1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2337 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting petitions. Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2337

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

1974 BCR financial statement. Mr. Fraser

–– 2337

Expropriation of Baumgartner property. Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2337

Criminal threat from cocaine users. Mr. Wallace –– 2338

Talks with federal government on Vedder Mountain property. Mr. Schroeder ––

Fatality on Hope — Princeton Highway. Hon. Mr. Lea answers –– 2338

Sale of mobile homes. Mr. McClelland –– 2339

Cost of Marguerite refit. Mr. Curtis –– 2339

Columbia River document and Gottesman contract. Mr. Gibson. –– 2339

Columbia River inquiry. Mr. McGeer –– 2340

Revelstoke Hydro dam project. Mr. Chabot –– 2340

Education finance committee. Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2340

CNR — BCR Clinton — Ashcroft connection. Mr. Wallace –– 2340

Point of order Release of Hansard tape to the media. Mr. D.A. Anderson ––

Point of order Request for clarification of procedure in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Gibson –– 2342

Point of order Release of Hansard tape to the media. Mr. McGeer ––

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney — General

estimates.

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2345

Division on vote 12 –– 2346

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2346

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2346

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2346

On a point of order. Mr. L.A. Williams –– 2347

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 2347

Division on vote 13 –– 2347

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2348

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2351

Division on vote 14 –– 2351

Division on vote 15 –– 2351

Division on motion that the committee rise and report resolution ––

On a point of order. Mr. Morrison –– 2352

On a point of order. Mr. Chabot –– 2352

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2352

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2355

On a point of order. Mr. McClelland –– 2355

Division on vote 16 –– 2355

Division on vote 17 –– 2355

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2355

Division on vote 18 –– 2356

Division on vote 19 –– 2356

Division on motion that the committee rise and report resolution ––

On a point of order. Mr. Smith –– 2357

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2357

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I am sure

you will be pleased that in the gallery this afternoon we have

a very distinguished editor and publisher, Mr. Sid Govard, who

is the editor and publisher of the B.C. Orchardist . This

is an authoritative publication on the British Columbia tree

fruit industry.

It would further interest you, I am sure, to know that Sid

is a gentleman with a distinguished journalistic career, having

served and won his honours with the Manchester Guardian ,

latterly with The Vancouver Sun and The Province ,

and he also has the distinction of having served with another

illustrious journalist of our press gallery, Jim Hume, when Jim

was publisher and editor of the Penticton Herald . Mr.

Govard is a friend, a knowledgeable friend, of the B.C. fruit

industry. Some of them will know that he doesn't hesitate to

tell us where we go wrong. I would ask the House to welcome

this gentleman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome this afternoon a

group of students, some of whom are in the gallery now and some

of whom will be in at 2:30, accompanied by the teacher in

charge of their group, Mr. Pashak, from Langley Secondary

School.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the Member for

Nelson-Creston, I'd like to welcome to the Legislature 47

students from North Shore Elementary School in Nelson, B.C. The

students are comprised of grades 1 to 7, and I understand it's

the youngest group that has ever visited Victoria. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Hebig; chaperons Mrs.

Dought, Mike and Barb Brown, Mrs. Lock, Mrs. McKen, Mrs. Bryck,

Mrs. MacIlwaine and Mrs. Makasoff.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, later on this

afternoon we will have visiting with us from Bella Bella a

group of 25 native Indian students, and I ask the House to join

me in welcoming them.

Presenting petitions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to

present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member read out the petition

— that is, the operative plea?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"To the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

in Legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned, Olaf

Baumgartner, of Richmond, B.C., humbly showeth

(1) whereas my enjoyment

of my property at 1135 River Road in the municipality of Richmond is

being unduly hampered by the application of expropriation proceedings,

and (2)

whereas my personal liberty is in jeopardy as a result of my

efforts to protect my rights and my property, I hereby humbly pray that

your honorable House will move swiftly to consider legislative changes

in the expropriation field of the sort proposed by the Law Reform

Commission of British Columbia, thereby protecting others from the

problems which have befallen me; and as duty bound your petitioners

will ever pray.

Dated at Victoria, B.C. this 14th day of May, 1975."

Signed by Olaf Baumgartner and myself.

Oral questions.

1974 BCR FINANCIAL STATEMENT

MR. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question To the Premier as president of the British Columbia Railway.

I asked some time ago when we could expect the financial

statement of this operation for the year 1974. Could you advise

the House when we can receive the 1974 statement?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I still do not have

the 1974 statement. I am hoping that we will receive it before

the end of the month. As the House is aware, there was a change

of auditors. One of the former auditors has received a

suspension from his own association. More of that, of course,

will have to be discussed in the report itself and the bill

relating to it. Because we have new auditors and the previous

auditor received a suspension, and because of other problems

related to the accounts of the railway, there has been a delay

in preparing the report.

As soon as the report is available I'll file it in the

House. Then, of course, we'll be able to debate it during the

bill. I'm sure that all Members of the House, especially

Members of the opposition, look forward to that debate.

EXPROPRIATION OF BAUMGARTNER PROPERTY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General aware

that Mr. Olaf Baumgartner of 1135 River Road, Richmond, B.C.,

is now the subject of a warrant ordering his arrest and

incarceration as a result of his efforts to ensure adequate

compensation for

[ Page 2338 ]

expropriation of a right-of-way across his

property?

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

I'm not aware of any legal proceedings. I am aware of the

general problem, which is that he lives on the river. The law

requires that people living on the river dedicate enough of

their property by way of an easement to the Crown for the

purpose of diking and protection of that land, and that's all I

know about it. The part about legal proceedings underway at the

present time I can't answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Attorney-General then indicate to the Legislature when

legislation such as that recommended by the Law Reform

Commission in 1971 four years ago will be introduced to revise

this province's outdated expropriation laws so that the rights

of people, such as Baumgartner can be protected?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A bill will be tabled for first reading

at this session of the Legislature — and I'm referring to

the spring session. I would expect it would be furnished at

that time. But whether or not it will affect the laws of diking

insofar as the adjacent owner to a river should for the

protection of his land as well as the community dedicate a

portion so that the community can at their own expense build a

dike — I very much doubt if that will be affected by the

bill proposed to be tabled.

CRIMINAL THREAT FROM

COCAINE USERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General, in view of the evidence presented at a

supreme court trial in New Westminster by Dr. John Unwin

regarding the fact that all groups in society, including

15-year-olds, are using cocaine and that that use

is spreading right through the social structure of British

Columbia — and there's been another double murder which

appears to be related to the use of cocaine — and in view

of the fact that the effects of cocaine induce violent and

aggressive tendencies, has the Attorney-General ordered

any specific investigation of this new serious threat to

society from cocaine users?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the threat is

very real and perhaps even more real than in the case of

narcotics. It's a white death which is becoming more prevalent

as heroin becomes a little less prevalent in our society. We've

had through CLEU a very successful seizure of cocaine that was

being imported through an international ring from Peru

recently. It was about seven or eight days ago.

It's a matter of great concern to me.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could we not

have some assurance from the Attorney-General, though, in

view of this very serious threat, that some special emergency

measures can be taken, either by his department or through the

agency of CLEU to reassure the public that this is a matter

that the Attorney-General is very much aware of and is in

effect treating it as an emergency situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to consider

that, and I'd be very glad to speak with the Hon. Member

privately if he has any suggestion at all.

TALKS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

ON VEDDER MOUNTAIN PROPERTY

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The question is for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Have

negotiations with the Department of National Defence regarding

some 750 acres, more or less, of Vedder Mountain property

— that is, provincial Crown property — reached a

conclusion?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

There have been discussions, Mr. Speaker; there's no final conclusion that

I'm aware of.

MR. SCHROEDER: Would the Minister tell me whether the

negotiations are on the basis of a lease or fee simple?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would think that's negotiable,

although I think the federal Department of National Defence

would be interested in fee simple ownership.

FATALITY ON HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) questioned me in regard to a

fatality on the Hope-Princeton Highway. First, some

background. A Telex from the RCMP subdivision in Kamloops:

"At approximately 12:30 p.m." — that was on the 12th...

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'll continue.

"...two cars

were going towards one another. A car driven by Berthold

Stephen of Vancouver swerved to miss a pothole in the road and

went

[ Page 2339 ]

into the eastbound lane, colliding with a vehicle driven by Susannah

McGovern, the deceased, and another passenger" — it doesn't say which car she

was riding in — "was taken to hospital. Both of the other two people involved

in the accident had minor injuries, but Miss McGovern was pronounced dead on

arrival at the hospital."

The

section of road has now been repaired. The regional

highway engineer in Kamloops advises that this

section of the

Hope-Princeton suffers badly every year from spring

breakup. While the condition lasts, there are temporary markers

that are erected at rough spots and general warning signs

— "rough road ahead — so many miles." These signs

were posted.

The coroner's report hasn't been received by my department

yet. I have asked that the report be placed in my office so

that I can review it. If there is any action to be taken, it

will be taken.

SALE OF MOBILE HOMES

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Consumer Services. I'd like to ask the Minister whether she

has had any complaints about mobile–home owners who are

being told that they cannot sell their homes on privately owned

lots unless they move the home off the lot or pay a commission

to the lot owner. If she has, what action is her department

taking?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I take it

that you mean that the mobile–home owner cannot move the

home off a park owner's lot.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no — can't sell the home without

moving it off.

