work. The Leader of the Opposition_ and perhaps the Liberal leader, are more used to sessions that are called later and go much shorter. It is the earliest session that has ever been called and as such may be one of the longest sessions that has ever been held.

But everybody will have an opportunity, while the House is sitting and perhaps beyond this year, in the committee system for the committee system to work, and hopefully work well.

I would just like to deal with some of the other areas that have come up during my estimates to do with the PWA, because the Liberal leader was not here after bringing up the subject the other day. I was concerned. I would have liked him to clarify his suggestion that we oppose the routes applied for that would be of benefit to our people.

Interjections

HON. MR. BENNETT : This government will always support those third carriers, but that's not what PWA is. It's not a third-carrier airline, it's a regional airline.

I think we should be doing our people a disservice if I took, as his remarks were stated and as I understood them - but I would like him to clarify them - that what he would do is oppose those routes and the service that's being asked for by PWA, which would only be to the detriment of our people. The only reason there's a fight over an airline is that it may result in lack of service for our people.

We're not fighting, in this case, whether it's government ownership or private ownership, but whether B.C. citizens and residents will be well served by an airline - a regional airline, controlled in a certain province. To suggest that the remedy is to oppose any application for service for our people in this province is ridiculous.

[ Page 1631 ]

MR. GIBSON : Don't you care about the head office?

HON. MR. BENNETT : It's ridiculous. We're out to make sure the people of this province get all the service, and more, that's coming to them. I disagree strongly with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who would cut off the people's noses to spite Alberta because they have so far held on to the airline. The only reason the government of British Columbia is fighting - the main reason - is to guarantee that our people's interests will be served and that service will be provided to the people of British Columbia. To say that you would fight against that service being provided, fight the airline, is just ridiculous.

There are ways to carry out the dispute through the courts, and through the CTC, and through appeal to the cabinet. But to take the final alternative as suggested by that member and say, "have service restricted to the people" - service which we are fighting to get - has got to be the most ridiculous suggestion that's come up in this Legislature this session.

MR. GIBSON : Another twist.

HON. MR. BENNETT : That's got to be very, very, very unusual because this Legislature - opposition and government - are sitting here to discuss and debate how to provide services to our people, not take them away.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope I misunderstood the statements he made concerning that because I believe there are a lot of people out there waiting for services to be provided by the airlines. I have suggested that this government ...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT : The member talks a lot about free speech, and now he says: "Sit down. Sit down. Sit down." Now he says: "Sit down."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. members -each hon. member in his time.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, that member....

MR. LEA : Why are you so nervous?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I'm looking for all my notes, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Who wrote them - your dad?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, Mr. Chairman, when the member for Prince Rupert is finished with his usual high conduct, we'll continue.

MR. LEA : It's okay - go ahead.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I would like to say that this government is prepared to deal with helping to encourage third-level carrier service in this province. We want to see additional air service provided to our people. I've even suggested that we're prepared to move in if the failure of the federal government to provide airport facilities - which is their responsibility - to our middle and north coast and to the northern parts of British Columbia continues.

It's obvious to anyone who has travelled those parts by any form of transportation, but particularly tried to reach those areas by air, that air would be the only logical answer to transportation. In many cases we need new airfields in many parts of this province, and this government is going to be prepared to perhaps supplement the amount of money the federal government puts up to make sure those airstrips and airfields are provided so the third-level carriers can indeed continue to expand their service.

But they can't expand a service into an area when there is no facility for take-off and landing and handling the aircraft. We've made the commitment to the people of this province that we're prepared to deal with their transportation needs in the air as we are on the coast in the ferry system.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief because I want my advocate to follow and clean up after me. I just want to say a few words because I

[ Page 1632 ]

am concerned about the aura or aroma of intimidation which exists surrounding this government. I just want to mention three things very briefly. There is a feeling of intimidation, threat, watch out, be careful what you say.

The first example, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier was asked about the so-called blacklist. Well, in itself the incident may not be the Empire State Building, but it does mean this. The Premier, by his silence, has never replied as to what the thinks about that kind of thing leaving his office with the labels of political affiliation having been put on this chart by people in his office.

The result is that many, many people in the public service are saying: "Am I on some list?" You know, the question we asked the Premier about the blacklist and about his own office was perfectly in order in a parliamentary discussion of his estimates and a totally fair question to ask, because it was not only the question of favoritism but the question of intimidation. That's what we're concerned about. I think to sit for days and not answer that question about the conduct of the minister's office, when he is the First Minister particularly, is something that cannot be overlooked by this Legislature.

