1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways estimates.

On vote 211.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1073

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 1074

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1075

Mr. Barrett –– 1075

Mr. Mussallem –– 1078

Mr. King –– 1079

Hon. Mr. McGeci –– 1080

Mr. Lauk –– 1081

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1082

Committee of Supply: Auditor-General estimates.

On vote 3.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1082

Supply Act, No. 3, 1979 (Bill 24), Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction, first, second and third readings and report — 1083

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing, Orders and Private Bills. Fourth reading

Mr. Mussallem –– 1084

Routine Proceedings

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. VanderZalin –– 1084

Division on second reading –– 1086

Royal assent to bills –– 1090

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture report on B.C.'s salmon industry.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1090

Appendix –– 1090

FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today two ladies from my constituency, Mrs. West, and her daughter, Mrs. Tungehaug.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we proceed to the House Leader, you will recall that last

evening I expressed some doubt as to whether or not leave was required

to present a report from a select standing committee after proceedings

in the Committee of Supply had been concluded. I have reviewed the

matter, lest the House might be improperly impeded from receiving

reports from its various committees which have been empowered to report

from time to time.

Ordinarily, when the priority granted to

supply has been satisfied, the House, in the absence of a motion under

standing order 33, could revert to routine proceedings, which, under

standing order 25, includes a provision for presenting reports by

standing and special committees. Last evening, however, routine

proceedings had been passed over by a motion fixing the hour of the

next sitting of the House. The Journals reveal that in the past

this has been permitted in the absence of objection taken. However, I

am satisfied that the procedure followed last evening was correct. In

future, if it is desired to present a report, it should be one after

the Committee of Supply has reported, and before other business. Leave

will then not be required. Leave will, however, still be required to

move adoption of such a report without notice. Thus endeth the lesson.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION,

COMMUNICATIONS AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 211: minister's office, $168,872 — continued.

HON. MR. FRASER: A few questions were asked last evening, and I will now attempt to answer the ones that weren't answered last evening.

First

of all, I'll deal with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) regarding

the highway problems in Nanaimo. You asked about the Transfer Beach

walk at Ladysmith, Mr. Member. That was looked at last year and an

overhead signal was installed. It appeared to be working well. However,

in view of the information regarding the false sense of security, my

ministry will take another look at this summer for a better solution.

Regarding

the Nanaimo bypass, that's a very long-range plan and our ministry, in

conjunction with the city, is advocating a couplet arterial system and

we're working with the city on that as a first priority.

Regarding boundary changes of highway districts in the area of your concern,

I'm advised that Lantzville maintenance will be done from Parksville. The

boundaries between the highway districts are being altered to align with the

new boundaries of the extended Nanaimo city limits. If people in Lantzville

find Port Alberni too remote for permits, et cetera — which, I suggest, they

probably will — we will consider making arrangements at Parksville or Nanaimo

regional office to accommodate that.

The

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), expressed concern

regarding the road through North Vancouver–Capilano. A feasibility

study has been initiated at Lonsdale-Westview, and diamond interchanges

are being investigated. I'd comment here that for diamond interchanges

the acquisition of property is quite high. There has been a tender

called for a pedestrian overpass at Jones Avenue. That tender call is

out at the present time.

The same member for North

Vancouver–Capilano brought up the subject of highway beautification in

North Vancouver. This program is being reviewed in light of extensive

works to come in the future at Upper Levels–Westview area, Lonsdale,

Mountain Highway and Mount Seymour Provincial Park. We don't want to do

a lot of landscaping where reconstruction is imminent.

I'd

like to comment on landscaping generally. In 1978-79 we spent $270,000

on landscaping on new construction. In 1979-80 we plan on spending

$620,000 in new construction areas. We've had extensive landscaping

done in the Victoria area and the Upper Levels; the West Vancouver area

is complete. Knight Street is complete, Mr. Chairman. You'll be

interested to know about that. The one I'm very happy about is the

landscaping and beautification that's been done on the 401 freeway from

Barnet Street all the way to Chilliwack. That's certainly made a lot

nicer driving atmosphere. North Vancouver is the next one to be done.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) dealt with the largest issue we

have: the traffic mess in the lower mainland generally. I'll deal with

the specifics the member brought up.

There are no plans for

upgrading Kingsway. Left-turn prohibitions are not possible due to poor

support street systems in Burnaby.

Marine Way. Sandfill is being dredged now. Construction will start next year on Marine Way.

Highway

1. Extra laning is not advisable, and connection at the west end is

improved. The attitude of engineers is, why expand the freeway, which

is now four-lane, to six? There's no place for the traffic to go off

it. Our main problems are that we have to address those.

The

Barnet Highway. Design work is underway to four-lane the remaining

two-lane section. Once the design work is completed, we will be in a

position to issue a tender call. I certainly consider that a missing

link.

Newcombe-Stormont. Burnaby is presently completing its

transportation plan. It includes this road. This ministry is doing

design work, and there is some debate about the standard of the design.

The debate is going on with Burnaby, and we are definitely addressing

that with the municipality of Burnaby.

Edmonds Street is a municipal street and the municipality would construct it if it were to be done.

The

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is not here this morning. I wish he

was, because he was trying to fight the provincial election. He said he

had a lot of people from all sides in his riding, and I was one of

them. I appreciate that, and maybe he could appreciate my position. I

didn't have anybody in my riding from any side.

[ Page 1074 ]

did make a point that the Redford Street contract was let just prior to

the election. I want to advise him that the Redford Street contract was

awarded October 26, 1978 — that's a long time prior to the election

call. I believe he said it was outstanding for three years. It is my

information that this job had been outstanding for ten years. In any

event the job is almost completed, but I didn't quite get his

connection in regard to the election.

He also mentioned the Sproat Lake section. I believe there has been a

section of that road paved this year.

Another

item he brought up, which is certainly of public interest, is uranium,

and whether we're using radioactive gravel in the Highways ministry

work at Beaverdell. I would just like to report to the House. Mr.

Chairman, that all ministry gravel pits and borrow pits, as well as the

road service of Highway 33, have been tested with a sensitive radiation

meter, and no radioactive material is present. The member's concern

about that should have been looked after.

Yes, the

high-profile project in that member's riding, as well as that of the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — the road from Cumberland to Port

Alberni.... I believe it was estimated last night that it would take

150 years or something to complete it at the rate we're going. All I

want to say is we are spending additional funds on that this year —

$40,000. I believe last year it was $20,000 and the year before it was

$10,000. It is a forestry road, but Highways are contributing to the

upgrading. I am aware of the high interest in that in both communities.

We will continue to proceed on that but it hasn't got the highest

priority that other roads have.

I think that pretty well looks after most of the questions that weren't answered last evening, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 211 approved.

Vote 212: general administration, $6,630,237 — approved.

Vote 213: highway maintenance, $156,326,179 — approved.

Vote 214: highway construction — capital, $160,258,637 — approved.

Vote 215: hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 216: government-owned residences maintenance, $50,000 — approved.

Vote 217: engineering branch, $704,715 — approved.

Vote 218: weighscale branch, $3,186,928 — approved.

Vote 219: motor vehicle branch, $14,209,889 — approved.

Vote 220: motor carrier branch, $1,025,582 — approved.

Vote 221: Motor Carrier Commission, $311,660 — approved.

Vote 222: transportation policy analysis, $1,306,990 — approved.

Vote 223: air services branch, $2,073,585 — approved.

Vote 224: local airport assistance, $2,112,188 approved.

Vote 225: British Columbia Ferries — subsidy, $51,386,950 — approved.

Vote 226: telecommunications service branch, $15,672,054 — approved.

Vote 227: communications system development and regulation branch, $894,798 — approved.

Vote 228: building occupancy charges, $16,750,000 — approved.

Vote 229: computer and consulting charges, $2,646,100 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $4,307,865.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, under vote 1 the Speaker cannot speak for himself, and I

gather the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) answers this vote.

Vote

1 includes legislation; it includes the cost of running the caucuses,

et cetera. Having dealt with the government for four years on a rather

ad hoc basis, as far as the committee and the House is concerned, as

Whip, I would like to say a word or two about our democratic process.

One

of the ways to see democracy flourish is to see to it that the system

under which we work, a system of checks and balances, works well. The

American system, as we know, has built-in checks and balances in a

different way. Ours is on a party basis, whether we like that or not,

and it is on the two-sides-of-the-House basis. One of the ways everyone

is represented is by seeing that an opposition is given an opportunity

to work on behalf of all the people in the province, as the government

is given that opportunity.

The government is in the driver's

seat in terms of budget. The government sets the budget for themselves,

and for the opposition. To date, over a period of four years, as the

person dealing on behalf of the opposition with the government,

oftentimes indirectly and sometimes almost directly, I have found very

little input has been accepted from the opposition.

The

opposition asks for one thing: to be provided with an ability to

perform on behalf of the people of our province. That ability is

impaired if, in fact, the opposition don't have at their disposal

access to research, information and assistance in a huge province with

a huge budget, such as we have in British Columbia today.

Mr.

Chairman, we are no longer bush-league. One way to stifle the

opposition is to see to it that everything has to be done by the

individual, with no assistance provided for that individual. I've been

a minister of the Crown. I know the access a minister has to research

or to any other kind of information that minister wants. I also know

what access an opposition member has. It's grossly inadequate.