HON. MS. YOUNG: That's what I mean. But you said "privately

owned" pad which implied to me that the mobile–.... No, I have not had that kind of complaint but I can assure

the Member I have had quite a few of the others without an exit

fee. We are looking at that problem very closely in conjunction

with the Department of the Attorney-General and the

Department of Housing.

MR. McCLELLAND . Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there any protection

for the mobile–home owner in such a case, either under your legislation or

under the rentalsman legislation of the Attorney-General?

HON. MS. YOUNG: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, no there

is no protection.

COST OF MARGUERITE REFIT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard

to the former CPR vessel Princess Marguerite: I wonder if the

Minister is now able to advise the House of the approximate

dollar amount which will have been spent on this ship prior to

its commencement in the 1975 summer service between Victoria

and Seattle.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I can't give firm figures at this stage,

Mr. Speaker. There will be a press conference first thing

tomorrow morning with respect to the operational aspects of the

vessel.

What we've achieved is virtually the impossible in a short

period of time, replacing a service that the CPR had abandoned

for the capital city. As I indicated, there will be a bill

before the House, and we'll deal with the financial aspects in

the bill.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary to the Minister with respect to

this service. The Minister indicated in answer to an earlier

question that some form of Crown corporation was going to be

established to cover the operation of the vessel. Is there any

impediment in the absence of legislation passing through this

House before June 1 which would prevent the operation of that

service by June 1, which I understand is the date which has

been given?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the date is June 1. The Crown

corporation will be British Columbia Steamships

(1975) Ltd. I

am not aware of any impediment; our staff has satisfactory

arrangements with the comptroller-general.

COLUMBIA RIVER DOCUMENT,

AND GOTTESMAN CONTRACT

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

Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister. He has a

habit of taking embarrassing questions as notice and never

answering them in the hope that they will be forgotten. I want

to ask him when he's prepared to answer two questions I have

asked him, one two months old. When is he going to make public

that 10-page document on the Columbia River that Hydro

gave to CBC, a public corporation, which should be a public

document?

Secondly, a question over six months old: when is he going

to table the contract with Gottesman of a year ago, which is no

longer commercially confidential?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I indicated that we would be tabling the

Ocean Falls contract, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the other, there will be a

[ Page 2340 ]

commission announced in due course and all of that material

will be available to the commission.

COLUMBIA RIVER INQUIRY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Premier to ask whether any progress had been

made to set up this inquiry under the Columbia River treaty.

Many Members, including myself, are anxious for this to get

underway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate your anxiety

because it affects your particular immediate political future.

(Laughter.) I know that you wouldn't wish to join a party that

brought that disaster upon this province. The inquiry will go

ahead very quickly.

REVELSTOKE HYDRO DAM PROJECT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. In view of B.C. Hydro's stated

intention to switch to coal for power generation, can the

Minister advise whether this indicates that the proposed Hydro

dam project near Revelstoke has been cancelled?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: There is no question that the matter is

still being analyzed, Mr. Speaker. But we should make it clear

that most of the downstream benefit from the Columbia treaty of

course went to the Americans. There remain some benefits in

terms of machines on the river itself in Canada. That's why the

Revelstoke project is still actively being investigated. An

environmental analysis is still underway with the secretariat,

B.C. Hydro and consultants.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. The Minister talks about

power costs. What is the anticipated per kilowatt cost of

future power to be developed at site 1 on the Peace River and

on the Pend D'Oreille River near Trail?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the Pend d'Oreille — I

shouldn't by saying that to that Member. At any rate, if my

memory, serves me — I don't have a current figure in

terms of mill prices for the power because of inflation —

but at the time of the previous energy board report, I believe

they were in the slightly below 7 mill range. You have to apply

the standard inflationary factor, I believe.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary. Would that be about 3.5 times

more costly than power to be generated at Mica?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we can do our own

arithmetic.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not if you count all the losses

downstream and all the benefits that we could have had.

EDUCATION FINANCE COMMITTEE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education: with

respect to the committee on educational finance which the

Minister announced to the House some time ago, may I ask her

whether this committee has met and, if so, how many times it

has met?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I can't give the

exact number of times, but I know they have had quite a number

of meetings — and that is the committee of department

officials, representatives of the BCTF officials, and the B.C.

school trustee officials. I can take that as notice to give you

the number of times they've meat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll just accept the Minister's assurance

that they have met more than once.

CNR-BCR CLINTON-ASHCROFT CONNECTION

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Premier, as president of

the railway, a question in relation to a statement made in the

federal House by Transport Minister Jean Marchand to the effect

that negotiations with CNR and BCR regarding the Clinton-Ashcroft connection are proving to be very lengthy and

tortuous. He, in fact, predicted that it would not go ahead

until 1978.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going

on. They are proving to be lengthy, but the past experience,

both with the previous administration and the present

government, in dealing with railway matters with the federal

government is that we've found that it's best to have

everything nailed down before we sign any agreement.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick supplementary. Does the Premier

feel, then, that it may well be 1978 before agreement is

reached, or why was that figure plucked out of the air —

it's three years ahead? Is it to be understood by the people in

British Columbia — and there's a great deal of concern

about the inefficient transportation system during the months

because of problems in the Fraser Canyon — that the

Premier's feeling that that 1978 prediction might prove to be

correct?

[ Page 2341 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, of what the

Hon. Mr. Marchand based the 1978 figure on, but I would hope

that it wouldn't take that long. I don't see problems

necessarily that large for that amount of time to take

place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It's my

understanding that under the provisions of standing order 129....

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) would be seated for a minute? I'll recognize

him in due course. One at a time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Under the provision of standing order

129, Mr. Speaker, you gave authority to various broadcasters to

utilize the magnetic tape recordings of last night's

proceedings. This is, I believe, from my reading of the rules,

entirely within your prerogative. But I would like to know, for

the information of the House, whether it is now your intention

that the magnetic tape recordings be made available to the

media at the conclusion of each day's proceedings.

As a second question, which I believe should be discussed at

the same time: does this mean we will have a departure from the

present practice to allow the draft Hansard — the

Blues of Hansard which is the report taken from the tape

— to be made available to the media as well?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, on the first question, that the reason

for the release of it, after it had been duly checked, under

standing order 129, was to meet any suggestion that was given

to the press last night that there was any attempt to suggest

that the two Members were expelled by some agreement between

the Speaker and anyone else, or the Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole House and anyone else.

It was a deplorable statement in view of the fact that it

was utterly untrue, and the illustration of the facts are

clearly presented on the tapes themselves, which would let the

public know that any such suggestion was false. For that reason

I deemed it in the interests of this House and of the dignity

of parliament that the public know precisely what happened in

this House last night so there'll be no suggestion that the

Chair is influenced by anyone, particularly by the government,

in making decisions. Those decisions have to be made by our

books of authority and under our standing orders, and I don't

accept anything other than suggestions from any Member of the

House. I certainly would not take any dictation from anyone, as

was suggested by the reports that I heard last night.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you for your clear exposition as to why last

night's proceedings were made public, but my question really was: is it your

intention in the future that magnetic tape recordings of the day's proceedings

be made available to the media at the end of the day? Also, will the draft Hansard ,

which is taken from the tapes, be made available as well?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be glad to answer those questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The only thing I would add as a result of

your comments is if it is possible for imputations against

Members or the Speaker to be corrected in this way, what

procedure should be followed by Members of this assembly who

wish to have the magnetic tape made available? Do we appeal to

you? How is it done?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be a useful consideration in

this way. As you all know, I am in favour of the broadcasting

of the debates of this House to the people, but there are

technical difficulties that still exist in trying to implement

that on a large scale. That is the problem I have at the moment

to implement such a programme. Consequently, although it is

simply enough to take a small segment of the day and give it to

the press, it is not quite so easy to do it on a larger scale

daily and properly and efficiently without considerable

expense.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): And without bias.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the members of the public will be able

to judge the proceedings of this House as they hear them when

they have that opportunity.

The second point is with regard to the proof copies —

which is the proper name for them — of Hansard . It

is difficult to make sure that they are correct, as the Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) so vividly described

yesterday when he pointed out that Hansard , mistakenly,

had thought that the Liquor Control Board" was the proper

description when in fact he described it correctly himself, and

it had been altered in the proofs. That sort of thing makes it

dangerous, of course, to the Hon. Members if they are released

prematurely without very careful consideration.

Since the Speaker has the duty under the standing order to

make sure that before they are released to the public they are

correct, I find it an onerous responsibility to give them out,

knowing that I would be blamed by the Members if it turned out

that a mistake was made by Hansard on the remarks by the Hon. Member for Columbia River particularly.

So, as it stands, I will keep looking at the problem.

[ Page 2342 ]

I will try to speed the Hansard proofs up. They're

faster than they were. If Members will co-operate they

can get copies of them in the morning by 11 o'clock. If they

can get them back by noon it is possible to get the

Hansard final copies rushed out, and I would like to see

copies go as early as possible to the press.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave

to move a motion under the provisions of standing order 49, for

the third time of asking: that the provisions included in

standing order 45 (3), Committee of Supply, on page 18, shall

not be limited unless and until full debate has been completed

on each of the remaining estimates by the Members of this

Legislative Assembly. So moved.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid there is not unanimous leave at

this moment.

MRS. JORDAN: Who said so?

MR. SPEAKER: I heard three or four. I'm positive of

that.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a no. Perhaps you

could call the vote again.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sitting where I can hear both sides

of the House, and I heard noes, a number of them, and I must

believe my ears.