The second thing is the McKinnon thing that came up today where a prominent prosecutor says: "I was intimidated. If I go to the media, I will lose counsel work which I might otherwise have practising in the criminal field in the city of Vancouver." Then it's reported today in The Vancouver Sun that it didn't stop there. Mr. McKinnon named a Vancouver lawyer who, he said, also received a similar threat when he resigned from the prosecutor's office several months ago.

The lawyer, who told The Vancouver Sun he was scared to have his name' in print, said in an interview today: "I wouldn't call it a threat because it is common wisdom in that office that you don't criticize this provincial government." Now I would say there again obviously an aroma of intimidation -a bad aroma, I might say - has spread throughout the province.

The third example, of course, is that in the middle of a discussion on legislative reform - and we all have different views on that - the Premier announces that he is going to halve the salaries of the members. Well, they're not scared, but when that kind of remark is made in that context, it is a threat - it has to be. It was not a proposal; it was a threat - "Watch out! Be careful what you say!" Now obviously it's not going to work in this assembly, Mr. Premier. This group is not going to see some criticism.

But it's the attitude of the government, who seem to behave like the Bourbon kings of France - this coalition over there who learned nothing and forgot nothing and who thought that criticism was something that was much too good for the common people.

That's the attitude I am concerned about because I think it has been developing and I think that it is intimidation. When the Premier doesn't answer that question about Dan Campbell that's been here before the Legislature, what do you think of that kind of conduct? Coming right out of your own office, that adds, naturally, fuel to the suspicion that there is approbation of intimidation from the highest reaches of this government.

MRS. JORDAN : I don't intend to prolong the debate and I don't intend to address myself to some of the points that have been brought up. Mostly, I would like to think in terms of the debate that started the day off, in relation to the Premier's remarks in the House on Friday morning about MLAs and about salaries, and the response that this has drawn from members of this House. I have listened to both debates this afternoon.

I feel the Premier is right. I believe we do have to earn our spurs and I believe many of us who have been here for a long time have done so and we can appreciate the value of this debate as well as the dangers in it. I do believe that the new members first earned the metal for their spurs by winning their elections and they are now earning their spurs, in part, as they sit in this Legislature and as they enter the debate.

But I think we also know what the Premier was alluding to, and that was the falsity of some of the debate that takes place in this House. We are all guilty of taking

part in it and this one is very much so. As I sat and listened to the current Leader of the Opposition and the former Premier of this province in his debate this afternoon, frankly, I didn't know whether to laugh hysterically or to cry. On the surface, his words were most idealistic - the highest principles of what this House should be - and they would have been impressive had I not had the privilege of sitting in this House when that man himself held the office of Premier, and had the unfortunate mind today to recall.

I wonder, as we read in Hansard and as the media record his words of this afternoon, would we dare recall some of the instances and incidents that took place? Would we dare recall the famous line that emanated from the office of the then-NDP Premier -the sound, sage advice that he gave to the Egg Marketing Board and how to go out and solve their problems for the people they represented and the consumers in this province?

I wonder if we would dare recall that it was this Premier who first used the word - and I use it with great respect - "Christ" in this House in debate, and it was during that man's term of office that the Lord's name, which I happen to hold in. great respect, was brought into debate in vain on the floor of this Legislature. It was during that term of office, as we recall his words during the debate this afternoon, that the level of debate saw

[ Page 1633 ]

more and more the intrusion of more common swear words, if you want to call them that, in the context of parliamentary debate.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I wonder, when we speak of the role and the respect for the office of Premier, and as MLAs, if we would dare recall the famous and infamous incident of the NDP Premier in the hall of these chambers -Mr. Chairman, basically the chambers in which you have considerable responsibility - as they related to a very well-respected feminine reporter in this province and now a very noted journalist in Ottawa. As we listen to his words, would we dare recall these things?

Unfortunately I believe we have to, because that's the only way we can evaluate the merit of the debate he introduced into this House today. I for one find it lacking and therefore 1, for one, feel that we must question why he took that position and why the Liberal leader is taking the position that be is taking.

I personally feel a great honour at having been elected to this chamber and having had the opportunity to serve the people that I have for the number of years that I have. This honour and this responsibility weigh heavily on my mind, as they do with many members. I happen to feel that we should not create, nor should we indulge in, a self-image that we are a lot of high-powered executives making high-powered decisions with high-powered speeches on the floor of this House. We should be representative of the people of British Columbia - a cross-section of people.

In relating to the debate in itself, we should be paid justly. But our role here is endangered if we sit in these halls for 12 months of the year. It was proved under the NDP leadership, when we spent so much time in this chamber and when the debate could have been cut in half and been so much more constructive. We're beginning to see an emergence of this type of debate during the current Premier's session.

How can you possibly know what the people are thinking? How can we possibly

reflect their concerns and views if we sit in Victoria meeting with committees

every morning, meeting with our caucus at noon, and sitting on the floor of

this House from 2 to 6, having meetings from 6 to 8, and sitting on the floor

of the House, most of the time, from 8 to I I year-round? This is very definitely

essential during major times of the year, and we're in this position now,

but the people have a right to expect us to be in our own constituencies. This

is what I can't understand when the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace)

, or the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , or the hon. members from the NDP,

the official opposition, stand up and say: "You can't be a full-time

MLA and you shouldn't be paid as a full-time MLA unless you're sitting

in this Legislature."

A great portion of our work should, and has to be, in our own constituencies listening to the people we represent, analysing and assessing how the legislation that we've been part of developing and passing is affecting the everyday life of everyday people in this province. For my part, I think most MLAs are full-time MLAs, whether they're here in Victoria for two months, three months or four months. The business of the Legislature should be able to be dealt with in reasonable time.

The NDP believed that. It was the NDP that brought in time limits for all debates, time limits on bills, time limits on estimates, and time limits on the throne and budget speech debates. You must believe it, Mr. Chairman, through you. Why now suddenly change? If they believed in the time limits when they brought them in, and believed that they were to enhance the parliamentary system, what on earth do they expect their MLAs to do the rest of the year -sit in comfort in Victoria during nonsensical debate?

Mr. Chairman, I touched just a little bit perhaps then on philosophy. I think it's important in this debate to see how that philosophy applies, because whether it's a mathematical philosophy or, an economics philosophy or a political philosophy, its strength is in its application and how it affects those whom -it's designed to serve. I'd like to examine how some of our members are observing that application and that philosophy.

I think the hon. leader of the Liberals (Mr. Gibson) , whom we had an opportunity to hear a few minutes ago, gave us a tirade for 35 minutes of what I can call nothing short of a self-image of himself. Mr. Chairman, I have heard nothing but kind comments in the I I years I've been in this Legislature about the then, and now, historical "bull of the woods, " the former Gibson that served this province, and this member. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, that much could have been said, and could be said today, that would cause embarrassment to the current member and leader of the Liberals....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, we're debating vote 18 and not a former member of this House.

MRS. JORDAN : Yes ' Mr. Chairman. I believe this is relative to it because in his address this afternoon, and consistently through his addresses the leader of the Liberal Party has had nothing goo~ to say about the former Social Credit Premier of this province, a man of whom you could be critical on many points, a man to whom we in British Columbia owe a great debt. Even his most severe critics will acknowledge that, but not the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

I have consistently heard the current Premier -unfortunately I didn't realize it was coming up and I

[ Page 1634 ]

haven't researched it in detail - in the debate in this House, particularly during this session, allude to the work done on programmes by the former, NDP government and, when it went back, by the former Social Credit government in relation to the programmes we're upgrading or improving today.

Time after time, members will recall, even under his estimates, when he has said that those who took part under the former government should be proud or take great credit. I would have hoped the leader of the Liberal opposition, in keeping with the philosophy he's expressing and arguing today, would have mentioned that.

The tone of debate in the House, Mr. Chairman, which is a reflection on the House, and the leadership of this province and the roles of the MLAs - which the NDP are now attacking - have elevated considerably since the current Premier became leader of this province. The quality of the language has elevated, and I don't have to defend him. I see him scratching his ear and I guess he's embarrassed about it, but 1, for one - and I believe the citizens of this province - appreciate the efforts that he's making, and that is leadership, Mr. Chairman.

That type of leadership exercises the unspoken discipline that MLAs want to exhibit in this House and in their work, both here and in their constituencies.

But what sort of leadership do we get from the leader of the Liberal Party, who initiated this debate and who's constantly suggesting that unless the Legislature is sitting we're not full-time MLAs? This House has been very good to the hon. member, but what does he do when he's not in the House? Perhaps this is why he wants the House. The House seems to provide a convenient forum for the hon. leader, where he can reach the media and he can reach his constituents not by knocking on doors and having a presence in his constituency but by using a convenient field at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Chairman, I've mentioned that I feel that a member's role in his constituency is extremely important. We've had some fireworks in this House because the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition is called the member for Maui, and he doesn't like it. But is there some justification for this? This member has spent considerable time in 1976 while being a full-time MLA and paid as a full-time MLA managing his condominiums and developments in Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this. If the hon. member wishes to do this, fine, but I think we have to relate this knowledge to the debate and the argument and his philosophy he's put forth in this debate.

This is a crucial time in British Columbia. This is a time when we should all

be developing, working and investing in British Columbia. But here we have a

leader of a major Liberal Party who wants the Legislature to sit year-round,

spending his money and his time developing in another country. Is this is keeping

with the responsibilities that an MLA has to his constituents when they're

not in the Legislature? Does this not separate this member from his philosophy?

One wonders on just which side of the coin the conscience lies. It makes one

wonder just how to evaluate the debate. How does this hon. member justify the

fact that he's not here to the supporters in his constituency? Surely our

constituents have a right to expect a physical presence a good deal of the time

in our own areas.

The hon. leader of the Liberal Party has just come back from a trip to Washington with the Prime Minister. I believe that we all feel that was very nice that he should have been there. But what would that member have decided if he'd been on a committee? What did that member decide when his responsibility for which he is being paid is sitting in this Legislature and putting forth the views of his party and the people? He chose to go to Washington and, I'm sure, enjoyed the company of Elizabeth Taylor. I'm sure many people would. But really, is this not relevant to this debate, Mr. Chairman, when we're talking about being full-time MLAs?

There are certainly many times when the members have to be away from the House quite legitimately -illness, government responsibilities, party responsibilities in British Columbia, speaking engagements, major constituency problems. And they're justified. But one wonders just how justifiable it is to have a sojourn in Washington in the middle of a crucial debate.

That hon. member, the leader of the Liberals, said every Premier should leave his mark in one way or another on the structure of the democratic institution. One wonders what sort of an image and imprint that leader will leave when he spends most of his time that he's being paid for being an MLA in his constituency in another country. His debate on the value of MLAs doesn't coincide with the practice of his own philosophy.

That hon. member says:

I make this plea, through you, Mr. Chairman. I think the citizens

deserve to get all that they can out of this Legislature, to see that it works

as effectively on their behalf as it can, and to see it, when possible, work

in co-operation rather than confrontation.

Those are the words of the hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

How does he reconcile those words with his conduct in the House the other night when he filibustered for over three hours because he was in a fit of temper because we had to work? It does, Mr. Chairman, bring to mind how much we should evaluate and appreciate the depth of his debate.

I think the whole matter of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard's (Ms. Brown'

s) attendance in this House is relevant during this debate. She is a very fine

[ Page 1635 ]

woman, a very ambitious woman, but somewhat interesting in the sense of values when we relate it to this debate where we're arguing about whether or not your attendance in the Legislature, and the sitting of the Legislature, qualifies you for being a full-time MLA.

That member was absent from this Legislature for nearly two weeks, and this Legislature undoubtedly will vote to give her full salary. It's an interesting absence. One must ask how that absence is serving the constituents of Vancouver-Burrard. That member was visiting in a country that is a military dictatorship.

That's fine; I don't intend to debate that. The hon. Premier has said that in British Columbia we recognize that it's the federal government's role to deal in international affairs. But at the same time, in this debate that member for Burrard was calling for the Premier of this province to ban all South African wines because of her feelings about a policy in South Africa. This would have denied the people of this province the right to exercise their choice of their own censorship and would have imposed a dictatorial censorship by the government.

How does one reconcile that position on Friday with the position that this member spent two weeks at a cultural conference, while being paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia, in a country under a military dictatorship? If that member had been involved in many activities in many parts of that country, this might have been defensible. But as I understand it, she spent the full two weeks at a cultural conference in the capital city of Kaduna. It's perhaps an honour to have this member represent our country there, make a presentation, and spend a day or two.

But the question is not to debate whether or not she should be there, but whether she is, in fact, after requesting that she be paid for this absence, fulfilling her commitment to the constituents of Burrard.

That member, Mr. Chairman, is a member who has said publicly in the Province on January 5,1977: "There is no question that my interests go national." This member is a confessed member who wants to be a member of the national party and who has said that she will give up her seat in the province of British Columbia if she can gain a national seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, could we get back to the Premier's estimates on vote 18, please?

MRS. JORDAN : The question might well be: is the argument being put forth by the opposition as sincere as they'd like it to be interpreted? You have to look at the records of the various members in order to support it or adjudicate their arguments.

That member has been absent from this House on other occasions when she's been paid.

(1) The leadership of a party in May 7 to I I in 1975. A most interesting trip....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, order, please. I fail to see how this relates to vote 18. 1 would ask you to change your stance slightly, please.

MRS. JORDAN : All right, Mr. Chairman. I have no wish to offend the Chair. But I do believe it's important when we have heard a presentation under this vote that we have heard from the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition in terms of philosophy and the criticism of this government and this Premier, relating to what they feel is an abuse of this House. In fact, this House is being abused more by them than any other members. Mr. Chairman, it's a self-serving argument that intrudes into the integrity of this House when you examine those records.

I would just like to speak for myself in relation to the role of an MLA. I'd like to read' into the record what my office in the constituency does. I think it's interesting, and this is a year old now. This was done for someone else; it was an analysis of the office, and I'll quote. They list the telephone number.

"The office is open from 8:30 a.m. in the morning until 12 noon; I p.m. until 5 p.m., Monday through Friday every week of the year. There is a telephone number with an alternate telephone number which is in play during those hours, and then the telephone reverts to the MLA's home for 24-hour coverage.

"The number of persons contacted each day by telephone was averaged at 30 calls per day. This includes calls received as well as some calls placed on behalf of constituents. By letter they average nine letters per day year-round, but this does not include congratulatory letters or other letters of what we call routine nature. These are simply direct letters into the office in the constituency every day of the year. In person they see an average of five people per day throughout the year.

"We feel that the above averages are conservative and constitute an average year-round figure of 30 to 40 persons contacted in some form per day, 150 to 200 persons contacted per week, and 600 to 800 per month. This average does not in any way contain any hours spent by Mrs. Jordan by telephone or personal contact, nor do they include the election time period, nor do they include her time when she's in the constituency and not at the Legislature. We have received approximately 2,500 telephone calls into the office over a one-year period. Again, we say this consists of only office calls received."

That is just the constituency office in North Okanagan. That does not include my own time in the

[ Page 1636 ]

constituency or my own time down here. It does not include the functions of the Victoria office here.

That is the record of a full-time MLA. I believe that my own record - and it's not unique - reflects that of many members. There has to be a balance between the functions that are taking place in this chamber and the functions that take place in our own constituency. The responsibility is divided.

The committee system has use, and I think credit should be given to the NDP

when they brought in a more active committee system, certainly in the initial

stages. But we say that become a farce. The Agriculture committee which had

travelled around the province was sitting at the very time the then Minister

of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) released the pertinent points of what that committee

was supposed to examine and the policy of the government - before the committee

had even handed in its report, while it was sitting drafting its final report.

So again, while we support the committee system, it has to be an effective system. As the Premier said, it has to show that it can function without partisanship, as I believe certainly the Agriculture committee and the municipal committee did under the former government. But to take a good idea, as the NDP did, and destroy it for political partisanship and use it merely as a showcase is an insult to parliament and an insult to the committee system.

I think that we have to be very aware during this debate of the fact that parliament must be open to all people from all walks of life, regardless of what their interests or income are. I think the danger in some parliaments has been that it was only really open to just professional people or professional politicians.

Mr. Chairman, if MLAs are not adequately paid with adequate expenses to cover their responsibilities, then this excludes many women from parliament, many people who do not have an outside income, or people who are not professional people and can carry on their work.

I believe that the life of an MLA is full time, as the system is working now,

and I support it, Mr. Chairman. I would only hope that during this debate, when

the three members I've referred to speak, at least we'd know on which

side of the coin their conscience lies, and we'd see them practise what

they are so eloquently speaking.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : On a point of order, I would like to correct a statement made by the member for North Okanagan. She said that the capital of Nigeria was Kaduna. Actually, it's Lagos, and I wouldn't like the world to know just how ignorant she is.

MRS. JORDAN : I appreciate the hon. member's correction, and I'm

proud to stand corrected. unfortunately, I do not have the personal wealth,

nor have I travelled at the taxpayers' expense in order to these countries

as she has.

MS. BROWN : I pity you.

MR. LEA : Couldn't you buy an atlas?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, to the House, just briefly, in the question period today in he House there was a question about the current request for meeting on behalf of Crown counsel by Mr. G.D. McKinnon, who has also, but not in the telegram to me requesting the meeting, made some specific charges to the news media. I just wish to advise the House that such a meeting has now been et up for 8:30 tomorrow morning.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : I will not comment at all on the member for North Okanagan's constituency report....

MRS. JORDAN : You wouldn't dare!

MR. LAUK : .. . except that I have canvassed this side of the House and we give you 6 out of 10 for hat.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks made by the hon. Liberal leader are grave. They are remarks that I am particularly proud to associate myself with, together with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. While these two speeches were being made, I recalled the time when I was a minister of the cabinet, and how it was a great strain that the New Democratic Party administration was so accessible to various groups, and that we apparently - and I can attest in reality - listened with great sympathy to many entreaties and complaints and so on.

There was a lot of public criticism, and there was a lot of courage expressed by various groups of people - including people who were disabled, including people in unorganized labour situations who had been on the bottom end of the economic totem pole and the social justice totem pole for so many, many years. At times, I can confess to you, Mr. Chairman, I wish we had closed the doors, that we could have reduced the number of hours that we were spending with these groups and these people, and that we could in some way have said: "That's enough." But when I see the contrast, Mr.

Chairman, when I can see now the intimidation that's occurring in the civil service and with these groups of people throughout society. . . . I'm talking about minority groups, Mr. Chairman -the people who are cut off from the mainstream of society, who have really no opportunity to participate in the good life, who for whatever reason have no say and no voice in the corridors of power.

[ Page 1637 ]

In addition to putting the lid on - or I should say back on - we have a civil service that is operating in a constant state of terror. We have Crown prosecutors who are now revealing to the public press attempts at bribery, intimidation and blackmail.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : "By whom?" indeed, sir. We look forward with great interest to your investigation in this regard. But can we trust, Mr. Chairman, the Premier's investigation - any Premier's investigation? Can we trust the office of the Premier to conduct it without public review?

It seems to me that the most serious charges of this nature that I have heard in a great many years -and I was born here - have been made today in this province. Not since the Sommers case have I heard such serious allegations made against high-level civil servants. How far does it reach? Can we trust the cabinet, in secrecy, to determine what's in the public good?

The Premier has stated that MLAs must earn the right to make policy for the province. He states in reply to the speeches of the hon. Liberal leader and the Leader of the Opposition that he and his party earned that right at election time. That's what he said. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is something I have always thought was important to understand for any citizen, let alone people running for public office. He is the government only insofar as a majority of MLAs support him and his party and support him in particular and his ministers. As such, the policy, input and agreement to that policy are part of the legislative process.

In 1973, the New Democratic Party government introduced a Hansard. I believe, though I might be mistaken, that this was the only jurisdiction at that time in the British Commonwealth without a Hansard, a written record of debate. We were in the backwoods, as it were, Mr. Chairman. The Hansard was one of the pillars of democracy in the British parliamentary system, and we introduced it. In reviewing the index of the various Hansards since 1973, and also some Journals of the House, I noted with great regret that traditional statements about democracy have not been made.

If there is any benefit to today at all, it's that they, through the Liberal leader and the Leader of the Opposition, have been made and have been put on record. I can't equal that, but I think what should be read into the Hansard record today is paragraph 17 of page 14 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition:

"Every member, as soon as he is chosen, becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place whence he is sent to parliament ... that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither" - this is Blackstone who is being quoted - "is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents" - or interest group - "but the commonwealth of the people."

Again, over the page, quoting Edmund Burke on page 15:

"To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions, mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience - these are things utterly unknown to the laws of the land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution."

I direct that quotation to the back bench in this House.

Over on page 16:

"We use the words 'House of Commons' very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words mean. The word 'Commons' means the people."

Before going on, Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of the first member for Vancouver East when he stated that the Premier made a threat to all MLAs of this House. What I wish to point out by making this quotation is that he hasn't threatened or diminished us as individual MLAs. He has threatened and diminished the freedoms and the rights of the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK : I go on with the quotation from Beauchesne: "The House

of Commons:

"This is the House of the people, sitting on both sides of this House; and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of Canada. Collectively, those of us who meet in this chamber represent all Canadians. That is our responsibility! That is our duty. Our rights are important only to the extent that those rights represent the rights of the people themselves. If the traditional rights of the members of this House are released, limited or arbitrarily curtailed in any way, it is not our rights that are of concern. What is

[ Page 1638 ]

vitally important is that in that curtailment of rights - there

is a limitation of the rights - of the people themselves. The freedom that we

have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the House

we may sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country

of ours. It is here -in the House of Commons, to which all the people of Canada

must look for just laws properly considered and properly made, that Canadians

in every part of Canada must look for the greater part of their freedom and

for the assurance of that type of government which will be itself an expression

of the freedom which has come down to us through so many generations of sacrifice

and of tremendous efforts."

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, in his defence, has still failed to realize the magnitude and the importance of what he said last Friday. He has made a threat - not to us, not to the NDP and not to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano or the member for Vancouver Centre. He is threatening the very freedoms and rights that a free democratic people have in this province. He is threatening, indeed, the very future operation of the British parliamentary system in this province.

There is an atmosphere of intimidation. There is an atmosphere of terror in the civil service, with the disabled, and with the people on pensions and people who have relied very much on the government of the day. They're afraid to speak out because, as that prosecutor said this afternoon, they're afraid to criticize this provincial government. I know, I've heard people in the civil service and people who live in public housing say: "Well, I support you, but I'm not going to come out and say anything, because you know what they'll do to me." All right, now maybe that's paranoia.

Maybe that is a fear that is baseless. I'll grant that. That's possible. But it's there. Why is it there? Why is there this fear, this terror, among people who rely on the government - the civil service, the people on pensions and the people in public housing?

It's up to the leader of this government to dispel that fear by demonstrating clearly that he is thoroughly and utterly committed to the democratic process, and that he has respect for this House, that he has respect for general elections and that he has respect for the British parliamentary system. In so doing, he opens the doors of information to the opposition, who represent the people as well.

The decisions are seen to be made openly and justly for the good of the commonwealth, not in the backrooms, not in a semi, quasi-presidential system enabled by the Government Reorganization Act, not by back room meetings. The threats, the blackmail, the intimidation and the bribes must stop, or be exposed as false charges, because so long as these charges remain in doubt, that terror is still there.

Do you want a government, Mr. Chairman -through you to the Premier - based on terror, on fear, on intimidation? Or do you want a government of co-operation, with a demonstration of sensitivity, a demonstration that you are given the mantle of office as a solemn responsibility, that you are not a self-appointed dictator, that your mandate is that you govern for the commonwealth?

Yes, you're elected to government. I agree with that. If you're elected to govern, well, govern. Make your decisions and take the heat or the credit. That's fair. But when there is a fear, such as the one that is now becoming apparent through the individual courage of one or two people such as that city prosecutor, then expose it all.

The elimination of that fear is in the hands of this leader of the government. It is he and he alone who can dispel those fears. The opposition today has given him the structure, if you like, by which he can eliminate those fears.

HON. MR. BENNETT : The member for Vancouver Centre gets on to some very serious ground when he starts dealing with a statement in the newspaper by Mr. McKinnon regarding Crown counsel. I wouldn't want him to leave the impression in this House that there have been threats of a political nature by any member of this government. Of those who work within the public service, allegations against any member will be given a fair hearing. I'm sure that member understands, having some understanding of the rights of individuals before the law and against statements made against them.

Such a meeting with Mr. McKinnon takes place tomorrow at 8:30, although that topic wasn't part of his request, but I'll certainly bring it up. The request was merely to deal with the problem of Crown counsel as he sees it in British Columbia, a system that hasn't substantially changed - nor has the Attorney-General's department substantially changed - from the last government. Most of the senior positions are still intact. They're all there, and as far as I am concerned they are, until proven otherwise, honourable and faithful servants of the public of British Columbia.

They were not appointed by this government but appointed to the public service by many different governments to carry out the people's business.

Charges levelled against any one or more of them will be heard and shall be presented in the proper place, because there is a place to hear such charges. Such information should not be for the Premier's ears alone and, as such, I fail to understand why such a charge would be made and the statement made that it can only be told to the Premier. Quite frankly, I'm

[ Page 1639 ]

not prepared to place myself in the position of being a judge and a jury. Such charges, if substantiated, will have to be placed before the proper due process -such process as is available under the democratic system with which we live.

The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentions the Premier making a defence today. I make no defence. I clarify, for your

interpretation and for your information, remarks made. I agree where members of this House have rededicated themselves to the British parliamentary system as being the fairest and most democratic system available to free societies. I also commit again that all of us within the party system have to earn the right to present such policies as government at the ballot box. That's what elections are about. There is no divine rule of government for certain parties or individuals - it has to be earned. Parties, from time to time, have to rededicate themselves to those principles and ultimately develop new policies for changing times.

As far as the House itself, I can remember a debate in the House where we were concerned about big government or a heavy government, and that was concerning the restrictions placed on estimates. We said the power of the purse was hard to win for parliament and it should remain there. That's the one area, in attempting. to bring some order to debate, where there should be no restriction. It will be interesting, when the motion is called later in the session to deal with that, to see how the members of the former government vote who brought in such restrictions.

Where was their concern for the rights of parliament, the spending of the public purse then, when they brought in restrictions to the opportunity of this Legislature to debate the estimates of various government cabinet ministers or portfolios?

Well, I want to say that they'll be given every opportunity. There is an area of public debate that has been opened up, though, and that is whether members should be representatives of the people and of their community on a full-time basis, or whether they need a constant contact with their neighbours who elected them to government or to the Legislature. Should they continue to work and live among them to better understand the problems with which the ordinary people of this province have to cope day by day?

There is a danger that in becoming full-time members and removing ourselves from our constituencies we become a form of super-bureaucrat ourselves and lose the ability to deal with the bureaucracy and to deal with the genuine complaints of the people who elected us. In fact, we become just another arm of the government or legislative system without realizing the true . intent of what representation is all about.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) ; Should we have a part-time Premier thereby?

HON. MR. BENNETT : What representation to the Legislature is all about is to continue to live and work among your constituents and to attempt to deal with their very real problems in a personal way.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) raises a point that has always troubled the parliamentary system, but it is one which can be effectively handled depending on the dedication of the occupants of the office. That is, governments, once elected, have members selected for cabinet. They are given extra responsibility, time-consuming responsibility, in the case of provincial governments and the national government. The national government collects those ministers in the capital, and they have an extra problem, but they are unique.

But all of us as MLAs, as when I was in opposition, should continue to work and live and represent the people who sent them. Whether this can be done on a full-time basis or whether it can be rationalized that they should have some very continuing experience about earning their way in the community as well as being a spokesman in the Legislature to make them better prepared, is something that should be brought out in this debate - one that hasn't been debated.

I know from experience that different members of the assembly probably treat this in different ways. I know members like the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and others are full-time MLAs. They work at it full time to the exclusion of all else. The member for Delta who has the biggest constituency and the largest number of constituents in the province, has a full-time constituency office. His work is full time. There are others who approach it in a different way. There are those who have left their communities to take up residence elsewhere.

It may be that they can rationalize this and say that they still have the constant contact with the people who sent them and can appreciate their problems. It would be for them to justify or to rationalize. But all members have reached different

interpretations.

If anything, this is a worthwhile debate on what the role of a public representative is. Should they be of the people or should they become part of a system that works to set them apart? I know for myself it's difficult and different once you've become a part of government, cabinet and the Premier, because the tendency is to move to Victoria and isolate yourself from your community. The extra work put on cabinet ministers, especially from the interior, who attempt to continue to work as MLAs, is very difficult. You end up giving up, for the most part, your weekend, your evenings and, in a good many cases, your family life. That's an undue burden.

It's been suggested many times that those governments where MLAs, or MPs in the case of Ottawa, have been chosen to fulfil this extra responsibility should have surrogates or someone who could take the position as an MLA for the

[ Page 1640 ]

community because of the additional work of an t administrative nature. It's a problem that's plagued the British parliamentary system where we pick the executive branch from among the elected members, and not like the system you have in representative government in the United States where the executive branch is not from the elected members but from outside the elected * assembly.

One of the strongest parts of the British parliamentary system and responsible government is in fact that the executive branch, as elected representatives, must place themselves before the electorate on a continuing basis. It's a prevention of getting some sort of super-bureaucracy in government. That's why I believe in responsible government versus representative government. But it does have some handicaps and it does work some disadvantages.

Those who are not placed in that position must assess the way they can represent their constituents and whether in fact it is a full-time job. That seems to depend on the MLAs themselves and the way in which they approach the position.

Frankly, as there's no hurry to end estimates, it would be a good opportunity for all MLAs to perhaps review the way in which they serve their constituents, the way they think others should serve it, how we could resolve this problem, and perhaps for government to resolve the problem of cabinet ministers who have difficulty in dealing with their constituents.

We spend a lot of time trying to deal with the needs of people. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said the people felt threatened or lost contact. This government last year took the cabinet to many communities of this province, not to deal with big government or local government or organizations but to receive briefs from individuals and groups. There was no limitation to just dealing with local city councils, regional districts, boards of trade or labour unions; many individuals were given the opportunity to make briefs before the cabinet. It was the first opportunity many of them had.

In many cases, the things they brought up were those small problems that plague the people of this province from day to day that never get recognized in the ordinary conferences that take place between local government and the provincial government. In many cases they led to improvements in the relationship which local people had with government services. They brought to the attention of members of the government problems of which they normally wouldn't be aware. It did bring government to the people.

Contrary to the statements of the member for Vancouver Centre, this- government has taken very many steps to bring government closer to the people and allow them greater access. I know that besides government being taken to the people, travelling to hose communities and giving them every oppo