The opposition in this House unanimously declares that we have always suffered from inadequate assistance, and

[ Page 1075 ]

that today, in this age of enlightenment, we are no better off proportionately than we have been in the past.

was shocked when I noted when we first came here there seemed to be an

olive-branch approach to the way British Columbia's business would be

run in terms of the opposition, vis-à-vis the government — only to find

nothing has improved in that respect. Vote 1, Mr. Chairman, has not

been improved proportionately for the opposition in British Columbia.

For

a long time I've thought about whether or not to say this publicly, but

I have no choice but to say that when dealing with the opposite

members, as I have done for four years, I found I have not been dealing

with anyone with the ability to negotiate — only to carry messages. We

have been dealing indirectly with the Premier in every way in terms of

our staffing in this building and outside this building.

The

only thing I'm discussing is our grossly inadequate staffing. It is

proportionately the same as it has been over the past four years. I

say, Mr. Chairman, it is totally inadequate and totally insufficient.

I'm shocked at the way the Premier has handled this proposition.

Mr. Chairman, I can say nothing more than this: the way the Premier has treated

this situation shows it has been handled in the way that only a petty person

could do it. He has been nothing less than chippy in the way he's dealt

with the opposition. Until this province is placed in the hands of a person

with his authority who understands the need for democracy — and that's the

only way that democracy can flourish — until the Premier or his successor is

blessed with that kind of insight, we will continue to go on the way we have

with the recrimination, the bad feeling and the lousy reputation that this province

has had — and it has been under Social Credit for lo, these many years.

object, and will continue to object. I'm asking only one thing: that

the people in this province be given a break. And they can only get a

break with an opposition that's given their right — nothing less,

nothing more.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The statements by the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) would perhaps leave an

impression in this committee which should not be left without reply. I

gather that there is some difference of opinion on two sides of the

House with respect to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly as the member for New Westminster spoke.

There

is some difference of opinion with respect to the amount of money which

is to be allocated for the official opposition caucus activities and

staffing. I think that the committee should know that I am informed by

my staff that there is a global budget. It's a block budget, and it

amounts to some $358,800 for permanent staff within this fiscal year —

one-third of a million dollars — plus an annual global budget of up to

$16,900 a month for sessional staff, and that's based, as many

estimates are, Mr. Chairman, on a five-month estimate at $84,500. That

commences in the next session.

I would not want to remain

silent after the rather strong statement made by the member for New

Westminster, without also reminding the people of British Columbia that

the funding for the opposition activities within the building, in

session and out of session, is significantly increased over that which

applied a year ago. We have $358,800 for permanent staff — one-third of

a million dollars — quite apart from the additional sessional

allowances which are recognized as being part of an official

opposition's duties.

I don't think this government needs to

apologize at all for the allocation which has been made. We will

disagree over dollar amounts — I suppose that's inevitable — but the

government does not accept the statements of the member for New

Westminster and does not offer an apology with respect to the amount

which has been allocated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:

There are two matters at issue here. One is the block vote which I will

come to in terms of dollar value, and the other is a matter of a role

in this Legislature.

It goes without saying that no

legislature can operate unless there is what we have termed in every

House in the Commonwealth informal discussion between government and

opposition. No House can function unless there is communication between

the official opposition and the government of the day, regardless of

political party. In my experience, I know of no legislature in the

Commonwealth that doesn't have what are known as "gentlemen's

agreements."

In this particular debate we have the rare

opportunity to discuss our problems in public. Obviously they should be

discussed in private, but there has been a breakdown in communication,

so this is the one opportunity for us to have some sensible, mature.

public discussion to get the private discussion back on track again.

don't say this as a means to separate the members of the House, but I

don't think it's appropriate for members who weren't here in the old

Socred era to glibly throw remarks across the floor. They do not

remember the conditions we functioned in at that time. If they did,

they would remain silent at this particular moment.

The

former members of this House will recall that, at one time in this

Legislature, we did not have hourly rules that were kept. We did not

have offices for MLAs, and we did not have the services that come

anything near what we have now. When I first arrived here, the

government members had a large caucus room out of which they

functioned, and no offices. The opposition had a large caucus room out

of which they functioned, and no offices.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We had a phone.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, my good friend, you and I remember what I'm saying. It is

worthwhile for the other members just to be gently reminded of the

conditions we functioned under: 16 opposition MLAs worked out of one

room, and the government backbenchers worked out of a room of similar

size. It was no larger than a doubling of the Whips' present quarters.

As for the Liberal members at that time, the five of them were jammed

into one small office. The working conditions were absolutely

primitive. We functioned in that way from the early fifties until 1971.

In the last year before the Social Credit government was defeated, we

had the first changes, including a telephone for

[ Page 1076 ]

MLA, a space to sit down for an MLA, and a space to go and take a

constituent to talk to them — if you scheduled it. There was a lineup

of government members, opposition members and Liberal members to use

the same space.

We've come a long way since then, but it's

important in the context of this debate to understand what our history

was. Sixteen of us functioned in one room; files were piled all over.

There was no permanent staff other than temporary sessional staff for

backbench MLAs, whether they were Liberal, NDP or Socred. In 1971 I

believe that the Liberal members finally won the right to have a

permanent secretary for their party. The Leader of the Opposition at

that time finally won the right to have an executive assistant. We're

not talking about rights; we're talking about things that should have

been established in this House 40 years or 50 years ago.

Once

the break came in the last year of the Social Credit administration in

1971, and once the backbench MLAs began to realize that they were not

talking about privileges but about rights, we moved to discussing

whether MLAs should have a full-time secretary. Budgets were reaching

billions of dollars every year, and we got around to discussing whether

or not an MLA should have a full-time secretary. At that time the MLAs'

stipend had gone from the magnificent sum of $5,000 a year, when I

arrived here, to the publicly shocking figure of $12,500. Nobody wanted

to talk about salaries, and nobody wanted to talk about working

conditions. These are the gentle things that we politicians don't like

to discuss.

The moves were made in 1971, and in 1972 there

was a change of government. In its haste to recall every bit of the

working conditions we had functioned under as an opposition, the

government moved towards a policy of giving the MLAs an office — is

that a revolution? — and giving them their own phones, and beginning to

move towards a decent salary, so that people from all walks of life

could be attracted to run for office, regardless of party. Is there

anything wrong with that? The system depends on every single party

having the ability to go out into the general community to say: "Look,

we'd like you to run for our party. These are the working conditions.

You're even going to have an office; you're even going to have a

phone." This is what we're talking about today. We have come a long way

in a few short years.

What happened that prompted the Whip

to make the statements that he did? When we returned after the

election, the Premier and I had a meeting in his office, the way it

should be in a normal legislative session. We had a good talk, and the

conversation included the mechanical problems of running a legislature.

There were no major political overtones, no heavy-duty major debates

between government and opposition. What do we need to run the

Legislature? Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything wrong

with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition sitting down and

saying what the needs are to correct the working conditions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who's the leader?

MR. BARRETT:

You may throw over all the remarks you want, Mr. Member, but this

debate is more important than the present members who sit here. Either

we begin to grow up and set working conditions that make this place

easier for government members and opposition members to serve in, or we

allow petty politics to overcome our responsibility to leave this a

better Legislature than when we came here.

We had a

discussion and a committee was established. I took the position that

once a committee was established to discuss the working conditions of

MLAs, it would be the delegated responsibility and authority of those

people who negotiated for the official opposition to make decisions.

They would have the authority to give commitments and to come to

agreements. They were to report back to our caucus with the conditions,

the agreements and the commitments that they gave. It was my

understanding that the government members on such a committee of

mechanics — not of politics, not of matters of state, but purely

mechanics in terms of office space, telephones, and working conditions;

nothing that would bring a government down — would have the same

authority and the same responsibility to make decisions about how many

secretaries the opposition could have and how many staff the government

backbenchers would have. I thought that this kind of rational

administrative decision would be made quickly, firmly, with no

hesitation.

What happened? Weeks went by, debates were going

on in this House and meetings took place between the persons delegated

by our group and the persons delegated by the government. We found —

and this is the crux of my argument today — that the person appointed

by the government was not delegated the authority and the

responsibility to make decisions. This was the major reason why my good

friend, my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) got up, and this

is why I've entered the debate.

It is not the business of a

political leader of the government or of the opposition to decide how

many secretaries one should have. It is not a matter of privilege that

the opposition or government backbenchers have secretaries. It is a

matter of responsibility and right for all MLAs to have proper services

to do their job in this House. No MLA should be handicapped.

Parties

are not officially recognized by tradition in the British parliamentary

system. The groupings we have in this House are purely artificial. They

exist in terms of form and tradition, but not in law. Each member is a

member in this House by his own right and by that tradition in terms of

loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. It is the government of the day and

the opposition of the day that must say clearly that every member must

have the services necessary to do their job to the best of their

ability. It appears that in today's modern world it is necessary to

have a secretary and a telephone. Lo and behold, we almost accomplished

it. We have a telephone, and now the members are asking for a secretary.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Oh, come off it!

MR. BARRETT:

"Oh, come off it!" says that member. He wasn't here. He didn't work

with 16 in one room. We've made great progress. I'm not saying that we

haven't made progress, Mr. Member, through to the Provincial Secretary.

I'm not saying that we haven't made progress. I'm not saying that at

all. We've made great progress.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I remember those days.

MR. BARRETT: You do remember those days; you know what they were like.

[ Page 1077 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wasn't here, but I remember them.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you were a public official and you were aware. You disagreed, I'm sure, with the conditions that we functioned in.

After

the election we had eight more members. We have 15 permanent staff,

three of which are on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition. What

have we asked for? We asked for 26 staff — 11 more, that's all. We

weren't asking that huge amounts of money be thrown out the window; we

asked for 26 staff for 26 members. We asked for a one staff per member

ratio. In terms of the global budget the negotiations got down to the

piddling matter of whether or not you should have $358,000 or $381,000.

the province of British Columbia going to collapse on the difference

between $358,000 and $381,000? This is the gap that we're at in terms

of a minimal pared-down request. We pared down our request from 26 to

23, and when we came back we were told that the person who was

negotiating would have to take that figure back and get an answer, and

it took a day and a half to get an answer on whether or not the

opposition's global budget was going to be $358,000 or $381,000. Did

the world come to a stop? Did this place collapse? Should we be put in

the humbling position of seeing a cabinet minister not able to make a

decision about a difference in cash between $358,000 and $381,000?

That's the chippy part that my colleague is talking about; that's the

childish part that my colleague is talking about. The opposition and

government backbenchers have a right to have staff. No one can take

that right away. But to tell us that somebody else has to make a

decision over that difference, when we cut our staff and our budget

back, was pretty insulting and humiliating.

I sent a note to

the Premier of the province saying that I wanted to discuss this with

him and he ripped up my note. Oh, you think it's funny. It's not funny

at all; it is downright childish. Whether he's the Premier or I'm the

Leader of the Opposition is irrelevant. The fact is that there will

always be a Leader of the Opposition and will always be a Premier, and

there must be communication between the two, and ripping up notes

hardly serves for the development of a better atmosphere in this House.

How

do you deal with scheduling on debates? How do you deal with that

question that every MLA whispers in the corridors, and every staff

member picks up toward the end of the session? When are we going to get

out of here?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Just take it easy! Every MLA asks that question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't run this House — just remember that.

MR. BARRETT: Of course I don't run it, and neither do you. The traditions of parliament run this House, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Chairman, exactly the kind of exchange that is taking place now is the

barrier to this House growing up. Exactly the kind of exchange....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, this place is going to be here a lot longer than any one

of us, Understanding that, it is our job to make this place work to the

best of its ability, and still allow for the normal range of

hostilities which exist between political parties. That's the crux of

our system. All that we're talking about here is not infringing upon

the rights of members by negotiating such things as whether or not they

can have a half-secretary or a full secretary or a quarter-secretary,

or 26 or 23.

When the government back bench puts in a

request for staff it should be accepted as a responsible request. When

the opposition puts in a request for staff, and then pares it back,

their pared-back request should be accepted as a responsible request. I

don't like this childish pettiness that is returning us to the fifties.

I would suggest that when the government negotiates they negotiate on

the basis of delegating authority and responsibility.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

In terms of pairing, that, too, must be worked out, but it is never a

condition of staff, Mr. Member. If there is any suggestion from the

government benches that pairing must take place in this House, based on

whether or not you get secretaries, then we will never allow that kind

of negotiation to take place. You do not threaten....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. It would appear that the Minister of Energy, Mines,

Petroleum Resources and Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would want to

enter into the debate, but I must remind the minister that only one

member is allowed to be talking at one time.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the minister wishes to enter the debate, would he please wait to be recognized by the Chair? Please continue.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I am saying to you that the working conditions of this

House are not negotiable on some needs of pairing or anything else. I

am glad my colleague got up and spoke today, and I see the government

Whip (Mr. Mussallem) wants to get up and speak. He knows what took

place in those negotiations, and I'm not going to repeat private

conversations with anybody. I mentioned the parameters of the

discussion the Premier and I had.

But it is demeaning to

this House and demeaning to the whole tradition of the parliamentary

system that we are down to quibbling over how many secretaries an MLA

can have. Can we grow up a little bit and have a secretary and a

telephone for an MLA, or is that too much to ask? Can we ask that

governments, when they send negotiators, give those negotiators the

authority to make decisions. Is that too much to ask?

[ Page 1078 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at what we're hearing here today, very

amazed. I am also more than amazed at the uncalled-for attack by my

opposite number, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), on the

Premier of this province — strictly from assumption and not from fact.

I never thought I would hear it on the floor of this House.

The

facts are very clear and very simple, and it won't take 15 minutes to

elucidate them here. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition had a

meeting with the Premier. Whatever went on in that meeting, I'm not

privy to. But I know that part of what went on was that the House

Leaders and the Whips would meet together, and then from them and them

alone the House would proceed with their negotiations. We had the

meeting and this happened.

The Leader of the Opposition

makes a big point of a note he sent to the Premier which he said the

Premier tore up. He might well have done so. As every member here

knows, the Premier always does tear up notes as they are received, and

so do I. I don't throw a note in the basket fully written. Would you

want that, Mr. Leader?

MR. BARRETT: If I ask you to meet with me, I expect you to meet with me. Then I tear up the note.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Any note you gave, you'd want torn up. What's all this talk about

tearing up a note? It's the right thing and the proper thing to do.

Would you want me to keep your notes? If you did, you'd be in real

trouble. So we tear the note out of respect for the one who sends it.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell this leader one thing: this Premier would never allow

an end-run around the committee that is looking after the House. He would not

allow an end-run around our House Leader or your House Leader or your Whips.

And that's what you're asking for. You said you wanted to get into his

office and say: "Mr. Premier, I made a little mistake. There's a magic

number of three in these negotiations. You may notice that — the three more

secretaries you won't give." The magic number is also the number of

secretaries that's in the Leader's office. It would seem to me by deduction

that they forgot to count those when they made the original request. Now that's

all right. That's only assumption; it may not be so. But I want to say here

very clearly that they received a budget of $358,000 to run that opposition,

which in my estimation, by any magic numbers or any other consideration, is

more than enough to run any opposition of this size. We have nothing like that

in our caucus.

But

by this system, I'm supposed to be holding a gun to your heads. I'm not

telling any secrets. I wouldn't repeat it on the floor of this House,

but the Leader of the Opposition himself said: "We will not negotiate

with a gun to our head — no way." And the Whip says to me — and we have

heard it on the floor: "Unless we get it, the House stands still." I

ask you: is that a responsible proposition?

MR. BARRETT: No way.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

They didn't use those words; I'm paraphrasing the statement.

[Laughter.] Laugh if you wish, but you have made a demonstration of the

breakdown of negotiations. There has been no breakdown. I have been to

the office of that opposition almost every day, and I have carried with

me the olive branch of peace and consideration.

They said:

"Well, all right, give us what we're asking for and all will be

peaceful again." Now is that the way? Is that fair? Believe me, if it

wasn't so, I wouldn't tell you, and I would never repeat it on the

floor, except that they made it known to you here themselves. They said

they must have them or else. I'm saying to you there is nothing new.

I've been hearing that every day for the last two months. "We must have

it or else."

There should be no fights here. This should end

on a peaceful note. I have a great respect for my opposite number, the

Whip. I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition and for all

hon. members on both sides of the House. There is no need for this

animosity, but the animosity does not stem from the Premier.

When

they say to this House that they will not negotiate, then we say we'll

go back and see, it is not that we need to see the Premier. The House

Leader has full authority we were told that, and I tell you that,

members on both sides. But we will not make a snap decision under

pressure, because when you're dealing with a third of a million dollars

of public money, when you're dealing with what is plenty and you throw

another $40,000 in just to sweeten the pot, just to have peace in the

House, then I say there cannot be peace. You do not buy your way to

peace; it cannot be done. That's the issue: you cannot buy your way to

peace.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition made a great talk

about having one telephone and one room. How pitiful! Live in the past

if you wish, but let me tell you that in those days the budget of this

province was less than $500,000. I was in the House at the time, and it

was a different story. It was ample. When I was first elected and I

went to that little room that he speaks of, I was told I had one filing

cabinet. There was a filing cabinet with three drawers, and I was told

I could use that bottom drawer in the filing cabinet, being the lowest

member there. I was more than delighted I was given that privilege.

Now

I'm a businessman. I had my own office. I had my own secretary. It was

not new to me. I didn't suddenly know what a secretary was; I had

always had a secretary since I was in business. But I wouldn't

expect....

Secretaries are not what run this parliament.

What runs this parliament are the members and their intentions. It is

not the words that are written, it's the intent that runs this

parliament. It's not the grand offices; it's not the grand numbers; it

is the intent of the members. Everything could be done here without a

secretary. The business of this parliament could be run right from the

floor of this House, and it should be so. Secretaries don't get you

anything except more letters, more notes and more time.

need some secretaries, but we don't need one for every member. I think

it is totally ridiculous. It's a waste of public money. I know what

secretaries are, I know what they cost, and I tell you no business

would run that way. It's impossible. But when this government went out

and offered them $350,000, it was really and truly.... I assume again

that it's what they asked for, and they got it. But they didn't count

that magic number three.

As I say again, I speak with

respect. I think that we are so close.... Why should we come to this

impasse? There is no need of it. As I have said to my opposite number

on many occasions, not privately, not confidentially: "Let it go

through. Let us have peace in this House. It'll all work out." I quote

my very words: "Let it go through." But no, you have seen this

opposition dug in: "You shall not pass

[ Page

1079 ]

until

you give in." We cannot negotiate with a gun to our head. It's no way

to negotiate; it's no way to run this parliament, and this parliament

need not run that way.

My words can be considered to be....

I send them out not in antagonism but in peace. I want them to

understand we do not want to fight. I tell them sincerely that our

House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and my deputy have met several times,

and all we want to do is to get along. But we can't hold the whole

business of this House to ransom for three secretaries. That's what it

amounts to.

The Whip, the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), said that the issue is three secretaries. The whole House has

been held to ransom this past month over three secretaries. What kind

of a system is that?

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie. Shame!

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I could say a lot more, but I will not say anything that went on in

your offices that was not already released on this floor. I will

respect the confidences that we have, and I know they will do the same.

But I only say what they have brought out here now, and the issue....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it all.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

No, I will not tell more. No, I will not, because it was confidential

and I will not say it. But it was said here on this floor that the

issue is three secretaries. This whole House has been held to ransom

for the three past weeks over three secretaries, and that's the issue.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! That is a lie!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the phrase: "That is a lie."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, as an honourable member....

All members of this House know the rules, and he knows the rules as well as anyone, and the Chair cannot allow....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! Under what particular standing order does the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) continue to stand while the Chairman is standing? There

is no such provision in our standing orders.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the words: "That is a lie."

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if the member withdraws the word "blackmail"

I will withdraw the word "lie." I think we can get back to an even

temper on that basis. At no time was this House held to blackmail by me or anyone

in my group, and I will not withdraw unless the word "blackmail" is

withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The Chair proposes to ask for several withdrawals. I'm

asking first for the withdrawal from the Leader of the Opposition of

the words "that's a lie."

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

I would now ask the member for Dewdney to withdraw the word "blackmail."

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, if I used the word "blackmail," I will withdraw it. It

was in the heat of the debate, and I do not remember actually saying

the word "blackmail." I remember saying "gun to the head," but if I

said "blackmail," I'll withdraw it. But the Blues will prove that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I would say, just in the formality of closing my remarks, that I feel

that the issue is plain and clear. It was brought up on the floor of

this House several times by both members who have spoken. The issue was

money and secretaries. Plainly the issue was three secretaries. That's

why we have been struggling and fighting and trying to progress in this

House, and it means nothing to the progress of this establishment.

appeal to hon. members of the opposition to bury the hatchet on this

small issue. It is nothing. Let us proceed as gentlemen. Let us do

this, because we have gone to the precipice and we cannot step over.

That's where we stand, and that's why the House Leader asked that we go

away and come back. We talked it over, and we could go no further.

The

scurrilous attack by the member for New Westminster on the Premier was

unfounded and grossly exaggerated. The Premier had nothing to do with

it. How could he assume he did? How could he attack the Premier, who

had no

part in the negotiations? Certainly the Premier is leader of the

government; certainly he set the parameters. But we agreed with him

that, if we didn't agree, we would go and tell him. We had no cause to

tell him.

We stand our ground; the House Leader and the Whip

and we are firm that it is more than the public purse can afford.

That's all you are going to get, as far as I am concerned.

MR. KING:

I thought the Leader of the Opposition made a very rational appeal to

the Legislature, one that was not laced with acrimony or personal

invective against anyone. Rather, it gave a bit of historical

perspective on how we've arrived at a situation, a climate, in here

which is not a very healthy one, in my view, either for the business of

the province or for the constituents that each and every one of us

represent.

I am sorry that the previous speaker, who is one

of the senior members of the Legislature, made the kind of speech he

did, and then at the end of it pleaded for some sweetness and light and

understanding, after giving information to the Legislature that is

certainly inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, the House Leader — the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — for the government side and I have

met on a number of occasions, as have the two respective Whips. The

government House Leader will

[ Page 1080 ]

acknowledge

that he, when faced with the question as to whether or not he had

authority to make any agreements regarding staffing and the budget

therefore, said no. That is the truth of the matter, and I would have

thought the government Whip knew that. If he knew that, I can't, for

the life of me, understand why he rose in the House and made the kind

of statements he did this morning, because they are not correct.

That

being the case, the opposition has been faced with a fait accompli.

We've been handed an ultimatum from the government: "Here is the global

budget you are receiving for staff, and that's the end of it." It is

significant that the government Whip ended on that note in his

dissertation this morning.

He attacked the opposition for

threatening to tie up the Legislature. Now any examination of the

records proves that is crass nonsense. We have not tied up the

Legislature. We have had a normal pace in debate on the bills that are

before the House, and on the estimates that were before the House,

representing hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure by

government ministers. We have not filibustered those estimates. We have

not taken 14 hours to debate a bill in this Legislature, as a member

and cabinet minister in that government did. Now why would the

government Whip get up and accuse the opposition of saying: "We're

going to tie up the House unless we get staff"? Nonsense!

What

we do intend to do, Mr. Chairman, and what we commit ourselves to do,

is to allow ourselves the opportunity and the time to fill our

obligation as opposition critics, and that is to scrutinize government

bills and government spending in the most effective manner that we

possibly can, because that's what we are elected to do.

I'm

disappointed in the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) making the kind

of asinine suggestions which he did regarding the Premier tearing up a

note. Well, you know, some people do tear up notes after they

acknowledge the notes. And as Premier of the province, I would not

think that I would have to lecture him with respect to the courtesy of

acknowledgement of a note from any member of the public, much less the

leader of the official opposition in this Legislature. If that courtesy

does not reside in the number one office of this province, if the first

minister of the Crown has that kind of disrespect for the office of

Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the Legislature, then

how can we have other than acrimony? How can we have other than

disrespect for the rights of members in this Legislature? That's the

unfortunate part of it. And to try to justify that kind of childish

conduct by saying he simply demolished the note is an exercise in

idiocy that I wouldn't think the member for Dewdney would indulge in.

The

member says it's a terrible thing for the opposition to ask for three

more staff for our office. We're not dealing just with secretaries.

We're dealing with research officers, research people and so on. What

the government has not done is reveal to this Legislature what their

budget is for their caucus. What is revealed, Mr. Chairman, is the

budget that is provided to run the Premier's office, and it shows that

the Premier has nine staff to himself. Nine staff for the Premier! That

budget comes close to equalling the entire budget to run the offices of

26 opposition members.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

Why doesn't the government reveal what the Social Credit caucus budget

is? They treat the opposition in a different way then their own office.

They don't reveal what the global budget for the Social Credit caucus

is. I would like to know. I would certainly like to know, and that

should be a matter of public record.

Mr. Chairman, you can't

negotiate with people who have no authority. The fact of the matter is

that there have been no negotiations because the staff provisions that

we are now confronted with are precisely the same provisions that were

suggested to us by the Attorney-General, as House Leader, when this

session opened. There has been no change, no move, with respect to any

staff changes. In response to our queries, the House Leader says that

he has no such authority and he'll have to go back. Well, I presume

when he says he has to go back, he goes back to his boss, the Premier.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're wrong.

MR. KING:

Well, who does he go back to, for goodness' sake? Do you have a cabinet

meeting on the opposition's staff? No wonder this government is bogged

down if they're down to those kind of asinine deliberations in cabinet.

I would assume that somebody over there had some authority.

The

problem is that we have 26 elected members, an increase over the last

parliament. We have an equal increase in the popular vote in this

province, 46 percent of the people, and we have the government

quibbling over the provision of three additional staff to provide

normal and reasonable services to each and every one of those members

of the House. That's what the issue's about. We are not suggesting to

the government that unless they provide us with this staff we are going

to do anything in retaliation. What we are suggesting and what we are

stating publicly in this Legislature is that we feel that their

position is irresponsible and childish. That's the only reaction that

we, as an official opposition, can come up with, and it's the only

reaction that we intend to come up with. But we feel that the public of

British Columbia should know that the Legislature has degenerated to

this kind of irresponsible and childish debate by a mean government who

apparently want to go to these extremes to demonstrate that yes, they

are Simon Legree, that they're in control of the purse, and that

they're going to punish the official opposition. I say that's very,

very regrettable, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr.

Chairman, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) have made some very compelling arguments

this morning about the role and duty of the opposition and the

importance of their effectiveness to the proper workings of democracy.

Those kinds of arguments have to be taken extremely seriously by the

people of British Columbia and by the government. I sat in opposition

in the House when there were a number of us who had a bullpen. There

was a little bullpen for the Liberals and a bigger bullpen for the NDP

in those days. There were the bears and the bulls.

Those

were difficult times. I'm not sure that the brilliance of debate is

reflected in the luxury of surroundings that accompany this chamber. So

much in setting the course of the province in the future depends upon

the

[ Page

1081 ]

quality of the people who are elected and the attitudes they have towards what are the great issues of the day.

Having

acknowledged the appropriateness of the points made by the members

opposite, it is only fair to include another extremely important aspect

of democratic functioning which has been lost so far in the debate

today. That is the responsibility that all of us have towards the

gathering and expenditure of public funds. As those members opposite

who have served in executive council in the past well know, the

greatest times of stress, within a government, are those times when a

government must prepare its own budget. It then realizes that the

expectations of ministers and ministries and those who serve all of the

agents of government must be pared down to whatever can be accepted in

terms of the taxpayers and the ability of the economy of British

Columbia to pay. There is little doubt that the present government

takes a more careful view of the spending of the taxpayers' money than

does the opposition. That may be one of the reasons why this government

is in office and why they are in opposition.

But it is so

easy, Mr. Chairman, to regard ourselves as exceptions, particularly for

the people in opposition. It's so very easy to set a different set of

rules for them or for ourselves. However, if one regards the total

budget that is included in this particular vote, it is higher than we

have permitted others in British Columbia. It is higher than the total

increases that we've permitted in a number of giant public service

enterprises in British Columbia.

Therefore, if we are to set

ourselves in this chamber by a different set of stars than we ask for

others in British Columbia, what we're doing is demeaning the

democratic process. We fail to live within the disciplines that are

required for the proper development of our economy. What may look like

meanness and triviality — argument over 3 percent, 3 secretaries,

$20,000, whatever it may be — is merely a reflection of the greater

discipline that all of us must exercise in order to move British

Columbia ahead. That's not an undermining of democracy. It's accepting

responsibility. It's not

an act of irresponsibility on the part of the

government or the members of the Legislature. It's

an act of

responsibility. In this chamber we have to accept the same kind of

discipline that has to be exercised by every minister of the government

when he is drawing up his budget. For example, the Minister of Finance

must be disciplined when he goes to the country and asks for taxes in

the interest of the better development of the economy of British

Columbia. It does have a tumble-down effect, and this chamber is not

excluded from that process.

The easiest thing for somebody

elected to office to do is to spend somebody else's money and be

popular for doing it. The most difficult thing for an elected member to

do is to exert the kind of discipline that makes the economy move, to

reduce the expectations of consumers of public dollars in the interest

of those who produce them. That's really what the bigger exercise is

about, Mr. Chairman. While I sympathize with the role that the official

opposition describes, and the importance of their place in British

Columbia and all future oppositions, I don't think that overrides the

greater responsibility that we have to discipline ourselves in the

interest of the economy and the respect of the taxpayer.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, while the Minister of Education (Hon Mr. McGeer) is

calling for respect for the taxpayers, could he look at the other

votes, particularly with respect to his own office and the offices of

the Premier and the executive council, totalling $726,000? I'm not

talking about ministries, departments and civil servants serving the

public, I'm talking about your offices. Your telephones and your staff

amount to $726,434. What political hypocrisy I've seen today in this

room. "It's a reflection of greater discipline," says the elitist

Minister of Education. What absolute nonsense! I wish he would show

more discipline in his interference with research grants and other

matters involving government affairs in his own pet projects.

Today

was a disappointing day, indeed, for me, Mr. Chairman, on this vote, to

hear from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), and I hope that is

the last time I have to refer to him in this chamber. It was the

shabbiest performance of any MLA I've ever seen in this chamber. He's a

very polite gentleman, but, as I said earlier in this chamber,

politeness is absolutely free and it means nothing, obviously. That

facade of politeness means absolutely nothing to that hon. member. When

he comes into this chamber and makes the remarks that he does....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

You know it isn't the truth, Mr. Minister. For any member to come into

this chamber and suggest that this Legislature has sat for a extra

month because of three secretaries is a total and complete falsehood.

It just simply isn't true. I am a member of the opposition caucus, and

that was never suggested. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it ever was

suggested in this caucus, I would resign from the caucus. You know it's

not true. I am confident and I know that it is not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Resign!

MR. LAUK:

Can you prove it? You put a motion in this chamber and I will resign,

You all know it is a lie. This phony little game that is going on here,

Mr. Chairman, is disgusting.

I remember in 1972, when I was

first elected to this Legislature, I was sitting in the back bench, and

the member for Columbia River spoke at the first spring session, and

very eloquently described the circumstances of the opposition and also

very eloquently described his job. He was the veteran and senior member

and was able to describe, at least to a new member such as myself, in a

very forceful and throughtful manner, the role of an opposition member.

However impressed I was, I stood in my place and said to the hon.

members of the opposition that I was a new member but I did remember

the 20 years of financial arrogance of the government that niggardly

squeezed the opposition, hoping very hard that small opposition would

not find out too much, not become too efficient, not have any research

staff, not have any secretaries. It went on for 20 years, Mr. Chairman,

when members such as the one for Vancouver East were in this House.

told the members of the opposition that day that they would fashion the

chains they now wear. I felt at that time that I was opposed to giving

them anything, because being a young and inexperienced member I thought

that was the way we should go. They put us through the hoop for 20

years; let's put them through the hoop. The Premier of the province of

the day, the now first member for Vancouver

[ Page 1082 ]

East,

stood in his place and said he agreed with the sentiments of the first

member for Vancouver Centre, but he did not agree that we should

continue that kind of policy and acrimony in the chamber. A new era

came through. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the now

Minister of Education, stood in his place and said: "There is a breath

of fresh air in this chamber today." Do you forget that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's sure stale now.

MR. LAUK: I agree. It sure is stale now.

The

second point I wish to make is about the comments of the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who betrayed the kind of attitude that I

know isn't shared unanimously by the cabinet members, but,

nevertheless, still gives me a chill when I hear it. He shouted over to

the Leader of the Opposition: "You don't run this House, and don't

forget it." You know what that tells me, Mr. Chairman — a lot of people

on that side of the House are upset that there are now 26 members in

the opposition.

They are so upset that they have

vindictively started the squeeze play on staff and assistants to the

opposition. Instead of expanding the help to the 26 members, to reflect

the will of the people, they are trying to destroy that will of the

people and to keep us understaffed and underresearched. It simply won't

work. You have learned nothing from May 10; you didn't learn any

lessons. You are as arrogant as you were before. You want to

steamroller the opposition, but it won't work, and we won't have it.

The people will learn about your arrogance and they will throw you out

of office.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are on vote 1. I must

say that some of the comments which have been made on the other side

have generated far more heat than light, which is unfortunate.

The

last speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), referred to

the people of British Columbia. I think it's important to quietly and

briefly summarize again for the people of British Columbia, who send us

here to do their work, regardless of which side of the House we find

ourselves on, and who also expect us to work as efficiently and

effectively as possible, some very basic figures. On behalf of the

government, I categorically and absolutely, without hesitation, reject

the inference that the government is attempting to squeeze the

opposition.

Members will know that there is to come into

effect in the future additional assistance, not from the government but

from the people of the province of British Columbia, with respect to

how we serve our constituents. Members will know that there is an

increase in the number of return flights for those members — not

including those in greater Victoria, obviously — who must move from

their constituency to the capital. In the future it will be 28 return

flights by scheduled public transportation or by car from Victoria to

designated airport; or, if by car, from Victoria to their residence. In

addition, this heartless, thoughtless, nasty government which we've

heard about from the second member for Vancouver Centre has decided,

quite properly — and perhaps a little late, but nonetheless has agreed

— that 4 of the 28 flights should be for the spouse of the member,

because it's very important to permit the spouse to come to Victoria

for official functions or for other events which are of some interest

and which involve the government or the MLA.

Incurred and

vouchered travel expenses within a member's constituency are new. It

was not introduced by the former government. It was introduced and

offered by this government, to take effect soon: a travel allowance of

up to $1,500, excluding accommodation and meals, for use within the

member's constituency, in order that members may serve their

constituency. We recognize that, while it may not apply in the

metropolitan and the urban constituencies, it certainly is an

additional cost. If the member is to serve a very large constituency

and has to travel long distances by car or by whatever means, it is

available and appropriate.

In addition, members know that it

is proposed that the constituency office allowance is to be increased

by some $300 per month. Again, this is for all members of the assembly,

opposition and government, in order that we may more effectively serve

the people who send us here and who expect more of us than what we

heard today from the opposition side of the House.

An annual

global budget of up to $358,800 for permanent staff has been offered to

the official opposition. When the House is in session up to five

months, there is an additional $16,900 per month, which is estimated on

the basis of a five-month session at $84,500. That totals $442,300, by

my calculation — in round figures, $442,000. We are informed by the

comptrollers that the official opposition in the last fiscal year,

1978-79, spent approximately $252,000. Vote 1 shows that the actual

estimate was $206,360. That is shown on page 16 of the blue-book

estimates of expenditure. The estimate for 1979-80 is $235,000, and if

we are to compare apples with apples, that $235,000 becomes $365,300.

That is a 21 percent increase in the allowance for 1978-79 over

1979-80, as printed in the book.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that

it is important that we step back from the heat of the moment and

realize, to the very best of our ability, to the very best of our

recognition, the responsibility we carry as government. We have offered

the block funding, which has been debated today. We have said: "Here it

is. Spend it within the parameters of legislative activity, as you

will. " It is a significant increase. Again, the government does not

intend to apologize for the amount of that increase this year over last.

Vote 1 approved.

Vote 2: Crown corporation reporting committee, $405,300 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

On vote 3: auditor-general, $2,466,906.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to raise three points on this particular vote. First of

all, I notice the vote has increased by some $400,000 from last year's

estimate. Yet when I look at the auditor's report it seems that, for

the portion of the year the auditor-general was here, the expenditures

were only $344,000 — say, $345,000 — which for a year on that basis

would work out at something like $563,000. That's quite a small amount

compared to what is actually included in this estimate. It seems the

[ Page 1083 ]

auditor-general

did a very credible job last year with the staff and the time she had.

I'm wondering why, in view of that financial statement and the

auditor's report, the estimate is as large as it is this year. The last

thing I would want to do is handicap the auditor-general in her

activities, but it does seem a bit out of line with the actual ratio of

expenditures for the current year.

The other points I want

to raise deal with the report itself that came from the

auditor-general. Certainly the auditor general keyed in on a great many

points in her report, and made a great many recommendations. There's no

point in having an auditor-general if a government doesn't act on the

recommendations of that auditor-general. The report has outlined

various shortcomings in the management of the finances of the province,

and has made some very specific recommendations. I think that before

this vote is passed we should have some assurance from the government

that those recommendations are being carried out, are being fulfilled,

and that the recommendations she has made are receiving consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. member, the time for debate on the office of the

auditor-general is the time of the adoption of the report. This

particular vote deals with the administration of the office of the

auditor-general rather than on the global report of the auditor-general.

MRS. WALLACE:

My point is that if we're spending this money and getting this kind of

report — I wasn't intending to deal too greatly with the report — I

believe there should be some assurance to this House from whomever is

responsible for this vote that we're going to get value for our money,

and that the recommendations that have been presented will be followed

through and instituted. There's no point in having an auditor-general

if those demands are not fulfilled. That was the point I wished to

make, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 3 approved.

MR. LAUK: Could I have leave of the committee to introduce a distinguished guest in the gallery?

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, between 1972 and 1975 one of the greatest chicken-farmers

in the history of the province of British Columbia sat in this chamber.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the gallery, on the side

facing the loyal opposition, Don Lewis, former member for Shuswap.

Vote 4: building occupancy charges, $266,369 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

Vote 5: ombudsman, $300,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

SCHEDULE A

Schedule A: $360,560 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and that the

reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on June 25, 27 and

28, and on July 3, 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 be now

received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the

Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed

to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I move that toward making good the supply granted to Her

Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from

and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $360,560 to

make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31,

1978; (2) $4,628,090,738 towards defraying the several charges and

expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, such sum to include

that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1,

1979, and

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1979.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 3, 1979

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 24, intituled Supply Act, No. 3, 1979.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, at this juncture we ordinarily pause for a few moments

for the distribution of the bill. Is it the will of the House that this

happen? No? Then we'll carry on.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page

1084 ]

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report to the House, recommending the introduction of Bill 24.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended

and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Presenting Reports

Mr.

Mussallem, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was read

as follows and received.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report 4, Legislative Committee Room, July 25, 1979.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Standing

orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to

introduce a private bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park

Act, except for late filing. But with respect thereto, the petitioner

has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98(3), and

except for advertising; advertisements were placed prior to the close

of the last preceding session. But with respect thereto, the

advertising in all other respects complies to the standing orders. Your

committee recommends the petitioners be allowed to proceed with the

said bill. All of which is respectfully submitted, George Mussallem,

Chairman."

MR. MUSSALLEM: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 34.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, a great deal was said and I've kept a lot of notes, so I

would like to provide some information and clarification, particularly

for the many comments made by the members of the opposition.

Certainly

I can appreciate that this is somewhat unique for them, because this is

a bill which provides opportunity and initiative, and perhaps that is a

little strange for them to comprehend. I am very proud of this bill and

I think it is going to be a great, progressive piece of legislation

which will provide great opportunities, especially for tourism in that

area.

The member for Coquitlam made mention of the fact that there was a difference of approach here, and I agree.

[ Page 1085 ]

We are allowing people to do things for themselves, and certainly that is where we differ in approach.

Much

mention was made particularly of the so-called weighted vote. There is

no mention in the legislation of a weighted vote, but granted, such

might be asked for, as I have mentioned myself, particularly by those

who have a greater investment, and I can appreciate their reasoning for

such. They will undoubtedly refer to a number of existing statutes,

particularly, and other measures which we have seen over a number of

years which would give them some basis of argument.

They

will refer, I am sure, to the 1974 Strata Titles Act, which was

introduced by the NDP, and which reads: "In respect of a strata plan

that is not entirely for residential use…have endorsed upon it a

schedule that is acceptable to the superintendent of insurance at the

time of filing the prospectus." It allows for a rate to be established

for those commercial enterprises which would permit a vote upon the

basis of square footage within that commercial development. I use as an

example, too, a situation — and I'm sure there are many others — in

Vancouver, and I think the member for Vancouver Centre said it would be

familiar with this.... It is a strata plan which has two floors, and to

exemplify this principle that I've just mentioned, let me outline the

voting structure there.

The main floor is 6,510 square feet.

It is one strata lot and carried 90 votes. The second floor contains

nine strata lots, with each strata lot carrying ten votes. It seems

strange that the weighted vote system is such an issue, as it has been

raised time and time again as a possibility. The opposition complains

as well that the Companies Act does not apply. Yet under that Act a

shareholder votes the number of shares he holds. That is, he votes

according to the proportion of his interest. So I am sure as these

people come forth they will make these arguments, and I'm sure —

particularly as the Leader of the Opposition continually referred to

this — many things that he attempted to initiate over a number of

years, especially when he was in government, will be held forth as

examples.

He spoke of a special deal, and I guess they — or

at least some of them — will be seeking special deals, and they will

refer to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to

make some special deal with mining companies. Or they will refer to the

deal which was prepared or proposed for British Petroleum in Surrey,

where they would get tax concessions so as to establish there. That

will certainly be brought up.

I am sure that reference might

be made, by those proponents of the weighted-vote system, of the

Sterling Properties arrangement in the Fraser Valley — or, as it is

sometimes called by the people of Matsqui, the Sterling commune. That's

a strata title corporation where the former NDP government allowed

half-acre lots of former farmland in the agricultural land reserve to

be divided. The people who live on these half-acre properties, on the

edge of this farm, use the farm buildings in the common farm area. They

have votes according to the number of lots that they own. So if a

fellow has three lots he has three votes, and if he has one lot he has

one vote. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition is very well aware of

that little arrangement with Sterling Properties, or the Sterling

commune, in the Matsqui area.

Then there is the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who stood up for the best part of 20

minutes and spoke about how terrible this was, and how we ought to be

looking at examples, instead, in parts of Europe — and I suspect he was

referring largely to eastern Europe as well. That is the same man that

says people should no more own the land they live on than the air they

breathe. I don't think his argument was too credible. He would have

commercial developers rent from the government, and perhaps every

homeowner as well.

True, this is no ordinary bill, Mr.

Speaker. It's somewhat out of the ordinary in that, with the influence

of socialism throughout the world. we're not accustomed to people

coming forth and wanting to do their own thing. Here we have a group of

people who are prepared to pay their own bills, people who don't want

to tax the residents who are there for their particular efforts. These

people don't want a government handout; they are not looking for some

particular government grant on an annual basis. They are people who,

unfortunately, unlike what we see these days, have come forth and said:

"Let us do it for ourselves."

"But, ah," says the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk),

"the private owners will benefit. and that's terrible for people to

make a profit." That member forgets that the prosperity he and we enjoy

today — his indemnity here, his income as a lawyer, his other income, his home,

his Mercedes Benz, all the things we enjoy and he enjoys — is due to people having

made profits which gave them the initiative and the drive to build and build

more, and build better.

Yes,

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of these people make a profit, small and

large alike. I hope they have profitable ventures, because that profit

will mean more tourist dollars to help pay for our good social programs

and more expansion to create thousands of jobs. When the opposition

talks about jobs, they mean government jobs or make-work programs

subsidized by the taxpayers. Here is a chance for thousands of jobs at

no cost to the taxpayers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. I would remind the hon. minister not to

wander beyond the scope of the bill itself. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, these items were all raised during the debate, and

certainly a great many things were put forth which, I would suggest,

and I'm sure most members would agree, were utter nonsense. But I think

those questions need to be answered.

The opposition said

that this is so different, it will be a fiefdom, a principality, a

kingdom. Yes, it will be different. It was made different. The then

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer), when he established the resort municipality of Whistler,

recognized the difference. The then real leader of socialism in the

province, Mr. Bob Williams, was there many times, speaking to the mayor

and those who were very interested in promoting the Whistler community.

He said: "Ah, we'll help you. " I'm sure he meant that somehow it would

be a government partnership, or the government would become involved,

and all of the people there would be public servants. But he supported

and recognized then, as did the then Minister of Municipal Affairs,

that the resort municipality of Whistler was different.

[ Page 1086 ]

The

council members have worked very hard, and they can remember those

words. They've certainly been encouraged since then, but proposals to

have the government involved are very negative. I think we ought to be

very grateful that the council has worked so hard and so ardently with

potential developers, or those that might develop in the area, to

ensure that we will have a unique, progressive approach which will

provide for initiative in a freeenterprise way and have people do their

own thing.

It is also mentioned by the member for Vancouver,

I believe, that the people now resident in Whistler will be forced to

join the association. I doubt if he's read the bill. Certainly the

people now living in Whistler will not be forced to join that

association. Nor will anyone who has a business outside that small area

at the base be forced to join the association unless he or she desires

to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been to Whistler?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I've been to Whistler. I had lunch in a restaurant not too far from the

small area at the base where the restaurant owner would like to join

the association because he realizes that without tourism, without

people coming from other parts of North America, Japan or Europe, he

can neither exist nor continue to exist. They need tourist dollars.

The

municipality has designated that town centre with an official community

plan. That plan cannot be changed except through the council, with the

approval of the inspector. The bylaws for the association will be

developed by the council, approved by the council, and must then again

be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Yes, there can be

classes of members. Mention was made of this by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett). There can be classes of members, and I think

that if the man who has the restaurant away from the area at the base

of the mountain wants to join the association, he should not

necessarily pay what the members pay within the resort lands at the

base of the mountain. He will not get the exact same benefits, and thus

he should not perhaps have to pay the exact same rate.

I'm

just going through the notes here to see if I've covered most of the

points but I think I should answer those as well which were raised by

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Actually, he made more of a

personal attack during the whole of it than raise matters of interest

with respect to the bill. He did ask some questions that must be

answered. I think, possibly, the best way to approach it is to give him

some quick lessons in those matters he raised.

1) He was

concerned about the Municipal Act, or the amendments to the Resort

Municipality of Whistler Act, and he said all this should have been a

private bill. Every time we add anything to the Municipal Act it's an

amendment to the Municipal Act. You couldn't have 100 different

Municipal Acts. That's why I think, too, we should have one bill

dealing with Whistler, and this was initiated by the Whistler council

as an amendment to the Municipality of Whistler Act.

2) The

practice of excluding the Companies Act and allowing the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to specify provisions for incorporating

companies was started in 1974.

3) The association will be a reporting society under the Societies Act.

The resort area will still be a part of the municipality, subject to

municipal bylaws and municipal taxes, as well as getting municipal

services. The services they want to pay for are those over and above

the services otherwise provided by the taxpayers at large.

5) Why not a private bill? I think I've answered that, but let me reiterate: the municipality requested the change.

He mentioned a whole lot about affidavits. There are no affidavits. I

don't know of any affidavits. The deputy minister doesn't know of any

affidavits. There are no affidavits. Gary Watson doesn't know about

affidavits, Al Raine doesn't know about affidavits. All the people

involved do not....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. minister, may I interrupt long enough to ask the

hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) under what standing

order he presumes to interrupt the speaker? Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

No. 7 is the so-called turnover for private gain. The bill merely

allows for the establishment of a resort association. It doesn't turn

over anything to anyone.

8) Fortress Mountain Resorts is 50

percent-owned by Aspen Skiing Corporation and 50 percent by the Federal

Business Development Bank. Fortress operates a ski lift in Alberta — a

ski lift; one, Mr. Member. They could not have possibly built another

two, for a total of three, in the last several days, as you suggested.

Stick to the issues. Get the facts straight. I'm very proud that we

have this bill. I'm sure that it will be a very positive thing for all

British Columbians, not just for those in greater Vancouver or in the

Whistler area. All will benefit from the jobs and all will benefit from

the tourism. It will be a tremendous year-round attraction. This bill

will make it happen in a unique way, with people doing their own thing

with a little bit of good old free enterprise.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

Howard

Lorimer

Hall

Lauk

Nicolson

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Sanford

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

[ Page 1087 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

I don't know if it's a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to

standing order 18, which says: "No member is entitled to vote upon any

question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of

any member so interested shall be disallowed." I rise pursuant to that

standing order to put forward the thought, with a substantive motion,

seconded by the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), that the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound be admonished by the Speaker for

breach of privilege, and that his vote on second reading of Bill 34 be

disallowed. I'd like to put forward some supporting rationale for that.

the bill in question, as listed on

Schedule B, there are a number of

parcels of land identified as "resort land." One of those under the

numerical heading of 3 is called block A, district lot 5316, group 1 in

the New Westminster district. Checking that parcel of land at the New

Westminster land registry office, we find that the registered owner is

a company called Garibaldi Lifts Limited. Under the numerical heading 4

it mentions district lot 4751 and, excepting certain parts, the New

Westminster land registry office shows that the registered holder of

that piece of land, again, Garibaldi Lifts Limited. Heading 5 refers to

lands leased under Crown leases issued pursuant to the Land Act, and

Nos. 27918 and 29848 are both shown to be owned by Garibaldi Lifts

Limited.

Garibaldi Lifts Limited, affected by this bill, is

a subsidiary of a company called TIW Industries Limited. Montreal Trust

Company, the transfer office of Garibaldi Lifts, indicates that as of

May 1, 1979, TIW Industries owned approximately 82 percent of the

common shares of Garibaldi Lifts Limited.

With respect to TIW Industries, the Financial Post Survey of Industrials for 1978, under a heading called "Amalgamation" on page 578, says in part as follows:

"Effective January 1, 1978, the company and its subsidiaries, International Bronze Powders Limited,

Toronto Iron Works Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries amalgamated to

form the present company, TIW Industries Limited. The name of the

company was changed from Warnock Hersey International Limited to its

present form."

It's on the books in any event, and as a

result of that there was a share exchange, which may not in all

instances have actually been consummated. That depends on the

particular shareholder.

Further pursuant to the motion,

there is to be filed, as we know, pursuant to the Public Officials and

Employees Disclosure Act, a declaration by provincial officials and

public employees — which includes MLAs — about a variety of things.

Pursuant to

section 31(

a) of that Act, an MLA is to disclose the name

of every corporation in which "the provincial official or public

employee or a trustee on his behalf holds one or more shares."

The

declaration so filed by Louis Allan Williams of 2060 Gisby Street, West

Vancouver, signed by him, and dated July 3, 1979, attested by the

disclosure clerk on July 4, 1979, indicates that the said Louis Allan

Williams is the holder of one or more shares of Warnock Hersey

International Limited, which as we have indicated, is the parent

company of Garibaldi Lifts Limited. I think therefore this indicates

that the holder of those particular shares has a direct pecuniary

interest, at least as of July 3, and if he does he should have

disclosed that.

Now it may be, and this we don't know, that

since this declaration was filed on July 3, the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound has made some alterations. He may have disposed of

or sold the shares. If that is the case, I think it was encumbent upon

him during the debate he entered into on second reading of the bill to

have indicated and reported that to the House. If he is in fact not a

holder of these particular shares, then of course there is no

foundation for the motion, and it should naturally be withdrawn.

But

if that is in fact the case, as has been enumerated, I think the motion

quite properly syould be put, because there is a direct pecuniary

interest on the part of the member in Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER:

First of all, I wish to cornmend the member for following the right

procedure. The proper procedure for a member who wishes to draw a

matter of this nature to the attention of the House is for him to stand

on a point of order. No motion, of course, can be entertained until the

point of order itself can be determined. In trying quickly, so that the

House would not be delayed, to establish whether the point of order

itself is in order, the Chair has to determine not just whether an

interest can be established, but whether a pecuniary interest, under

the

definitions of the authorities, can be established. In trying to do

that I have referred to page 435 of the seventeenth edition of May, and

would like to, for the instruction of the House, cite several instances

where Speakers of the past have ruled suggestions such as the one

raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) out of order.

The

following examples of Speakers' rulings to this effect may be given: A

member of a corporation, where there are petitions against the bill, or

moving an instruction for the protection of that corporation.... When a

matter of this nature was raised the Speaker or the Chairman has

overruled the objection, and has decided that a motion to disallow the

vote would be out of order. May I cite a couple of other examples: a

minister voting against a reduction of his official salary; members

being owners of land in Ireland on a clause providing for payment out

of public money of landlords' shares of rates; members who were

landowners or farmers; or members having interest in advertising, in

the manufacturing of wireless apparatus, on a motion to approve the

government's policy on television development.

You see, it

is not a matter of only establishing an interest. It is a matter of

establishing a pecuniary interest under the definition of our

authorities. In this matter I must find the matter too remote in order

to qualify in this regard.

The member for Nelson-Creston, on the same point?

MR. NICOLSON:

I would point out some rather interesting, and, I think, very pertinent

facts, with respect. In Sir Erskine May, on page 410, at the very top

of the nineteenth edition, it says: "As the Speaker stated on May 12,

1885, there is no rule in the House on the subject." That is, in the

House of Commons, Westminster, there is no rule. In this Legislature

there is a rule: standing order 18. I think,

[ Page 1088 ]

then,

that since the rule exists here, and since rulings in the House of

Commons have been rulings based upon practice which has evolved, I note

that on many, many instances, while the motion was lost, it was

nonetheless put to the House for a vote, and debate was allowed. Also,

I note that in Beauchesne, the fifth edition, point 232 on page 77

comments that the question is a matter "to be decided by the House and

not by the Speaker." Matters of pecuniary interest...." "....personal

interest of a member is a subject before the House, must be a direct

pecuniary interest and separately belonging to the persons whose votes

were questioned, not in common with the rest of the subject...."

point 232, it says: "A member's right to vote on a question in which he

is personally interested is one of those matters that must be decided

by the House and not by the Speaker." That is in the House of Commons Journals , Ottawa, March 1, 1966, pages 203 and 204.

with respect, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that while such motions have

often failed in the House of Commons in Westminster, those motions have

been allowed to go forward, and it was the wisdom of the House which

decided on the matter of pecuniary interest.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to your ruling, and none of the

quotations, with respect, that you gave to the House from Sir Erskine

May embraced this case. This is a case dealing with 325 acres of land,

and the member has a direct pecuniary interest — is alleged to have, if

the shares have not been sold — in one of those parcels.

Now

surely nothing could be closer and more exactly defined in terms of

direct pecuniary interest than that. The examples you gave about

advertising generally, and farmers and so forth, are certainly not

germane to this. If that kind of a ruling prevails, then it's wide

open, and anybody with a direct-share interest in some special kind of

legislation like this, in terms of this House, and not general

legislation, can vote and not declare the interest. I would say that

would be a grave departure from parliamentary integrity.

MR. LAUK:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing debate on the point of order. I

wish to associate myself with the remarks of the second member for

Vancouver East and also support the member for Nelson-Creston. All of

our readings of Sir Erskine May and recent decisions indicate to us

that the Speaker does not rule on a motion of privilege with respect to

pecuniary interest, but that the House rules on it and the House

debates it.

There is a serious problem. We seek no penalty.

We seek only to draw to the House's attention this problem, and it

should be canvassed in open debate. The hon. member, whom we all know

very well would prefer that it be debated, the hon. member whom we know

also has been consistently an honourable member, would prefer that all

of this information be brought forward and that there be a debate

ensured.

I don't think that it is appropriate to take the motion of the hon. member for Skeena and dismiss it as being not in order.

The

other point that is the most compelling reason is that if there ever

was a case of pecuniary interest, this is it. This is a bill directly

related to a company that owns land, all of which is described in the

bill. It is not a remote shareholder who may be remotely affected by

it. It's not a situation where, if we voted on the bill concerning

railways generally and one of us owns shares in the railway, we could

be described as having a pecuniary interest. It's not anywhere near

that kind of remoteness. But for the Speaker to say that this case is

remote is for the Speaker to say that there is no such case as

pecuniary interest, that there never can be and that the House will

never deal with one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the same

point of order, I think it requires that there be some further

clarification from this side of the House. For the previous speaker to

say that the motion seeks no penalty is really spurious and incorrect

because the motion certainly does seek a very serious penalty in that

the mover of the motion suggested to the Speaker not only that the

member be admonished but that he be charged with a breach of privilege,

which is a most serious penalty in this House.

The Speaker's

responsibility is quite clear in this House and always has been. He has

the responsibility to rule on the eligibility of motions. In this case,

that eligibility must be based, as the Speaker has pointed out, in my

opinion, not only on the narrow confines of the motion, but actually on

the establishment of a pecuniary interest. The Speaker has indicated

that interest and correspondence has not been established in the

opening remarks and the point of order by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard).

While the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

could seek to have the opposition members run for cover in his remarks

that he made, the fact remains that we cannot allow such remote

possibilities to impair the opportunity for members of this House to do

their business. The member who raised the point of order originally, as

I understand it from his disclosure, owns shares in Dome Petroleum. Yet

he voted in this House on a number of amendments to the Energy Act. The

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) owns shares in MacMillan Bloedel, and

yet, Mr. Speaker, that member voted in this House on amendments to the

Forest Act, which directly affect the operations and the profitability

of MacMillan Bloedel. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the initial comments

by you were correct and must be allowed to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will accept the opinions of those two gentlemen standing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think if you check back through Speakers' Decisions

in this House and others, you will find that the

definitions of direct

pecuniary interest are related only to questions where the members

concerned have controlling interest in private or public corporations.

This question has arisen before in this House, when attempts were made

to implicate people in the wildest kinds of remote connections. We've

had several examples cited already on the floor of the House today. But

it would be not difficult at all to think of other connections that

might be raised in imaginary situations where some corporation, which

perhaps didn't even do business in British Columbia, was indirectly

related to some law that was passed in the House that would affect what

they bought or sold in some remote jurisdiction. Clearly, if we allow

ourselves to become enmeshed in these theoretical considerations, we

would spend all our time on disclaimers. This is clearly an absurd

conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1089 ]

MR. KING:

Rather than debate the point of order at this point, as the minister

has tried to do, I would rather leave that for the normal debate which

will follow acceptance of my colleague's and my motion. I refer you,

Mr. Speaker, to a previous decision of this Legislature taken on April

2, 1969, when Mr. Capozzi rose on a matter of privilege and moved the

following motion: "That the member for Burnaby-Edmonds be admonished by

the Speaker for breach of privilege, and be suspended from the service

of the House for the remainder of the session." The breach that was

alleged in that particular case, Mr. Speaker, was a fee to his law

firm, which had flowed incidental to the presentation of a private

member's bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would like to hear the opinion.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, in that case there was no direct benefit to the member

involved — rather, his firm. And on that basis the Speaker ruled at

3:12 p.m. that afternoon. Upon Mr. Speaker resuming the chair he quoted

the authority of May, seventeenth edition, at page 115, which states:

"It has also been declared contrary to the law and usage of Parliament

for any member to be engaged, either by himself or any partner, in the

management of private bills before either House of Parliament for

pecuniary reward." And he observed that — and here is the cogent part,

Mr. Speaker — "While extenuating circumstances may exist, nevertheless

a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established."

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker ruled the motion in order.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend a study of that particular motion to you, sir,

before making your decision and submit that the question as to whether

or not there is pecuniary interest should be the subject of debate. The

motion certainly appears to be in order, and establishes a prima facie

case.

. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think we have sufficient opinions

on this point of order.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested quite rightly that

the Speaker of a House does not involve himself in the vote of a

motion, because in order for a motion to be taken, the point of order

must first be ruled in order. Having it ruled in order, it would then

go to a motion before the House, which would be debatable. So the issue

that the member raises does not apply in this case because we have not

yet proceeded to that stage where we are going to call for a vote or we

would call for a vote.

The member for Vancouver East

suggests that some of the examples that were given were not germane to

this case, and I must say that they were not intended to be so, but

only to give the hon. members some insight into what Sir Erskine May

suggests are examples of matters that were not allowed, two of them

having to do with land ownership.

Some of the other opinions

that we're taking were well accepted and well received, and I

appreciate the contribution of each. If it should fall that the members

do not accept the ruling of the Chair, of course, as members know, it

is subject to the appeal to the House in any instance.

But

with great respect, hon. members, having given the matter quiet

consideration, in the quietness of a very good chamber today, I must

find the whole matter too remote, in my opinion, to qualify for the

motion, and I so rule.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Leader of the Opposition challenges the ruling. Shall the

ruling of the Chair…? On a point of order, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you called the question. In the

circumstances, I would wish to be excused from the chamber during the

taking of this vote.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order,

inasmuch as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made an

allusion to my possession of some common shares of Dome Petroleum and a

vote that was supposed to have taken place with respect to the Energy

Amendment Act, 1979, should I withdraw?

MR, SPEAKER:

Hon. members, with great respect, I find that even more remote.

[Laughter.] Hon. members, may we have your attention? The question is:

shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Smith

Rogers

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 20

MacDonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Hall

Lorimer

Howard

Sanford

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

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

Bill 34, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER:

I am advised that His Honour the Administrator will be here shortly. I

would ask hon. members to remain in their seats until such time as he

appears at the door, at which time we will stand, as we customarily do.

The House took recess at 1 p.m.

[ Page 1090 ]

The House resumed at 1:06 p.m.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979

Medical Amendment Act, 1979

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1979

New Westminster Development Act, 1979

Forest Amendment Act, 1979

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator

doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 3, 1979.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Presenting Reports

Hon.

Mr. Hewitt, from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture,

presented the committee's report on the salmon industries in British

Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:11 p.m.

APPENDIX

12 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions:

Do the Directors of the British Columbia Development Corporation

receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) in what form and in what amount and

(

b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total

amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

" 1. Yes.

"2. (

a) Fee of $2,000 per annum to Directors of the Corporation,

plus $200 per meeting, plus travel expenses.¹

(

b) Directors'

Fees

Directors'

Expenses

Total

B. Babicki

$3,800.00

---

$3,800.00

2,000.00

---

2,000.00

---

---

---

N. Alexander

2,000.00

---

2,000.00

---

---

---

---

---

---

M. Belkin

3,800.00

$28.15

3,828.15

3,000.00

---

3,000.00

3,800.00

---

3,800.00

J. Bruk

2,000.00

---

2,000.00

---

---

---

---

---

---

D. Korbin

2,000.00

---

2,000.00

---

---

---

---

---

---

D. Smith

2,000.00

---

2,000.00

---

---

---

---

---

---

A. D. Stanley

4,000.00

116.57

4,116.57

2,200.00

---

2,200.00

---

---

---

H. Blakely

2,000.00

367.72

2,367.72

2,600.00

---

2,600.00

---

---

---

[ Page

1091 ]

Directors'

Fees

Directors'

Expenses

Total

H. Doman

2,800.00

834.00

3,634.00

6,600,00²

1,261.25

7,861.25

6,800.00²

745.75

7,545.75

D. Radler

3,200.00

3,200.00

6,800.00²

6,800.00

6,800.00²

6,800.00

W. Sander

1,800.00

81.41

1,881.41

4,400.00

762.34

5,162.34

3,200.00

3,200.00

M. Young

1,600.00

251.87

1,851.87

3,800.00

116.60

3,916.60

1,367.00

1,367.00

N. Morrison

2,200.00

2,200.00

6,800.00²

4,326.70

11,126.70

6,800.00²

4,808.86

11,608.86

M. McGillivray

3,200.00

$3,410.35

$6,610.35

6,800.00²

4,457.91

11,257.91

6,800.00²

4,172.80

10,972.80

D. Duguid

3,600.00

3,600.00

6,800.00²

6,800.00

W. McCrae

1,400.00

616.03

2,016.03

3,482.00

2,026.53

5,508.53

K. S. Johnstone

1,400.00

1,400.00

"¹ Effective January 18, 1974

"² Executive Committee."

26 Mr. Gabelmann asked the Hon. the Minister of Health the following

question:

What

is the total cost of the advertising campaign on pre-natal care being

sponsored by the Government during the Year of the Child?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"The total budget is $350,000, of which $342,315 has been spent or committed.

"The spring campaign, which included radio, television, newspapers, magazines,

posters, and transit advertising, cost $193,689.

"The proposed fall campaign will cost $60,126 for radio and $88,500

for television — a total of $148,626."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada