1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, MAY 6, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2823 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Use of Hansard Blues. Mr. Speaker —

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Statements by Highways Minister on ICBC advertising and

rates.

Mr. Bennett — 2823

Application to IJC to reopen Skagit question.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2823

Crisis in B.C. construction industry. Mr. Wallace — 2824

Funding of Indian Friendship Centres. Mr. Curtis — 2824

Investigation of Ocean Falls pulp mill. Mr. Bennett — 2824

Yugoslavian wine dumped on B.C. market. Mrs. Jordan — 2825

Need for women in northern work force. Mr. Chabot — 2825

Possible uniform insurance rates throughout the

province.

Mr. Phillips — 2826

Report on progress of unsatisfied judgments.

Mr. McClelland — 2826

Details of Ocean Falls financial arrangements with selling agent.

Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 2826

Conflict of interest alleged of Highways department

engineer.

Mr. Wallace — 2826

Presenting petitions

Request for careful consideration of Bill 31, Mineral

Royalties Act . Mr. Fraser — 2827

Request for withdrawal of Bill 31. Mr. Gibson — 2827

Motions

Motion 29.

Mr. Smith — 2827

Amendment to motion 29.

Mr. Smith — 2830

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2834

Mr. Wallace — 2836

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2837

Mr. Bennett — 2838

Mrs. Jordan — 2838

Mr. Phillips — 2841

Mr. Chabot — 2842

Mr. Richter — 2843

Mr. McClelland — 2844

Mr. Schroeder — 2845

Division on amendment to motion 29 — 2845

On motion 29.

Mr. Gibson — 2845

Mr. Wallace — 2848

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2851

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2852

Mr. Bennett — 2853

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2854

Mr. Chabot — 2857

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2858

Division on motion 29 — 2859

MONDAY, MAY 6, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to draw the attention of the House today to two people in the gallery

from that very advanced area of the Province of British Columbia, Kimberley.

They are Mr. and Mrs. Phil Haverstock, along with my wife.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed to the business

of the House in regard to the order paper, I wish to point out

to the Members that it is, I think, urgent that the leaders of

the various parties arrange with the Speaker for a meeting

together to discuss the whole question of Hansard . I've

been concerned about this for some time, as I've indicated. The

reason I'm really concerned is best illustrated by reading just

a short sentence to you from Redlich on the procedure of

the House of Commons:

"The privilege of freedom of speech, the right to immunity

before the law in respect of what is spoken in parliament,

protects Members against any action based on expressions used

in addressing the House. But this protection extends no

further.

"It has been decided on several occasions that it does not

cover a printed reproduction by a Member whose speech he has

delivered in parliament. In a case which occurred more than 100

years ago it was held by the Court of King's Bench that a

Member might have a right to publish his speech but that the

speech must not be made the vehicle of slander against any

individual. If this were done an action for libel would lie for

its publication."

I have examined as best I can in the short time available

this whole question of use of the Blues. The problem of libel

is that it relates to statements that are made with privilege

in this House but later circulated by either Members themselves

or other persons to the general public. In examining our

Libel and Slander Act we made no provision for this. In

examining the standing orders, we made no provision for this.

Consequently I think it's urgent that I meet with either your

nominees or the party leaders to determine what course of

action must be followed. Particularly is this so in relation to

an attack that was made upon me on Thursday, May 2.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: That attack is a breach of privilege and it came to my

attention on Friday afternoon. On this whole question, I'll be dealing with

it as well.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

STATEMENTS BY HIGHWAYS MINISTER

ON ICBC ADVERTISING AND RATES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Transport and Communications, in connection

with statements to do with the ICBC by the Highways Minister

(Hon. Mr. Lea) while he was in the north, to do with two

things: (1) that there should be a postage stamp rate for car

insurance in this province, which indeed has been advocated by

this party; (2) that the advertising campaign, reputed to be

$800,000, was indeed a waste of money.

The question I'd like to ask is: did the Minister ever at

any time during his campaign advise you that he considered the

ICBC campaign to be a waste of money? Secondly, at any time did

he advocate to you in setting up the rates that we have a

postage stamp rate for insurance in the province?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Not to

my recollection, regarding the advertising. I would have to check with him as

to whether or not any other factor was discussed with me personally.

APPLICATION TO IJC

TO REOPEN SKAGIT QUESTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We welcome the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources back to the House from his

lengthy trip. We're glad to see there's plenty of sunshine up

in the north and that he's looking rested and well.

I would like to ask him a question which the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took as notice for him

about a week ago about the IJC (International Joint Commission)

and Skagit. May I ask the Minister whether he's received a

reply to his April 3 letter to Maxwell Cohen, the chairman of

the Canadian

section of the International Joint Commission,

concerning the Government of British Columbia's intention to

apply to the IJC to reopen the question of the permission to

flood the Skagit Valley?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it's an acknowledgement from the chairman of the Canadian

section indicating that he's looking forward to further submissions from the

counsel we have with respect to

[ Page 2824 ]

the Skagit. I presume our counsel has been in contact with

him while I've been away.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the light of developments in both

Bellingham and Seattle with the Federal Power Commission and

the considerable amount of testimony that was put forward at

that time, can we expect this submission of the counsel, of

which apparently the Minister does not know whether it's been

made or not, to be made public so that this type of information

could be taken into account, at least indirectly, by FPC

officials in the United States?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there are various methods, Mr.

Speaker, and I wouldn't want to close' the door on a range of

other options we might have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: may

I ask whether or not then the submission, which the Minister

mentioned but did not know whether or not it had been made,

will be made public to the people of B.C.?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: In due course, I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker.

CRISIS IN B.C.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): In the light of extensive

discussions which are reported to have gone on over the

weekend, can the Minister of Labour report to the House on the

present critical situation in the construction industry in

British Columbia?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no

report to make that would be of any benefit to the situation at

the moment, other than to say that I have meetings planned with

the parties involved.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has

either side to the dispute asked for either a mediator or an

arbitrator?

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Speaker.

FUNDING OF INDIAN

FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

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

the Minister of Human Resources: at a recent meeting in Prince

George it was indicated by delegates attending a convention of

the British Columbia Indian Friendship Centres that they were

having some difficulty in communication with the Minister

and/or his department. I wonder if the Minister could inform the House as to the present

situation.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

three weeks ago we announced grants to Indian Friendship

Centres. There were 15 in all, at something like $7,200 each.

The difficulty they are having with me is the question of what

the central operation is going to get. We are meeting with that

body on May 13. The friendship centres themselves have had more

than they've asked for specifically.

You might recall that I said that I would much prefer to

deal with the local organizations on direct funding than to

fund through central bodies. So I will be meeting with the

central body on May 13.

MR. CURTIS: That would be within a very few days?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. CURTIS: With the central body, through you, Mr.

Speaker?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. As I understand it, there is now a new

executive which I got a telegram from.

NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS

AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): For the Minister

of Housing: since the construction strike has been brewing for

some time, I presume he has these figures at his fingertips —

could he tell the House how many housing units are affected by

the current construction strike, and in particular how many

multiple-family dwellings?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that

question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be very

difficult to get the answer.

INVESTIGATION OF

OCEAN FALLS PULP MILL

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Labour: Could the Minister

advise the House whether or not the Ocean Falls pulp mill,

described by a former worker as totally unsafe and run in an

inefficient way, is under investigation by the Workmen's

Compensation Board?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Member should direct that

question to the Workmen's Compensation Board. I have no way of

knowing.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister plan to initiate any action

to have a full report from the Workmen's

[ Page 2825 ]

Compensation Board with respect to the current

operation?

HON. MR. KING: I have no such request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister

within his own area of responsibility had any inspections done

under the Factories Act , and if so, could he advise the

House of the contents of his report?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Factories Branch of the

Department of Labour regularly conducts inspections throughout

plants and factories in the province. I do not as a matter of

course monitor all the inspections which the branch makes.

I have had no requests or no complaint, indeed, from Ocean

Falls regarding violations of the factories' regulations and so

on, so I have no intention of initiating one on my own.

MR. BENNETT: Further to the Minister: is it not your

responsibility, when people are quoted who have been actively

employed there, to follow up on the request? Is it not within

your responsibility to initiate such an investigation, and

would you do so now?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition

would care to write me a letter requesting such an inspection,

I would certainly be prepared to consider it — or anyone else

for that matter. But I don't spontaneously initiate these kinds

of investigations.

YUGOSLAVIAN WINE

DUMPED ON B.C. MARKET

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Attorney-General. I wonder if he is aware that a

wine by the name of Gamza from Yugoslavia is being dumped on

our market in British Columbia at $1.85 a bottle

whereas it is

selling in Yugoslavia at $2.50 a bottle, and we are having

wines dumped on our market in order to protect their wine

industry in their country. What does he intend to do about

it?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't

know about the price of that particular brand, but I do know

that the dumping thing is a problem. That's part of the reason

why there should be, and there is now, an overlook at the whole

listing and pricing policy, because sometimes we can have

unfair competition from other sections of the world with

respect to wines.

NEED FOR WOMEN

IN NORTHERN WORK FORCE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Highways. I was wondering if the Minister would tell the

House how far advanced his programme is in attracting more

women to northern British Columbia.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You'll have to ask

Marjorie Nichols that; she usually writes on that.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's a very facetious remark, and

the question was put in all sincerity because on the basis of

statements made by the Minister in northern British Columbia

that there was a problem with the roll-over of workers and that

there's a need...(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: ...for attracting more women. The Minister

suggested this. I just want to know if he seriously has a

genuine programme or whether it was another one of those

facetious remarks that he was making in the north.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I prefer the term "turn-over"

instead of "roll-over." But, yes, I made that remark in all

seriousness. I think one of the problems in the north is that

there isn't a stable work force for one reason that there are

not enough women in the north. Most of the jobs are oriented,

maybe not correctly but through tradition at least, to the

males in our society.

I would make the same statement if the traditional jobs in

the north were basically jobs that attracted women because of

the tradition in the hiring practices. Then I would say there

aren't enough men in the north. I don't think you can have a

balanced society one way or the other, so I think that's one

way of stabilizing the work force in the north.

Also I should mention that I see this where industry should

become more involved in hiring women for some of the jobs that

haven't traditionally been for women.

MR. CHABOT: On a supplementary question: if there was a

sudden influx into the north, would the Minister be prepared to

provide certain transportation for the women to get there, such

as helicopters?

MR. SPEAKER: Could that possibly be hypothetical?

MRS. JORDAN: Supplemental to the Minister. In view of the

fact that he's endorsing a sexism attitude

[ Page 2826 ]

on the part of his government, is it the government's

intention and the Minister's intention to subsidize a programme

such as "Here Come the Brides" to the north? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I still don't think she'd have a

chance.

POSSIBLE UNIFORM INSURANCE RATES

THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to further question the Minister of insurance. I asked him in

the House last week if he would conduct a survey as to the cost

of postage stamp rate for insurance in British Columbia. The

Minister of Highways is now advocating the same thing, he's

picked up the gauntlet and is running with it.

Is the Minister actively considering a postage stamp rate

for insurance throughout the Province of British Columbia to

assist those drivers in the northern part of Vancouver Island

and in the northern part of the province to operate their cars

at the same price as those on the lower mainland?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, Mr. Member, you must have

been listening to the interview I did with Jack Wasserman about

six months ago when I said that the ideal automobile insurance

programme would give the same coverage to any person in the

province with the same driving record, driving the same kind of

car. That's the ideal, no question about that. It's not an easy

thing to do, but I can assure you that it's under consideration

all the time.

REPORT ON PROGRESS

OF UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Attorney-General. Some time ago the Attorney-General

promised a report on the practice of lifting licences of people

who owe a judgment for accidents and are denied the right to

bankruptcy proceedings which are open to every other citizen. I

wonder if the Attorney-General has made any progress on that

report, and whether we might expect it this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I haven't anything to announce. There are two

problems involved: one is whether or not judgments of the unsatisfied judgment

fund should be cancelled by this Legislature for those people who still owe

money to that fund, which would be voiding contracts. The other is a minor question

in the context of that total one, namely the effect on a licence, which really

doesn't affect people particularly, especially when arrangements are made to

pay. The basic question is the debt, and I have no statement to make upon that

at the present time.

DETAILS OF OCEAN FALLS FINANCIAL

ARRANGEMENTS WITH SELLING AGENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources whether the financial arrangements between

the Crown corporation at Ocean Falls and the New York-based

selling agency will be made public prior to the Minister's

estimates in the House?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've indicated on two occasions, I

believe, Mr. Speaker, that the contract would not be deposited

in the House. However, the contract, which was superior to

prices on the west coast and consistently has been so, is under

renegotiation at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. May I ask the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether or not "consistently" means that

the price is higher at the present time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it's an

agreement that does in fact relate to market. It relates to

market.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED

OF HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ENGINEER

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General

if he's had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) regarding a possible conflict of interest on the

part of a senior Highways department engineer stationed in the

Alta Lake-Whistler area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Hon. Minister a

memo, which I expect will now be on his desk now that he's

returned.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed

to motions and adjourned debates on motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, if I may, Hon. House Leader. We

should, I think, have the Clerk read out our normal proceedings

on the orders of the day, and then we will come to that in due

course on motions and adjourned debates on motions on the order

paper. The reason I ask is that we apparently have a petition

to be presented. Normally petitions would be heard before we

get to motions.

[ Page 2827 ]

Presenting petitions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would like to present a

petition to the House, Mr. Speaker.

"The petition of the undersigned employees of Gibraltar

Mining Company Limited, British Columbia, humbly showeth that

the undersigned workers pray that your honourable House will

move carefully with consideration of Bill 31, Mineral

Royalties Act , and make a thorough study to find out how

this royalties bill will affect the jobs of the undersigned

workers before its enactment. And as duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

"Dated at Victoria, British Columbia, this sixth day of

May."

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that these are employees of

Gibraltar Mines, 240 of them, that wish this petition

presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. It will be taken to the

Clerks and examined by them today.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a petition — or a set of petitions — to present,

representing some 4,500 signatures. Perhaps I might read the

prayer.

"To the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in

Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned humbly showeth:

(1) Whereas a large number of residents of British Columbia have

signed a petition expressing deep concern about the impact the mine royalty

legislation (Bill 31) will have on the economy and future of British Columbia;

and

(2) Whereas these petitioners believe...."

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, will the Hon. Member simply confine

himself at this stage under our rules to the prayer for relief,

not the

whereas and

preamble?

MR. GIBSON: Okay, Mr. Speaker. Simply the prayer:

"Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your

honourable House agree to the immediate withdrawal of Bill 31

and the referral of the whole question of mineral taxation to a

special committee of the Legislature for study."

I would ask leave to table at the same time associated

documents bearing some 4,500 signatures subscribing to

substantially the same sentiments, being 2,700 from Kamloops,

500 from Merritt, 1,000 from Trail and some 450 from

Ashcroft-Logan Lake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to motions and adjourned

debates on motions.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on motion 29, Mr.

Speaker. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 29 is found at page 2 of the orders of

the day. The Hon. Member for North Peace River adjourned the

debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like to speak to

this motion, but before I do, would you provide me with the

quotation that you used in the beginning of the session this

afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly. Do you want it now?

MR. SMITH: Please.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion which we have before

us, which is a motion to recommend to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills a number of

points with respect to the procedures and rules within this

House, I would like to suggest to the Speaker that this is an

area in which we should exercise the utmost of prudence.

This parliament is based upon tradition that has come down

to us from the mother House in Great Britain, and it's been

tested in a manner of trial and error for hundreds of years. So

whenever a motion is presented to the House to do something

which will alter the rules and regulations or the standing

orders of our House, I think it behoves all of us as Members of

this Legislative Assembly to review very closely anything which

will impair the rights and the privileges of an individual

Member.

It is certainly a good idea to review the rules and

regulations of the House from time to time. But it is one thing

to review the rules, and another thing to provide, within the

recommendations to the standing committee, certain things which

some of us in the opposition hold to be an interference with

the fundamental rights of the Members of this House.

It must be understood by everyone that the committee on

standing orders and private bills is a select standing

committee of the House and, certainly, as one of the standing

committees of the House, the representation on that committee

is proportionate to the number of seats that each individual

political party has seated in this assembly.

That generally works out to a basis of eight government

Members to four opposition Members — or nine government Members

to five — so that in all circumstances and in all instances the

government Members on the committee will have a majority equal

to two votes to one vote of the opposition Members.

This is, of course, a subject sometimes of minority

[ Page 2828 ]

reports from members of a select standing committee who

disagree with the reports.

Now I don't want to contemplate in advance the decisions of

the select standing committee, but I do wish to spend some time

this afternoon — and I am not going to be extensive in my

remarks — reviewing what I consider to be some of the historic

and fundamental rights of the Members of this House.

When I speak of the Members of this House I speak to all the

Members of this House, including those in the government bench,

because their rights and the opposition rights within this

assembly are equal. Anything that would be introduced as a

result of this motion to impede or interfere with those rights

should be looked at with a great deal of concern.

I want to quote a few statements which I think back up the

arguments I wish to present concerning this motion this

afternoon.

The history of democratic government within the commonwealth

is largely the story of the long struggle by the people for

control of the legislative and executive process.

There is a major threat running through the story of this

struggle: the preoccupation with the idea of checks and

balances between the legislative branch of government and the

executive branch of government. Under a responsible system of

government, the major check upon the executive branch is the

tradition that the executive branch must enjoy the confidence

of parliament or it must resign. In the past we have had many

cases of both governments and Members of the cabinet resigning

because of a breach of parliamentary tradition.

The American representative system, on the other hand, while

recognizing the wish to have checks and balances, sought to set

forth those checks and balances by means of written

constitutional guarantees. As a result, our system, which is

really based upon the British parliamentary system, developed

flexibility — a flexibility we wish to retain — while the

American system developed rigidity, and that is something we

reject.

I think the Watergate situation has been thumped enough, but

threading itself through that whole sad story is a struggle

between the legislative branch of government and the executive

branch of government to maintain the idea of checks and

balances in the system.

Under the British parliamentary system there is no question

that in large measure the executive branch proposes and the

legislative branch disposes. However, when we study the British

parliamentary system, we soon realize it is flexible enough to

accommodate three further basic ideas:

(1) the right to petition parliament;

(2) the opportunity to introduce private bills, normally through hearings before

parliamentary committees;

(3) the right of a private Member to introduce a bill or

resolution.

Parliament is a place for the communication of ideas and

represents an opportunity for a private Member to propose a

measure not initiated by the executive. It is the seeking of

this opportunity where most of the difficulty arises in a

British parliamentary system. That right should always be kept

open to every Member of this Legislative Assembly, be that

person a Member of the government side of the House or of the

opposition.

Procedures vary as to the method whereby private Members'

bills and resolutions can be debated. In British Columbia the

difficulty with both private Members' resolutions and private

Members' bills arises from the practice of invoking standing

order 66, which has been invoked often in this House. Often the

Speaker is placed in the position of stopping — if you wish to

call it that, because that is what happens — the Member in his

tracks by a technical objection of any Member of the House that

the private Member's bill or resolution is out of order. Often

all of us who have some parliamentary experience in this House

recall times when people have risen to their seats to draw the

attention of the House to standing order 66.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Point of order, Mr.

Member, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member give way on a point of

order?

HON. MR. HALL: I've no wish to interrupt the Member's speech

on a frivolous point of order, or indeed one that's motivated

in the usual way, one side to the other. The reason I rise, Mr.

Speaker, is that if we get into the merits of any possible

outcome of the resolution then we are dealing with the sort of

principle.

The Member himself is a member of the standing committee. I

want that Member on the committee; I think his work on the

committee will be valuable and he will be a thorough

representative of his party. I don't want to see him, in error,

declare himself on a principle at all that may be in this bill

and thus disqualify himself from being on the committee. I rise

only on a very friendly note, Mr. Member. I don't want to see

that happen. I would hope you would be guarded in that way. I

hope you appreciate why I made the point.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the point is really not a point of

order in the sense that it deals with the Member's speech. But

it does indicate, I think, a

[ Page 2829 ]

warning that all Members should realize: under our standing

orders, as you know, anyone who votes against the principle of

a resolution and is on a committee that has to deal with it is

thereby disqualified from acting on the committee....

AN HON. MEMBER: Then there won't be a resolution.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's possible.

MR. SMITH: I appreciate the remarks of the Speaker and of

the Provincial Secretary. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that

I wish to stay very closely to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: May I also just at this time, since the

interruption did occur, point out that in May , page 545 of the

17th edition, it clearly provides that where there are

instructions to a committee which are a part of the

resolution,

"Debate on a motion for an instruction must be strictly

relevant thereto, and must not be directed towards the general objects of the

(particular subject) to which the instruction relates...."

In other words, the purpose of this debate is not to argue

now what really should be properly, if it is approved, before a

committee but should only deal with a relevant question of

whether the matter should go to a committee. That's the basic

thing, I think, if I may put it that way.

MR. SMITH: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I think

the Speaker is as well aware as I am of the need for some

discussion with respect to a motion of this type. I'm not

trying to make statements or use facetious arguments concerning

something that represents to me the basic reason why we are

here. In presenting a resolution such as this, even though it

is to present the resolution to a committee, it does set out

five specific areas you wish the committee to investigate. That

is why I am speaking in general terms about the tradition and

history of parliament and the rights and privileges of an

individual Member of parliament. The resolution does deal with

some very interesting points which I'm sure will be fully

debated by the members of the committee.

As I was saying before I yielded the floor to the Provincial

Secretary, there is a possibility, and always has been, that a

Member's right in this House can be stopped with respect to

entering a private bill or a resolution simply by invoking

standing order 66.

While I agree that the maintenance of the order is desirable, the fact is that

rising on a point of order is all that is necessary to prevent a private Member's

idea from ever being heard. We have instances where a Member has been stopped

dead in his tracks and we have seen instances where the government has allowed

the Member to at least discuss briefly the idea or the petition or resolution

they wish to present before attention is drawn to standing order 66.

I would hope that we would keep in mind that no parliament

wishes to gag the opportunity of a private Member on a

technicality. We have seen a Member allowed to speak to the

principle of a bill he seeks to introduce or he has been

permitted to give a general supporting statement for a

resolution. However, there is an element of hit-and-miss in

this respect. Sometimes the onus rests on the shoulders of the

Speaker when someone rises to his feet. I know that quite

often, if you had your way, Mr. Speaker, wishing to be fair to

all Members of this House, you would rather not recognize

somebody rising on that particular point of order because at

least it would have given the private Member the opportunity to

explain briefly what they have in mind and give the subject

matter of either their resolution or their motion or their

bill. But when it's drawn to your attention you have no other

choice but to rule on standing order 66. For this reason I

believe it's something that we should all consider

seriously.

Instead of putting the Speaker in an unenviable position, we

would provide something that would give clear guidance for all

Members of this House to study and know what the procedure

would be with respect to introductions of this sort.

It has been said, and I think truthfully, that sometimes in

the past, for frivolous or vindictive reasons, someone has

risen in their place and drawn to the Speaker's attention rule

66 and thereby prevented any debate.

It's my opinion, and I'm sure it must be the opinion of all

elected representatives, that the object of parliament is to

give the Members of this House an opportunity to make their

views known. This is open to us during the throne speech and a

great deal during the budget debate.

But there is also a matter of the granting of funds to the

Crown in Committee of Supply, which is also a very fundamental

right for all Members of this House. Anything that would

prevent Members from expressing opinions in that particular

debate on supply should be looked at very carefully by all

sides of the House. I think that it is here that we have an

opportunity to make Members of both sides of the House aware of

our opinions, and that we should be allowed to present these

ideas even though they may at some point be ruled out of

order.

We are here, I believe, because parliament is the place

where we feel that we can present our ideas. If parliament is

to enjoy the presentation of Members' views, then we must

preserve that right through the

[ Page 2830 ]

presentation of private bills or the presentation of

resolutions, and have at least a limited opportunity to discuss

the principles and the concepts that we are trying to put

forward.

Now if, having done that, the House raises a technical point

of order, we can at least then say that the Member has enjoyed

the full privileges of parliament — and this is really what I

am speaking about. In other words, a technicality has not been

used as a device for blocking a Member's right to speak in

parliament.

Perhaps we have to deal with time limits, but there should

be no way that a person's fundamental right can be blocked by

using a technical point. I think in terms of checks and

balances that there is a real point to be made here. I submit

that the opportunity to present a private Member's bill or

resolution goes to the root of the checks and balances system

which in this case involves not only the checks and balances

which exist between the legislative branch as a body and the

executive branch as a body, but goes to the question of the

checks and balances which should exist between the individual

Members and the House as a whole.

Therefore, if we are to read into the whole history of the

parliamentary struggle the idea of individual privilege as well

as House privilege, it seems to me that technical points of

order should not be raised or used as a weapon to cut off a

Member's ability in the House.

I would submit that in British Columbia there is good and

sufficient reason for leaving standing order 66 as it stands.

There is even greater opportunity for the Speaker to suggest to

the House that in practice it be invoked after the Member has

presented his views with a time limit, and not before he has

ever uttered a word on the question or, even more improperly,

to interrupt him in the middle of his submission.

These are the things that strike right to the basic core of

our whole democratic process. The motion which has been moved

by the Hon. Provincial Secretary deals with five specific

recommendations. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that two of

those recommendations, at least in my opinion, should not be

included in any general discussion of rules and procedures

within the House, because I believe that recommendation 3 and

recommendation 5 impede, very improperly, the basic rights of

Members of this Legislative Assembly.

When we deal with Committee of Supply, and we deal with the matter of presenting

motions and private bills in this House, we are dealing with the fundamental

right which, if removed or in some way altered, leaves every one of us a poorer

person because of that in terms of parliamentary equality in this Legislature.

It is for that reason I feel that it is too important a matter to place those

types of decisions in the hands of just a few Members appointed to the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move that resolution 29 be

amended, by deleting sections 3 and 5.

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

motion to amend a resolution would be out of order where it is

to do with the instructions if it is not done by notice. There

may be very salutary reasons for this, but I really don't have

to go into it at this stage except merely to draw the Member's

attention to the ruling which is outlined on page 544 of May ,

which says:

"Notice is required, not only of an instruction, but of amendments thereto...."

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute. You may have a point, but let me

read this fully. I was not appreciating that your amendment

would delete rather than add to.

"Notice is required, not only of an instruction, but

of amendments thereto which, if agreed to, would enlarge the scope of

the instruction or convert the same into a novel proposition."

I would, I think, agree that it would not require notice,

because it doesn't extend or amend it to a novel proposition —

it merely reduces the number of instructions. By so doing, the

question is then whether that would any way imperil the Hon.

Member's position on such a committee if he votes to delete

these two items. I haven't given thought to that aspect and I

certainly want to protect his rights on that committee.

MR. SMITH: I believe that the amendments which I have

suggested are in order, and that it strikes at the very heart

of why we are called by His Honour to this place. While I may

be incorrect, in that the Speaker may be able to point out

where I would impugn my own rights as an individual Member to

serve on that committee, I don't think that I have impugned my

own rights by moving such an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying my best as urgently as possible to

consider the point because, as I say, it is important to you,

and it is important to the House as well that we know where we

are going in this debate. It appears that the motion would be

acceptable without notice, in my respectful view of the meaning

of that

section in May .

The only other question is that when you read standing order

69(2) it says:

"It shall always be understood that no Member who declares or decides against the

[ Page

2831 ]

principle of a bill, resolution or matter to be committed can

be nominated on such committee."

It depends, I suppose, how you vote on the final vote. If

you say that the resolution is amended to suit your desire,

that's fine. But if it isn't, does that mean that you, by

proposing the amendment and voting against those two sections,

thereby in any way imperil your position under that standing

order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even though a Member may, if you accept

the amendment, propose an amendment, I don't think an interest

could be judged until the final motion, because a Member in

good conscience may be wishing to improve a motion rather than

detract from it. But I don't think a judgment could be made on

whether or not a Member could serve on a committee until the

vote on the final motion, in a case like this.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I've got the solution here. I don't

know how we can find these things out so fast, but anyway, here

is the point. In Beauchesne , at page 239 in the fourth

edition, it says in paragraph 292-4:

"A Member must be totally opposed, and not simply take exception

to certain particulars of a bill or motion in order to be excluded from a committee."

That's good news.

"A Member who opposes merely the appointment of a committee

cannot be considered as coming within the meaning of the rule. "

So the situation is, I think, free for you to proceed on

this particular amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, I take it

then, Mr. Speaker, that your

interpretation now of the ruling

is that a vote opposing motion 29 will not preclude anyone from

serving on that committee.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it doesn't quite go that far. At this

moment I haven't decided that issue. It hasn't really been

raised. What has been raised at the moment is whether the

amendment is in order. I have found that it is in order.

The second thing that I had to indicate was that the Hon.

Member who was speaking, who is a member of that committee, in

voting against certain particulars of the motion is not thereby

debarred from serving on the committee. Now that much I had to

decide right now, and I feel I am correct in those

propositions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I fully appreciate your

difficulties, Mr. Speaker, in a difficult problem, but the fact is that we will have to have some guidance at

one stage or another. In your initial remarks when you talked

about not being able to determine the Hon. Member's attitude

until a vote occurred on the motion itself after amendments had

been accepted or rejected by this House, I assume that you

meant that if a Member at that stage voted against the motion

in principle, there would therefore be no possibility of that

person serving on the committee because he would fall under

rule 69 (2), which is:

"It shall always be understood that no Member who

declares" — not even votes, but declares — "or decides against the

principle of a bill, resolution or matter to be committed can be

nominated on such committee."

It would seem to me you have either found an ingenious way

of avoiding 69 (2) or you intend to apply 69 (2) when the time

comes.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hesitate to anticipate, and it is

really against the rules for the Speaker to anticipate matters

of procedure which may come up. But simply I think the thing

that every Member must bear in mind is what the meaning is of

the words in our standing order 69, "can be nominated on such a

committee." It doesn't say "can serve on a committee that is

already standing." Consequently it may well be — and this is

what I have to consider with my advisers — that the fact that

there is a standing committee to which instructions are now

being composed is the same case as somebody nominating somebody

to a committee who has just voted against the whole

proposition. I think, therefore, that looking at that I should

have an answer very shortly on it with my advisers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate your

difficulty. It's a new and difficult question, but I would just

like to be sure that prior to any vote being called in this

House we do have a decision from you which would be clear and

unequivocal, at least short term, for us as far as the vote

goes and for sitting on the committee afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Most certainly. I realize the dilemma we are

all in, and I will try and deal with it expeditiously.

Would the Hon. Member wish to proceed on his amendment

now?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel that in dealing

with this whole matter I am not prejudicing my rights in any

matter, because I am not suggesting that this whole matter of

referral to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills is, in my opinion, wrong or that I would

vote

[ Page 2832 ]

against it — not by any stretch of the imagination.

What I have tried to do by my amendment and in the remarks

that I have made previously is to indicate to this House an

area where I feel that the only place where we can discuss that

properly is in a debate on the floor of this House prior to the

time that we refer specific instructions to the committee.

Perhaps the Speaker would like to adjourn the debate or ask

for a short recess, because I think it is an important point

and one where I do not wish to jeopardize my own position to

serve on that committee, and I think we would all like the

benefit of your advice before we proceed further.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am of the opinion as it stands, without

even a further look, that there is a totally different matter

involved in the appointment of a committee. The House has to

determine who is going to be on that committee, and obviously

it is only fair to the House that they know that somebody has

declared against the principle of that committee's work in the

first place.

If the Members of the House wish to debate this amendment

further I could put the Deputy Speaker in the chair while the

Clerks and I have a serious look at the problem without

prolonging the delay of the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The only problem with this

approach to it is that a Member who might subsequently speak

following the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) might

prejudice his position and his ability to serve on the

committee, depending upon your decision. That is why it is so

difficult at this time to speak on the proposed amendment. One

doesn't want to jeopardize his position until such time as a

ruling is brought down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

it is my understanding that you have already ruled the

amendment in order. You have already ruled that the vote on the

amendment will have no bearing on your decision of the main

motion, so therefore your suggestion is valid, as I see it. You

have already made the point that the vote record on the

amendment will not influence your decision. It is on the main

motion that the rule is asked for

interpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: What I am saying is that every Member can proceed to debate

the amendment and the advisability of the amendment. That is not all the substantive

matters involved in those two subjects. You can debate the advisability of the

amendment. In the meantime, if you want to proceed with that, it doesn't in

any way disqualify the Hon. Member or any Member when it comes to a final vote

on the main proposition. That other question I will canvass with my advisers

while you are, if you like, debating the amendment. Is that acceptable? It would

save adjourning the House or recessing for a few minutes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, it is my

intention to speak on the amendment, of course, as well as on

the motion. However, standing order 69 (2) says: "It shall

always be understood that no Member who declares...." The difficulty of

discussing the amendment is that you're really going to have to discuss

what is being amended.

In discussing what is being amended I might well, inadvertently, no

matter how hard I try, declare one way or another on the issue, which

might later, in the light of your deliberations, prejudice me as an

individual Member of this House. I would prefer to have, Mr. Speaker,

some sort of recess or adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we go on to some other business, perhaps,

with the agreement of the House, and then come back to

this?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly

clear that a recess is acceptable, but it is the government's

position that on this motion dealing with our own business, no

one could possibly be excluded from discussing their own

business regarding the House itself. However, we will be bound

by your advice. This is House business, not anything beyond,

anything more or anything less. Because of that I would think

that the Hon. Member's amendment motion should be given every

consideration with latitude within the rules, and that the

debate itself should be given a thorough canvass by every

Member of the House, without prejudicing anyone's position.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Will we have to adjourn until tomorrow?

Lift it until tomorrow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think so. I think it's

important that we get on with it now. We can move into some

other business and ask the Speaker to report as soon as

possible.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the Hon. Member adjourn

the debate so we can move on to other business that could be

taken up by the Deputy Speaker. Is that agreed?

MR. SMITH: Perhaps a recess, but if not, I would move

adjournment of the debate — whichever you like.

MR. SPEAKER: They all say a recess. If that's the general

feeling, a recess it shall be.

[ Page 2833 ]

The House took recess at 3:10 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:19 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, would you come to order, please.

Standing order 69, subparagraph 2, states:

"It shall always be understood that no Member who declares

or decides against the principle of a bill, resolution, or matter to be committed

can be nominated on such committee."

It is a very narrow, restrictive clause, but refers clearly

to the beginning of standing order 69, which says, "No special

committee may, without the leave of the House, consist of more

than 11 Members;".

I must find, without any other authority available but my

power to interpret our own standing orders, that this does not

thereby include the standing committees of the House such as

the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. I

so rule. That means you're entitled to debate the matter and

declare against the matter, if you wish, and still, if you're a

member of the committee, serve on it.

I think the purpose of this particular clause must be so

that the House may know in advance, when they are nominating

Members, where they stand before they go through the nomination

phase. But that's been done at the beginning of our session

when we have our standing committees. I take it that you're

entitled to be entirely free both ways. I so rule.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you also ruling that the amendment is

in order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I've already ruled that the amendment is

in order. There's no doubt about that from the authorities I've

cited.

On the amendment to motion 29.

MR. SMITH: I apologize to the House for delaying the

procedure this afternoon, but it is a very important matter and

one on which I felt we would be wise to take a short recess

rather than prolong the matter of getting a decision. I thank

you for your courtesy and promptness, Mr. Speaker, in coming

back with a decision.

Speaking to the amendment to this motion, which is to delete

clauses 3 and 5, I feel very strongly that the fundamental

rights of the Members of this House must be very closely and

zealously guarded by every elected MLA. If for one reason or

another the government is of the opinion that they wish to

restrict or curtail debate in either estimates or in any other

manner, then they are infringing on the individual rights of

the Members of this House.

Committee of Supply is one of the most important matters

that we deal with as legislators. There are some departments

which require a great deal of examination in time and as we've

seen in the past, other departments for one. reason or another

whose scope is not nearly as broad which pass through the

procedures of this House quite quickly. But to try to determine

by one means or another what is fair and reasonable is, I

believe, to be beyond the competence of any committee. What

you're asking that committee for is the wisdom of Solomon to

predetermine the events and the procedures of this House, and,

by some mystical means, provide a yardstick, if you wish to

call it that, to determine the proceedings of this House in

advance, particularly to determine the amount of time that will

be used.

If it is a fact that the business of British Columbia

requires the services of full-time MLAs, then there should be

no thought of limiting the amount of time which will be taken

on any particular part of the business of this House, with the

exception perhaps of the throne and budget debates which could

be reasonably reduced by common agreement. But we deal in

Committee of Supply with the very essence of this House, and

that is the granting of supply to Her Majesty to perform the

services through the appointed Ministers.

I would hope the government, when they decide whether they

will accept or reject the amendment I have proposed, would look

very closely at what I have proposed. Certainly we feel that

the inclusion of recommendations 3 and 5 is a restraint and a

curbing of the rights of the individual Members of this House.

There's no way I have been able to determine in thinking about

the matter whereby you can come up with a specified amount of

time which would be considered fair and reasonable to all

Members of this assembly. What may seem relatively unimportant

to me as a Member of this House may be very important to

another individual Member. If as a result of a confining of the

time available to that person he was denied an opportunity to

full debate, then the very reason we sit here as elected

Members would be impaired.

It's also important, I think, that clause 5 be deleted. By

tradition and practice of this parliament for many, many years,

the one method private Members and opposition Members have of

presenting their ideas which can be debated is through the

introduction of a bill or a motion. I have had the opportunity

to sit on both sides of the House and I know how difficult it

is sometimes to get your point of view across to the Members of

the cabinet benches. I know how frustrating it is also, Mr.

Speaker, to a Member who has been successful in presenting his

point of view to the cabinet, having it included in pieces of

legislation and getting no credit for that, either in this

House or outside it, because this is one

[ Page 2834 ]

of the ways the process works. If there is no other reason

than that, I would say we must maintain and preserve the right

of an individual Member to present public bills and

motions.

If we devise some means to restrict that right or narrow it

down, here again you're asking a committee or, perhaps, at some

point the Speaker himself to use the wisdom of Solomon to

determine whether a particular bill will be allowed on the

order paper or not. I much prefer a system which allows full

rights and full expression by the individual Members of this

House.

In the years since I have been a Member, the budget has

better than doubled. The number of cabinet Ministers has been

increased and the responsibilities of every one of us has

certainly increased. If I can go and use the yardstick of the

amount of mail I receive as compared to when I was first

elected, then — the responsibility of an MLA today is four times

as heavy as it was when I first became a Member in 1966. My

mail runs at least four times heavier now than at any other

time. It has been on a gradual increase. The number of calls

and requests I get are the same.

In putting this motion on the order paper, I believe the

government acted a little in haste to combat a situation which

they feel has impeded the progress of this House. As an

individual Member, all I can say in rebuttal to that is that

this is the place where the business of the people shall be

done. It shall be done by those of us who are elected MLAs

sitting in this House, each of us equal as a Member to stand in

our place and say what we believe in and deliver our point of

view. To introduce a resolution with clauses in it such as Nos.

3 and 5 which would impede that process or restrict the rights

of the Members is not, I submit, what we're here for.

Therefore I would urge the government to look closely at the

amendments I have proposed. I hope that they will look at them

closely and accept them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment; there

will be more to say on the main motion later.

Mr. Speaker, we in our party most heartily concur in the

amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith). The reason is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker. We think

that the motion drawn up by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall), motion 29, is very defective in that it calls for the

appropriate rules of order for completing estimates in

Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable time, and then

suggests that all this has to be reported before the end of the

session, which I believe it to be quite impossible to do.

There's an inherent contradiction in the motion in that it calls for us to

devise appropriate rules of order and then fails to give adequate time before

the end of the session to do it. It would require enormous research. It would

require probably travel. It would require the calling of witnesses.

It would require the type of investigation that I think

would have to be close to exhaustive prior to making such

fundamental changes to our rules in this Legislature, which we

in the opposition feel would destroy our function, or at least

very substantially weaken our role as the people's watchdogs on

spending in the Province of British Columbia.

I'm referring now to the first part of the Hon. Member's

amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to a document

which I regard as a very good one, a document entitled:

Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act , second

report, by the Hon. Gordon Hudson Dowding, MLA, Speaker of the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, dated September 28,

1973. It is a report where this gentleman, instructed by the

assembly of British Columbia under

chapter 6, Statutes

of B.C. , 1972, second session, carried out an inquiry into

changes of legislative procedure.

Indeed, we see in this motion that the committee will be

looking at only two of the many recommendations of that learned

gentleman's seven in number that he put in his report.

Now what I find curious is that although a study has been

commissioned by this Legislature, although a study has resulted

in the expenditure of public funds, the committee is very

limited in the number of recommendations of that gentleman that

they are entitled to look into under the terms of reference to

this motion.

Therefore, while I cannot discuss paragraph one which

talks of the two that have been singled out, when we come to

three, the part that is to be deleted, I would like to point

out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the report carried out by the

gentleman in question, the Hon. Gordon Hudson Dowding, MLA, did

not refer to the appropriate rules of order for completing

estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable

time.

I think he was right not to do that. The fact is that we in

the opposition, who are still discussing — when we get the

opportunity — estimates of various Ministers, feel that our

discussion is valuable. We feel that as the watchdogs of

public expenditure we have to take the time to discuss

estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that in these

recent debates in committee, which you have difficulty in

becoming aware of.... Perhaps I could draw your attention

to the fact that in these discussions back-bench Members of the

government also agree with this point of view, because they

also continue to talk on estimates of Ministers.

What we see here is not only an attempt to curb Members of

the opposition free expression of their views on Ministerial

estimates, but, of course, the

[ Page 2835 ]

back bench as well. Members of the back bench of the

government party who have contributed to debate in committee

would similarly have restrictions placed upon them.

So we really do not feel that the practice of this session,

or indeed other years, indicates that there is any lack of

fairness or reasonableness and lack of rules of order for

completing estimates, which is implicit in subparagraph 3 of

motion 29 and which, of course, was the point to which the Hon.

Member for North Peace River directed half of his remarks on

this amendment.

We feel that the premise of 29(3) is totally unproven by the

government, and we feel that by the industrious work of

backbenchers and Members of the opposition and, indeed, Members

of the executive council the debates are fruitful. We are

trying hard to find out what takes place. We have difficulty

when estimates are put on the floor, taken off the floor and

brought back again and lifted off again.

We have difficulty because of the uncertainty of when these

estimates come forward and whose estimates will come forward,

but we do not feel, because of that difficulty, that we somehow

or other must put things down, or accept this motion which

indicates that there is not fair and reasonable debate at the

present time, or that there is need for further rules of

order.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, there is no question — as has

been demonstrated by this session — that certain issues come to

the fore in estimates. Certain other issues come to the fore

perhaps under bills. But it's more or less the nature of

developing events which determines what subject will be

discussed at what length.

It may be that the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall'

s) estimates go through quickly. It may be that the Minister of

Mines' (Hon. Mr. Nimsick'

s) estimates go through quickly. It

may be that some other Minister, our Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young).... Her estimates take a great deal

longer because she's embarking upon new, novel and exciting

areas upon which Members wish to question her more closely —

and, of course, she has a new department.

For us to try to determine in advance the amount of time

devoted is, of course, virtually impossible with respect to new

Ministers and new departments, and extremely difficult even

with existing Ministers and departments.

Mr. Speaker, I add one further comment on this which I think

is important. It is that we are facing a government which has

taken more and more and more power to Ministers, and there's

less and less within the legislation.

We do not, for example, in the bill that we were discussing at the end of last

week, know whether the power to establish restaurant chains will be used. We

do not know whether heavy industrial enterprises will be initiated to build

buses in British Columbia. We do not know this from the legislation.

Therefore, when the Minister's estimates come up on an

annual basis, obviously there is much more questioning because

the legislation that we are getting, defective and argued — but

of course there are differences on that — because it is not

specific, leads to much more of the attention of the public to

be devoted to the estimates where we have the opportunity of

questioning Ministers' actions. Because their actions are

virtually unlimited under the type of blank-cheque legislation

which this government is so keen to bring in.

So for us at this stage to start entering into committee and

to limit supply debate would be enormously unwise. We feel that

to have 29(3) included would be not only unwise in the straight

logic of it, but indeed it would be somewhat disrespectful of

that Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act ,

second report, which I think is a document which should take

first priority in the study of any committee looking at our

rules.

Similarly, with respect to 29(5). We have a system; it's not

perfect. But the Hon. Member for North Peace River has made it

clear that he — and we agree on this — would not like to see

some sort of censorship organization or committee to consider

bills before they're even aired in this House.

We realize full well as Members that if we bring in a bill

which is out of order, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker or some

other gentleman in the chair, in his wisdom, will rule it out

of order pretty quickly. And this has happened curiously

frequently. We know full well that if in such a bill our bright

ideas, that may come from ourselves or our constituents or

people who are associated with us, are worthy of thought, it

may well come up four or five times before the government

finally picks it up.

Witness the right to sue the Crown, where the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has made almost a

career of putting forward his private Member's bill. Suddenly

we found the government putting forward a bill curiously

similar. Now this type of thing....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Of course he helped change the

government. You are quite right, Mr. Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley). We did assist you in changing the

government. We at that time, like yourselves, were opposed to

the previous government. And we did assist in the change of

government. Many of the reasons were expressed by them and by

us.... As my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) says, "We're going

[ Page 2836 ]

to help change it again."

We fully intend this time that the mistake made last time —

and that was simply change for change's sake without any real

substantial change in approach — was wrong. We're going to make

some alterations in that respect as well.

In any event, should there be a censorship committee before

a Member has had an opportunity to make the House and the

Speaker aware of what is in his particular bill?

I have sat in a legislature where there is such a system. I

believe that if you bring in such a system in a House this

size, or smaller, without bringing in a host of other necessary

changes to give the opposition the belief that their ideas will

have a fair opportunity to be heard....

I'm now referring to such things as opposition days. I'm now

referring to such things as more formal votes on direct motions

of lack of confidence.

I think if you just take one thing and pull it out of

context, you will be making a serious mistake. Therefore, we

fully share the view of the Hon. Member that

section 5 as well

section 3 should be lifted from the motion, and the motion

should be amended by deleting those two sections.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say on sections 1, 2 and 4

as well as on the concluding sentences of the motion. But on

the amendment, we can see nothing but virtue in limiting this

committee to the other three items. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I

might point out that unless we limit this committee in some

way, or indeed alter it so that the time limit placed upon this

committee is more realistic, there's no hope of a substantial,

detailed and thorough examination of these five items.

If the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) really

wants to have this type of thing discussed properly, I think he

should welcome an amendment which would restrict the scope of

the committee to areas which are far more limited than the

present motion calls for, and that this limitation might, just

might, be adequate in getting the committee to finish its work

by the conclusion of this session. If we leave it as it is, we

are not going to succeed unless this committee rushes through

what are perhaps the most important rule changes that we have

ever contemplated in this House.

To suggest that somehow by a committee, which essentially is

a committee of government Members, as we know, we can rush

through changes that we in the opposition feel are very much a

dagger to the heart of our parliamentary system and our

performance in this Legislature, would be completely unwise,

and I warn the government of that at this time.

If we are to have the opposition, if we are to have the effective control of

the Ministers of the Crown by ourselves as well as by the backbench of their

own party, if we are to have this work impaired, damaged by a committee which

really doesn't have adequate time to consider these matters, then there certainly

will be a great deal said, not only in that committee, but outside this House

and in it.

We feel that the amendment therefore is a reasonable

amendment to this motion. We most earnestly suggest that the

government, Ministers as well as backbenchers, give careful

consideration to such a limitation of this motion.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Perhaps I could just add my

comment following on the Liberal leader regarding the fact that

we do have reservations in particular to the last line of the

resolution which we, presumably, will discuss when we dispose

of the amendment. I would at this time like to make it very

plain that we also share the apprehension about the time

limitation on the work of the committee, but we can touch on

that when we debate the motion.

With regard to the amendment, our party feels this way:

we're confusing a decision to look at an issue with the

principle of that issue. There are clear implications in the

total motion, and particularly subsections 3 and 5, that there

shall be some limitation of some sort to be discussed and

recommended upon by the committee.

It's my clear understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we're not

here today to debate whether or not there should be limitation,

what the limitation should be, how it should be enforced, et

cetera. We are here to discuss whether or not this motion,

complete with subsections 1 to 5, is worthy of wide and deep

discussion and inspection in committee.

As far as this party is concerned, we feel that there can be

no harm come from a discussion in committee of this kind of

suggestion. But I want to make it unmistakably clear that in

supporting the resolution and in not supporting this amendment,

there is in no way whatever in any degree commitment by myself

or this party to take any particular positive or negative

attitude to the implications in the motion.

I want to make it abundantly clear that we see nothing wrong

in putting this into committee to discuss it. We have our own

thoughts. I have my thoughts. The Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) has his thoughts. It is, as the previous

speakers have pointed out, an extremely, in fact vital, subject

in relation to the parliamentary process and in regard to the

efficiency or otherwise with which the affairs of this province

are to be conducted. And there can be few subjects more

important than that. There can be few issues where each of us

as elected representatives have to put on our thinking cap and

ponder as to whether the present system by which we operate is

good, bad, adequate or inadequate and the ways by which this

system can be improved.

I mentioned when I started my remarks that I certainly would

totally reject any unreasonable time

[ Page

2837 ]

schedule being placed upon the work of the committee. I have

some reservations about the implication that financial

estimates of the House should be subject to some limitation.

But I am willing, in fact rather eager and interested, to get

into committee and thrash this whole thing out in the widest

possible sense, relying on the kind of evidence which the

Liberal leader referred to — calling witnesses, comparing

ourselves to other jurisdictions, both looking backwards and

forwards.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we all have to acknowledge — and I

sincerely say this without disrespect to either administrations

to which I've been a witness — that there are many times when

the method by which this House functions could be improved,

certain techniques employed by all of us. There's not a single

Member in this House who at times does not in some way or other

misuse the privilege of speaking in this House.

I feel that as long as it is very, very, very clear that

this party is making no commitment to either supporting or

opposing points 1 to 5 as outlined in the motion, we do feel

that there is good cause to look at this subject in depth with

that one very vital proviso that since this is such a vital

matter that adequate time be allowed for the committee to go

into the matter in great detail and then to come up with a

recommendation based on in-depth study without the pressures of

time. Goodness knows we're all well aware of the pressures on

our time during this current session.

If I might ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker: as I understand

your decision regarding the propriety of us speaking and

possibly expressing opinions on the content of the motion, that

since this is a standing committee and rule 69 does not really

apply, I would just like to ask for guidance on the position of

the Conservative Party because, as you know, the nominating

committee can only allow parties to be represented according to

their numerical strength of the House, and the Conservative

Party is not represented on the standing committee. Now I know

that informally the Attorney-General has discussed this with me

because he was aware of this situation. Let me make it very

plain that there is nothing whatsoever wrong; I'm not in any

way complaining that we are not presently represented on that

committee because we, the Conservative Party, made certain

choices as to which committees I and the Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis) chose to be on.

This is not to be construed as any complaint on my part that we are not represented.

But we did not foresee the particular importance of the Select Standing Committee

on Standing Orders and Private Bills. Now with this turn of events, before I

conclude my remarks on the amendment, I hope that I could receive guidance from

the House as to whether we could put to the House and ask leave that the Conservative

Party will be represented. Otherwise this obviously leaves me no alternative

but to oppose the motion if in fact this party cannot be represented. I'm not

asking for any favours, I'm just trying to point out that this is rather a unique

situation which we could not foresee. At this point in time, I would appreciate

guidance from the House.

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

selection committee, of which I'm a member, and certainly the

government side think that all parties in the House should be

represented on this committee for this purpose.

I broached that with the other opposition leaders. I don't

think I have had firm replies — I'm not trying to hold anything

— but I think it will probably be a unanimous recommendation of

the selection committee that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay be

seated on this committee. Further, how the Hon. Member speaks

or votes on this motion would be irrelevant so far as him

serving on this because standing order 69 does not apply, it

being a standing committee of the House.

HON. MR. HALL: I rise in opposition to the amendment and to

tell the mover of the amendment that to only do three-fifths of

a job is not to do a job at all. Frankly, we have taken the

main business of the House; we have not concerned ourselves

with matters of urgent public importance nor have we considered

matters of minority reports or other things. We have taken five

basic duties that happen day in and day out in this chamber. To

consider just three of them would only, as I say, be part of

the job.

We insist on having the committee look at these things for

the very excellent reasons put forward by the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace). What's wrong with having a look at it? Are

your minds all made up? Ours aren't. Ours aren't by any stretch

of the imagination.

Are we without information, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. You

talk about in-depth studies. We have reams of material, as all

the Members well know.

We have the examples of Members of your party on committees

that flowed from the passage of the legislative inquiries

Act.

We have evidence from your own friends and compatriots in

the neighbouring province of Alberta. One would think we were

coming along, cutting off everybody's speech, to listen to the

Members. In Alberta, the very thing you are complaining about

is taking place. I don't hear from that particular province

cries of "Throttled!" or cries of "Silencing!"

Similarly, every single jurisdiction in this country of ours

has attacked the problem to which this motion essentially

addresses itself — Quebec, Ontario.

[ Page 2838 ]

the federal House. All of them have had in recent times

investigations into how they comport themselves and how they

conduct their business.

I say to you, Mr. Member, in rejecting this amendment, not

to address yourself to not only two-fifths of the subject

matter but, in terms of time, a great deal of the sessional

duties is really to beg the question.

I apologize if I haven't satisfied the Hon. Member by

putting on all these esoteric things you have reported on from

time to time, but we thought we would take one step at a time.

The little Member has all the answers; I am surprised he wants

even more time to discuss them. He has given us the benefit of

his wisdom today. I am not entirely certain I am any wiser, but

he certainly indicates he has a great number of answers. I

think we should let him flow free and convey those messages to

the Member of his party who is going to serve on this

committee. I am sure we will be able to get a first-class

report back on all five subjects in good time.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

supporting the amendment I would like to point out that, where

the Provincial Secretary suggested this is only opening

discussion, Nos. 3 and 5 are quite specific as to the type of

results they want on that discussion. In No. 3, they suggest

right there: "some appropriate rule or order for completing

estimates in Committee of Supply." They put the words, "fair

and reasonable." Who is to judge what is "fair and reasonable"?

Is it the government with the weight on the committee to say

what is fair and reasonable or is it the right of parliament,

the right of the Legislature? Are opposition Members the only

ones giving up major rights under this section? Are they to be

restricted in discussing estimates of this province?

The point has been brought up that more and more power is

taken, through legislation, to the Ministries. We have these

new commissions outside the scope of the cabinet. We have ICBC,

we have Hydro, B.C. Railway, and any new Crown corporation

which may be established. All of these need to be discussed

within the Minister's estimates. We should not be discussing

the reduction of time; the complexity of discussion and the

amount of discussion has to be increased to meet the needs and

requirements of today.

With these cabinet Ministers having many, many more powers...and it is just a departmental estimate; it is the

corporations and commissions that fall under their jurisdiction

that require the opposition and, indeed, all Members to

discharge their duties on behalf of the people. They must be

allowed full time, and full time will depend on the debate as

it develops.

As you might well realize, Mr. Speaker, many times an opening in discussion

on either a department or Crown corporation may open the debate much wider and

much further than the initial question and the initial suggestion for information.

I am sure the government, along with the opposition, on behalf of the people

want full and frank discussion of all public business — these Crown corporations

and commissions weren't set up to keep information form the public — and that

Members will have the opportunity to discuss in the Minister's estimates this

very new ancillary part of government.

I also find in No. 5 a very clear direction that we are not

just looking for discussion or recommendation. The very last

line that says, "The committee shall report its recommendations

on the said subjects to the House before the conclusion of this

session," certainly puts a time limit on the type of

debate or the type of discussion that the government is asking

for. It isn't asking just for review; it's telling us that we

quickly have to make up our mind before the end of this session

on changing rules that took hundreds of years to develop. That

isn't asking for just a committee to fairly deal with these

five changes or the two that have been asked for deletion.

There are directions and conclusions asked for in Nos. 3 and 5.

The direction of the conclusions suggest limiting debate, not

expanding it, and the fact that we have to come to a conclusion

before the end of this session. If we support all five sections

of this motion rather than the amendment I am speaking to,

which is the deletion of Nos. 3 and 5, we would indeed be

agreeing to the conditions it contains and the intent of such

statements. That is why we find it necessary — so that this

Legislature is not committed to the type of discussion in that

legislation, discussions that should take up our time in the

future — to support a motion for deletion of Nos. 3 and 5. It

would not be in the best interests of the people of this

province to have debate restricted as these two sections

suggest.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In referring to what the

Provincial Secretary said, previously speaking to the motion

that we are amending and in speaking to the amendment, it is

not the merit of the outcome of this committee that we are

debating; it is the merit of the input within the

resolution.

As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has just said, right

after the Hon. Provincial Secretary spoke and tried to reassure

this House that they just wanted to take a "peek-see" at the

rules, there are very specific instructions within the

resolution itself which we are amending. There is very clearly

an indication of the type of conclusions the government expects

to hear from the committee. It contemplates the conclusion, and

that again prompts us to put forth the amendment which we are

debating.

We suggest it is not appropriate at any time for

[ Page 2839 ]

anyone within this Legislature, except the Members

themselves, to adjudicate when and when not to, adjourn debate

or to suggest that the sensitivities of the public and the

business of the House have been canvassed properly — not the

Speaker, not the Premier; it is the Members themselves.

There is already within our rules a provision whereby the

government, if it wishes to come to the conclusion that debate

has fulfilled its purpose and it wishes to close off that

debate, can make a motion to the same effect and put the

question.

But the important safeguard in that is that the government

must answer to the public — as the Members of the opposition

must also answer to the public as to why they carried on the

debate to the point where the government would invoke closure.

Both sides of the House, both guardians of the democratic

process, must then answer to the public on the basis of the

conduct of the business within the House. To impose the type of

rules which would be suggested as in Nos. 3 and 5 is to relieve

the responsibility from the government itself and from the

opposition in answering to the public, should debate prolong

its usefulness or go beyond its usefulness.

In listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, I must say with all

due respect and in light of the current session and the

workings of the current session, one must come to the

conclusion that resolution 29, which we are amending, is in

fact born out of the frustrations of the current government:

frustration in terms of its own inability to manage the

business of the House and the complete lack of control that has

been exhibited during this session; frustration, I'm sure,

through its own inexperience which has allowed it in fact to be

in a position where it's introducing very important legislation

at a time when the House normally expect not to be sitting; and

frustration born out of its complete lack of ability in the

terms of drafting its legislation, which has to be frequently

amended and withdrawn as quickly as within two hours of the

introduction of some Ministers' bills.

It is because of this fact, Mr. Speaker — the fact that the

opposition has been fulfilling its duty, the fact that the

opposition has proved through their actions and through the

conduct of this session that they have been capable of

questioning this government to the point that it has lost

confidence in its own abilities within this House, and in fact

has lost control of the House — that it therefore in its wisdom

sees no alternative but to try and change the very fabric of

the democratic process as history has evolved it, not only in

the Mother of Parliaments, but through this Legislature.

That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a reflection of the inability of the government

itself to have confidence in its abilities to manage this Legislature. It reflects

upon the leader of the government in his lack of ability and confidence in his

own ability to manage the business of this House without superimposed regulations

which in fact, as I mentioned, would cut out the heart of the democratic process.

In the House itself and the debate with particular reference

section 3, which we wish to delete, the Committee of Supply

through time-honoured tradition and practical evolution has

come to the point where it forms a very vital function, not

only of the Legislature itself, but of the public interest.

This is the time that the government Ministers, and the

government itself, lay out specifically what their policies

are.

This is the time, Mr. Speaker, when the government spendings

and specific Ministers' spendings are laid before this House

and brought out into the sunlight, brought out into the light

not only of legislative scrutiny but public scrutiny.

This is the time when the public, through the efforts of the

opposition and, indeed, many Members of the government — and it

should reflect also the efforts of the Ministers themselves —

have an opportunity to perhaps fully understand not only what

the government policy is, but what in fact may be wrong or need

correcting in that policy.

This is the time when parliament and the Members of the

Legislature, who reflect the public's feelings, discuss the

pros and cons of government spending and government policies.

Mr. Speaker, as you know from your own previous experience in

this House, it's the time when most fully with any government

jurisdiction you can open up the pros and cons of any policy

and any spending.

This is the time when the real checks and balances within

the democratic process must be applied if in fact the

government of the day is to reflect the wishes of the people,

and to respond to the wishes of the people.

It is this debate, Mr. Speaker, that minimizes what is

often, by many governments, a practice of trying to secretize

government actions, and it is only during these unlimited

debates and free debates where Members' attention and presence

in this House is demanded, because that's the only time that

they may respond instinctively to a concern which is brought

out and protects the government from perhaps very misleading

and false charges that they might be trying to practise a more

secretive approach to the government of British Columbia or any

jurisdiction than is traditionally acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

expressed his views and his first concern was that his own

party was not represented on the committees and I do not wish

to discuss that. But I feel in listening very carefully to his

words, which I'm sure he presented most sincerely, that he

reflected one of the cruxes of this problem, for this Member in

his statements reflected very clearly that his own

[ Page 2840 ]

political experience has been confined to a metropolitan

area which sits very closely to the seat of government. And it

reflects that his own experience in government has been that of

a Member who is not aware of the problems in the other parts of

the province.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are aware that one of the major

concerns and problems in government in British Columbia in the

past or today is how the people outside the immediate area of

the seat of government, of the Legislature, and of the debate

fully know what is going on in the province, fully know what is

the policy of the government, and fully know what are some of

the pros and cons or the arguments that are put forth by not

only the opposition, but also by Members of the government who

might have serious questions in their own mind about the

policies of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the government itself has stated in a number of

instances since taking office that the reason there was a lot

of public concern about some of their legislation — and we can

cite Bill 42 or the Energy Act — was they hadn't done a

good enough job in public relations. That statement and that

concern, combined with resolution 29, with particular reference

section 3, is a very dangerous combination — uncensored

government control.

No government that is responsible and that has the vast

majority that this government has should have to rely on public

relations in order to have the policies that it carries out not

questioned or brought to light. When one thinks of the

practices of this government since taking office of spending

large amounts of public funds in every department to set up

public information officers and public relations officers and

then combine that with

section 3 of this resolution, we see a

further compounding of a very dangerous practice.

I suggest that the length of time of the debate in the

Legislature in 90 per cent of the cases is the gauge of the

sensitivity of the public to what is going on in terms of

government within this province. We are all politicians, we are

all elected public servants, and one of the prime

responsibilities in our job is in fact to reflect the opinions

and concerns of those we represent. Whether their opinions or

concerns are of interest to the media or to the government,

this is the forum through which they can make their feelings

known, because, Mr. Speaker, while there are rules within the

Legislature, of which you are extremely aware, it is the only

opportunity where elected Members do have a forum where they

might bring to this government's attention or in fact bring to

the media's attention issues that concern people not just in

Oak Bay or the main Vancouver area but in the northern parts of

the province, in more remote parts of the province.

To set up an arbitrary limit, or arbitrary rules, to hamper this type of expression

is, as I say, not only a changing of the fundamental fabric of the democratic

system and the responsibilities of the Members as they are elected, but is in

fact a foreign philosophy and a foreign thought that has no place within this

Legislature.

The provincial Legislature of British Columbia in Canada's

history is one where it has a relatively operable number of

Members. It has been a legislature that has operated with a

minimum of rules and controls. And it is a legislature which

has a record in Canadian history of advancing some of the most

advanced economic reforms and most successful economic

policies, and in fact some of the most advanced social policies

of any legislature in Canada.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that this

has happened is because of the fact that there has been a limit

to the limit of rules. In other words, we've had a relatively

free legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the very judgment of the government's policy is

reflected in the length of debate. We've seen historically that

if it is a good policy...and I would refer also to some bills

that this NDP government has brought in. If in fact they are

good bills, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if in fact

in the genuine concern of the Members they are good for the

people of British Columbia, not only today but in the future,

and they are good for the province, then those bills and that

legislation and those estimates have received a good hearing

but not long debates.

The fact that some bills have received long debate and close

scrutiny — and the same with the estimates — is a gauge by

which the opposition is reflecting not only its own views but

the public's views and its concern for those policies. That in

itself adjudicates whether the government is moving in a

direction that is acceptable to the people or not. To do away

with this, Mr. Speaker, I suggest again, destroys the

sensitivity of this floor, that is the gauge the government's

ability in terms of its handling of the House, the gauge of the

leadership of the government and the gauge of the soundness of

the policies that the government is trying to put forth.

I would also like to mention a very practical point. As you know, Mr. Speaker,

I represent a non-metropolitan area. It is very difficult, I'm sure many government

MLAs would agree with me, for MLAs to keep abreast of everything that's going

on in the province. Having had the privilege of serving in the cabinet myself,

I know that the opportunity for cabinet Ministers to be generally aware of how

policies are affecting people, of what is going on in the province, what are

the concerns of the people, what are the concerns of the government and what

they should be, is much greater because of their frequent meetings, the overall

discussion that goes on and their input in that discussion.

[ Page

2841 ]

This privilege is not available to the MLAs who sit as

private Members. The opportunity for an MLA from the Kootenays

or Atlin to keep abreast of what is going on in the province

and in fact what the government is doing and what its policies

are emanates largely from the sittings that take place in this

House. Their knowledge emanates and their sensitivity emanates

largely from the speeches that are made by other Members of

this House. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you watched and saw that

when one Member, perhaps from Atlin or from the North Peace

River is speaking, very largely it is the other

non-metropolitan Members who are listening to that debate,

because traditionally we have seen in business and in

government and in MLAs that it is the non-metropolitan

citizen, businessman and MLA that is broader in his overview

and broader in his knowledge of the province as a whole.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest, Mr. Member, that you are a classic

example of a Member who has shown a large degree of

insensitivity to the non-metropolitan concerns.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You're

arguing in favour of the motion.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, you get up and make your own

speech; I'll make mine. Mr. Speaker, I think the expression

just mentioned by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

is exactly the core of what I want to say, for this Member is a

representative of a certain, specific area, an economic group

in our province, and has shown a marvellous degree of ability

in terms of debate on the legal functions of this province, but

an amazing lack of ability to relate to the everyday problems

of people, and to relate to the everyday knowledge of how

legislation that we are passing in this House is in effect

becoming the concern of the average person in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, I have more to say on the resolution itself,

but I would like to again state that I believe this government

has the majority, should have the confidence and, particularly

in light of the leader's history, should have the awareness of

the role that debate plays in this House and of the need to

have as free a debate as possible for the various reasons that

I have mentioned.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I just want to add

a very few comments to this debate because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have

been very verbal on certain issues that have been brought before this Legislature.

I entered into the debate — and I might say sometimes lengthy debate — with

a very clear conscience and certainly with a very sincere desire to bring out

in the debate some of the far-reaching ramifications of the legislation that

has been presented. I feel in some cases that had debate been limited, for instance

on Bill 42, some of the amendments that were brought in by the government would

not have been brought in had the length of time been curtailed. Again, I'll

refer to Bill 42 and the mining legislation last year. It would not have given

the people out there who listen to what goes on in this Legislature the opportunity

to bring to us more facts and to give them the opportunity themselves to search

out things in the legislation that otherwise in a short debate would definitely

not have been brought out.

Today, as I have said in this Legislature many times before,

the rules are changing very rapidly. I think, Mr. Speaker, that

you will agree that in the last 18 months the legislative

measures that have been brought in have taken this province

from what was once considered a free enterprise province to

what is shaping up to be a complete socialist state, dominated

mainly by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I think you will further

have to agree with me that the powers which have been vested in

the cabinet by certain legislation were powers that previous to

this government coming to power were not in the hands of the

cabinet. I feel that not only are we wanting to limit debate,

but we are giving the cabinet more power to do things without

referring to the legislation.

Our government today is entering into practically every area

of private individual life and indeed every area of business

life in our province. We are certainly heading down new paths

of government intervention and government control. I feel that

the right of those who have been elected to represent the

people and to bring out into public debate all of the

legislative measures should certainly not be shortened, but

indeed I feel that in order to delve into all of the

ramifications of the legislation we should be given certainly a

free hand so far as time is concerned.

You know yourself, Mr. Speaker, that now there are many

companies which the government is forming which do not have to

be referred back to this Legislature. There are countless

commissions which are being formed by the government to go out

and bring back to the Legislature or to the government

recommendations which might or might not ever be tabled in this

House.

The Premier said on previous occasions several times that

his government is being attacked because it is too bold and

moving in new directions. I certainly agree with this — he's

certainly moving in new directions. But I think that he as

Premier must realize that when he's making such sweeping

changes in the areas in which this province is heading, he

should recognize that it is new to the opposition and certainly

it is new to the province. He should realize

[ Page 2842 ]

and fully understand, because he's a parliamentarian

himself, that there is going to be a great deal more debate

than there would have been had the entire direction of the

province not been changed.

He must also realize that legislation that he is bringing in

is certainly eroding away the powers of local government and we

are heading into an area where quite clearly most of the

control over all the areas of life, over community life, over

city life, over urban life, over rural life, is going to be

controlled not by the locally elected representatives but is

going to be controlled by the cabinet.

I'm amazed that perhaps this motion has been in effect on

the government back bench since the beginning of this session,

because certainly they are not entering into the debate. It

disturbs me, in legislation that I clearly know affects certain

of the constituencies which are represented by Members of the

back bench, to see those Members sit quietly by and not speak

up for their constituents.

I suppose that if this change is brought in to our

parliamentary procedures, the next thing will be

an Act of the

Legislature to unite the opposition. Because you must realize,

Mr. Speaker, that with three parties in opposition there are

three different points of view. If debate is going to be

limited, it certainly will work a hardship on the minority

parties in this Legislature, because it will be on the basis of

numbers, and their ability to enter into debate will certainly

be curtailed.

You must also realize that we probably have in this big

Province of British Columbia a more wide and varied lifestyle

than probably any other province in Canada. Our geography

certainly...and climatic conditions vary from desert

conditions to the barren north. Our industry, for instance, is

wide and varied, taking in practically every industry on the

North American continent.

Even if you look at just one segment of our industry, which

is agriculture, it in itself is very wide and varied, and

certain legislation that might be brought in and might be very

good for the densely populated areas in the lower mainland

might certainly not pertain at all whatsoever to some of the

northern areas. In this instance certainly all of these

legislative measures must have wide and varied debate.

Now I certainly do not want my right as a duly elected

Member of this Legislature, my right to speak as my conscience

desires.... Some of us might from time to time take a little

longer than others to say what we have to say, but in all

conscience — and it is only with sincerity and singleness of

purpose that we enter into the debate — to limit that debate, I

feel, would not be in keeping with our democratic system.

I certainly would never go so far as to say that the government would want

debate limited so that they could keep their legislative measures hidden under

the rug. I wouldn't say that, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't be guilty of saying that.

But I might think it. I might think it because of some of the legislation they

have brought in since becoming government.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, those are my sentiments on the

matter, and I speak with sincerity on this measure. I feel that

our right to speak on behalf of those people who have elected

us should not be taken away. As I say, though some of the

debates might be lengthy, this is our democratic system. It may

not be the most efficient system there is in government, but it

is certainly the one that has left the rights of the individual

still intact. Therefore, I would have to oppose any measure

that would take any of these rights away.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief words on the amendment. The

Premier has said on numerous occasions that we are full-time

MLAs and that our responsibilities involve a lot of debate in

the Legislature. Now we see with this motion an attempt to deny

Members the opportunity to be fully heard.

I cannot really understand the tremendous hurry and anxiety

on the part of the government to have this motion passed and

the regulations brought in. I can only come to the conclusion

that if it is going to be that hastily done, then.... I

would think that the House will prorogue prior to this

September, and if it does, it doesn't really allow sufficient

time to have a thorough canvass of the subject matter.

I don't think there should be that kind of rush. Had the

committee been open and allowed Members to hear other

interested parties, with ample time, then it would have been a

more meaningful committee than it appears to be, in the

direction it appears to be going.

What the amendments would do would be to give Members the

opportunity for a full examination of Ministerial actions and

the lack of management, in some instances, on the part of the

Minister in his department, or a Crown corporation which a

Minister, in many instances, is closely involved with either as

a director or responsible for.

We've seen the introduction of the question period in the

Legislature. I would say that many of the Ministers do give

answers and others don't. Others appear to evade giving answers

in question period by taking the questions as notice.

I'm not going to suggest that all the Ministers violate that

principle of question and answer period; nevertheless, there

are some that do. This is the only opportunity which Members of

the opposition or Members of the back-bench have to question

the Minister in the event that that Minister is not one who

readily gives answers in question period.

So in the estimates is the opportunity where Members don't

have the kind of restrictions imposed on them that exist in the

question period. There is the freedom for examination of the

Ministers, the

[ Page 2843 ]

administration of their departments, and at that time we can

get some answers. I know that there are Ministers' estimates

that haven't come up yet during which I hope to secure some

answers which I was unable to get from the question period.

Now by the imposition of

section 3 and

section 5 it would

hamper very seriously, depending upon what the government has

in mind, really, in putting forward this motion.... There is a

strong possibility that it could hamper the right of a Member

of the opposition to question the Ministers. Because what would

stop the government from giving the suggestion to their

backbenchers that, "We have only so much time during this

particular estimate to question the Minister, and I think you

should occupy 50 per cent of that time”? That, in turn,

denies the opposition the right of thoroughly examining the

function of government.

Also, it is most unfair because there are certain portfolios

that are more extensive in their relationship to the business

and the economic well-being of this province and, in that

connection, require substantially more time for question and

answer period during the estimates. To arbitrarily set a

particular time for each and every department is most unfair.

Now in subsection (5) we're talking about the

appropriateness of private Members introducing bills and

motions. Now that's historical. Members have always had access

to the Crown by the introduction of either motions or private

Members' bills. There is the possibility, there is the...well, one is led to believe by reading subsection (5) that the

ideas and suggestions that private Members might have might

never see the light of day.

I think that that is most unfortunate, because that is what

our parliament has been all about — the right of the Member to

introduce his ideas; and the government has the right of

ensuring that his ideas or his suggestions will never be

debated.

Nevertheless, they see the light of day under the present

system we have. In many instances they offend certain rules in

the fact that they might involve the expenditure of public

funds, but at least they see the light of day, and the Member's

ideas are circulated throughout this jurisdiction; and I think

that is good. I think the government of the day thought it was

good when they were in opposition as well.

It appears that we are heading for the denial of this

opportunity of the Member to express his opinion on certain

matters by the matter of a motion or by the matter of a private

Member's bill. I think it is a pretty sad day. I'm not going to

suggest that this will, in turn, effectively muzzle the

opposition, but it is heading that way by the denial of this

particular right.

I really cannot understand why there is this tremendous desire on the part

of the government to regulate, and control the debate and the actions of this

parliament. I think basically, that that is wrong. If the government has lost

control of parliament, there are other remedies. I don't think they should go

this route they are going to deny the Members the right to play a meaningful

role in this assembly.

It is a very minor amendment which is being introduced here.

It is the deletion of subsection (3) and subsection (5). I'm

sure that the government, after I sit down, will see the wisdom

of the deletion of these two subsections from their motion, and

I'll applaud them for supporting the amendment introduced by

the Member for North Peace River.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to the amendment to the motion before the House, I'd

like to say it was a privilege for me to be able to attend a

commonwealth parliamentary conference in Quebec City, along

with yourself and other Hon. Members.

Although some of the material I used on that occasion has

been presented to the House here today, I do want to say that I

think the general theme I attempted to convey to that august

company in Quebec was to the effect that the scope of the

individual backbencher should not be deterred. Granted, a

legislature is all the elected Members; the government is the

cabinet. I think all backbenchers should have the prerogative

of questioning the government on policy, on the legislation, on

their spending estimates. I don't mean to say it should be an

unending debate, but certainly a reasonable debate to the

degree that full knowledge and full disclosure is made. I think

this is eminently important.

I think it also gives the private Member a feeling that he

does have a function; he can make a contribution. Whether the

government accepts it or not, at least it should be brought to

the light of day. In my presentation in Quebec, I think it was

generally accepted that the private Member did have an

important position to play in the legislative process, I feel

equally so today. I would not want to see, by the terms of

reference of the motion which we'll probably be debating at a

later moment, a predetermined path set out so that full and

comprehensive debate can take place even when such a motion

would go before a select standing committee of the House.

I think it's eminently important at this time that we

consider the private Member not so much from the point of view

of his political stake but from the point of view of conveying

to the Legislature those items and thoughts conveyed to him by

his constituents, whether it be by way of resolution or whether

it be by way of a bill. Then I feel he can properly represent

his people. Whether the government accepts it or rejects it is

immaterial in that he has made an honest attempt and has had

the

[ Page 2844 ]

opportunity of presenting his views and those of his

constituents to the Legislature. After all, it is the highest

court in the land. While it may not appear to some to be so, it

certainly is the area in which laws are made and laws are

revoked.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just want to rise briefly

in support of the amendment. I can't accept the Provincial

Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall'

s) assurances that this motion is

purely for discussion purposes and that nothing has been

decided yet. The very phrasing of the two sections which we've

asked to have deleted makes that comment somewhat suspect. It

instead precludes, for me at least, that the government's mind

is already made up. It wants the all-party committee, as it

does in so many other instances with regard to committees which

have been set up by this government, to give the decision that

has already been made some kind of respectability. The phrasing

is very precise and indicates exactly the government's

intention in this matter.

Unfortunately, the whole motion, as mentioned by a previous

speaker, would seem to be on the order paper to cover up a loss

of control by the Premier in the proceedings of the Legislature

and an inability to direct the business of this Legislature in

some kind of successful manner.

I would suggest, in speaking about

section 3, that what may

be a fair and reasonable time for one subject is certainly not

a fair and reasonable time for another subject. In fact, fair

and reasonable for one complete area of legislation may not be

fair and reasonable for another area of legislation.

It was pointed out that, with the speed this government is

setting up Crown corporations and special committees and

secretariats and boards and bureaus and who knows what else,

we're going to need far more time to debate the various

responsibilities of the Ministers of this government.

I think we should have some kind of an answer as well about

the speed with which the government wants to rush this motion

through. Why this session? Why not a parliamentary committee

which would look at some of these questions between sessions of

the Legislature so that it may come back with a much more

rational and sensible approach to the problem at the next

session of the Legislature rather than this one?

Section 5, dealing with private Members' bills, disturbs me

the most. I've had the opportunity since I've been elected as

an MLA to speak on a number of occasions to elementary

students. Invariably, during the talk about democracy and our

form of parliamentary democracy as compared to other forms of

governments throughout the world, the question of private

Members' bills nearly always comes up.

It's a unique opportunity we have in this country for private Members to get

their point of view across to the people of British Columbia and to the government

as well. It doesn't matter that invariably that private Member's bill is ruled

out of order; it really doesn't make any difference. At least the government

has had the opportunity of another point of view. Even though those bills are

often ruled out of order, we see on many occasions that bill turning up somewhere

along the line as the brainchild of the government. That's all right too. At

least the point of view gets expressed and the bill becomes law one way or another.

So, Mr. Speaker, for this government to decide, before ever

having the opportunity for that Member to be heard, that point

of view to be heard, that the bill will not be placed on the

order paper is a pretty serious abrogation of the kind of

parliamentary democracy about which we speak to the students of

our schools and about which we should be so proud.

The two sections in question take away some very important

and cherished concepts of the traditional democracy of which

I'm proud to be a part.

I'd like to just say, too, Mr. Speaker, that it's

interesting looking at your second report, "Legislative

Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act," under "Times

allotted to debate private Members' business" in the various

provinces of Canada, I notice that British Columbia is listed

as "two afternoons per week." Well, it's more likely one

afternoon per session or one hour per session if we're to look

at the actual practice by this government. One hour per session

rather than "two afternoons per week." Perhaps in your next

report you'll have that changed and brought somewhat

up-to-date.

I had the opportunity — and I thank the government for it —

of travelling somewhat extensively to eastern Canada and the

United Nations on a committee of this government. I know

another committee of government also had the same opportunity....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I correct the Hon. Member?

It's not a committee of government; it was a committee

appointed through this Chair and composed of Members of the

Legislature. Government has no say in that committee, as you

probably are aware.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much. I accept your

correction. I travelled, nevertheless.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, you of all people must be aware that

when you make a correction you do it at the end of the speech

being made by the Member who is on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I admit that I was in error.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, during that

[ Page 2845 ]

time, we travelled to eastern Canada and had the opportunity

to lunch with the Members of the Royal Commission on

Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario. The members of that

committee were made up of: the Conservative, Dalton Camp;

former NDP MP Doug Fisher; and the leader of the Liberal Party

in Ontario. They've recently tabled their report to the

government about legislative practices.

They came down very strongly, first of all, on the

protection of the rights of individual Members and, secondly,

on the protection of the rights to discuss supply. That right

is one which must be inalienable and must be protected at all

cost. As a matter of fact, that royal commission in Ontario

recommended that those rights should be extended, not limited,

as we're suggesting in this motion.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I firmly and strongly

support the amendment by the Member for North Peace River.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like

to add briefly my support to this amendment. Actually the

amendment doesn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It

deletes only

section 3 and

section 5. Perhaps it would be

better written if it would delete every section.

I seems to me that there is no need for the entire motion at

all, because all it is is an admission of perhaps one of two

things. It's an admission that the Whip system in the House has

broken down entirely. Should the Whip system be in operation —

acceptably so — then none of these five clauses in this motion

would be before the House today. That's one of the reasons.

The other reason I believe the entire thing to be

unnecessary is because if the House had been allowed to run

under its own controls without any superfluous controls, such

as were added by the House Leader early after he came to power

in this House, the whole thing would have been unnecessary.

For instance, he said shortly after he arrived that under

his jurisdiction there would not be any sittings later than 11

o'clock at night. If he had not made that edict, then the Whip

system could have been allowed to operate and there would have

been ample time for all House Members to let their protests be

known, if protests, indeed, were what they wanted to be known.

They could have done it without any restriction as far as the

timing of that protest is concerned.

Let's look at 29 (3). It says, "Some appropriate rule or

order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a

fair a reasonable time." If we come to some arbitrary

conclusion as to whether it's fair or reasonable, then how in

the name of everything that's pure and righteous can we have a

strong protest as compared with a light protest?

Usually the only tool that's left in the hands of the opposition at all to

let a strong protest be known is in the duration of that protest. How shall

this protest be made known if the timing, which is the only tool in the person's

hand, is restricted?

Moving over to 29(5), it is that an appropriate method be

provided for independent Members or backbenchers to introduce

bills. I know that the life e