MR. SMITH: I bow to your hearing, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has had

almost four months to make that motion in the usual way and put

it on the order paper on two days' notice, and has failed to do

so.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, the

government has had equally as long to determine what they were

going to do with regard to estimates in this House. And what

have they done? Pulled them!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member standing on a

point of order?

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

first.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, last night, just before the adjournment hour,

Your Honour undertook to consider the important question as to whether a private

Member could move under the operation of rule 45 that the committee rise and

report progress. I was wondering, since it may have some influence on the debate

today, whether Your Honour has had a chance to complete consideration of that

question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Don't discourage him. I've been called

everything now, including "Your Grace." (Laughter.) I don't

feel very religious, however.

MR. GIBSON: Not a saving grace.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, unfortunately, is one that the

House has already decided by the motion that was made by a

private Member, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer), yesterday. I have had the opportunity to

peruse the proofs of the debate at that time and it appears

evident that the House did make a decision that where a private

Member moves the motion, the House passes judgment on it.

In the meantime, because it is a serious matter, I have been

in discussions with my Clerks and with the Clerks in Ottawa,

where they just last night passed without any delay, hesitation

or interruption their estimates in one fell swoop. That didn't

help me any.

MR. GIBSON: It didn't help us any, either.

MR. SPEAKER: No. I'm not suggesting what you should do here;

I'm suggesting though that I had a look at it from the

standpoint that I cannot make decisions until they occur before

me. I can try to make suggestions, when asked to do so, but you

cannot make rulings in anticipation. The House has, in effect,

made a ruling in fact on the motion made by the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), if you look

in the proceedings of yesterday. So I am still considering the

matter.

Now the House, when it goes into committee, will have to

carry on as best it can and rely upon the rulings it will

either uphold or not, and bring them to the House for decision

by the House as a whole. The Chairman and the Speaker are not

in a position of making rules. That's for the House to do.

Our job is, where it's possible, to try and interpret what

the House intended. But we cannot go beyond, I would think, a

reasonable

interpretation, as we can see it, from what the

House was intending. If we are in doubt, it really is our duty

to throw it back to the House to say what they did mean.

MR. GIBSON: A point of order, Sir. The question that was

before you was the

interpretation of the vote of the House on

Monday that in fact a motion of

[ Page 2343 ]

that kind in committee, while rule 45 was in operation, was

in fact in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The House did decide the matter on Monday and

the matter was decided on Tuesday. In both instances, as

I recall it — I think if we look at the proceedings you

will see it — a motion was accepted from the government

which was protested and taken to the House for decision.

Further, on Tuesday, a motion was proposed by the Hon. Member

for Vancouver-Point Grey, rejected by the Committee of

the Whole House, taken to the House and the House decided, not

the Speaker, in both cases.

MR. GIBSON: No, the House, indeed, decided on Monday that a

motion of that kind was in order but it has not, to the best of

my knowledge, decided from which corner of the House it might

be in order. That is the question which was brought before you

last night under the provisions of May

providing for....

MR. SPEAKER: Then all I can say is that when the occasion

arises, I would prefer that the matter came up and not in

anticipation. You are asking me to interpret something on which

I don't have the facts and was not presented as the point of

order. If that point of order is raised by you, then it will

not have to be in anticipation if it occurs again.

MR. GIBSON: But the matter was brought before you, Mr.

Speaker, under the

section of May , page 341, titled:

"Matters Requiring Immediate Intervention of the House."

(That's the 18th edition.) You may recall that the Chairman

reported progress and reported to you that this matter had been

raised.

MR. SPEAKER: But as I pointed out to you, it wasn't on a

motion of the House. He came out of the committee to ask for an

opinion, and at this stage I am not prepared to make it until

the matter comes up and is not merely in anticipation. What you

are arguing about amounts to a theoretical point at this stage

unless that exact point of order comes up again, as I see it.

Now that's my recollection; I may be wrong, but I think that's

true.

MR. GIBSON: I would have thought the intention of this kind

of reference to Your Honour was to obtain a decision in advance

of need in order that the conduct of the committee might be

better governed, but we can proceed the other way.

MR. SPEAKER: You know the rules.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the Member's attention

that I was concerned as well about this point in asking the Speaker. I think

the advice from the Chair, as I interpret it, is to deal

with the matter not in anticipation but when it arises. I would

suggest that we follow that course because that is surely what

the Speaker is suggesting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather from what you have said, Mr.

Speaker, that it will be possible to take it to you for your

judgment...

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what he's saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and it will not simply be the

confirming or otherwise of a vote of the committee. The whole

purpose of my referring to May , page 431, last night to

bring this to your attention in this way was as a result of

your intervention in the preceding period, saying you had not

been properly charged with the matter. When you were charged

with the matter by the Chairman of the committee, we assumed

there would be some sort of guidance for the House. The dilemma

we face is that if we follow the course of action of merely

waiting for the problem to arise, we will then be put in a

position of voting on upholding or otherwise the rule of the

Chairman, and you will not have an opportunity of giving us

your words of wisdom and your learned counsel on this matter.

The whole purpose of asking for a declaratory opinion from you

was to make sure that when we do vote and when the Chairman

does indeed make his decision, he has had the opportunity of

being guided by your advice. If we adopt your present

suggestion, which is to wait until the matter actually occurs,

wait until the eventuality actually takes place, we will be

waiting until the rules of the House will prevent you in all

likelihood from making any judgment because it will simply be

an automatic confirmation of a vote of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that all the advice I could

tender at the time yesterday was merely advisory in the sense

that I had looked at the rules to some extent in a cursory way

because, as you can realize, you have to go through a lot of

reading to find something on this point, and it's practically

impossible to find anything except by analogy. Therefore I did

cite to the Members, as you will see if you look at the

statement I made in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings ,

particularly in the last paragraph of my statement there.

May then goes on to state: "On days on which proceedings

under the order are to be brought to a conclusion" —

which was the case of standing order 45A — "or in some

cases on any allotted day, dilatory motions," —

which would be the kind that was proposed by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey — "or that the Chairman report

progress or leave the Chair, are forbidden unless moved by the

government when the question thereon is to be put without

amendment or debate."

[ Page 2344 ]

Now that's quite a different case, as I pointed out, from

estimates, where you are in debate, and it says: "where they

are being put without amendment or debate."

I have no other citation so far on this, although I have

been looking at this matter and I have been in consultation

with the Clerks in Ottawa on the question. They have a standing

order 58 which may be of some assistance, but not

necessarily.

Therefore I rely to some extent on the wise counsel of Mr.

Speaker Lamoureaux, as he was on July 24, 1969, where he in

effect advises the House in Ottawa that he feels that this is a

matter with which he should not deal in anticipation. Although

he was asked his advice in that case by Mr. Knowles under

standing order 51 of their House, he refused to give his

advice and thought that it was a matter better left to the

House or a rules committee of the House.

I have given you the advice that I can; it is not for me to

say what you do with it. If you decide in favour of it, that is

your decision. It should not be left to the Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: (Mike not on.) ...and/or the government is

prepared to give us the undertaking that we will in fact be

able to test this question when we next go into Committee of

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: I imagine it is easy to do.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been

trying for some time to catch your attention about the point of

order raised earlier by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) concerning the apparent release of material

recorded in debate. It had been my assumption initially that

some kind of a bootleg version must have been obtained by the

press and that in fact release had not been authorized.

MR. SPEAKER: I think my statement along with it made it

clear.

MR. McGEER: Yes. I think we need a little bit of

interpretation and guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, because rule

129(5) states: "That Mr. Speaker, may, on request in writing

of any Member, use the magnetic-tape record to verify the

words spoken by that Member...."

MR. SPEAKER: That is not the

section upon which I relied. I

think the Member is mistaken.

MR. McGEER: Yes. That subsection and the one following — That any Member

may challenge the accuracy of the magnetic-tape record in cases where he alleges

that words spoken by him have been attributed to another Member or vice versa

.... — clearly indicate to me that individual Members of this House have

some rights to scrutiny of the tapes and any written

interpretation of them.

That is why we have the Blues and an opportunity to record them.

What we need explained to us, Mr. Speaker, is under what

circumstances sections may be released, even if the media

requests it, without Members having had an opportunity to hear

what has been said and to verify whether or not it was their

voices that have in fact been heard.

MR. SPEAKER: I assure the Hon. Members that right in the

chamber at this present time are the master tapes, which are

not moved out, which are there now, which duplicate the ones

that are sent down to the Hansard office. Anyone who

feels the least doubt that Hansard is inaccurate in

regard to the recording of the tapes (I have listened to them

myself and I'm quite convinced they are absolutely accurate)

can, if he wishes to satisfy himself, do so in the proper

fashion under that standing order. In the meantime, however,

the public use, employment, publication, transmission or

broadcast outside the House of the magnetic-tape records

of said debates or any portion thereof is prohibited without

the express authority of the Speaker. In these circumstances of

the public good, I felt that the public should know precisely

what happened so that no stories would be going around to an

opposite affect.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just speaking further to that, of

course what is involved obviously is a transcript in which

Members may have made statements that wrongly are interpreted

by the magnetic tape. It is not always easy to make out voices

clearly when microphones are cut off. I am really asking for

clarification regarding the circumstances under which it would

be appropriate to release these magnetic tapes at the request

of the media without it first being discussed with the Members

involved and the courtesy identification being permitted by

those Members.

MR. SPEAKER: In this particular extraordinary circumstance, I think

you realize that the Chairman was on his feet trying to report from committee

to the Speaker. The Speaker then was on his feet trying to obtain order. The

only persons who were really privileged to speak were those under our rules

who had the right to speak. The other voices that are in the background make

it pretty clear that there was considerable noise and that the orders of the

Chair were not being obeyed. That is what the transcript clearly shows in the

recording, as it will in the copies of Hansard . No Member need fear that anything

untoward happened to him so far as the transcripts are concerned. I certainly

am not at all afraid to have

[ Page

2345 ]

my voice on that tape saying what I said last night.

MRS. JORDAN: May we release all the recordings of your

voice?

MR. CHABOT: An additional point of order on the same matter,

Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if you could advise me whether the

release and the broadcast of those takes from Hansard

jeopardizes the immunity which we enjoy in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I looked at it very carefully from that

point of view and I am pleased to say that I could see nothing

in that that in any way conflicted with the report of Dr.

McWhinney on the subject.

MR. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am

just wondering, in light of your comment of a moment ago, if I

could have some clarification of

section 129(2), where:

"The public use, employment, transmission or broadcast is

prohibited without the express authority of Mr. Speaker."

How does this

interpretation relate, for example, to the

request of an individual Member who considers circumstances

might be extraordinary and would seek justification of his

position, as you sought to explain your position?

MR. SPEAKER: I would be delighted if many Members made the

same request as the press for a copy of something that they've

said that they feel bears heavily upon either their character,

their reputation, their integrity or the full, fair

presentation of the facts of what happened in the chamber so

far as that Member was concerned. I think it's better,

actually, than bringing up these breaches of privilege motions

that come from time to time.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: You have what? A point of privilege?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, just speaking of integrity and

one's reputation, I wonder if the Premier would advise the

House if he's going to sign this document that's on his

desk?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm afraid that the Hon. Member

has no standing on that point.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 12: executive and administrative, $865,448 —

continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members

who are rising on points of order to so indicate when they

rise. The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of

order.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I am

rising to speak on vote 12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order. Would the

Hon. Member be seated unless he is making a point of order?

MR. SMITH: I am not making a point of order; I am rising on

behalf of the people of the Province of British Columbia to

speak on vote 12....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: ...as I was duly elected to do in this House....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member, under

standing order 45, be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I order the Hon. Member to be

seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For a third time, I order the Hon. Member to

be seated.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: Let it be duly recorded that I take my seat in protest.

[ Page 2346 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I rise in my

place to explain that it's not possible for me to vote on the

estimates of the Attorney-General when it's not possible

for me to get an explanation from him as to whether he allows

charges of perjury...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...to go unchallenged. Therefore I have

no intention of voting on this vote because I cannot get a

reply from the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Vote 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Gorst

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 13: justice planning, $7,880,171.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a

point of order.

MR. SMITH: My point of order is simply this: under the

provisions of the election of Members to this assembly, I claim

my right to speak on vote 13. I claim my right as a

duly — elected Member of this Legislative Assembly to speak

on vote 13 and any other vote that grants supply to the

Minister of the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the Hon. Member

is free to speak under the rules of this House. However, under standing order

45, debate is forbidden on these votes. Therefore the Hon. Member, under the

rules, is not able to speak at this point, except on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, 135 hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated unless he has

a further point of order?

MR. SMITH: This is a complete disregard for the process of

parliament.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a point of order.

Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

MR. SMITH: Any time the House abuses the Members of this

House, this assembly, by denying them their constitutional

rights and their democratic rights to debate the estimates of

this House, it's an abuse of the rules of this House, and it's

an abuse of the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member take his

seat please, unless he has a point of order?

MR. SMITH: That is a point of order, in my estimation, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has ruled that there

is no debate on these votes, under standing order 45A.

MR. SMITH: Do you rule that that is not a point of

order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's the ruling.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply on

consideration of vote 13, the Hon. Member for North Peace River

rose on a point of order. His point was that he should have the

right to debate on these votes. However, the Chair ruled that

under standing order 45A he is not entitled to debate at this

time. He challenged my ruling.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

[ Page 2347 ]

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

Kilig

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the Chair.

On vote 13: justice planning, $7,880,171

— continued.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a

point of order. In previous parliaments it has been the conduct

in the Committee of Supply for the House Leader, when

presenting the vote to the table, to read out the amount of

money that is involved. This has not been the practice in the

last couple of years. I wonder if this practice is to be

resumed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

will certainly do that. Okay? From here on in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the House Leader for that because

it's the only way we can check whether our estimate books are

accurate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Quite.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wanted to know whether vote 13...and

since you have the vote, could you tell me if vote 13 is

$7,880,171?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! It's not necessary to

ask questions — there's no debate — that I would

consider as part of debate. The Hon. House Leader has indicated

she will read the amount on each occasion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You've got 13 now; what is it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, will you tell me what the amount

is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amount is $7,880,171.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

we're not getting very far this afternoon, and I move that you

do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Wallace

NAYS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 13 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

[ Page 2348 ]

Gibson

McGeer

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 14: legal services, $6,447,738.

MR. SMITH: Would the Chairman be so kind as to advise me

when we are dealing with a vote which includes a number of new

departments...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state his....

MR. SMITH: ...why we should vote $6,447,738 of expenditure

without debate?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated. I order

the Hon. Member to be seated. I order the Hon. Member to be

seated. Would the Hon. Member be seated? Order, please! If the

Hon. Member does not take his seat I will be obliged to report

the matter to the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply in

consideration of vote 14, the Hon. Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) rose in his place. I asked the Hon. Member to state

his point of order; he did not state a point of order but

rather debated the particular vote, contrary to standing order

45. I ordered him to be seated and he did not obey my

order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member if he would be

prepared to comply with standing order that requires him to

take his seat when he is asked to do so by the Chair.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Then the Chairman should

comply with the rules of the House.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon not only

the Members who are seated in the Legislature but also the

Chairman and the Speaker to apply or be guided by the rules of

the Legislature.

There is nothing to prevent a Member of this House from

rising on a point of order. I think my point of order was

legitimate. I asked an explanation of why we were required to

vote on estimates which had never been before this House

before, and even before I made my point, the Chairman of

committee was on his feet ruling me out of order. Now, surely

to goodness, we can preserve a little bit of democracy in this

House. Just a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

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

standing order clearly says that there shall be no debate, but

it is also the prerogative and the duty of the Chair to

determine whether, in fact, a point of order is involved. If,

in the opinion of the Chair, under standing orders, it is not a

point of order and he so rules that it is not a point of order,

then obviously the Hon. Member is in error and must take his

seat when he is requested to do so. The problem here is that

the Hon. Member did not obey the legitimate order of the Chair

to take his seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're as bad as the Chairman.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, with due regard for your position

and the position of Chairman, surely to goodness it is

incumbent upon a Chairman....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute now. Would the Hon. Member be

seated? I am not complaining about his conduct, but I am about

the Hon. Member for Langley for saying that I am worse than a

Chairman. I have tried to explain this matter of order and I

find it rather reprehensible. I am trying to listen patiently.

I know perfectly well, as does every Member, that there is no

debate under standing order 45A, that the only thing before the

committee is to vote on the particular estimates presented to

the committee. Those estimates are well known to each Member.

He has copies of them in his book, and if he wants to know the

amount, he can find out.

The point is that there is nothing you can do to say it is a

point of order, to ask whether or not there are any new

estimates or any new votes in that vote, because, as you

pointed out....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, As you know, it doesn't matter.

Asking questions is tantamount to making a debate.

Consequently, to suggest that the Chair could do anything else,

I find extraordinary. If the Hon. Member for Langley has a

suggestion how you can violate standing order 45 by having a

debate and asking questions, then I would like his

authority.

[ Page 2349 ]

But to criticize the Chair for clearly following standing

order 45A is, I think, really an insult to the Chair. The Chair

didn't make these rules, you know. The House did.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the

rule; it has to do with the Chairman allowing a Member to make

his point of order. There is no possible way in the world that

the Chairman can rule on a point of order before he hears it.

That is what he did. The Member never had more than about four

or five words out of his mouth before the Chairman stood

up.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member will agree, all Hon. Members....

MR. McCLELLAND: You weren't in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure I was here. But the point is that

whether I was here or not, the report that I got from the Chair....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The report I got from the Chair was that the Hon.

Member had failed to take his seat when ordered to do so. The point is that

I would not ask the Member to leave the House. I would hope that we could observe

the courtesies towards each other and deal properly under the orders and the

rules of this House.

I would ask the Hon. Member if he would state his point of

order first and not embark upon any other dissertation other

than the exact point of order so the Chairman can be guided by

your objections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, would you suggest the Chairman

be returned to the chair to listen to my point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have asked him to do that.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He's under your thumb all

the time. That's the problem.

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

On vote 14: legal services, $6,447,738 — continued.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The reason for asking the Hon.

Member to take his seat is so I can make a comment in order

that I can explain to him how a point of order should be taken.

Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated so I may

make a point of order?

Would the Hon. Member be seated so that I may make a point

of order in regard to the...?

MR. SMITH: What about my point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) be seated for a moment,

please?

The Chair also has the right to make a comment if it is

required by the standing orders or by the situation. The Chair

simply seeks to exercise that right and responsibility.

In regard to the Hon. Member for North Peace River, if an

Hon. Member wishes to make a point of order, he should rise in

his place and say, "I rise on a point of order," so that

it is quite clear that this is what is being done.

Secondly, the Hon. Member should quickly get to the point in

terms of the rules upon which he is making his point and not

begin to embark upon a debate upon the particular matter which

we have before us. My point was that the Hon. Member was

clearly embarking upon a debate rather than stating a point of

order. I would ask the Hon. Member to stand and to make his

point of order again.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have a duty

to this House to be impartial in the authority that you have

before you and to listen to points of order before you rule

them out of order.

My point of order is simply this. Under vote 14 we have over

$3 million in new provisions and in new areas of this

department which have never been before this House for debate

before. I suggest to you that it is completely unfair to the

Members of this House to ask them to pass without comment,

without debate, those estimates which have never been before

this House before. I ask you to seriously consider if this is

not an abuse of the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, clearly

we are governed by standing order 45A and therefore no debate

is permitted, even if the Hon. Member thinks that he would like

to. The fact is that the standing orders are quite clear.

[ Page 2350 ]

MR. SMITH: On a further point of order, since when, in this

House, has either the Chairman or the Speaker, when he's in the

chair, not had some latitude in listening to points of order by

Members of the House, particularly in a situation such as we

are involved in at the present time? I ask you to seriously

consider the point that I have made as a point of order, and

suggest to you that it is an abuse of every Member of this

House, including the Members of the government. I ask you to

consider it before you get so hasty with that hammer.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, further

to that point of order, if that's what you can tag it, we have

been subjugated to 135 hours of frivolous debate from the

opposition so that they could do exactly what they're doing

now. I would just like that to be on the record along with the

rest of the frivolousness that has been put forth in this House

since we sat last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. There is no point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I am just startled by the

audacity and the nerve of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) to stand up in this House and suggest that three and a

half hours...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan...?

MRS. JORDAN: ...for $700 million is sufficient. The Premier

may have that much confidence in him but the people of British

Columbia don't. Three and a half hours for $700 million!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state her

point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: You have your gall. No wonder you had to have

an early nomination!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

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

ruling to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

indicate that government Members can make partisan statements

in this House without any limitation, and that then we in the

opposition are not permitted to stand up and answer them? Is

that what that indicates? That's what's been going on during

this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) indicated that he wished to have a little

longer in order to make his point of order. I granted that

request and then ruled that his point was not in order.

Similarly, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was out of

order.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, we're

dealing with $6,447,000 of taxpayers' money. I'm wondering,

Mr. Chairman, whether you could advise me whether I'm in order

in asking this, because these are not our dollars; they belong

to the taxpayers. All the people in the galleries help

contribute....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member get to his point,

please?

MR. CHABOT: My point is that I am sure that they're appalled

in the gallery today to see this kind of $6.5 million vote go

by without so much as the ability of Members of the

Legislature, who happen to represent various constituents and

areas in the province, to ask questions to see whether there is

wisdom in the expenditures....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is clearly

beginning to debate the vote. I would ask him to state his

point of order, then take his seat and let me rule on his point

of order.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I'm wondering if there

would be some way of canvassing the gallery, who are the people

who help contribute that $6.5 million which we are about to

vote on without the right of debate. Maybe they have something

to say. Maybe they want to speak out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

Shall vote 14 pass?

So ordered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in the middle of a division. If it's a

point of order in connection with the division only, in the

procedure on the division....

MR. SMITH: It's in connection with the division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Procedure only, on the division.

[ Page 2351 ]

MR. SMITH: In rising and calling a division, you asked for a

vote. I heard many noes, but no yeas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's probably why the

division was called. I think the Hon. Member's point is not

well-taken. Anyone can call for a division in order to

clarify the situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should refrain from making points

of order in the middle of a division, unless it's critical. If

the Hon. Member has a critical point on the procedure, would

she make it, please?

MRS. JORDAN: I just wonder if the fact that there were no

ayes heard isn't in fact, an indication that the government

Members are lacking in competence in the procedures of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This point has been made. Would

the Members please refrain from interrupting the Clerks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Peace River on a point of

order.

MR. SMITH: I'm somewhat puzzled; perhaps you could give us

some clarification for all of the Members of the House. As I

heard the vote put, there were many noes and no yeses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: On conclusion of that, you said, "so ordered."

Does that mean that the vote has been refused by the Members of

the House, or that it is accepted by the Members of the House,

in your estimation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order: the

Chair makes an assessment, listens to both the ayes and the

nays and determines which side won. Then any Member can call

for a division to clarify the situation. This has been done.

Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

MR. SMITH: No, not until you've clarified the point. Have

you accepted the vote as being passed or are you saying to the

House that the vote was negated? Which way, Mr. Chairman?

MRS. JORDAN: We want to know your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair was that the vote

passed. However, a division was called.

MRS. JORDAN: On what basis? There were no ayes.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Down at this end of the House, clearly we could hear no noes;

it surely must have been all ayes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

Vote 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 15: manpower development, $1,241,332 — approved on

the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

[ Page 2352 ]

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report

resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Wallace

NAYS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order: on vote

15, when the division bells were rung...I would like to draw

your attention to standing order 16(2), which says that the

division bell should allow not less than two minutes nor more

than five.

I missed the vote on 15 because the five-minute time

did not elapse, and it is my understanding that the Chairman

did not ask for leave to carry the vote prior to that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rule is that it is no less than two, no

more than five. I wasn't in the Chair at that time, but I think

that the five minutes was taken. In any case, I will be sure

that we have the five minutes.

MR. MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But the Speaker made the statement

yesterday, when we were discussing this particular point, that he would wait

the full five minutes or ask for leave.

On vote 16: courts, $12,604,705.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, the Member for

Columbia River?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I represent

the electoral district of Columbia River, and when I was

elected in 1972, the people asked me....

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

MR. CHABOT: That's my point of order: the people asked me to

come down here and scrutinize the expenditure of their tax

dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I have a responsibility to the people I

represent...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...to scrutinize the expenditure of tax

dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now we have a vote that we are discussing here,

which is $8 million more than it was last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You must take your seat. I ask the Member to

take his seat.

You are well aware of rule 45, and there is no point of

order at this time.

Interjections.

[ Page 2353 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no debate on my ruling in that

respect.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have no order. There is no point of

order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you call a recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no recess. We are waiting for the

Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee was dealing with

vote 16, and the Member for Columbia River requested to speak

on it. He raised a point of order that he wanted to debate the

matter. I told him he had no point of order. He challenged my

ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: How does the Hon. Member rationalize that

statement with a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order was, Mr. Speaker, that I was

given a mandate by the people I represent in the electoral

district of Columbia River to scrutinize the expenditure of tax

dollars to ensure there is no waste and extravagance in

government. I feel that the only way I can possibly do this,

Mr. Speaker, is by having the opportunity to debate the various

votes in the estimates.

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

MR. CHABOT: I have one more point, Mr. Speaker.

In this one in particular, we are debating one which is a

$12 million vote, which is substantially greater than last

year. Last year it was $4 million; now we are looking at a 200

per cent increase in expenditures.

We have a right...

MR. SPEAKER: Under what standing order is that?

MR. CHABOT: ...to ask questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member indicate the standing

order in which he says he has a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Well....

MR. SPEAKER: What standing order?

MR. CHABOT: I was given a mandate. Certainly, Mr. Speaker,

you recognize the rights of people to elect Members, and what

their responsibilities are as Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Hon. Member....

MR. CHABOT: Their responsibility is to serve the people in

their riding, and not only....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment

while I explain the points of order?

In the first place, I think the Hon. Member would concede

that if somebody else had the floor he would not be entitled,

by reason of standing orders, to stand up and speak, despite

somebody else having the floor. I think we can agree on that

point. Is that correct? — and he gets that from standing

order 5. Therefore he looks to standing orders for the rules of

the House.

Now he has not indicated the standing order on which he can

found a point of order; consequently it is not a point of

order. Not being a point of order, it should not really be

recognized by the Chair.

How could it, therefore, in my opinion, be challenged,

because it isn't a point of order? If you found it in standing

orders, I would be the first to recognize that, and the House

could deal with the question as to whether it's a point of

order. But you have not indicated by virtue of what

section of

our rules you can base yourself on a complaint that your rights

are being violated.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting for a moment that the

standing orders deny me the right to speak in this

assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all, as long as you comply with the

standing orders. If you had said that there was a standing

order that gave you the right to claim that you were being

denied the right to speak, then I would say that you would have

a case upon which the Chairman could rule. But how can the

Chairman rule on something that you have not presented to him

under our rules? Nothing you have said indicates any

justification for pointing out a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I was challenging rule 45A which

really denies me the right to speak in the estimates and the

debate of the $3.2 million budget which we have before us.

MR. SPEAKER: Most Members have accepted the fact that

standing order 45A exists, and many of them are complaining

about it. Now you are suggesting that it is invalid —

that it has no operation.

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2354 ]

that it's an undemocratic rule. It's one which denies the

right of elected Members in this province to fully scrutinize

the expenditures, the wisdom or the lack of wisdom of the

expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously...I can see that is the

question.

MR. CHABOT: I am being denied that right. I am being denied

that right under the standing orders which have been railroaded

through in this House by an overwhelming, crushing majority of

that government — 38 Members against the wishes of the

people. I'm sure if the people....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a minute?

I'd like to explain to the Hon. Member that the proper course

to follow in objecting to a rule that the Member does not like

— it's obvious that the Member does not like this rule

— is to put a motion on the order paper asking that it be

changed, and getting the House to agree with him. Then he can

debate to his heart's content — and for the full time

permitted under the rules — the question of a different

rule. But as it stands, there is a rule and the Hon. Member has

not suggested any way in which he has raised a point of

order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour just invited the Hon.

Member and the House, inferentially, to advise under what rule

they might rise to quote a point of order of this kind. I draw

your attention to May , 18th edition, page 430 — "Right of

Members to Direct the Attention of the Chair to Supposed

Breaches of Order" — I'll just read a paragraph here:

"Although it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the

first instance for the preservation of order when, in his

judgment, the occasion demands his interference, it is also the

right of any Member who conceives that a breach of order has

been committed, if the Speaker refrains from interfering

(either because he does not consider it necessary to do so or

because he does not perceive that a breach of order has been

committed) to rise in his place, interrupting any Member who

may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the

matter, provided he does so the moment the alleged breach of

order occurs."

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that that refers

to where a Member is out of order and another Member draws the

attention of the Chair to the fact that the Member is in breach

of the rules of the House.

MR. GIBSON: But, but....

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't apply to a question such as this

where a Member is rising on what he claims to be a point of

order, but does not tell the Chair or the House what the point

of order is that in any way bears upon the rules set out in our

standing orders. He certainly must direct the Chair to that in

order that the Chair can say it's even a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: But it also applies to the case when the Member

may feel that the Chair is out of order. The Chair having made

a ruling in this particular case, what has been done now is

that the Hon. Member challenged the Chair. The Chair has made a

ruling; the Chair has been challenged. I suggest, Sir, that it

is incumbent on you to put the matter to a vote.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member must recognize that the

Chairman stated that it was not a point of order. The question

comes down to this: how long the Chair must tolerate what

appear to be not points of order at all. There comes a time

when, if the points of order are not directed to the rules of

this House, one can challenge whether or not the Chairman

should be accepting them as points of order. If you have a

valid point of order, make it; and make it cogently upon the

standing orders of this House. But to suggest that you can

debate when the rule says you cannot debate, can clearly not be

a point of order unless you are able to stand on your head when

you say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep calm, keep calm.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite calm, but I'm pointing out that

you're asking the Chair....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You're asking the Chair to make

rulings, and challenging those rulings when they are obviously

not made on the basis of a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: The Chairman can rule a point of order out of

order, if he feels so, but in this particular instance the

Chairman ruled that I had no right to raise this point. He

didn't suggest that my point was no point. He ruled, and, on

the basis of a ruling that I have no right to speak in this

assembly, I challenged his ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member refer to standing order

45A that says he doesn't have?

MR. CHABOT: He called the Speaker in for a division.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made what

[ Page 2355 ]

I can only consider as point-no-point. However,

if he wants the House to rule upon it. I would be delighted to

call one more division. Shall the ruling of the Chair that it

was not a point of order be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

McGeer

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

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

chair.

On vote 16: courts, $12,604,705 — continued.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I would like some

clarification. Mr. Chairman, in this free and democratic

society, if you'd clarify that we really are voting on over $12

million...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You are voting on vote 16 and

it's been properly presented.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...in what has formerly been a free and

democratic society....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you confirm that that's $12 million

without debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote has been properly read out. If

the Member was listening, it's clear to everyone that we are on

vote 16.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Vote 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Wallace

Gibson

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 17: prosecution services, $4,656,790.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not prosecution; that's

persecution.

Vote 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 11

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

McGeer

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 18: sheriffs' offices, $8,191,248.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, this vote is one

[ Page 2356 ]

that increases the expenditure by some $6.5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member...?

MR. SMITH: I ask you, and implore you, to tell me if we're

expected to vote a $6.5 million increase in the 30 seconds that

it took to call the vote and for you to put it to the

committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, yes.

Shall vote 18

pass?

MR. SMITH: No!

Vote 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 10

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 19: official reporters, $2,584,252 — approved on

the following division.

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Martley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Smith

Jordan

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

McGeer

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We have no business at the

moment. Could you wait until the vote is read? Would the Hon.

Member state his point of order or whatever his business

is?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just think that this is a

completely debilitating process for everyone. The House is

getting absolutely nowhere. This is obviously a silly system

and therefore I move that the House rise, report resolutions

and ask leave to sit again. And in the meantime, perhaps the

government could come to its senses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is the committee rise, report

resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Fraser

Wallace

McGeer

Gibson

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

McClelland

Richter

NAYS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Nunweiler

Lauk

Radford

Lea

King

Cocke

Williams, R.A.

Levi

Steves

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Young

Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Peace River on a point of

order.

[ Page 2357 ]

MR. SMITH: You are anticipating, Mr. Chairman, as usual, but

I do have a point of order which I would like to raise.

I draw the Chairman's attention to supply Bill 11, which was

passed through this House some months ago, which granted:

"supply to the Crown in the amount of $537 million towards

defraying the several charges and expenses of the public

service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1976, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially

one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main

estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, as laid

before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British

Columbia at its present session. No sum of the supply shall be

issued or applied to any purpose other than those provided in

the main estimates or in excess of the estimate of expenditure

therein, and the due application of all moneys expended under

the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her

Majesty."

After reading to you the provisions of that bill, because I

think that it would do all of us well to refresh our memories

as to what it said, I would like to read also to you a

quotation from the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May's

Parliamentary Practice , page 717, if the Chairman wishes

to follow me, which deals with the supply resolutions before

the Committee of the Whole House.

It suggests, Mr. Chairman:

"Each grant is placed before the House by a motion which

states the amount to be granted and the particular service for

which the sum is demanded. The amount to be granted is the

total sum required for the service less any appropriations in

aid."

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have already voted

$537 million in aid as a partial payment of the estimates of

this House. I further suggest to you that it is your duty now,

on each and every estimate, to indicate to the Members of this

House what percentage of the $20,131,203 of this vote is

covered by the particular vote that we have before us at this

particular time.

It would seem to me that having once voted supply in the

terms of $537 million, it is incumbent now upon you, Sir, as

Chairman of this assembly, in Committee of Supply, to indicate

to us whether you require the full $20,131,203 or what portion

of that is required to cover the costs of vote 20.

I would ask the Chairman to give consideration to this point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of

order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): On a point of order, I'm sure my learned shadow recognizes

that was interim supply that was voted, that we approved the

estimates. We've done that for years. The Hon. Member would not

just be killing time, would he, with a point of that kind?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order, I

suggest to you at this particular time that we have never

before experienced the situation we are in now, in which the

termination of debate on estimates by a motion of the

government terminated all debate, and we are now in a position

where I think that you owe an explanation to the House. It is

your duty to explain to the House the exact amount of money

that we are presently voting for. Is it $20,131,203, or what

portion of that are we presently voting for? Until you can

answer that question or somebody on behalf of the government

can answer that question, you have no business putting that

vote to this assembly!

MRS. JORDAN: A good point!

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Hon.

Member — there are three points.

First of all, such a point of order should have been raised

at the earliest opportunity, if it is a point of order —

but the Chair is not ruling that it is.

The second point is that it is not a point of order in

committee. The committee has been charged either to pass or

negative each vote, and the matter which the Hon. Member raised

therefore should be raised in the House, rather than in

committee.

We deal with the vote that is presented to us, and then we

either pass it or defeat it. Therefore I rule that this is not

a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: If you rule, Sir, that this is not a point that

can be appropriately considered in committee, then I would

refer you.... Incidentally, I think that the Hon. Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has made an excellent point of

order, and a very important one to this committee. But if this

committee cannot hear it, then I suggest that you should have

reference to May , page 341, bottom of the page, where it

makes reference to matters requiring immediate intervention of

the House. This, as you may recall, Sir, was the

section of

May under which the Hon. Chairman yesterday called the

Speaker back into the House, a substantial and important point

of order having been raised, and asked the Speaker to take it

under advisement. I would say to you that now is the time when

that

section should be applied again, when we should once again

have recourse to the Speaker.

I would remind you that during the debate on the

appropriation referred to by the Hon. Member for North Peace

River, the government at that time

[ Page 2358 ]

sought to prevent debate, assuring this House that all

matters being covered in that vote would be possible to be

debated on the general consideration of estimates. That has now

been made impossible. The government's word at that time was

really not good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now

beginning to enter into debate. The Chair has made a ruling

that this is not a point of order in committee. Therefore the

Hon. Member is out of order.

MR. GIBSON: No, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I suggested to you

that this is a matter requiring immediate intervention of the

House. I'll read you that section:

"Urgent matters which require the immediate intervention of

the House, if they should occur during the sitting of the

House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption of

debate or other proceedings (except a division in progress). A

complaint on such a matter is entertained by the House as soon

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

Chairman reports progress, and the Speaker resumes the

Chair."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are, of course, in committee, so I

would suggest that you report progress and report on the

excellent point of order raised by the Hon. Member for North

Peace River, and seek guidance of the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're making a motion?

MR. GIBSON: I will so move, but I don't want to do that

without giving the Hon. Member for North Peace River a chance

to comment further, or for yourself, Mr. Chairman, to make that

motion on your own initiative because it is an important point

which requires consideration.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order: the

Chair rules that this is not a point of order in committee.

Secondly, there will be an opportunity for the Member to

bring it up in the House and, clearly, since we've been in

Committee of Supply for some time and it could have been

brought up previously, there appears to be no urgency about

this matter. And I so rule. Now, you can challenge my ruling if

you wish.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have now ruled and there'll

be no further discussion of it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it's very important to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a

ruling.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to challenge the ruling?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please,

so I can put the vote?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made a ruling. The alternative

is to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair listened to arguments, and

then made a ruling. Now we cannot persist all afternoon in

listening to arguments. Once the Chair makes a ruling, then you

can challenge the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is firm.

(Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. Does either

of the Hon. Members wish to challenge the ruling? We are not debating it any

further. Now you can either challenge the Chair or you can take your seat.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There has to be come order in

the way that we conduct our business. The Chairman listened to

arguments, made a ruling,

[ Page 2359 ]

and the Members have the alternative of abiding by the

ruling or challenging the ruling.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now is this a different point of order?

The Member for North Peace River on a different point of order.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. I will not tolerate any

debate further on the ruling. You can challenge it.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: What are you ruling on — my point of order

or the point raised by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano? Would you please tell us?

MR. CHAIRMAN ; Would the Hon. Member be seated? I will clarify the ruling

for the Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the ruling on which the Member for North

Peace River first made his comments, and then further comments

were made by Vancouver-Capilano...it is on that point

of order that the Chair is ruling. The Chair has ruled.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they were both on the same point.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that we were dealing with

the point raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace

River that he should know what the amount is minus the

appropriate amount for committee from the interim supply bill.

Well, this is obviously out of order in committee. It's not a

valid point. We've been presented with an amount to approve,

and it has nothing to do with the interim supply bills

directly. We have a vote before us with an amount of money on

it, which we've been asked to approve. If the Hon. Member has a

problem with this, he can raise it in the House; but as far as

we are concerned in committee we are dealing with the amount on

the piece of paper which I have in front of me.

Shall vote...?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made a ruling! Now, does the

Hon. Member have a further point of order or is he challenging

the ruling of the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, which point of order did

you rule on — the first or the second one? I made a

submission that this matter be referred by you to the Speaker.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River made a submission that

estimates in this House should be deducted by the percentage of

the account that we had voted before. There are two distinct

points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I dealt with the point of order

raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River. Now if the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano wishes to move

that the committee rise and report to the Speaker —

whatever motion he seeks to put — he can do that

separately, but on the point of order I have made a ruling that

it is not a valid point of order in committee. We have a piece

of paper in front of us with an amount of money on which we are

asked to consider. That's all that we are to consider.

MR. GIBSON: What I wish you to come to understand is that

you would be well-advised to listen to evidence before

you go off making foolish and premature rulings, as is clearly

the case when no one even knew what you were ruling on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Member thinks that the

ruling of the Chair is improper or wrong he may challenge

it.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying that in the name of natural justice

the Chairman should listen to arguments before making a

ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has made its ruling,

and the Hon. Member knows that no further debate can take place

after the ruling is made. The Hon. Member has the choice of

abiding by the ruling or challenging the ruling.

MR. GIBSON: You didn't say which ruling was made. How can we

not debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling was that the point of order raised

by the Member for North Peace River was out of order in

committee at this point. Therefore we should continue with the

vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Peace River on a separate

point of order.

MR. SMITH: In order for us to be perfectly clear...

[ Page 2360 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You'll never be clear on

anything!

MR. SMITH: ...on what you're doing, could I suggest to you

that you take the two points of order which were just made to

you seriatim?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've ruled on one which

effectively, in my understanding, also dealt with the other,

unless the Hon. Member seeks to make a motion, which is a

different matter.

Shall vote 20 pass?

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply

considering vote 20 the Hon. Member for North Peace River made

a point of order. (Mike not on.) I ruled this point of order

out of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is that

the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, it was drawn to my attention

by the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I can't argue the question of

the point of order. That was determined by the Chair. The only

point of order that I could entertain at this moment is whether

or not I should proceed to ask the House to rule. I don't see

that your point is directed to that so I must proceed to put

the question to the House.

MR. SMITH: The point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. When we

have a point of order to bring before either the Chairman or

yourself, we are required by the rules of the House to do it at

the first opportunity. I suggest to you in all sincerely, Mr.

Speaker, that this was the first opportunity that I had to

bring to the attention of the Chairman or yourself the

provisions contained on page 717 of the 18th edition of Sir

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice . It happens to be a

volume of some 1100 pages in total; it deals with all things

that could come before this House, including many of the things

which our own rules are silent upon. This is the first

opportunity that I have had to bring the matter to the

attention of the Chairman and this House because this is the

first time that I've looked at this particular rule in the way

it would be applied at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder what the Hon. Member is referring to

in regard to page 717.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's "Form of Supply Resolutions."

It's the third paragraph down on page 717 of May : "Each

grant is placed before the House by a motion...."

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, all that was done earlier and the total

sum was allocated, talking about the interim supply...

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and the grants of account.

MR. SMITH: $537 million worth of interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. It was a lump sum that would take

care of three months' supply for all departments. But at this

stage we are now entertaining motions on each individual

department and each vote in each department, and that total

amount authorizing each department is the subject of the vote.

The fact that the interim supply has all been passed would not

be relevant to this matter now before us because that was done

some time ago and there is no question of any bookkeeping on

each individual estimate to reduce it by the amount that was

already authorized. What we are doing is getting blanket

authorization in each vote for the full amount of each vote by

this vote. Therefore there really isn't a point of order.

Perhaps on explaining that to you, would you agree that we need

not put the matter to the House?

MR. SMITH: No. Not at all. I would like to read to you what

the rule says, and that is that the amount to be granted is the

total sum required for the services less any amount already

granted by a vote on account of any appropriations in aid, and

that is exactly what we've passed by an interim supply bill,

Bill 11, when we granted interim supply of $537 million to

offset and defray the expenses of the operation of the

government. So I suggest to you that that is completely

relevant at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that I think this is not the proper

time — put it that way — to raise the question.

That is one that properly is made in the committee to the

Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: He said it was up to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. I don't think that can be so. But

when you have a ruling there, any arguments you might have or

any submissions you have are made to the Chairman in committee.

All I can do under my duty is put the question to the House

whether the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. I

[ Page 2361 ]

must proceed with that because that's what I am in the chair

to do now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, when we have an arbitrary Chairman

who refuses to listen to arguments, how can we put the

arguments to him in committee? It's up to you, Sir, to hear

these arguments if that arbitrary Chairman won't.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that under the

rule I must put the matter of sustaining the ruling or not

sustaining the ruling to the House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point of order? May I

refer you to standing order 1:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by

sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of

Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as

in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable

in this House."

The Member has quite clearly indicated what the practice is

on pages 717 and 718 of the 18th edition of May .

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what is not required here is a vote to

sustain the ruling of the Chair because that is arbitrary in

any form. But what we must do is enforce the standing orders of

the House or suspend those standing orders by unanimous

consent. I think it would be possible for the House to proceed

in committee if you were to ask for unanimous consent of the

House, then we must apply standing order 1 and by the

directions outlined in the 18th edition of May , page 717

or 718.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is absolutely

correct. As you know, he's a House expert and he studies very

well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Say that without smiling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No reflections on any Member,

please. The point is here that we have for many years followed

our own formula in granting interim supply. The process of

interim supply has been set out by precedents in our own House

for many, many years. I had supplied to me when I inherited my

desk the forms that had been used in this House for lo, these

many decades. That is our form we follow.

Page 717 of May of the present edition deals with the

present British rules. If you look in Beauchesne , page 7

of the fourth edition, you see how in those matters in which

our own usages and forms are silent, we look to the customs and

usages as they were in the House of Commons in the United

Kingdom in force in 1871.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: May I read for your edification rule 1

again?

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

other orders..."

Now there are no sessional or other orders.

"...the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in

force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be

applicable to this House."

At the time. The time is....

MR. SPEAKER: That was when the rules were adopted in 1871.

MR. McGEER: ...makes no reference to Beauchesne at

all. To try and cite a reference from Beauchesne as a

superior authority to what we've always gone by in this House,

namely Sir Erskine May, and which is clearly stated in our

standing orders, rule 1, I would think it's a transgression of

the standing orders of the House and requires unanimous consent

before it can be proceeded with. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that

errors have been made in the past, but that's no excuse at all

for allowing these errors to be promulgated into the future. I

think now is the time for us to correct this procedural

inadequacy by enforcing our own standing orders of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The unfortunate thing is that the customs and

usages do not by that term mean the standing orders and the

present rules of the British House; it means those customs and

usages which have been imported into our parliamentary system

from the model we adopted in 1871. In Beauchesne this

matter is discussed. I personally would have liked to have

adopted the view that we take on the customs and usages as they

have developed. But that apparently is not the case from the

only authorities I can find on the subject. Therefore I don't

see how we can do anything else but follow our own customs as

we've developed them. If our customs are missing, then perhaps

we should look at the British customs and usages.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's circumlocution in the

extreme; it's pleonastic tautology.

MR. SPEAKER: I know that you and I understand that, but it's

not fair to the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

to talk that way to him. (Laughter.) I would suggest that the

Hon. Member come down to our level.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I say it another way? That's a

lousy decision. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2362 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't really made any decision because I

don't see that one is needed in this case. My job at the

moment, as I pointed out, is to deal with the question

of whether the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. I must

put the question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if the relevant guidance from

May is the time when this province entered

Confederation, why...?

MR. SPEAKER: It's when standing order I was first adopted.

That has never been changed. I've looked back to the first

standing orders, and I can't find any change.

MR. GIBSON: In that case, Sir, I would ask you why you ever

bought a book past May's 1st edition, or whatever the

edition was at that time, to cite sections that you....

MR. SPEAKER: That should demonstrate the reason: Speakers

all over the Commonwealth value the decisions of May

because the Speakers, in their experience over those years

since 1871, had to put on record the reasons for their

decisions. From that we can look and be guided by those

decisions. Where they are in conflict with our own customs and

usages or our own standing orders, we are not supposed to adopt

them. But where they expound the rules of parliament on the

traditional basis, we gain value from it.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that that answers the question

then that the proper guide in this case is the latest edition

of May rather than the earliest.

MR. SPEAKER: Only from the standpoint of it being an

assistance to the House in formulating its opinions, but only

where our rules are silent. It's not a question of their rules

— I must emphasize that. We did not, thereby, import

their rules, as they have changed them from time to time,

unless we ourselves adopted a similar rule — which we did

very often from time to time.

MR. GIBSON: But for my guidance, could Your Honour show me

the rule which specifies that our estimates must be prepared in

this form or that form when that form is in conflict with what

is set out in May , as pointed out by the Hon. Member for

North Peace River. Failing that, it seems to me that Your

Honour....

MR. SPEAKER: The answer that they always gave in courts was

that, "it came from time immemorial."

MR. GIBSON: That's not good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: That's all I have. I don't know how long we've

had those forms, but we have used them for many years.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the procedural

paradox in which you find yourself — that the House is

unaware of what has taken place in committee. I must implore

you to consider some appropriate action to end this difficulty

which we are presently experiencing.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Members would like to hear me out,

Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Questions of order are being raised in

the Committee of the Whole House. Before Members have had the

opportunity of making full submissions to the Chairman, he is

ruling. Then when Members quite properly wish to continue their

submissions to him, he says: "I'm not going to listen to you

anymore. If you don't like what I said, challenge my ruling."

Then that leaves you, Sir, in the very difficult situation of

having to undergo this kind of debate when the procedures which

govern the operation of this House preclude you from taking any

action.

It also does one other thing. The Chairman having made a

ruling, the Members of this House then being asked to either

sustain or negative his ruling, do so in complete ignorance

because they have not heard the full submission for and against

the proposition. When I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House is your Deputy, I

think it incumbent upon you — as I say, I implore

you — to take some action to ensure that before the

Chairman makes rulings on points of order, he gives the Members

every opportunity to make submissions so that he can come to a

reasoned decision.

It may be in that way, Mr. Speaker, that the decision of the

Chairman would not be challenged. But the grave danger is that

when he makes a sudden decision without hearing full

submissions, and then it is referred to you and to the House.

The House, sometimes in its ignorance, votes to sustain the

Chair, and then we have a faulty ruling of the Chair enshrined

by a vote of the House. You, Sir, are then bound by that vote

until some subsequent vote makes the change. I don't know how

we could get around this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That is the alarming thing about the whole

subject of appeals. That was the alarming thing about it.

[ Page 2363 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since we have no

further appeal, it seems to me that some steps have to be taken

to ensure that the Chairman, in the conduct of his

responsibility in the Chair, is instructed to give Members the

opportunity to make their submissions.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take that matter up with the Chairman...

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If that doesn't happen, then there

is chaos.

MR. SPEAKER: ...to ensure that everyone feels they are

making their point of order. I point out that the Chair, under

standing orders, does not have to receive debate on a point of

order, but I certainly agree with you that it is valuable and I

try to do so myself.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order

that I originally raised, I think that both you and I will

agree that in some respects, particularly in Committee of

Supply, we are breaking new ground in the Province of British

Columbia in dealing with what is now known as Rule 45A, which

is a rule that we have never had in this House before.

Probably, in the past there was no valid reason for anyone,

either in government or opposition, to bring to the attention

of the Speaker page 717 of Sir Erskine May and the quotation

regarding supply in that particular volume.

But at this time I believe we have a very real reason to

bring this to the attention of the Chairman, and through him,

to your attention. For the first time we have departed from a

procedure which in the past allowed full debate by the Members

on every estimate in the total amount until such time as all

estimates had been passed. We are now in a position where we

are being asked to pass a tremendous number of estimates

— as a matter of fact, over $2 billion's worth —

without debate and without amendment.

I think that is was incumbent upon the government to foresee

a situation which would come about after we had granted interim

supply, as we did through Bill 11. Because now is the first

time we have had it drawn to our attention in this House, it

should not be used as a weapon or a vehicle to circumvent the

situation. We are faced with it now for the first time. Today.

It has been brought to the attention of yourself and of the

Chairman of the committee. I suggest that it has to be dealt

with because our rules clearly specify that if our own standing

orders are silent, we go to the rules of the mother House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt, if I can, to quote a thing I

think is pertinent to your submission on this so that I can

refer to it later on to any future estimates that may be drawn

in another year? In Beauchesne , page 10, it says: "In the

interpretation

of the rules or standing orders, the House is generally guided

not so much by the literal construction of the orders

themselves as by the consideration of what has been the

practice of the House with respect to them."

It has, as I pointed out earlier, been the practice of this

House, from almost time immemorial, where interim supply was

required, to vote a lump sum which would be sufficient for so

many months, and then the individual estimates were later come

to and voted upon — some had already been done so when

interim supply was granted — and in the end all of them

were passed and completed and approved. The only distinction

here this year is that some of them have not been come to and

are being voted on individually without debate because the time

limit for debate is now up.

In view of the circumstances, I must merely point out that I

will certainly discuss the matter as the Hon. Members for

Vancouver–Point Grey and West Vancouver–Howe Sound

mentioned. I will certainly consider the subject of how these

are presented in terms of our practice and whether the British

practice is preferable. But the point is that this has been our

practice for many, many years. It is not enough to say that the

rules are silent. The forms that are used here have been

adopted by custom in this House for many years. Therefore, to

change that would not be that easy.

of May it says: "Ancient Usage and Standing Orders."

"The financial procedure of the House of Commons is

regulated to a certain extent by standing orders, but to a far

greater extent on unformulated ancient usage. It will be

convenient to begin by showing to what extent and in relation

to what kinds of financial business the general rules of

financial procedure are based on ancient usage and on standing

orders respectively."

MR. SMITH: Are you quoting from page 686 of the 18th

edition?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I said 16th edition, I'm sorry. It's the

only one I have available on this point at the moment. I could

find it in the 18th if I had time. It's on ancient usage in the

standing orders, that

chapter "General Rules of Financial

Procedure."

I will go on to say that, broadly stated, the procedure in

respect of supply and ways and means — that is to day, in

voting expenditures on estimates and in providing revenue

— is based on ancient usage, while the procedure in

respect of novel expenditure initiated by financial resolutions

in based on standing orders.

We have, as I suggest, adopted our usage for a long

[ Page 2364 ]

time in this House. Consequently, to alter that, I would

suggest it might have to be done by standing order now, because

I have no precedents that show otherwise than the way we've

done it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak a little bit further

to this point generally, I recognize the urgency that the

government apparently has to pass all of these votes. It isn't

every day that the Members of the House apply themselves as

vigorously as they have today and last evening to the

procedures that are followed. That being the case, however, and

these errors in our procedure having been discovered, it seems

to me terribly important for you, Sir, to consider these

extremely carefully lest legislative theoreticians at some

future time stumble upon inconsistencies which they would not

appreciate, having looked at them in the stretch of history.

Therefore, it seems to me, the urgency of passing these votes

should really be set better in the context of history, and that

we should proceed with due care so that proper precedent can be

set down for the future.

As you know, we're testing out new rules of procedure this

year — rules of procedure that may not stand the test of

time. Certainly they're meeting with universal objection by

Members of the opposition. Therefore I see no rush at all in

testing new procedures in the House or in ignoring precedents

that have been set in that Mother of Paramount. I would be

quite prepared, in order to give you adequate time, Mr.

Speaker, to consider the points raised by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the Member for North

Peace River (Mr. Smith)...

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be glad to look at it overnight.

MR. McGEER: ...to move that the committee rise and report

progress when it sits again so that we'll have an opportunity

to adjourn this process and consider properly an appropriate

course of action for the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The only thing is, as you know, that being in

the chair at this moment I must put the question, which is

whether the Chair's ruling be sustained. I cannot extricate

myself from that duty simply by wishing to do so.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps if you asked unanimous leave of the

House, that particular challenge could be withdrawn in favour

of a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again. That would be the way out of your dilemma,

and I for one would be happy to go along with that course of

action.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to move

that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to

sit again because I do believe that we're on a very serious

point with regard to....

MR. SPEAKER: You must do that at the proper time. You're in

the House now.

MR. SMITH: I would withdraw the challenge on that basis:

that we could perhaps discuss this further if the House Leader

would be prepared to consider such a motion.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if you yourself feel that you

need time to do this. I think that is what we must base this

on.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say, in view of the hour, that it would

be useful to examine the matter so that everyone is satisfied

that the votes are being properly produced and presented to the

House, for the reason that the Hon. Member has raised on page

717, because the practice differs there and I would like to

examine the two practices to see if there's any validity to the

objections. Therefore I would, with unanimous leave of the

House, ask that the challenge to the Chair be withdrawn at this

time. Is that agreeable?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Call the Chairman back, please.

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

On vote 20: police services, $20,131,203

— continued.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports resolution and asks

leave to sit again, and further reports that a number of

divisions took place in committee and asks that these be

recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada