[ Page 2823 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Use of Hansard Blues. Mr. Speaker — 2823

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Statements by Highways Minister on ICBC advertising and rates.

Mr. Bennett — 2823

Application to IJC to reopen Skagit question.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2823

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

Funding of Indian Friendship Centres. Mr. Curtis — 2824

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

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

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

Possible uniform insurance rates throughout the province.

Mr. Phillips — 2826

Report on progress of unsatisfied judgments.

Mr. McClelland — 2826

Details of Ocean Falls financial arrangements with selling agent.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2826

Conflict of interest alleged of Highways department engineer.

Mr. Wallace — 2826

Presenting petitions

Request for careful consideration of Bill 31, Mineral

Royalties Act. Mr. Fraser — 2827

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

Motions

Motion 29.

Mr. Smith — 2827

Amendment to motion 29.

Mr. Smith — 2830

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2834

Mr. Wallace — 2836

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2837

Mr. Bennett — 2838

Mrs. Jordan — 2838

Mr. Phillips — 2841

Mr. Chabot — 2842

Mr. Richter — 2843

Mr. McClelland — 2844

Mr. Schroeder — 2845

Division on amendment to motion 29 — 2845

On motion 29.

Mr. Gibson — 2845

Mr. Wallace — 2848

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2851

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2852

Mr. Bennett — 2853

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2854

Mr. Chabot — 2857

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2858

Division on motion 29 — 2859

MONDAY, MAY 6, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House today to two people in the gallery from that very advanced area of the Province of British Columbia, Kimberley. They are Mr. and Mrs. Phil Haverstock, along with my wife.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed to the business of the House in regard to the order paper, I wish to point out to the Members that it is, I think, urgent that the leaders of the various parties arrange with the Speaker for a meeting together to discuss the whole question of Hansard. I've been concerned about this for some time, as I've indicated. The reason I'm really concerned is best illustrated by reading just a short sentence to you from Redlich on the procedure of the House of Commons:

"The privilege of freedom of speech, the right to immunity before the law in respect of what is spoken in parliament, protects Members against any action based on expressions used in addressing the House. But this protection extends no further.

"It has been decided on several occasions that it does not cover a printed reproduction by a Member whose speech he has delivered in parliament. In a case which occurred more than 100 years ago it was held by the Court of King's Bench that a Member might have a right to publish his speech but that the speech must not be made the vehicle of slander against any individual. If this were done an action for libel would lie for its publication."

I have examined as best I can in the short time available this whole question of use of the Blues. The problem of libel is that it relates to statements that are made with privilege in this House but later circulated by either Members themselves or other persons to the general public. In examining our Libel and Slander Act we made no provision for this. In examining the standing orders, we made no provision for this. Consequently I think it's urgent that I meet with either your nominees or the party leaders to determine what course of action must be followed. Particularly is this so in relation to an attack that was made upon me on Thursday, May 2.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: That attack is a breach of privilege and it came to my attention on Friday afternoon. On this whole question, I'll be dealing with it as well.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

STATEMENTS BY HIGHWAYS MINISTER
ON ICBC ADVERTISING AND RATES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications, in connection with statements to do with the ICBC by the Highways Minister (Hon. Mr. Lea) while he was in the north, to do with two things: (1) that there should be a postage stamp rate for car insurance in this province, which indeed has been advocated by this party; (2) that the advertising campaign, reputed to be $800,000, was indeed a waste of money.

The question I'd like to ask is: did the Minister ever at any time during his campaign advise you that he considered the ICBC campaign to be a waste of money? Secondly, at any time did he advocate to you in setting up the rates that we have a postage stamp rate for insurance in the province?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Not to my recollection, regarding the advertising. I would have to check with him as to whether or not any other factor was discussed with me personally.

APPLICATION TO IJC
TO REOPEN SKAGIT QUESTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We welcome the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources back to the House from his lengthy trip. We're glad to see there's plenty of sunshine up in the north and that he's looking rested and well.

I would like to ask him a question which the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took as notice for him about a week ago about the IJC (International Joint Commission) and Skagit. May I ask the Minister whether he's received a reply to his April 3 letter to Maxwell Cohen, the chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission, concerning the Government of British Columbia's intention to apply to the IJC to reopen the question of the permission to flood the Skagit Valley?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, as I recall, it's an acknowledgement from the chairman of the Canadian section indicating that he's looking forward to further submissions from the counsel we have with respect to

[ Page 2824 ]

the Skagit. I presume our counsel has been in contact with him while I've been away.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In the light of developments in both Bellingham and Seattle with the Federal Power Commission and the considerable amount of testimony that was put forward at that time, can we expect this submission of the counsel, of which apparently the Minister does not know whether it's been made or not, to be made public so that this type of information could be taken into account, at least indirectly, by FPC officials in the United States?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there are various methods, Mr. Speaker, and I wouldn't want to close' the door on a range of other options we might have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: may I ask whether or not then the submission, which the Minister mentioned but did not know whether or not it had been made, will be made public to the people of B.C.?

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

CRISIS IN B.C.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): In the light of extensive discussions which are reported to have gone on over the weekend, can the Minister of Labour report to the House on the present critical situation in the construction industry in British Columbia?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no report to make that would be of any benefit to the situation at the moment, other than to say that I have meetings planned with the parties involved.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has either side to the dispute asked for either a mediator or an arbitrator?

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

FUNDING OF INDIAN
FRIENDSHIP CENTRES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources: at a recent meeting in Prince George it was indicated by delegates attending a convention of the British Columbia Indian Friendship Centres that they were having some difficulty in communication with the Minister and/or his department. I wonder if the Minister could inform the House as to the present situation.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we announced grants to Indian Friendship Centres. There were 15 in all, at something like $7,200 each. The difficulty they are having with me is the question of what the central operation is going to get. We are meeting with that body on May 13. The friendship centres themselves have had more than they've asked for specifically.

You might recall that I said that I would much prefer to deal with the local organizations on direct funding than to fund through central bodies. So I will be meeting with the central body on May 13.

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

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

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

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. As I understand it, there is now a new executive which I got a telegram from.

NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): For the Minister of Housing: since the construction strike has been brewing for some time, I presume he has these figures at his fingertips — could he tell the House how many housing units are affected by the current construction strike, and in particular how many multiple-family dwellings?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be very difficult to get the answer.

INVESTIGATION OF
OCEAN FALLS PULP MILL

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Labour: Could the Minister advise the House whether or not the Ocean Falls pulp mill, described by a former worker as totally unsafe and run in an inefficient way, is under investigation by the Workmen's Compensation Board?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Member should direct that question to the Workmen's Compensation Board. I have no way of knowing.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister plan to initiate any action to have a full report from the Workmen's

[ Page 2825 ]

Compensation Board with respect to the current operation?

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

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister within his own area of responsibility had any inspections done under the Factories Act, and if so, could he advise the House of the contents of his report?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Factories Branch of the Department of Labour regularly conducts inspections throughout plants and factories in the province. I do not as a matter of course monitor all the inspections which the branch makes.

I have had no requests or no complaint, indeed, from Ocean Falls regarding violations of the factories' regulations and so on, so I have no intention of initiating one on my own.

MR. BENNETT: Further to the Minister: is it not your responsibility, when people are quoted who have been actively employed there, to follow up on the request? Is it not within your responsibility to initiate such an investigation, and would you do so now?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would care to write me a letter requesting such an inspection, I would certainly be prepared to consider it — or anyone else for that matter. But I don't spontaneously initiate these kinds of investigations.

YUGOSLAVIAN WINE
DUMPED ON B.C. MARKET

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. I wonder if he is aware that a wine by the name of Gamza from Yugoslavia is being dumped on our market in British Columbia at $1.85 a bottle whereas it is selling in Yugoslavia at $2.50 a bottle, and we are having wines dumped on our market in order to protect their wine industry in their country. What does he intend to do about it?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the price of that particular brand, but I do know that the dumping thing is a problem. That's part of the reason why there should be, and there is now, an overlook at the whole listing and pricing policy, because sometimes we can have unfair competition from other sections of the world with respect to wines.

NEED FOR WOMEN
IN NORTHERN WORK FORCE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Highways. I was wondering if the Minister would tell the House how far advanced his programme is in attracting more women to northern British Columbia.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You'll have to ask Marjorie Nichols that; she usually writes on that.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's a very facetious remark, and the question was put in all sincerity because on the basis of statements made by the Minister in northern British Columbia that there was a problem with the roll-over of workers and that there's a need...(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: ...for attracting more women. The Minister suggested this. I just want to know if he seriously has a genuine programme or whether it was another one of those facetious remarks that he was making in the north.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I prefer the term "turn-over" instead of "roll-over." But, yes, I made that remark in all seriousness. I think one of the problems in the north is that there isn't a stable work force for one reason that there are not enough women in the north. Most of the jobs are oriented, maybe not correctly but through tradition at least, to the males in our society.

I would make the same statement if the traditional jobs in the north were basically jobs that attracted women because of the tradition in the hiring practices. Then I would say there aren't enough men in the north. I don't think you can have a balanced society one way or the other, so I think that's one way of stabilizing the work force in the north.

Also I should mention that I see this where industry should become more involved in hiring women for some of the jobs that haven't traditionally been for women.

MR. CHABOT: On a supplementary question: if there was a sudden influx into the north, would the Minister be prepared to provide certain transportation for the women to get there, such as helicopters?

MR. SPEAKER: Could that possibly be hypothetical?

MRS. JORDAN: Supplemental to the Minister. In view of the fact that he's endorsing a sexism attitude

[ Page 2826 ]

on the part of his government, is it the government's intention and the Minister's intention to subsidize a programme such as "Here Come the Brides" to the north? (Laughter.)

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

POSSIBLE UNIFORM INSURANCE RATES
THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to further question the Minister of insurance. I asked him in the House last week if he would conduct a survey as to the cost of postage stamp rate for insurance in British Columbia. The Minister of Highways is now advocating the same thing, he's picked up the gauntlet and is running with it.

Is the Minister actively considering a postage stamp rate for insurance throughout the Province of British Columbia to assist those drivers in the northern part of Vancouver Island and in the northern part of the province to operate their cars at the same price as those on the lower mainland?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, Mr. Member, you must have been listening to the interview I did with Jack Wasserman about six months ago when I said that the ideal automobile insurance programme would give the same coverage to any person in the province with the same driving record, driving the same kind of car. That's the ideal, no question about that. It's not an easy thing to do, but I can assure you that it's under consideration all the time.

REPORT ON PROGRESS
OF UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. Some time ago the Attorney-General promised a report on the practice of lifting licences of people who owe a judgment for accidents and are denied the right to bankruptcy proceedings which are open to every other citizen. I wonder if the Attorney-General has made any progress on that report, and whether we might expect it this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I haven't anything to announce. There are two problems involved: one is whether or not judgments of the unsatisfied judgment fund should be cancelled by this Legislature for those people who still owe money to that fund, which would be voiding contracts. The other is a minor question in the context of that total one, namely the effect on a licence, which really doesn't affect people particularly, especially when arrangements are made to pay. The basic question is the debt, and I have no statement to make upon that at the present time.

DETAILS OF OCEAN FALLS FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS WITH SELLING AGENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether the financial arrangements between the Crown corporation at Ocean Falls and the New York-based selling agency will be made public prior to the Minister's estimates in the House?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I've indicated on two occasions, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the contract would not be deposited in the House. However, the contract, which was superior to prices on the west coast and consistently has been so, is under renegotiation at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary. May I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether or not "consistently" means that the price is higher at the present time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it's an agreement that does in fact relate to market. It relates to market.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED
OF HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ENGINEER

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General if he's had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) regarding a possible conflict of interest on the part of a senior Highways department engineer stationed in the Alta Lake-Whistler area?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Hon. Minister a memo, which I expect will now be on his desk now that he's returned.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to motions and adjourned debates on motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, if I may, Hon. House Leader. We should, I think, have the Clerk read out our normal proceedings on the orders of the day, and then we will come to that in due course on motions and adjourned debates on motions on the order paper. The reason I ask is that we apparently have a petition to be presented. Normally petitions would be heard before we get to motions.

[ Page 2827 ]

Presenting petitions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would like to present a petition to the House, Mr. Speaker.

"The petition of the undersigned employees of Gibraltar Mining Company Limited, British Columbia, humbly showeth that the undersigned workers pray that your honourable House will move carefully with consideration of Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act, and make a thorough study to find out how this royalties bill will affect the jobs of the undersigned workers before its enactment. And as duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

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

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that these are employees of Gibraltar Mines, 240 of them, that wish this petition presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. It will be taken to the Clerks and examined by them today.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition — or a set of petitions — to present, representing some 4,500 signatures. Perhaps I might read the prayer.

"To the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned humbly showeth:

(1) Whereas a large number of residents of British Columbia have signed a petition expressing deep concern about the impact the mine royalty legislation (Bill 31) will have on the economy and future of British Columbia; and

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

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, will the Hon. Member simply confine himself at this stage under our rules to the prayer for relief, not the whereas and preamble?

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

"Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House agree to the immediate withdrawal of Bill 31 and the referral of the whole question of mineral taxation to a special committee of the Legislature for study."

I would ask leave to table at the same time associated documents bearing some 4,500 signatures subscribing to substantially the same sentiments, being 2,700 from Kamloops, 500 from Merritt, 1,000 from Trail and some 450 from Ashcroft-Logan Lake.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on motion 29, Mr. Speaker. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 29 is found at page 2 of the orders of the day. The Hon. Member for North Peace River adjourned the debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like to speak to this motion, but before I do, would you provide me with the quotation that you used in the beginning of the session this afternoon?

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

MR. SMITH: Please.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion which we have before us, which is a motion to recommend to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills a number of points with respect to the procedures and rules within this House, I would like to suggest to the Speaker that this is an area in which we should exercise the utmost of prudence.

This parliament is based upon tradition that has come down to us from the mother House in Great Britain, and it's been tested in a manner of trial and error for hundreds of years. So whenever a motion is presented to the House to do something which will alter the rules and regulations or the standing orders of our House, I think it behoves all of us as Members of this Legislative Assembly to review very closely anything which will impair the rights and the privileges of an individual Member.

It is certainly a good idea to review the rules and regulations of the House from time to time. But it is one thing to review the rules, and another thing to provide, within the recommendations to the standing committee, certain things which some of us in the opposition hold to be an interference with the fundamental rights of the Members of this House.

It must be understood by everyone that the committee on standing orders and private bills is a select standing committee of the House and, certainly, as one of the standing committees of the House, the representation on that committee is proportionate to the number of seats that each individual political party has seated in this assembly.

That generally works out to a basis of eight government Members to four opposition Members — or nine government Members to five — so that in all circumstances and in all instances the government Members on the committee will have a majority equal to two votes to one vote of the opposition Members.

This is, of course, a subject sometimes of minority

[ Page 2828 ]

reports from members of a select standing committee who disagree with the reports.

Now I don't want to contemplate in advance the decisions of the select standing committee, but I do wish to spend some time this afternoon — and I am not going to be extensive in my remarks — reviewing what I consider to be some of the historic and fundamental rights of the Members of this House.

When I speak of the Members of this House I speak to all the Members of this House, including those in the government bench, because their rights and the opposition rights within this assembly are equal. Anything that would be introduced as a result of this motion to impede or interfere with those rights should be looked at with a great deal of concern.

I want to quote a few statements which I think back up the arguments I wish to present concerning this motion this afternoon.

The history of democratic government within the commonwealth is largely the story of the long struggle by the people for control of the legislative and executive process.

There is a major threat running through the story of this struggle: the preoccupation with the idea of checks and balances between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch of government. Under a responsible system of government, the major check upon the executive branch is the tradition that the executive branch must enjoy the confidence of parliament or it must resign. In the past we have had many cases of both governments and Members of the cabinet resigning because of a breach of parliamentary tradition.

The American representative system, on the other hand, while recognizing the wish to have checks and balances, sought to set forth those checks and balances by means of written constitutional guarantees. As a result, our system, which is really based upon the British parliamentary system, developed flexibility — a flexibility we wish to retain — while the American system developed rigidity, and that is something we reject.

I think the Watergate situation has been thumped enough, but threading itself through that whole sad story is a struggle between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch of government to maintain the idea of checks and balances in the system.

Under the British parliamentary system there is no question that in large measure the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes. However, when we study the British parliamentary system, we soon realize it is flexible enough to accommodate three further basic ideas:

(1) the right to petition parliament;

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

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

Parliament is a place for the communication of ideas and represents an opportunity for a private Member to propose a measure not initiated by the executive. It is the seeking of this opportunity where most of the difficulty arises in a British parliamentary system. That right should always be kept open to every Member of this Legislative Assembly, be that person a Member of the government side of the House or of the opposition.

Procedures vary as to the method whereby private Members' bills and resolutions can be debated. In British Columbia the difficulty with both private Members' resolutions and private Members' bills arises from the practice of invoking standing order 66, which has been invoked often in this House. Often the Speaker is placed in the position of stopping — if you wish to call it that, because that is what happens — the Member in his tracks by a technical objection of any Member of the House that the private Member's bill or resolution is out of order. Often all of us who have some parliamentary experience in this House recall times when people have risen to their seats to draw the attention of the House to standing order 66.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

HON. MR. HALL: I've no wish to interrupt the Member's speech on a frivolous point of order, or indeed one that's motivated in the usual way, one side to the other. The reason I rise, Mr. Speaker, is that if we get into the merits of any possible outcome of the resolution then we are dealing with the sort of principle.

The Member himself is a member of the standing committee. I want that Member on the committee; I think his work on the committee will be valuable and he will be a thorough representative of his party. I don't want to see him, in error, declare himself on a principle at all that may be in this bill and thus disqualify himself from being on the committee. I rise only on a very friendly note, Mr. Member. I don't want to see that happen. I would hope you would be guarded in that way. I hope you appreciate why I made the point.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the point is really not a point of order in the sense that it deals with the Member's speech. But it does indicate, I think, a

[ Page 2829 ]

warning that all Members should realize: under our standing orders, as you know, anyone who votes against the principle of a resolution and is on a committee that has to deal with it is thereby disqualified from acting on the committee....

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's possible.

MR. SMITH: I appreciate the remarks of the Speaker and of the Provincial Secretary. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to stay very closely to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: May I also just at this time, since the interruption did occur, point out that in May, page 545 of the 17th edition, it clearly provides that where there are instructions to a committee which are a part of the resolution,

"Debate on a motion for an instruction must be strictly relevant thereto, and must not be directed towards the general objects of the (particular subject) to which the instruction relates...."

In other words, the purpose of this debate is not to argue now what really should be properly, if it is approved, before a committee but should only deal with a relevant question of whether the matter should go to a committee. That's the basic thing, I think, if I may put it that way.

MR. SMITH: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I think the Speaker is as well aware as I am of the need for some discussion with respect to a motion of this type. I'm not trying to make statements or use facetious arguments concerning something that represents to me the basic reason why we are here. In presenting a resolution such as this, even though it is to present the resolution to a committee, it does set out five specific areas you wish the committee to investigate. That is why I am speaking in general terms about the tradition and history of parliament and the rights and privileges of an individual Member of parliament. The resolution does deal with some very interesting points which I'm sure will be fully debated by the members of the committee.

As I was saying before I yielded the floor to the Provincial Secretary, there is a possibility, and always has been, that a Member's right in this House can be stopped with respect to entering a private bill or a resolution simply by invoking standing order 66.

While I agree that the maintenance of the order is desirable, the fact is that rising on a point of order is all that is necessary to prevent a private Member's idea from ever being heard. We have instances where a Member has been stopped dead in his tracks and we have seen instances where the government has allowed the Member to at least discuss briefly the idea or the petition or resolution they wish to present before attention is drawn to standing order 66.

I would hope that we would keep in mind that no parliament wishes to gag the opportunity of a private Member on a technicality. We have seen a Member allowed to speak to the principle of a bill he seeks to introduce or he has been permitted to give a general supporting statement for a resolution. However, there is an element of hit-and-miss in this respect. Sometimes the onus rests on the shoulders of the Speaker when someone rises to his feet. I know that quite often, if you had your way, Mr. Speaker, wishing to be fair to all Members of this House, you would rather not recognize somebody rising on that particular point of order because at least it would have given the private Member the opportunity to explain briefly what they have in mind and give the subject matter of either their resolution or their motion or their bill. But when it's drawn to your attention you have no other choice but to rule on standing order 66. For this reason I believe it's something that we should all consider seriously.

Instead of putting the Speaker in an unenviable position, we would provide something that would give clear guidance for all Members of this House to study and know what the procedure would be with respect to introductions of this sort.

It has been said, and I think truthfully, that sometimes in the past, for frivolous or vindictive reasons, someone has risen in their place and drawn to the Speaker's attention rule 66 and thereby prevented any debate.

It's my opinion, and I'm sure it must be the opinion of all elected representatives, that the object of parliament is to give the Members of this House an opportunity to make their views known. This is open to us during the throne speech and a great deal during the budget debate.

But there is also a matter of the granting of funds to the Crown in Committee of Supply, which is also a very fundamental right for all Members of this House. Anything that would prevent Members from expressing opinions in that particular debate on supply should be looked at very carefully by all sides of the House. I think that it is here that we have an opportunity to make Members of both sides of the House aware of our opinions, and that we should be allowed to present these ideas even though they may at some point be ruled out of order.

We are here, I believe, because parliament is the place where we feel that we can present our ideas. If parliament is to enjoy the presentation of Members' views, then we must preserve that right through the

[ Page 2830 ]

presentation of private bills or the presentation of resolutions, and have at least a limited opportunity to discuss the principles and the concepts that we are trying to put forward.

Now if, having done that, the House raises a technical point of order, we can at least then say that the Member has enjoyed the full privileges of parliament — and this is really what I am speaking about. In other words, a technicality has not been used as a device for blocking a Member's right to speak in parliament.

Perhaps we have to deal with time limits, but there should be no way that a person's fundamental right can be blocked by using a technical point. I think in terms of checks and balances that there is a real point to be made here. I submit that the opportunity to present a private Member's bill or resolution goes to the root of the checks and balances system which in this case involves not only the checks and balances which exist between the legislative branch as a body and the executive branch as a body, but goes to the question of the checks and balances which should exist between the individual Members and the House as a whole.

Therefore, if we are to read into the whole history of the parliamentary struggle the idea of individual privilege as well as House privilege, it seems to me that technical points of order should not be raised or used as a weapon to cut off a Member's ability in the House.

I would submit that in British Columbia there is good and sufficient reason for leaving standing order 66 as it stands. There is even greater opportunity for the Speaker to suggest to the House that in practice it be invoked after the Member has presented his views with a time limit, and not before he has ever uttered a word on the question or, even more improperly, to interrupt him in the middle of his submission.

These are the things that strike right to the basic core of our whole democratic process. The motion which has been moved by the Hon. Provincial Secretary deals with five specific recommendations. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that two of those recommendations, at least in my opinion, should not be included in any general discussion of rules and procedures within the House, because I believe that recommendation 3 and recommendation 5 impede, very improperly, the basic rights of Members of this Legislative Assembly.

When we deal with Committee of Supply, and we deal with the matter of presenting motions and private bills in this House, we are dealing with the fundamental right which, if removed or in some way altered, leaves every one of us a poorer person because of that in terms of parliamentary equality in this Legislature. It is for that reason I feel that it is too important a matter to place those types of decisions in the hands of just a few Members appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move that resolution 29 be amended, by deleting sections 3 and 5.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that a motion to amend a resolution would be out of order where it is to do with the instructions if it is not done by notice. There may be very salutary reasons for this, but I really don't have to go into it at this stage except merely to draw the Member's attention to the ruling which is outlined on page 544 of May, which says:

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute. You may have a point, but let me read this fully. I was not appreciating that your amendment would delete rather than add to.

"Notice is required, not only of an instruction, but of amendments thereto which, if agreed to, would enlarge the scope of the instruction or convert the same into a novel proposition."

I would, I think, agree that it would not require notice, because it doesn't extend or amend it to a novel proposition — it merely reduces the number of instructions. By so doing, the question is then whether that would any way imperil the Hon. Member's position on such a committee if he votes to delete these two items. I haven't given thought to that aspect and I certainly want to protect his rights on that committee.

MR. SMITH: I believe that the amendments which I have suggested are in order, and that it strikes at the very heart of why we are called by His Honour to this place. While I may be incorrect, in that the Speaker may be able to point out where I would impugn my own rights as an individual Member to serve on that committee, I don't think that I have impugned my own rights by moving such an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying my best as urgently as possible to consider the point because, as I say, it is important to you, and it is important to the House as well that we know where we are going in this debate. It appears that the motion would be acceptable without notice, in my respectful view of the meaning of that section in May.

The only other question is that when you read standing order 69(2) it says:

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

[ Page 2831 ]

principle of a bill, resolution or matter to be committed can be nominated on such committee."

It depends, I suppose, how you vote on the final vote. If you say that the resolution is amended to suit your desire, that's fine. But if it isn't, does that mean that you, by proposing the amendment and voting against those two sections, thereby in any way imperil your position under that standing order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even though a Member may, if you accept the amendment, propose an amendment, I don't think an interest could be judged until the final motion, because a Member in good conscience may be wishing to improve a motion rather than detract from it. But I don't think a judgment could be made on whether or not a Member could serve on a committee until the vote on the final motion, in a case like this.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I've got the solution here. I don't know how we can find these things out so fast, but anyway, here is the point. In Beauchesne, at page 239 in the fourth edition, it says in paragraph 292-4:

"A Member must be totally opposed, and not simply take exception to certain particulars of a bill or motion in order to be excluded from a committee."

That's good news.

"A Member who opposes merely the appointment of a committee cannot be considered as coming within the meaning of the rule. "

So the situation is, I think, free for you to proceed on this particular amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, I take it then, Mr. Speaker, that your interpretation now of the ruling is that a vote opposing motion 29 will not preclude anyone from serving on that committee.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it doesn't quite go that far. At this moment I haven't decided that issue. It hasn't really been raised. What has been raised at the moment is whether the amendment is in order. I have found that it is in order.

The second thing that I had to indicate was that the Hon. Member who was speaking, who is a member of that committee, in voting against certain particulars of the motion is not thereby debarred from serving on the committee. Now that much I had to decide right now, and I feel I am correct in those propositions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I fully appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, in a difficult problem, but the fact is that we will have to have some guidance at one stage or another. In your initial remarks when you talked about not being able to determine the Hon. Member's attitude until a vote occurred on the motion itself after amendments had been accepted or rejected by this House, I assume that you meant that if a Member at that stage voted against the motion in principle, there would therefore be no possibility of that person serving on the committee because he would fall under rule 69 (2), which is:

"It shall always be understood that no Member who declares" — not even votes, but declares — "or decides against the principle of a bill, resolution or matter to be committed can be nominated on such committee."

It would seem to me you have either found an ingenious way of avoiding 69 (2) or you intend to apply 69 (2) when the time comes.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I hesitate to anticipate, and it is really against the rules for the Speaker to anticipate matters of procedure which may come up. But simply I think the thing that every Member must bear in mind is what the meaning is of the words in our standing order 69, "can be nominated on such a committee." It doesn't say "can serve on a committee that is already standing." Consequently it may well be — and this is what I have to consider with my advisers — that the fact that there is a standing committee to which instructions are now being composed is the same case as somebody nominating somebody to a committee who has just voted against the whole proposition. I think, therefore, that looking at that I should have an answer very shortly on it with my advisers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate your difficulty. It's a new and difficult question, but I would just like to be sure that prior to any vote being called in this House we do have a decision from you which would be clear and unequivocal, at least short term, for us as far as the vote goes and for sitting on the committee afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Most certainly. I realize the dilemma we are all in, and I will try and deal with it expeditiously.

Would the Hon. Member wish to proceed on his amendment now?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel that in dealing with this whole matter I am not prejudicing my rights in any matter, because I am not suggesting that this whole matter of referral to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills is, in my opinion, wrong or that I would vote

[ Page 2832 ]

against it — not by any stretch of the imagination.

What I have tried to do by my amendment and in the remarks that I have made previously is to indicate to this House an area where I feel that the only place where we can discuss that properly is in a debate on the floor of this House prior to the time that we refer specific instructions to the committee.

Perhaps the Speaker would like to adjourn the debate or ask for a short recess, because I think it is an important point and one where I do not wish to jeopardize my own position to serve on that committee, and I think we would all like the benefit of your advice before we proceed further.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am of the opinion as it stands, without even a further look, that there is a totally different matter involved in the appointment of a committee. The House has to determine who is going to be on that committee, and obviously it is only fair to the House that they know that somebody has declared against the principle of that committee's work in the first place.

If the Members of the House wish to debate this amendment further I could put the Deputy Speaker in the chair while the Clerks and I have a serious look at the problem without prolonging the delay of the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The only problem with this approach to it is that a Member who might subsequently speak following the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) might prejudice his position and his ability to serve on the committee, depending upon your decision. That is why it is so difficult at this time to speak on the proposed amendment. One doesn't want to jeopardize his position until such time as a ruling is brought down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that you have already ruled the amendment in order. You have already ruled that the vote on the amendment will have no bearing on your decision of the main motion, so therefore your suggestion is valid, as I see it. You have already made the point that the vote record on the amendment will not influence your decision. It is on the main motion that the rule is asked for interpretation.

MR. SPEAKER: What I am saying is that every Member can proceed to debate the amendment and the advisability of the amendment. That is not all the substantive matters involved in those two subjects. You can debate the advisability of the amendment. In the meantime, if you want to proceed with that, it doesn't in any way disqualify the Hon. Member or any Member when it comes to a final vote on the main proposition. That other question I will canvass with my advisers while you are, if you like, debating the amendment. Is that acceptable? It would save adjourning the House or recessing for a few minutes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, it is my intention to speak on the amendment, of course, as well as on the motion. However, standing order 69 (2) says: "It shall always be understood that no Member who declares...." The difficulty of discussing the amendment is that you're really going to have to discuss what is being amended.

In discussing what is being amended I might well, inadvertently, no matter how hard I try, declare one way or another on the issue, which might later, in the light of your deliberations, prejudice me as an individual Member of this House. I would prefer to have, Mr. Speaker, some sort of recess or adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we go on to some other business, perhaps, with the agreement of the House, and then come back to this?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that a recess is acceptable, but it is the government's position that on this motion dealing with our own business, no one could possibly be excluded from discussing their own business regarding the House itself. However, we will be bound by your advice. This is House business, not anything beyond, anything more or anything less. Because of that I would think that the Hon. Member's amendment motion should be given every consideration with latitude within the rules, and that the debate itself should be given a thorough canvass by every Member of the House, without prejudicing anyone's position.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think so. I think it's important that we get on with it now. We can move into some other business and ask the Speaker to report as soon as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the Hon. Member adjourn the debate so we can move on to other business that could be taken up by the Deputy Speaker. Is that agreed?

MR. SMITH: Perhaps a recess, but if not, I would move adjournment of the debate — whichever you like.

MR. SPEAKER: They all say a recess. If that's the general feeling, a recess it shall be.

[ Page 2833 ]

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

The House resumed at 3:19 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, would you come to order, please. Standing order 69, subparagraph 2, states:

"It shall always be understood that no Member who declares or decides against the principle of a bill, resolution, or matter to be committed can be nominated on such committee."

It is a very narrow, restrictive clause, but refers clearly to the beginning of standing order 69, which says, "No special committee may, without the leave of the House, consist of more than 11 Members;".

I must find, without any other authority available but my power to interpret our own standing orders, that this does not thereby include the standing committees of the House such as the Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. I so rule. That means you're entitled to debate the matter and declare against the matter, if you wish, and still, if you're a member of the committee, serve on it.

I think the purpose of this particular clause must be so that the House may know in advance, when they are nominating Members, where they stand before they go through the nomination phase. But that's been done at the beginning of our session when we have our standing committees. I take it that you're entitled to be entirely free both ways. I so rule.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I've already ruled that the amendment is in order. There's no doubt about that from the authorities I've cited.

On the amendment to motion 29.

MR. SMITH: I apologize to the House for delaying the procedure this afternoon, but it is a very important matter and one on which I felt we would be wise to take a short recess rather than prolong the matter of getting a decision. I thank you for your courtesy and promptness, Mr. Speaker, in coming back with a decision.

Speaking to the amendment to this motion, which is to delete clauses 3 and 5, I feel very strongly that the fundamental rights of the Members of this House must be very closely and zealously guarded by every elected MLA. If for one reason or another the government is of the opinion that they wish to restrict or curtail debate in either estimates or in any other manner, then they are infringing on the individual rights of the Members of this House.

Committee of Supply is one of the most important matters that we deal with as legislators. There are some departments which require a great deal of examination in time and as we've seen in the past, other departments for one. reason or another whose scope is not nearly as broad which pass through the procedures of this House quite quickly. But to try to determine by one means or another what is fair and reasonable is, I believe, to be beyond the competence of any committee. What you're asking that committee for is the wisdom of Solomon to predetermine the events and the procedures of this House, and, by some mystical means, provide a yardstick, if you wish to call it that, to determine the proceedings of this House in advance, particularly to determine the amount of time that will be used.

If it is a fact that the business of British Columbia requires the services of full-time MLAs, then there should be no thought of limiting the amount of time which will be taken on any particular part of the business of this House, with the exception perhaps of the throne and budget debates which could be reasonably reduced by common agreement. But we deal in Committee of Supply with the very essence of this House, and that is the granting of supply to Her Majesty to perform the services through the appointed Ministers.

I would hope the government, when they decide whether they will accept or reject the amendment I have proposed, would look very closely at what I have proposed. Certainly we feel that the inclusion of recommendations 3 and 5 is a restraint and a curbing of the rights of the individual Members of this House. There's no way I have been able to determine in thinking about the matter whereby you can come up with a specified amount of time which would be considered fair and reasonable to all Members of this assembly. What may seem relatively unimportant to me as a Member of this House may be very important to another individual Member. If as a result of a confining of the time available to that person he was denied an opportunity to full debate, then the very reason we sit here as elected Members would be impaired.

It's also important, I think, that clause 5 be deleted. By tradition and practice of this parliament for many, many years, the one method private Members and opposition Members have of presenting their ideas which can be debated is through the introduction of a bill or a motion. I have had the opportunity to sit on both sides of the House and I know how difficult it is sometimes to get your point of view across to the Members of the cabinet benches. I know how frustrating it is also, Mr. Speaker, to a Member who has been successful in presenting his point of view to the cabinet, having it included in pieces of legislation and getting no credit for that, either in this House or outside it, because this is one

[ Page 2834 ]

of the ways the process works. If there is no other reason than that, I would say we must maintain and preserve the right of an individual Member to present public bills and motions.

If we devise some means to restrict that right or narrow it down, here again you're asking a committee or, perhaps, at some point the Speaker himself to use the wisdom of Solomon to determine whether a particular bill will be allowed on the order paper or not. I much prefer a system which allows full rights and full expression by the individual Members of this House.

In the years since I have been a Member, the budget has better than doubled. The number of cabinet Ministers has been increased and the responsibilities of every one of us has certainly increased. If I can go and use the yardstick of the amount of mail I receive as compared to when I was first elected, then — the responsibility of an MLA today is four times as heavy as it was when I first became a Member in 1966. My mail runs at least four times heavier now than at any other time. It has been on a gradual increase. The number of calls and requests I get are the same.

In putting this motion on the order paper, I believe the government acted a little in haste to combat a situation which they feel has impeded the progress of this House. As an individual Member, all I can say in rebuttal to that is that this is the place where the business of the people shall be done. It shall be done by those of us who are elected MLAs sitting in this House, each of us equal as a Member to stand in our place and say what we believe in and deliver our point of view. To introduce a resolution with clauses in it such as Nos. 3 and 5 which would impede that process or restrict the rights of the Members is not, I submit, what we're here for.

Therefore I would urge the government to look closely at the amendments I have proposed. I hope that they will look at them closely and accept them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment; there will be more to say on the main motion later.

Mr. Speaker, we in our party most heartily concur in the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). The reason is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker. We think that the motion drawn up by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), motion 29, is very defective in that it calls for the appropriate rules of order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable time, and then suggests that all this has to be reported before the end of the session, which I believe it to be quite impossible to do.

There's an inherent contradiction in the motion in that it calls for us to devise appropriate rules of order and then fails to give adequate time before the end of the session to do it. It would require enormous research. It would require probably travel. It would require the calling of witnesses.

It would require the type of investigation that I think would have to be close to exhaustive prior to making such fundamental changes to our rules in this Legislature, which we in the opposition feel would destroy our function, or at least very substantially weaken our role as the people's watchdogs on spending in the Province of British Columbia.

I'm referring now to the first part of the Hon. Member's amendment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to a document which I regard as a very good one, a document entitled: Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, second report, by the Hon. Gordon Hudson Dowding, MLA, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, dated September 28, 1973. It is a report where this gentleman, instructed by the assembly of British Columbia under chapter 6, Statutes of B.C., 1972, second session, carried out an inquiry into changes of legislative procedure.

Indeed, we see in this motion that the committee will be looking at only two of the many recommendations of that learned gentleman's seven in number that he put in his report.

Now what I find curious is that although a study has been commissioned by this Legislature, although a study has resulted in the expenditure of public funds, the committee is very limited in the number of recommendations of that gentleman that they are entitled to look into under the terms of reference to this motion.

Therefore, while I cannot discuss paragraph one which talks of the two that have been singled out, when we come to three, the part that is to be deleted, I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the report carried out by the gentleman in question, the Hon. Gordon Hudson Dowding, MLA, did not refer to the appropriate rules of order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable time.

I think he was right not to do that. The fact is that we in the opposition, who are still discussing — when we get the opportunity — estimates of various Ministers, feel that our discussion is valuable. We feel that as the watchdogs of public expenditure we have to take the time to discuss estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that in these recent debates in committee, which you have difficulty in becoming aware of.... Perhaps I could draw your attention to the fact that in these discussions back-bench Members of the government also agree with this point of view, because they also continue to talk on estimates of Ministers.

What we see here is not only an attempt to curb Members of the opposition free expression of their views on Ministerial estimates, but, of course, the

[ Page 2835 ]

back bench as well. Members of the back bench of the government party who have contributed to debate in committee would similarly have restrictions placed upon them.

So we really do not feel that the practice of this session, or indeed other years, indicates that there is any lack of fairness or reasonableness and lack of rules of order for completing estimates, which is implicit in subparagraph 3 of motion 29 and which, of course, was the point to which the Hon. Member for North Peace River directed half of his remarks on this amendment.

We feel that the premise of 29(3) is totally unproven by the government, and we feel that by the industrious work of backbenchers and Members of the opposition and, indeed, Members of the executive council the debates are fruitful. We are trying hard to find out what takes place. We have difficulty when estimates are put on the floor, taken off the floor and brought back again and lifted off again.

We have difficulty because of the uncertainty of when these estimates come forward and whose estimates will come forward, but we do not feel, because of that difficulty, that we somehow or other must put things down, or accept this motion which indicates that there is not fair and reasonable debate at the present time, or that there is need for further rules of order.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, there is no question — as has been demonstrated by this session — that certain issues come to the fore in estimates. Certain other issues come to the fore perhaps under bills. But it's more or less the nature of developing events which determines what subject will be discussed at what length.

It may be that the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall's) estimates go through quickly. It may be that the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Nimsick's) estimates go through quickly. It may be that some other Minister, our Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).... Her estimates take a great deal longer because she's embarking upon new, novel and exciting areas upon which Members wish to question her more closely — and, of course, she has a new department.

For us to try to determine in advance the amount of time devoted is, of course, virtually impossible with respect to new Ministers and new departments, and extremely difficult even with existing Ministers and departments.

Mr. Speaker, I add one further comment on this which I think is important. It is that we are facing a government which has taken more and more and more power to Ministers, and there's less and less within the legislation.

We do not, for example, in the bill that we were discussing at the end of last week, know whether the power to establish restaurant chains will be used. We do not know whether heavy industrial enterprises will be initiated to build buses in British Columbia. We do not know this from the legislation.

Therefore, when the Minister's estimates come up on an annual basis, obviously there is much more questioning because the legislation that we are getting, defective and argued — but of course there are differences on that — because it is not specific, leads to much more of the attention of the public to be devoted to the estimates where we have the opportunity of questioning Ministers' actions. Because their actions are virtually unlimited under the type of blank-cheque legislation which this government is so keen to bring in.

So for us at this stage to start entering into committee and to limit supply debate would be enormously unwise. We feel that to have 29(3) included would be not only unwise in the straight logic of it, but indeed it would be somewhat disrespectful of that Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, second report, which I think is a document which should take first priority in the study of any committee looking at our rules.

Similarly, with respect to 29(5). We have a system; it's not perfect. But the Hon. Member for North Peace River has made it clear that he — and we agree on this — would not like to see some sort of censorship organization or committee to consider bills before they're even aired in this House.

We realize full well as Members that if we bring in a bill which is out of order, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker or some other gentleman in the chair, in his wisdom, will rule it out of order pretty quickly. And this has happened curiously frequently. We know full well that if in such a bill our bright ideas, that may come from ourselves or our constituents or people who are associated with us, are worthy of thought, it may well come up four or five times before the government finally picks it up.

Witness the right to sue the Crown, where the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has made almost a career of putting forward his private Member's bill. Suddenly we found the government putting forward a bill curiously similar. Now this type of thing....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Of course he helped change the government. You are quite right, Mr. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). We did assist you in changing the government. We at that time, like yourselves, were opposed to the previous government. And we did assist in the change of government. Many of the reasons were expressed by them and by us.... As my hon. colleague for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says, "We're going

[ Page 2836 ]

to help change it again."

We fully intend this time that the mistake made last time — and that was simply change for change's sake without any real substantial change in approach — was wrong. We're going to make some alterations in that respect as well.

In any event, should there be a censorship committee before a Member has had an opportunity to make the House and the Speaker aware of what is in his particular bill?

I have sat in a legislature where there is such a system. I believe that if you bring in such a system in a House this size, or smaller, without bringing in a host of other necessary changes to give the opposition the belief that their ideas will have a fair opportunity to be heard....

I'm now referring to such things as opposition days. I'm now referring to such things as more formal votes on direct motions of lack of confidence.

I think if you just take one thing and pull it out of context, you will be making a serious mistake. Therefore, we fully share the view of the Hon. Member that section 5 as well as section 3 should be lifted from the motion, and the motion should be amended by deleting those two sections.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say on sections 1, 2 and 4 as well as on the concluding sentences of the motion. But on the amendment, we can see nothing but virtue in limiting this committee to the other three items. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that unless we limit this committee in some way, or indeed alter it so that the time limit placed upon this committee is more realistic, there's no hope of a substantial, detailed and thorough examination of these five items.

If the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) really wants to have this type of thing discussed properly, I think he should welcome an amendment which would restrict the scope of the committee to areas which are far more limited than the present motion calls for, and that this limitation might, just might, be adequate in getting the committee to finish its work by the conclusion of this session. If we leave it as it is, we are not going to succeed unless this committee rushes through what are perhaps the most important rule changes that we have ever contemplated in this House.

To suggest that somehow by a committee, which essentially is a committee of government Members, as we know, we can rush through changes that we in the opposition feel are very much a dagger to the heart of our parliamentary system and our performance in this Legislature, would be completely unwise, and I warn the government of that at this time.

If we are to have the opposition, if we are to have the effective control of the Ministers of the Crown by ourselves as well as by the backbench of their own party, if we are to have this work impaired, damaged by a committee which really doesn't have adequate time to consider these matters, then there certainly will be a great deal said, not only in that committee, but outside this House and in it.

We feel that the amendment therefore is a reasonable amendment to this motion. We most earnestly suggest that the government, Ministers as well as backbenchers, give careful consideration to such a limitation of this motion.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Perhaps I could just add my comment following on the Liberal leader regarding the fact that we do have reservations in particular to the last line of the resolution which we, presumably, will discuss when we dispose of the amendment. I would at this time like to make it very plain that we also share the apprehension about the time limitation on the work of the committee, but we can touch on that when we debate the motion.

With regard to the amendment, our party feels this way: we're confusing a decision to look at an issue with the principle of that issue. There are clear implications in the total motion, and particularly subsections 3 and 5, that there shall be some limitation of some sort to be discussed and recommended upon by the committee.

It's my clear understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we're not here today to debate whether or not there should be limitation, what the limitation should be, how it should be enforced, et cetera. We are here to discuss whether or not this motion, complete with subsections 1 to 5, is worthy of wide and deep discussion and inspection in committee.

As far as this party is concerned, we feel that there can be no harm come from a discussion in committee of this kind of suggestion. But I want to make it unmistakably clear that in supporting the resolution and in not supporting this amendment, there is in no way whatever in any degree commitment by myself or this party to take any particular positive or negative attitude to the implications in the motion.

I want to make it abundantly clear that we see nothing wrong in putting this into committee to discuss it. We have our own thoughts. I have my thoughts. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has his thoughts. It is, as the previous speakers have pointed out, an extremely, in fact vital, subject in relation to the parliamentary process and in regard to the efficiency or otherwise with which the affairs of this province are to be conducted. And there can be few subjects more important than that. There can be few issues where each of us as elected representatives have to put on our thinking cap and ponder as to whether the present system by which we operate is good, bad, adequate or inadequate and the ways by which this system can be improved.

I mentioned when I started my remarks that I certainly would totally reject any unreasonable time

[ Page 2837 ]

schedule being placed upon the work of the committee. I have some reservations about the implication that financial estimates of the House should be subject to some limitation. But I am willing, in fact rather eager and interested, to get into committee and thrash this whole thing out in the widest possible sense, relying on the kind of evidence which the Liberal leader referred to — calling witnesses, comparing ourselves to other jurisdictions, both looking backwards and forwards.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we all have to acknowledge — and I sincerely say this without disrespect to either administrations to which I've been a witness — that there are many times when the method by which this House functions could be improved, certain techniques employed by all of us. There's not a single Member in this House who at times does not in some way or other misuse the privilege of speaking in this House.

I feel that as long as it is very, very, very clear that this party is making no commitment to either supporting or opposing points 1 to 5 as outlined in the motion, we do feel that there is good cause to look at this subject in depth with that one very vital proviso that since this is such a vital matter that adequate time be allowed for the committee to go into the matter in great detail and then to come up with a recommendation based on in-depth study without the pressures of time. Goodness knows we're all well aware of the pressures on our time during this current session.

If I might ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker: as I understand your decision regarding the propriety of us speaking and possibly expressing opinions on the content of the motion, that since this is a standing committee and rule 69 does not really apply, I would just like to ask for guidance on the position of the Conservative Party because, as you know, the nominating committee can only allow parties to be represented according to their numerical strength of the House, and the Conservative Party is not represented on the standing committee. Now I know that informally the Attorney-General has discussed this with me because he was aware of this situation. Let me make it very plain that there is nothing whatsoever wrong; I'm not in any way complaining that we are not presently represented on that committee because we, the Conservative Party, made certain choices as to which committees I and the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) chose to be on.

This is not to be construed as any complaint on my part that we are not represented. But we did not foresee the particular importance of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. Now with this turn of events, before I conclude my remarks on the amendment, I hope that I could receive guidance from the House as to whether we could put to the House and ask leave that the Conservative Party will be represented. Otherwise this obviously leaves me no alternative but to oppose the motion if in fact this party cannot be represented. I'm not asking for any favours, I'm just trying to point out that this is rather a unique situation which we could not foresee. At this point in time, I would appreciate guidance from the House.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the selection committee, of which I'm a member, and certainly the government side think that all parties in the House should be represented on this committee for this purpose.

I broached that with the other opposition leaders. I don't think I have had firm replies — I'm not trying to hold anything — but I think it will probably be a unanimous recommendation of the selection committee that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay be seated on this committee. Further, how the Hon. Member speaks or votes on this motion would be irrelevant so far as him serving on this because standing order 69 does not apply, it being a standing committee of the House.

HON. MR. HALL: I rise in opposition to the amendment and to tell the mover of the amendment that to only do three-fifths of a job is not to do a job at all. Frankly, we have taken the main business of the House; we have not concerned ourselves with matters of urgent public importance nor have we considered matters of minority reports or other things. We have taken five basic duties that happen day in and day out in this chamber. To consider just three of them would only, as I say, be part of the job.

We insist on having the committee look at these things for the very excellent reasons put forward by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). What's wrong with having a look at it? Are your minds all made up? Ours aren't. Ours aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

Are we without information, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. You talk about in-depth studies. We have reams of material, as all the Members well know.

We have the examples of Members of your party on committees that flowed from the passage of the legislative inquiries Act.

We have evidence from your own friends and compatriots in the neighbouring province of Alberta. One would think we were coming along, cutting off everybody's speech, to listen to the Members. In Alberta, the very thing you are complaining about is taking place. I don't hear from that particular province cries of "Throttled!" or cries of "Silencing!"

Similarly, every single jurisdiction in this country of ours has attacked the problem to which this motion essentially addresses itself — Quebec, Ontario.

[ Page 2838 ]

the federal House. All of them have had in recent times investigations into how they comport themselves and how they conduct their business.

I say to you, Mr. Member, in rejecting this amendment, not to address yourself to not only two-fifths of the subject matter but, in terms of time, a great deal of the sessional duties is really to beg the question.

I apologize if I haven't satisfied the Hon. Member by putting on all these esoteric things you have reported on from time to time, but we thought we would take one step at a time. The little Member has all the answers; I am surprised he wants even more time to discuss them. He has given us the benefit of his wisdom today. I am not entirely certain I am any wiser, but he certainly indicates he has a great number of answers. I think we should let him flow free and convey those messages to the Member of his party who is going to serve on this committee. I am sure we will be able to get a first-class report back on all five subjects in good time.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in supporting the amendment I would like to point out that, where the Provincial Secretary suggested this is only opening discussion, Nos. 3 and 5 are quite specific as to the type of results they want on that discussion. In No. 3, they suggest right there: "some appropriate rule or order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply." They put the words, "fair and reasonable." Who is to judge what is "fair and reasonable"? Is it the government with the weight on the committee to say what is fair and reasonable or is it the right of parliament, the right of the Legislature? Are opposition Members the only ones giving up major rights under this section? Are they to be restricted in discussing estimates of this province?

The point has been brought up that more and more power is taken, through legislation, to the Ministries. We have these new commissions outside the scope of the cabinet. We have ICBC, we have Hydro, B.C. Railway, and any new Crown corporation which may be established. All of these need to be discussed within the Minister's estimates. We should not be discussing the reduction of time; the complexity of discussion and the amount of discussion has to be increased to meet the needs and requirements of today.

With these cabinet Ministers having many, many more powers...and it is just a departmental estimate; it is the corporations and commissions that fall under their jurisdiction that require the opposition and, indeed, all Members to discharge their duties on behalf of the people. They must be allowed full time, and full time will depend on the debate as it develops.

As you might well realize, Mr. Speaker, many times an opening in discussion on either a department or Crown corporation may open the debate much wider and much further than the initial question and the initial suggestion for information. I am sure the government, along with the opposition, on behalf of the people want full and frank discussion of all public business — these Crown corporations and commissions weren't set up to keep information form the public — and that Members will have the opportunity to discuss in the Minister's estimates this very new ancillary part of government.

I also find in No. 5 a very clear direction that we are not just looking for discussion or recommendation. The very last line that says, "The committee shall report its recommendations on the said subjects to the House before the conclusion of this session," certainly puts a time limit on the type of debate or the type of discussion that the government is asking for. It isn't asking just for review; it's telling us that we quickly have to make up our mind before the end of this session on changing rules that took hundreds of years to develop. That isn't asking for just a committee to fairly deal with these five changes or the two that have been asked for deletion. There are directions and conclusions asked for in Nos. 3 and 5. The direction of the conclusions suggest limiting debate, not expanding it, and the fact that we have to come to a conclusion before the end of this session. If we support all five sections of this motion rather than the amendment I am speaking to, which is the deletion of Nos. 3 and 5, we would indeed be agreeing to the conditions it contains and the intent of such statements. That is why we find it necessary — so that this Legislature is not committed to the type of discussion in that legislation, discussions that should take up our time in the future — to support a motion for deletion of Nos. 3 and 5. It would not be in the best interests of the people of this province to have debate restricted as these two sections suggest.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In referring to what the Provincial Secretary said, previously speaking to the motion that we are amending and in speaking to the amendment, it is not the merit of the outcome of this committee that we are debating; it is the merit of the input within the resolution.

As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has just said, right after the Hon. Provincial Secretary spoke and tried to reassure this House that they just wanted to take a "peek-see" at the rules, there are very specific instructions within the resolution itself which we are amending. There is very clearly an indication of the type of conclusions the government expects to hear from the committee. It contemplates the conclusion, and that again prompts us to put forth the amendment which we are debating.

We suggest it is not appropriate at any time for

[ Page 2839 ]

anyone within this Legislature, except the Members themselves, to adjudicate when and when not to, adjourn debate or to suggest that the sensitivities of the public and the business of the House have been canvassed properly — not the Speaker, not the Premier; it is the Members themselves.

There is already within our rules a provision whereby the government, if it wishes to come to the conclusion that debate has fulfilled its purpose and it wishes to close off that debate, can make a motion to the same effect and put the question.

But the important safeguard in that is that the government must answer to the public — as the Members of the opposition must also answer to the public as to why they carried on the debate to the point where the government would invoke closure. Both sides of the House, both guardians of the democratic process, must then answer to the public on the basis of the conduct of the business within the House. To impose the type of rules which would be suggested as in Nos. 3 and 5 is to relieve the responsibility from the government itself and from the opposition in answering to the public, should debate prolong its usefulness or go beyond its usefulness.

In listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, I must say with all due respect and in light of the current session and the workings of the current session, one must come to the conclusion that resolution 29, which we are amending, is in fact born out of the frustrations of the current government: frustration in terms of its own inability to manage the business of the House and the complete lack of control that has been exhibited during this session; frustration, I'm sure, through its own inexperience which has allowed it in fact to be in a position where it's introducing very important legislation at a time when the House normally expect not to be sitting; and frustration born out of its complete lack of ability in the terms of drafting its legislation, which has to be frequently amended and withdrawn as quickly as within two hours of the introduction of some Ministers' bills.

It is because of this fact, Mr. Speaker — the fact that the opposition has been fulfilling its duty, the fact that the opposition has proved through their actions and through the conduct of this session that they have been capable of questioning this government to the point that it has lost confidence in its own abilities within this House, and in fact has lost control of the House — that it therefore in its wisdom sees no alternative but to try and change the very fabric of the democratic process as history has evolved it, not only in the Mother of Parliaments, but through this Legislature.

That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a reflection of the inability of the government itself to have confidence in its abilities to manage this Legislature. It reflects upon the leader of the government in his lack of ability and confidence in his own ability to manage the business of this House without superimposed regulations which in fact, as I mentioned, would cut out the heart of the democratic process.

In the House itself and the debate with particular reference to section 3, which we wish to delete, the Committee of Supply through time-honoured tradition and practical evolution has come to the point where it forms a very vital function, not only of the Legislature itself, but of the public interest.

This is the time that the government Ministers, and the government itself, lay out specifically what their policies are.

This is the time, Mr. Speaker, when the government spendings and specific Ministers' spendings are laid before this House and brought out into the sunlight, brought out into the light not only of legislative scrutiny but public scrutiny.

This is the time when the public, through the efforts of the opposition and, indeed, many Members of the government — and it should reflect also the efforts of the Ministers themselves — have an opportunity to perhaps fully understand not only what the government policy is, but what in fact may be wrong or need correcting in that policy.

This is the time when parliament and the Members of the Legislature, who reflect the public's feelings, discuss the pros and cons of government spending and government policies. Mr. Speaker, as you know from your own previous experience in this House, it's the time when most fully with any government jurisdiction you can open up the pros and cons of any policy and any spending.

This is the time when the real checks and balances within the democratic process must be applied if in fact the government of the day is to reflect the wishes of the people, and to respond to the wishes of the people.

It is this debate, Mr. Speaker, that minimizes what is often, by many governments, a practice of trying to secretize government actions, and it is only during these unlimited debates and free debates where Members' attention and presence in this House is demanded, because that's the only time that they may respond instinctively to a concern which is brought out and protects the government from perhaps very misleading and false charges that they might be trying to practise a more secretive approach to the government of British Columbia or any jurisdiction than is traditionally acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expressed his views and his first concern was that his own party was not represented on the committees and I do not wish to discuss that. But I feel in listening very carefully to his words, which I'm sure he presented most sincerely, that he reflected one of the cruxes of this problem, for this Member in his statements reflected very clearly that his own

[ Page 2840 ]

political experience has been confined to a metropolitan area which sits very closely to the seat of government. And it reflects that his own experience in government has been that of a Member who is not aware of the problems in the other parts of the province.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are aware that one of the major concerns and problems in government in British Columbia in the past or today is how the people outside the immediate area of the seat of government, of the Legislature, and of the debate fully know what is going on in the province, fully know what is the policy of the government, and fully know what are some of the pros and cons or the arguments that are put forth by not only the opposition, but also by Members of the government who might have serious questions in their own mind about the policies of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the government itself has stated in a number of instances since taking office that the reason there was a lot of public concern about some of their legislation — and we can cite Bill 42 or the Energy Act — was they hadn't done a good enough job in public relations. That statement and that concern, combined with resolution 29, with particular reference to section 3, is a very dangerous combination — uncensored government control.

No government that is responsible and that has the vast majority that this government has should have to rely on public relations in order to have the policies that it carries out not questioned or brought to light. When one thinks of the practices of this government since taking office of spending large amounts of public funds in every department to set up public information officers and public relations officers and then combine that with section 3 of this resolution, we see a further compounding of a very dangerous practice.

I suggest that the length of time of the debate in the Legislature in 90 per cent of the cases is the gauge of the sensitivity of the public to what is going on in terms of government within this province. We are all politicians, we are all elected public servants, and one of the prime responsibilities in our job is in fact to reflect the opinions and concerns of those we represent. Whether their opinions or concerns are of interest to the media or to the government, this is the forum through which they can make their feelings known, because, Mr. Speaker, while there are rules within the Legislature, of which you are extremely aware, it is the only opportunity where elected Members do have a forum where they might bring to this government's attention or in fact bring to the media's attention issues that concern people not just in Oak Bay or the main Vancouver area but in the northern parts of the province, in more remote parts of the province.

To set up an arbitrary limit, or arbitrary rules, to hamper this type of expression is, as I say, not only a changing of the fundamental fabric of the democratic system and the responsibilities of the Members as they are elected, but is in fact a foreign philosophy and a foreign thought that has no place within this Legislature.

The provincial Legislature of British Columbia in Canada's history is one where it has a relatively operable number of Members. It has been a legislature that has operated with a minimum of rules and controls. And it is a legislature which has a record in Canadian history of advancing some of the most advanced economic reforms and most successful economic policies, and in fact some of the most advanced social policies of any legislature in Canada.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that this has happened is because of the fact that there has been a limit to the limit of rules. In other words, we've had a relatively free legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the very judgment of the government's policy is reflected in the length of debate. We've seen historically that if it is a good policy...and I would refer also to some bills that this NDP government has brought in. If in fact they are good bills, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if in fact in the genuine concern of the Members they are good for the people of British Columbia, not only today but in the future, and they are good for the province, then those bills and that legislation and those estimates have received a good hearing but not long debates.

The fact that some bills have received long debate and close scrutiny — and the same with the estimates — is a gauge by which the opposition is reflecting not only its own views but the public's views and its concern for those policies. That in itself adjudicates whether the government is moving in a direction that is acceptable to the people or not. To do away with this, Mr. Speaker, I suggest again, destroys the sensitivity of this floor, that is the gauge the government's ability in terms of its handling of the House, the gauge of the leadership of the government and the gauge of the soundness of the policies that the government is trying to put forth.

I would also like to mention a very practical point. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent a non-metropolitan area. It is very difficult, I'm sure many government MLAs would agree with me, for MLAs to keep abreast of everything that's going on in the province. Having had the privilege of serving in the cabinet myself, I know that the opportunity for cabinet Ministers to be generally aware of how policies are affecting people, of what is going on in the province, what are the concerns of the people, what are the concerns of the government and what they should be, is much greater because of their frequent meetings, the overall discussion that goes on and their input in that discussion.

[ Page 2841 ]

This privilege is not available to the MLAs who sit as private Members. The opportunity for an MLA from the Kootenays or Atlin to keep abreast of what is going on in the province and in fact what the government is doing and what its policies are emanates largely from the sittings that take place in this House. Their knowledge emanates and their sensitivity emanates largely from the speeches that are made by other Members of this House. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you watched and saw that when one Member, perhaps from Atlin or from the North Peace River is speaking, very largely it is the other non-metropolitan Members who are listening to that debate, because traditionally we have seen in business and in government and in MLAs that it is the non-metropolitan citizen, businessman and MLA that is broader in his overview and broader in his knowledge of the province as a whole.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest, Mr. Member, that you are a classic example of a Member who has shown a large degree of insensitivity to the non-metropolitan concerns.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You're arguing in favour of the motion.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, you get up and make your own speech; I'll make mine. Mr. Speaker, I think the expression just mentioned by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is exactly the core of what I want to say, for this Member is a representative of a certain, specific area, an economic group in our province, and has shown a marvellous degree of ability in terms of debate on the legal functions of this province, but an amazing lack of ability to relate to the everyday problems of people, and to relate to the everyday knowledge of how legislation that we are passing in this House is in effect becoming the concern of the average person in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have more to say on the resolution itself, but I would like to again state that I believe this government has the majority, should have the confidence and, particularly in light of the leader's history, should have the awareness of the role that debate plays in this House and of the need to have as free a debate as possible for the various reasons that I have mentioned.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a very few comments to this debate because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been very verbal on certain issues that have been brought before this Legislature. I entered into the debate — and I might say sometimes lengthy debate — with a very clear conscience and certainly with a very sincere desire to bring out in the debate some of the far-reaching ramifications of the legislation that has been presented. I feel in some cases that had debate been limited, for instance on Bill 42, some of the amendments that were brought in by the government would not have been brought in had the length of time been curtailed. Again, I'll refer to Bill 42 and the mining legislation last year. It would not have given the people out there who listen to what goes on in this Legislature the opportunity to bring to us more facts and to give them the opportunity themselves to search out things in the legislation that otherwise in a short debate would definitely not have been brought out.

Today, as I have said in this Legislature many times before, the rules are changing very rapidly. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that in the last 18 months the legislative measures that have been brought in have taken this province from what was once considered a free enterprise province to what is shaping up to be a complete socialist state, dominated mainly by the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I think you will further have to agree with me that the powers which have been vested in the cabinet by certain legislation were powers that previous to this government coming to power were not in the hands of the cabinet. I feel that not only are we wanting to limit debate, but we are giving the cabinet more power to do things without referring to the legislation.

Our government today is entering into practically every area of private individual life and indeed every area of business life in our province. We are certainly heading down new paths of government intervention and government control. I feel that the right of those who have been elected to represent the people and to bring out into public debate all of the legislative measures should certainly not be shortened, but indeed I feel that in order to delve into all of the ramifications of the legislation we should be given certainly a free hand so far as time is concerned.

You know yourself, Mr. Speaker, that now there are many companies which the government is forming which do not have to be referred back to this Legislature. There are countless commissions which are being formed by the government to go out and bring back to the Legislature or to the government recommendations which might or might not ever be tabled in this House.

The Premier said on previous occasions several times that his government is being attacked because it is too bold and moving in new directions. I certainly agree with this — he's certainly moving in new directions. But I think that he as Premier must realize that when he's making such sweeping changes in the areas in which this province is heading, he should recognize that it is new to the opposition and certainly it is new to the province. He should realize

[ Page 2842 ]

and fully understand, because he's a parliamentarian himself, that there is going to be a great deal more debate than there would have been had the entire direction of the province not been changed.

He must also realize that legislation that he is bringing in is certainly eroding away the powers of local government and we are heading into an area where quite clearly most of the control over all the areas of life, over community life, over city life, over urban life, over rural life, is going to be controlled not by the locally elected representatives but is going to be controlled by the cabinet.

I'm amazed that perhaps this motion has been in effect on the government back bench since the beginning of this session, because certainly they are not entering into the debate. It disturbs me, in legislation that I clearly know affects certain of the constituencies which are represented by Members of the back bench, to see those Members sit quietly by and not speak up for their constituents.

I suppose that if this change is brought in to our parliamentary procedures, the next thing will be an Act of the Legislature to unite the opposition. Because you must realize, Mr. Speaker, that with three parties in opposition there are three different points of view. If debate is going to be limited, it certainly will work a hardship on the minority parties in this Legislature, because it will be on the basis of numbers, and their ability to enter into debate will certainly be curtailed.

You must also realize that we probably have in this big Province of British Columbia a more wide and varied lifestyle than probably any other province in Canada. Our geography certainly...and climatic conditions vary from desert conditions to the barren north. Our industry, for instance, is wide and varied, taking in practically every industry on the North American continent.

Even if you look at just one segment of our industry, which is agriculture, it in itself is very wide and varied, and certain legislation that might be brought in and might be very good for the densely populated areas in the lower mainland might certainly not pertain at all whatsoever to some of the northern areas. In this instance certainly all of these legislative measures must have wide and varied debate.

Now I certainly do not want my right as a duly elected Member of this Legislature, my right to speak as my conscience desires.... Some of us might from time to time take a little longer than others to say what we have to say, but in all conscience — and it is only with sincerity and singleness of purpose that we enter into the debate — to limit that debate, I feel, would not be in keeping with our democratic system.

I certainly would never go so far as to say that the government would want debate limited so that they could keep their legislative measures hidden under the rug. I wouldn't say that, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't be guilty of saying that. But I might think it. I might think it because of some of the legislation they have brought in since becoming government.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, those are my sentiments on the matter, and I speak with sincerity on this measure. I feel that our right to speak on behalf of those people who have elected us should not be taken away. As I say, though some of the debates might be lengthy, this is our democratic system. It may not be the most efficient system there is in government, but it is certainly the one that has left the rights of the individual still intact. Therefore, I would have to oppose any measure that would take any of these rights away.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief words on the amendment. The Premier has said on numerous occasions that we are full-time MLAs and that our responsibilities involve a lot of debate in the Legislature. Now we see with this motion an attempt to deny Members the opportunity to be fully heard.

I cannot really understand the tremendous hurry and anxiety on the part of the government to have this motion passed and the regulations brought in. I can only come to the conclusion that if it is going to be that hastily done, then.... I would think that the House will prorogue prior to this September, and if it does, it doesn't really allow sufficient time to have a thorough canvass of the subject matter.

I don't think there should be that kind of rush. Had the committee been open and allowed Members to hear other interested parties, with ample time, then it would have been a more meaningful committee than it appears to be, in the direction it appears to be going.

What the amendments would do would be to give Members the opportunity for a full examination of Ministerial actions and the lack of management, in some instances, on the part of the Minister in his department, or a Crown corporation which a Minister, in many instances, is closely involved with either as a director or responsible for.

We've seen the introduction of the question period in the Legislature. I would say that many of the Ministers do give answers and others don't. Others appear to evade giving answers in question period by taking the questions as notice.

I'm not going to suggest that all the Ministers violate that principle of question and answer period; nevertheless, there are some that do. This is the only opportunity which Members of the opposition or Members of the back-bench have to question the Minister in the event that that Minister is not one who readily gives answers in question period.

So in the estimates is the opportunity where Members don't have the kind of restrictions imposed on them that exist in the question period. There is the freedom for examination of the Ministers, the

[ Page 2843 ]

administration of their departments, and at that time we can get some answers. I know that there are Ministers' estimates that haven't come up yet during which I hope to secure some answers which I was unable to get from the question period.

Now by the imposition of section 3 and section 5 it would hamper very seriously, depending upon what the government has in mind, really, in putting forward this motion.... There is a strong possibility that it could hamper the right of a Member of the opposition to question the Ministers. Because what would stop the government from giving the suggestion to their backbenchers that, "We have only so much time during this particular estimate to question the Minister, and I think you should occupy 50 per cent of that time”? That, in turn, denies the opposition the right of thoroughly examining the function of government.

Also, it is most unfair because there are certain portfolios that are more extensive in their relationship to the business and the economic well-being of this province and, in that connection, require substantially more time for question and answer period during the estimates. To arbitrarily set a particular time for each and every department is most unfair.

Now in subsection (5) we're talking about the appropriateness of private Members introducing bills and motions. Now that's historical. Members have always had access to the Crown by the introduction of either motions or private Members' bills. There is the possibility, there is the...well, one is led to believe by reading subsection (5) that the ideas and suggestions that private Members might have might never see the light of day.

I think that that is most unfortunate, because that is what our parliament has been all about — the right of the Member to introduce his ideas; and the government has the right of ensuring that his ideas or his suggestions will never be debated.

Nevertheless, they see the light of day under the present system we have. In many instances they offend certain rules in the fact that they might involve the expenditure of public funds, but at least they see the light of day, and the Member's ideas are circulated throughout this jurisdiction; and I think that is good. I think the government of the day thought it was good when they were in opposition as well.

It appears that we are heading for the denial of this opportunity of the Member to express his opinion on certain matters by the matter of a motion or by the matter of a private Member's bill. I think it is a pretty sad day. I'm not going to suggest that this will, in turn, effectively muzzle the opposition, but it is heading that way by the denial of this particular right.

I really cannot understand why there is this tremendous desire on the part of the government to regulate, and control the debate and the actions of this parliament. I think basically, that that is wrong. If the government has lost control of parliament, there are other remedies. I don't think they should go this route they are going to deny the Members the right to play a meaningful role in this assembly.

It is a very minor amendment which is being introduced here. It is the deletion of subsection (3) and subsection (5). I'm sure that the government, after I sit down, will see the wisdom of the deletion of these two subsections from their motion, and I'll applaud them for supporting the amendment introduced by the Member for North Peace River.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment to the motion before the House, I'd like to say it was a privilege for me to be able to attend a commonwealth parliamentary conference in Quebec City, along with yourself and other Hon. Members.

Although some of the material I used on that occasion has been presented to the House here today, I do want to say that I think the general theme I attempted to convey to that august company in Quebec was to the effect that the scope of the individual backbencher should not be deterred. Granted, a legislature is all the elected Members; the government is the cabinet. I think all backbenchers should have the prerogative of questioning the government on policy, on the legislation, on their spending estimates. I don't mean to say it should be an unending debate, but certainly a reasonable debate to the degree that full knowledge and full disclosure is made. I think this is eminently important.

I think it also gives the private Member a feeling that he does have a function; he can make a contribution. Whether the government accepts it or not, at least it should be brought to the light of day. In my presentation in Quebec, I think it was generally accepted that the private Member did have an important position to play in the legislative process, I feel equally so today. I would not want to see, by the terms of reference of the motion which we'll probably be debating at a later moment, a predetermined path set out so that full and comprehensive debate can take place even when such a motion would go before a select standing committee of the House.

I think it's eminently important at this time that we consider the private Member not so much from the point of view of his political stake but from the point of view of conveying to the Legislature those items and thoughts conveyed to him by his constituents, whether it be by way of resolution or whether it be by way of a bill. Then I feel he can properly represent his people. Whether the government accepts it or rejects it is immaterial in that he has made an honest attempt and has had the

[ Page 2844 ]

opportunity of presenting his views and those of his constituents to the Legislature. After all, it is the highest court in the land. While it may not appear to some to be so, it certainly is the area in which laws are made and laws are revoked.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just want to rise briefly in support of the amendment. I can't accept the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall's) assurances that this motion is purely for discussion purposes and that nothing has been decided yet. The very phrasing of the two sections which we've asked to have deleted makes that comment somewhat suspect. It instead precludes, for me at least, that the government's mind is already made up. It wants the all-party committee, as it does in so many other instances with regard to committees which have been set up by this government, to give the decision that has already been made some kind of respectability. The phrasing is very precise and indicates exactly the government's intention in this matter.

Unfortunately, the whole motion, as mentioned by a previous speaker, would seem to be on the order paper to cover up a loss of control by the Premier in the proceedings of the Legislature and an inability to direct the business of this Legislature in some kind of successful manner.

I would suggest, in speaking about section 3, that what may be a fair and reasonable time for one subject is certainly not a fair and reasonable time for another subject. In fact, fair and reasonable for one complete area of legislation may not be fair and reasonable for another area of legislation.

It was pointed out that, with the speed this government is setting up Crown corporations and special committees and secretariats and boards and bureaus and who knows what else, we're going to need far more time to debate the various responsibilities of the Ministers of this government.

I think we should have some kind of an answer as well about the speed with which the government wants to rush this motion through. Why this session? Why not a parliamentary committee which would look at some of these questions between sessions of the Legislature so that it may come back with a much more rational and sensible approach to the problem at the next session of the Legislature rather than this one?

Section 5, dealing with private Members' bills, disturbs me the most. I've had the opportunity since I've been elected as an MLA to speak on a number of occasions to elementary students. Invariably, during the talk about democracy and our form of parliamentary democracy as compared to other forms of governments throughout the world, the question of private Members' bills nearly always comes up.

It's a unique opportunity we have in this country for private Members to get their point of view across to the people of British Columbia and to the government as well. It doesn't matter that invariably that private Member's bill is ruled out of order; it really doesn't make any difference. At least the government has had the opportunity of another point of view. Even though those bills are often ruled out of order, we see on many occasions that bill turning up somewhere along the line as the brainchild of the government. That's all right too. At least the point of view gets expressed and the bill becomes law one way or another.

So, Mr. Speaker, for this government to decide, before ever having the opportunity for that Member to be heard, that point of view to be heard, that the bill will not be placed on the order paper is a pretty serious abrogation of the kind of parliamentary democracy about which we speak to the students of our schools and about which we should be so proud.

The two sections in question take away some very important and cherished concepts of the traditional democracy of which I'm proud to be a part.

I'd like to just say, too, Mr. Speaker, that it's interesting looking at your second report, "Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act," under "Times allotted to debate private Members' business" in the various provinces of Canada, I notice that British Columbia is listed as "two afternoons per week." Well, it's more likely one afternoon per session or one hour per session if we're to look at the actual practice by this government. One hour per session rather than "two afternoons per week." Perhaps in your next report you'll have that changed and brought somewhat up-to-date.

I had the opportunity — and I thank the government for it — of travelling somewhat extensively to eastern Canada and the United Nations on a committee of this government. I know another committee of government also had the same opportunity....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I correct the Hon. Member? It's not a committee of government; it was a committee appointed through this Chair and composed of Members of the Legislature. Government has no say in that committee, as you probably are aware.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much. I accept your correction. I travelled, nevertheless.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, you of all people must be aware that when you make a correction you do it at the end of the speech being made by the Member who is on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I admit that I was in error.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, during that

[ Page 2845 ]

time, we travelled to eastern Canada and had the opportunity to lunch with the Members of the Royal Commission on Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario. The members of that committee were made up of: the Conservative, Dalton Camp; former NDP MP Doug Fisher; and the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. They've recently tabled their report to the government about legislative practices.

They came down very strongly, first of all, on the protection of the rights of individual Members and, secondly, on the protection of the rights to discuss supply. That right is one which must be inalienable and must be protected at all cost. As a matter of fact, that royal commission in Ontario recommended that those rights should be extended, not limited, as we're suggesting in this motion.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I firmly and strongly support the amendment by the Member for North Peace River.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to add briefly my support to this amendment. Actually the amendment doesn't go nearly far enough, in my opinion. It deletes only section 3 and section 5. Perhaps it would be better written if it would delete every section.

I seems to me that there is no need for the entire motion at all, because all it is is an admission of perhaps one of two things. It's an admission that the Whip system in the House has broken down entirely. Should the Whip system be in operation — acceptably so — then none of these five clauses in this motion would be before the House today. That's one of the reasons.

The other reason I believe the entire thing to be unnecessary is because if the House had been allowed to run under its own controls without any superfluous controls, such as were added by the House Leader early after he came to power in this House, the whole thing would have been unnecessary.

For instance, he said shortly after he arrived that under his jurisdiction there would not be any sittings later than 11 o'clock at night. If he had not made that edict, then the Whip system could have been allowed to operate and there would have been ample time for all House Members to let their protests be known, if protests, indeed, were what they wanted to be known. They could have done it without any restriction as far as the timing of that protest is concerned.

Let's look at 29 (3). It says, "Some appropriate rule or order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair a reasonable time." If we come to some arbitrary conclusion as to whether it's fair or reasonable, then how in the name of everything that's pure and righteous can we have a strong protest as compared with a light protest?

Usually the only tool that's left in the hands of the opposition at all to let a strong protest be known is in the duration of that protest. How shall this protest be made known if the timing, which is the only tool in the person's hand, is restricted?

Moving over to 29(5), it is that an appropriate method be provided for independent Members or backbenchers to introduce bills. I know that the life expectancy of a private Member's bill is very short — as a matter of fact, maybe two or three minutes. But it does give every backbencher, whether he be on the government side or on the opposition side, an opportunity to register ideas — constructive ideas, normally — and it does give him that length of time, however brief, four or five minutes, to discuss the principle of that bill.

It may be a bill that has been sponsored by his constituency, and this is the only opportunity when that concept, or that idea, that need for a bill, can be brought to light.

I have to protest strongly section 5, and stand in favour of the amendment to have it deleted. Thank you.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 32

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, as the most junior Member of this House I certainly won't presume to comment in any very knowledgeable way on this resolution. But I will give some of my own opinions on it.

I was a little alarmed and concerned to see, just as I finally made it to this Legislature and started learning how to make long speeches with no time limit, that one of the things we see here should be a limitation of the length of speeches. I wouldn't want that to become a wasted ability so quickly.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution

[ Page 2846 ]

we are being asked to approve here goes to the very basics of the foundations of parliament, and that it is, in effect, proposing to the opposition a very unequal deal. It's proposing a deal which has a good deal in it for the government, and which proposes a good deal of restriction on the freedoms and privileges of the opposition.

One wonders if the genesis of this whole resolution isn't the annoyance of the government at having found a certain amount of uncontrollability on the part of the House, a certain unwillingness of the House to go along in a convenient and orderly way with the plans of the government, with which many Members of the opposition happen to disagree. Therefore the government is looking for ways to throttle our disapproval and make it less effective.

Any observations I've been able to make since arriving here make it appear to me that already the preponderance of power in this Legislature is in the hands of the government. Clearly the powers of government in our society as a whole are enormous and are being added to almost daily as bill after bill is introduced in this Legislature, giving the means for greater government discretion.

The only defence that the people have against the power of government is the Legislature. Within the Legislature, since traditionally the government backbenchers tend to pretty well go along with the government orders, the particular concern must be for the rights of the opposition Members of the Legislature. The government already in this House controls the order of business pretty well completely and controls the times of sitting. It can and does juggle both of these things arbitrarily in such a way as to dominate the House rather effectively.

The greatest defence the opposition has against this and against measures introduced by the government on behalf of the people — to the extent that the opposition speaks for the people — is the right of more or less unlimited speech. I would suggest that in this day of increasing government power the rights of the opposition must, if anything, be strengthened rather than eroded. These rights, among other things, absolutely require the time for the most careful examination — as careful an examination as the opposition considers necessary — of bills and estimates.

I think as well that other methods to strengthen the opposition should be studied, such as greater assistance for staff study of bills and of the actions of government, most importantly through procedural means and through the rules of the House, the most important being, as I mentioned before, the unlimited right to speak.

Government speakers have referred to the fact that in other jurisdictions and other chambers, the unlimited right to speak has been curtailed. I would agree that there are circumstances where that is necessary. The British House, with over 600 Members, is clearly an institution of that kind. The federal House, with some 264 Members, has found the restriction of the right to speak necessary in terms of the length of individual speeches and the length of particular debates. But I cannot see in my own mind what would justify taking this right away from a 55-seat legislature, particularly one where there are only 17 opposition Members at the present time. It can't be done on the grounds that those few people have even the physical ability to impede the progress of the people's business indefinitely, because we don't.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to point out, as I did earlier, that the purpose of this debate is to discuss the advisability of setting directions to a committee. It's really not to argue all the things out that will come before a committee. In other words, we would be canvassing the work of the committee if we go in exhaustive detail into the matter instead of dealing with the relevant question of whether it should go to a committee at all.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. At the same time an argument I want to make is that the instruction to the committee is not a balanced one. I would assume as well, inasmuch as the committee is composed of only a relatively small number of Members of this House, that it would be to some extent helpful to have other Members of the House on the record as to their views on some of the instructions. In any event, my remarks are not going to be all that extensive so perhaps you might bear with me briefly on this.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see the justification for the stringent curtailing of debate which is implied in item 2, "length of speeches generally." In this regard I have to hark back to what many Members have said previously. The instructions to this committee are so specific that one almost has to wonder if the report isn't already written, at least in principle, in the mind of the government. The five specific references here lead to some very direct conclusions without a great deal of imagination needed to be applied. Those conclusions, shortly put, are that debate should be curtailed on the throne debate, on the budget debate, on length of speeches generally and on the estimates, and so on.

I would suggest that the effect of these kinds of limitations, if there are no counterbalances — and the particular point I'm making is that this resolution of instruction provides for no counterbalances — would be in effect the vitiation of the opposition's greatest strength on behalf of the people in questioning and overseeing the activities of the government.

It would also, I submit, Mr. Speaker, reduce the role of backbenchers, not only opposition

[ Page 2847 ]

backbenchers but government backbenchers. I'm surprised that we have as yet to hear a government backbencher speak in this debate and I hope we will later on. It's perhaps too easy for government backbenchers to come to believe that their power and importance lies from the fact that they have a voice in the caucus, but the final back-up for their voice in the caucus, and their importance there, is the fact that they have a voice in the House and that as private Members they have rights and privileges which in the final analysis can make them effective as individual representatives of their own constituents.

On two very specific instructions — the instruction that the duration of the throne and budget debates be considered and the instruction that the completion of estimates within a given time be considered — I would say that this would mean, curiously enough, that the government backbenchers, who have been so quiet in the estimates debate so far this session, all of a sudden would become very voluble, because once there's a given period of time to be used up, then it becomes to the advantage of the government to have its own people use that time up and exclude opposition speakers from that time period, if possible. I've seen this happen specifically in Ottawa, and it is just another way of taking time away from the opposition. In other words, the time is not only compressed to the specified period, but it is cut down even more through government backbenchers using up time in that way.

I would suggest therefore that when you move to adjust the rules in the way the government, at least to me, evidently has in mind in proposing resolution 29, to make a balanced package you have to look at other possibilities as well, and that the instruction to the committee, to be supportable, should be far broader and should canvass other questions such as the desirability of perhaps introducing the concept of opposition days to the Legislature — days where the opposition would set down the order of business and the matter to be debated, with the right to move confidence motions.

It might consider the adequacy of research staff for private Members.

It might consider whether the rule of anticipation ought to be applied to motions and bills and questions put down by private Members, because after all, that can thereby be, Mr. Speaker, a very effective method of throttling debate — by putting down a motion that may never be called.

MR. SPEAKER: Here again, the Hon. Member is arguing out matters that certainly would be the purview of a committee.

MR. GIBSON: I'm trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have had presented to us by the government as motion 29 is not a balanced package.

It is not a package which gives the same opportunities for exploration of improvements in the House rules to this side of the House as it does to that. It's a package, it seems to me, which is designed to be for the benefit of the government.

I'm just very briefly listing other things that to me should be in that package. I think the appropriateness of standing orders 3 and 48 should be in that package, in order that the government should at least have to give some notice before the changing of the hours of House sittings. I think the right of opposition spokesmen to reply to Ministerial statements that are made by leave should be studied and then carved in stone, as should be the observation of the regular private Members' day, as is provided in standing order 25, and many other matters of this kind.

I'm suggesting in short that the saying of the biologist that you cannot do just one thing — in other words, that all of your actions have implications that go far beyond those actions and require countervailing amendments — applies particularly to such a complex thing as the web of house procedures and standing orders which have been built up in a very fine balance over the years. It disturbs me very much that the change in balance that seems to be proposed here is one that will redound almost entirely to the benefit of the control of the House by the government and hardly at all to the control of the government by the House which, after all, is the basic purpose of this institution.

As a final point, I would suggest that questions of this kind are so fundamental that I cannot conceive the committee's being able to canvass them adequately before the end of this session — assuming that this session will end in some reasonable period of weeks. It seems improper to me that the committee's instructions should have that particular stricture put on it.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): There is no end in sight.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it depends on how many bills the government keeps bringing in and to what extent it insists that they be passed.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in a matter of this very serious kind not only is the package unbalanced but it is far too hurried and it is, in fact, an impossibility for the committee to really consider the subject fairly and in depth unless they are simply presented with a pat solution that is to be rammed through with the government majority. Therefore I would take the liberty to move an amendment, which I hope is in order, to strike out the last sentence of the motion and to insert instead:

"The committee shall have the power to sit over the recess and shall report to the House at

[ Page 2848 ]

the next session and not later than 15 days after the commencement of the next session."

I hope that this is in order by virtue of not breaching that instruction of May that amendments cannot enlarge the scope of the instruction or convert it into a novel proposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Regretfully the motion states:

"The committee shall have power to sit over the recess and shall report to the House at the next session and not later than 15 days after the commencement of the next session."

I say "regretfully" because it would imply the expenditure of public funds to have a House committee sit without authorization between sessions. It would have to continue operating. If anyone has any suggestions on that point, I would like to know whether committees of the House can sit without some machinery both of the committee and of the members themselves in view of our present standing orders and our present standing orders and our present Constitution Act, which deals with committees sitting between sessions.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps you could advise me then, Mr. Speaker, if it would be in order if it simply suggested that the committee report to the next session without any reference to sitting over....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I would point out that unless you had the authorization in some form it would be defunct is. Just by saying that it would report to the next session would not thereby maintain the life of the committee between the sessions. I must, in the present terms, rule the amendment out of order on those two particular grounds.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps then, Mr. Speaker, if I may make one more try, might I suggest the deletion of the words "before the conclusion of this session" which conclude the existing motion.

MR. SPEAKER: There again, the committee of the House must report and anything that would prevent its reporting before the end of the session would make it a nugatory effort insofar as the amendment is concerned. Consequently, the time limit in this case, having been set, may be changed, but only within the time limit of the session. If a committee is sitting and cannot report in time during the session it can come back and apply for additional time, but that is for the committee itself to decide, not the House in advance or anticipation.

MR. GIBSON: The committee might then be asked to report to the House as to how much time it needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. That could be a matter for the committee itself to determine and report back in the interim report to the House. Consequently your amendment would really be unnecessary, in my view, from that point of view. I must rule it out of order in either of those forms that were suggested.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the motion, having spoken earlier on the amendment. At the outset I want to make it unmistakably clear that I consider this an issue of the gravest significance, not only to us as MLAs but to the potential for good or bad government by any party in British Columbia. People who respect the democratic system and everyone who respects freedom of speech must realize that the essential ingredient in this motion implies some curtailment, whichever way you look at it, of freedom of speech.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, we are living in changing times. As far as I am concerned I think that, for example, this province is very badly under-represented in terms of the number of Members compared to the growing population. I don't want to go off on a great harangue on that or to discuss related issues but just to simply make that a point to try to explain the line of argument which I propose to take on this motion. The mobility of people, the advances in communication and the growth of population are all factors which make the whole process of government a very different situation from what it was even 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

In principle I certainly am most willing that governments — this one or any other — and legislatures must continue to realize the rapidity of change around them and the fact that the process of government must be ready to respond and to change itself to meet the different requirements of society in 1974 compared with 1954 or 1924 or whenever. In principle, I am certainly willing to look at a more appropriate way for this House to function in relation to the needs of the people of British Columbia. I am also aware of some of the points already raised in debate, particularly by the Provincial Secretary, that varying restrictions do exist in other jurisdictions, including the federal House.

So changing times, changing circumstances and the need for effective government are things that I certainly appreciate and want to assist. But the one particular element of this motion which gives me the most concern and which I mentioned already in speaking to the amendment is the time limit in which the committee has to submit its recommendations to this House.

I happen to accept the good intentions of the government in its attempt, in a new age with new situations and new circumstances, to show that it is responsive to new demands by the people of this

[ Page 2849 ]

province and the needs of the people of this province to be well governed, but I honestly cannot see how an issue of this dimension and this importance can adequately be dealt with by a committee — any committee of this House — within the next few weeks.

I am only speaking personally, and I know that we are a small party in this House, but I must say that the demands that are placed upon me from day to day during this session of the Legislature are such that it would be extremely difficult for me to participate in a full and effective way on the work of this committee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking any change of policy just because that's a hardship that would devolve upon me personally. But I'm trying to explain my position fully to the extent that the issue is so all-important that if this committee is to function, then it must be composed of Members who can give the fullest and most regular attention to the issue and be in attendance at each and every one of the meetings, if it's humanly possible.

The other element of the motion which concerns me, perhaps not as much as the time limitation, is the fact that five specific points are spelled out unrelated to some of the other rules which we follow — or sometimes apparently choose not to follow in this House. I feel that if the opposition, since it is the most vital part of this House in many respects, is not active and alert and functioning, then the real danger of the democratic process going down the drain exits.

There are other rules of this House relating to the function of the opposition which are not encompassed in the terms of the motion, which might quite rightly and very properly be part of the motion.

I heard the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) already explain that this motion spells out the government's initial first step towards revising the rules, and that it was the government's feeling not to attempt to encompass all the possible changes which might well be desirable at this point in time.

But as the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made very plain, the implication and the suggestions which are implicit in subsections (1) to (5) would certainly make opposition Members think that the restriction might unduly apply to the opposition rather than the government who have the numerical majority.

I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I don't wish to get into the pros and cons of the points that are raised in the motion. But I think it is quite in order to suggest that the general thrust behind points (1) to (5) is such that if the formula were based on numerical strength in the House, then any restriction of debate would certainly be more severely imposed upon the opposition than the government.

I must confess that I was influenced by the comments of the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who gave us his observations from experience in the federal House, where government backbenchers can take up time duly allotted to them to speak, which, in effect, prevents opposition Members from speaking.

This is an aspect of the motion which I frankly had not considered or been aware of. But it bothers me to consider that if we approach this motion unaware of that potential danger, then there might well be recommendations coming back to this House which would be quite unacceptable to this party and unacceptable to me.

But despite the minor reservations about the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I would be eager to try to get the issue into committee to discuss, without any commitment whatever by this party or by me, the kind of conclusions which many people seem to be deducing from the manner in which the resolution is spelled out.

However, my major objection to the motion is the same as that put forward by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano. In similar vein I had prepared an amendment, and I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether it's any closer to meeting the rules of the House, but I wish to move that in the last line the words following the word "House" be deleted, and the following words added: "by November 1, 1974."

With respect, I submit that amendment and am willing in any way possible to alter it to bring it within the rules o f this House. Because if the resolution stands as it is on the paper, I must oppose it. And this party opposes it. I have a great feeling that I would like to see the issues discussed in committee, but not under that kind of rigid time limit.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out on the proposed amendment that it probably falls into the same category as the previous one that was offered in that it sets a definite date — November, 1974 — which may or may not be during the session we're in now. I don't know. It is not for me to say. But the difficulty is that it doesn't ensure by any certainty that the committee would be able to carry out its instructions required by the House. Consequently, it could be termed vague, and therefore unsure of achieving a purpose of any kind.

I am prepared to put it before the House if the House wishes to vote on it.

I must admit, in looking at it, that it is out of order because it defeats the purpose of having the House committee report during the session. Therefore, I would submit, it would be defeating the object of the main motion. The other factor involved is that it would tend to limit the work of the committee in a way that it may not be according to the sentiment of the House.

[ Page 2850 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue to make a few comments — because this is such a vital subject we're discussing. As I said earlier, there's nothing more important in the democratic system than the freedom of speech and the right of individuals who are elected by the people to feel able to present their point of view without restriction.

Again, I am not trying to get into the area of arguing what restrictions, if any, there might be or how they should be applied. But I am saying that the issue is of such overriding importance, central to the democratic process of government, that in light of the long session we are now in and the fact that Members have had many demands on their time, debates have been lengthy, at this point in a long, tiring session to bring this kind of issue to a committee and at the same time put likely a very rigid time limit on the recommendations, I think, rather contradicts the essential importance of the issue — the issue per se.

A Minister has interjected that the end of the session is not in sight. I suppose that in strictly literal language that is true. But we know that within a few weeks this session is likely to end. The Minister shakes his head and says, "Not presumably." But if you can't assume this, then I don't see how the amendment is out of order, because you can't assume that it restricts the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt again? I didn't perhaps say as much as I should have because I thought it would be clear from what I had said previously that a committee has the power inherently to report back to the House its recommendation. That recommendation could be that it be given further life and further time.

But it's up to the committee to make that recommendation. It's not for us in effect to anticipate the work of that committee. That's why I say it would be unnecessary and meaningless, really, to set a time limit — in this case, to a date that may or may not be a time when the House is in session — when the committee itself can consider the question and ask for in a recommendation some other means of continuing or doing something about it.

MR. WALLACE: On that point of order, then, Mr. Speaker, could I ask your clarification? In that case is it in order for the resolution to spell out that the committee must report by a certain date if, in fact, it is really in the authority of the committee, as you suggest, to decide its own powers of recommendation — what to recommend and when? In other words, is the motion itself in order, for this to state that the recommendations on the said subjects shall be reported before the conclusion of this session?

If in fact the power resides within the committee to decide when it shall report, and whether it should be an interim report or....

MR. SPEAKER: The committee could meet tomorrow and report right back and say it wants more time. That's one example. It has happened in this House many times.

The point of it all is that the recommendation for the committee reporting before the conclusion of this session makes certain that the committee has the opportunity to report. That is presumably the matter that gives a certainty to the motion and prevents it being vague, as your proposal would do.

MR. WALLACE: I have no great desire, Mr. Speaker, to argue your decision. I respect your decision. My reservation has to be then, of course, on the purely political implication of your statement that the committee might come back and ask for more time. I have no way of knowing if the committee would do this or would not do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor have I.

MR. WALLACE: Regardless of whether it's this government or any government.... I'm probably being repetitive and I apologize for that, but this issue is sufficiently important that it cannot be decided in a hurry. That is just absolutely central to everything I think about this motion. I would be very happy to see these issues regarding rules and procedure and length of speeches and the other points covered in committee, but I am very apprehensive of the danger of some recommendations being railroaded back through this House within a period of time, coming to conclusions which in my view just cannot be reached hurriedly.

This whole process of democratic government and the essence of the way in which we conduct the affairs of the province in this Legislature have taken hundreds of years to develop and evolve. I think it just makes a mockery of the system, because we are having problems of one kind or another, that, when we all try to sit down and look at it, the real danger exists in the motion that we will only deepen some of the divisions which already exist in this House. I happen to believe that, while we have our true political differences, there is at this time in this session not exactly the atmosphere which I think is conducive to objective discussion by all Members of this resolution, particularly as there is a time limit on bringing recommendations back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, you've been very helpful to me in explaining what could happen. The committee could choose to come back and say exactly what I'm saying: we haven't had enough time and we must have witnesses and study of other jurisdictions. But the wording of the motion does not give me the reassurance that this could happen.

I read the motion at the end, "The committee shall report its recommendations on the said subjects

[ Page 2851 ]

to the House before the conclusion of this session." If it was even acceptable that an amendment to put in the word "interim," I would certainly be very happy to introduce that kind of amendment if that was to fall within the rules of this House. With great regret I cannot consider that the range of issues and the importance of the issues can be rationally and wisely decided within the kind of time frame that is obvious.

As I say, I would appreciate knowing whether that kind of amendment I mentioned a moment ago — of putting the word "interim" before the word "recommendations" — would give the committee the flexibility and, at the same time, give the opposition the assurance that there would not be final and binding recommendations upon which this House would have to vote before the end of the current session. Therefore, if this cannot be amended, it's with some regret that I oppose this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say again to the Hon. Member, so it's clear in everyone's minds, that if, the committee came to this House and asked for the opportunity or made a recommendation, the rules of the House do not prevent a committee from reporting that it needs more time. There's nothing in the rules that prevents this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I rise to oppose this motion. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, I must compliment you on a naivety which I thought perhaps you might have lost as a result of your lengthy experience in this House. For you to suggest that a motion framed in the imperative, as this is — that the committee shall report its recommendations before the conclusion of this session — is going to have any likely chance of resulting in the committee coming back to this House and asking for more time — particularly when it is recognized that the entire committee system is controlled by the size of the government majority in the House — and the opposition Members on that committee suggesting further deliberation be given to,the subject matter before the committee since it would require more time, and the request for an extension receiving any favour from the government majority on the committee is, I would suggest, absolutely beyond understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the rules of this House are a legacy which comes down to us from days when the business of government in British Columbia could be conducted in a more leisurely fashion. I am aware, with the increasing complexity of government and the increasing responsibilities cast upon it and upon the Members of this assembly, there is need for revision of our rules so that the business of government can be carried on properly in a reasoned way and with efficiency.

The reason I must oppose this motion is because the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) said in his remarks that these were only part of the changes the government had in mind for our rules. Yet, when one considers the five points so clearly specified in this motion, one is given cause to wonder why it is that the five specific matters which are to be dealt with first and with such haste are those which impinge upon the rights and the freedoms of the opposition in this House and not the rights and privileges of the government majority.

I find with some surprise that not one government Member has stood (certainly no Member of the cabinet has stood) in the debate on the amendment to indicate what they are prepared to give to the opposition in exchange for what they're asking the opposition to surrender under the five points here. If one considers the rules in Ottawa and the rules in London, you recognize that the government, in placing strictures on the conduct of the opposition, has itself given up some of its ancient privileges. One of the most essential privileges which the government in this House has to exercise is the fact that the control of the business in this chamber, the control of the business of all the committees of this House is governed by the majority.

Indeed, we've seen it here this afternoon. When a motion was put by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), you, Mr. Speaker, were obliged to point out that it called for the expenditure of public funds and therefore was out of order. But, Mr. Speaker, all the government had to do was indicate it was prepared to accept such an amendment and it would have gone forward for consideration in this House. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) attempted to put forward a motion, only for the purpose of making certain that this committee and its deliberations would not be carried on with improper haste, and that amendment was refused. All the government had to do, all the Hon. Provincial Secretary had to do was to nod his head affirmatively rather than negatively as he did.

We have seen in this House — the Hon. Provincial Secretary and I — for as long as we've been here under the former government, the same exercise of the power of the majority. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Provincial Secretary and I have seen with distaste the rulings of the Speaker negated by that majority using that same power.

Here we are, late in this session, being faced with a motion by a government which is not prepared to give up or indicate its willingness to give up any of those powers which the majority gives to it. As the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano said, the change of the rules of this House are almost biological. For every move we make in one direction, we affect something that must also be changed. To select five points, all aimed at the ability of the opposition to perform and discharge its responsibility, and yet to leave unchanged some areas of government

[ Page 2852 ]

control which must be a necessary balance to the change in opposition conduct, is to cast the responsibility to this select committee which they can scarcely in good faith perform.

Why, if we are embarking upon a new approach to rules, are these subject matters not sent to a committee composed equally of government and opposition? If the government has no plans to limit the opposition's performance, then what would be wrong with placing these matters before a committee which is equally balanced? It should be a committee — Mr. Speaker, you referred to it in your report — similar to the one which has been used with exciting success in India, where His Honour the Speaker chairs the committee as a mediator, a person skilled in the rules of this House, and learned in the rules of other Houses, whose business it is to concern himself with the proper discharge of the business in this House, as mediator of an equal membership committee — four from the opposition and four from the government. What do we have to fear if we are going to discuss ways in which we should limit our remarks in this House and get on efficiently with the business of this Legislature?

Why do we have to have it decided, as we will in a few minutes in this House, based upon the power of the majority? Eight to four is what this committee will be. I am really surprised, when I think about it, Mr. Speaker, that the government would risk the decision to a committee on which they had only two to one over everybody else.

That is why I oppose this motion. If we want to have the business of this House conducted under rules which are fair and reasonable to all Members of this House, government and opposition alike, then we must have the opportunity for fair and reasonable debate on what those changes should be, and fair and reasonable debate is not going to take place when the majority is always in the position to force its will upon the minority in a matter of this kind.

I know this is the way democracy works. This is why we are in this House as we are. But this is something greater than just democratic principles. We are talking about the freedom, the privileges and the advantages which must be extended to every Member of this House, government and opposition alike, so that he or she may, within the limits of their ability, discharge their responsibility to the people who sent them to this place, recognizing full well that while they may be sent to this place by people who happen to feel one particular way or another, so far as partisan politics are concerned, that when we are here we are to speak for all of our constituents, fairly and equally, aside from partisan considerations. Therefore the rules under which we must discharge that supreme responsibility, I suggest, must be formed in a non-partisan way.

I suppose the length at which speeches have gone on in this particular matter is itself good cause to consider changes in the rules. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if you were on the floor of this House, you would be the first one to stand in your place and agree with me that nothing is more important than the regular reformation of the rules of this House, and that we in this House must take care in how we send this to a committee and must expect that committee to take time, patience and extreme caution in the recommendations which it will bring back to us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I take second place to no man in determination to maintain a democratic system of parliament and a democratic Legislative Assembly in British Columbia.

The Member who has just taken his place asked the question: why at this time are we embarking on a new set of rules? I would remind that Member that we are not now embarking on a new set of rules. Part of a new set of rules has already been established by this parliament — a pace-making set of rules, something that I had hoped for many, many years to finally take place in this House.

I want to remind the Members of this House and the people of this province that these changes were not brought in by a government that was trying to curtail the rights of Members or the rights of parliament. Just in case some of you may have short memories, or the public have short memories, I want to remind you of what has taken place in this House and the way it has operated in a very short 18 or 20 months which has changed the whole tenor of this House and increased the ability of the opposition to be effective more than anything that has happened in this House since 1871, when this House first opened for public business.

Now, who brought in and allowed for the first time an oral question period? That wasn't brought in by any government trying to curtail the rights of Members or reduce the rights of parliament. That was brought in by this government and its majority.

Secondly, who brought in for the first time in the history of this parliament a full Hansard? This government with its majority. Was that the action of a government trying to curtail the rights of the individual Member or this parliament?

Who for the first time in the history of this province made a Member of the opposition the chairman of a committee and allowed that chairman of that committee more rights than were ever allowed a chairman? A government majority in this House.That wasn't any government trying to curtail the rights of the individual Members or the rights of this House.

Who provided the kind of research staff for every single party in this House? That wasn't a government trying to make the role of the Members or the role of

[ Page 2853 ]

the opposition less effective. I suggest to you that the record of this government stands unparalleled anywhere in this country in such a short period of time in bringing to the Members the kind of help that is required, and I admit quite frankly the kind of help that I would have enjoyed and appreciated very, very much in the 20 years I spent in opposition.

So let no man accuse this government of trying to curtail the rights of the Members, or trying to curtail the operative ability of this House to operate in a democratic way.

None of us can presume to know how long this session is going to last.

Interjections

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest you examine the business we have now done and the business that is still before the House. And none of us can presume to know how long it will take the committee to do their job. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government takes second place to no man and no group in this province in the preservation of individual freedom, the rights of this parliament and the dedication to make this parliament work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just as a closer, just let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House, and the people of British Columbia that it wasn't any of these so-called free parties that claim to believe in freedom that brought in the right to sue the government in a bill. So let's have no more of this nonsense, these attacks on this government, about trying to curtail the rights of anyone!

Had we had the kind of rules that this government brought in, had we had the kind of openness in the last 20 years in this province, they would have been happier years for everyone involved in politics.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these people are talking, but they have failed to examine the record. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the people of this province, to judge us on the record as it stands and not what they say it is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't blame you for your dad's sins.

MR. BENNETT: It is nice to hear the Premier before he leaves again.

In speaking to the motion, and against the motion, I just wish to review some of the things we brought up, while on our amendment, which would delete (3) and (5). I'm quite prepared to admit that we're discussing today the rights of parliament, not the legislative record of this government. It's nice to see a spirited defence, but really it is still not good enough to give with one hand and take away with the other.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You took away with both hands. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: I think the discussion, Mr. Speaker, has to do not with which party is in power and not how they administer. The rules will govern every party when they are government and every party as their opposition. Rather than making political speeches, I think we have got to return to the discussion of the rules and what this motion is all about.

Now we've heard the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace); he said something that I agree with. He talked about time limits, and he said he was concerned about the time limits of an important subject like this being restricted. He was worried about the time limits. I'm just as worried about the time limits on discussing estimates as that Member.

I'm as concerned with time limits on the committee reporting to the Legislature and the time limits imposed on them. I'm just as concerned. In fact, it is the very reason I'm concerned about section (3) — that time limits will be imposed, as are suggested, on the estimates.

The estimates of this province are the guts of the government and the guts of what's happening in this province. I don't think any time limits at all should be placed on the estimates, because they are too important, no matter who is government and who is opposition.

I agree with parts of it — that in the throne speech debate and the budget speech debate there is room for discussion. But our amendment dealt strictly with (3), restriction on estimates, and (5), the restriction on the time limit in which the committee had to report — and, really, on the restriction on private Members and their chance to stop being negative and have a chance to offer their positive policies within this Legislature in bill form.

There has been much discussion about the negativism of opposition. One of the few opportunities to be positive is in private Members' bills. It is the only opportunity that opposition parties really have to indicate to the public their alternatives and how they would deal if they became government.

So it is for these reasons, among many others — and committees, as has been mentioned, that have been struck in other Legislatures who looked at this problem.... It may have been reported that the third and final report of the royal commission in Ontario, consisting of Dalton Camp, Doug Fisher and Farquar Oliver, came down very severely and hard on the protection of the rights of private Members, especially in two areas, the two areas that we are concerned about here: the right to vote supply and

[ Page 2854 ]

the right of unlimited debate on supply, and the right to introduce bills and motions. These are the rights that we are concerned about that may be restricted in this motion.

Specifically, because we are not against legislative reform and we're not against some of the suggestions, we moved our amendment for deletion of (3) and (5). I think we clearly showed that if that amendment is passed we are quite prepared for a committee to discuss these issues that the government has chosen to introduce with this motion.

I don't want anyone to feel that this should be a partisan debate, but a legislative debate to govern future governments, and governments that replace this government. It might be that the intentions of this government are pure and that they will use the rules wisely. But I'm worried about future governments and future oppositions and their right to speak and debate in this House.

So, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons we oppose this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion is an extremely important one. Indeed, for the opposition, as I think other speakers have made clear to all, it is grave. The fact is that we are putting in the hands of a government-controlled committee, with a time limit that we genuinely believe to be inadequate, the whole future operation of the opposition in this House.

There are no compensating paragraphs in this motion 29, and nothing in the statements made by the government Members, and Ministers in particular, which would indicate that the whole bundle of give and take, which in other legislatures — and in particular the federal parliament, which I'm aware of — has created an acceptable series of rules to both the opposition and the government, will indeed emerge from this committee's report.

I just most strongly, Mr. Speaker, urge government Members to think of that. It is fine to say that other legislatures have this. But the fact of the matter is that the experience I have makes it perfectly clear that a system which may have a time allocation on the time of a speech perhaps works also because of other things, such as, for example, opposition days, days when the opposition chooses the order of business, and chooses the motion upon which it will base an attack upon the government. It works because of understandings dealing with the allocation of time, which may be not directly related to the fine points mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, number (5) here, which is mentioned before...and something was made by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) about the right to sue the Crown. Well, the reason that finally the right to sue the Crown came about was because year after year opposition Members, one of whom was named MacFarlane, one of whom was named Dowding, one of whom was named Gardom, constantly, and in a way which was out of order, requested that bills....

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now let's be serious. This is what took place and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

The fact is that the bills were not always in order, because they did involve expenditure on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out to the Hon. Member that the bill he refers to was only out of order because it had to take a collection up in order to pay the commissioner.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you indeed put in some ingenious suggestions. But essentially you know what I am talking about, even though some of the front bench don't.

The fact is that this became a political issue because Members were willing to do what you did, and others did as well at that time: to make this a political issue until finally it was accepted by the government. No one in this room, certainly not in this party, wishes in any way to suggest that the Attorney-General should not take credit for having brought it in as Attorney-General, because he did.

But others went before him, and he realizes this, I'm sure, as well as anybody. So why do this type of' thing? We really question whether or not the type of restrictions that have been talked about will, indeed, be particularly effective.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that I find most distressing is that a new system of rules can only work when your opposition and your government have general agreement as to what they will be. From what we have seen today, we're not going to get that; and apparently the government does not accept the suggestion that the committee be at least on a 50-50 basis between opposition and government.

Indeed, I would like to propose that if this is to work, the committee should be a committee whereby if a majority of opposition Members reject the report, it does not come to this House. Similarly, if a majority of government Members reject the report, it will not come before the House.

It simply is not good enough to accept that speech by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), which was essentially a "trust us" speech. He fisted a number of things which the government has done, some of which I am quite willing to agree are good things that the government had done; yet then he goes along and says: "Therefore, there is no need for fear as to this motion and as to the future of this committee." Well, the conclusion is not supported by the evidence put

[ Page 2855 ]

forward by the Member, even though, perhaps, it was attractive to government ears.

The fact is that we do have deep suspicion about motion 29. The fact is it is neither on the one hand limited to a number of points which we feel have been canvassed by the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, nor indeed is it broadened to take in all the other compensating devices which we feel would have to be incorporated if (3) and (5) are left in this particular motion.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we need these changes of rules because the House is not working effectively. But this again, I think, can be questioned. The Premier back in March suggested morning sittings. And we had one which was devoted, I believe, mostly to the discussion of the case of Nurse Vaness in the Cariboo, and the administration treatment she received.

The fact is that many other morning sittings could have been held. There was another one, Mr. Speaker, on a Saturday which dealt with the change of name of a fund. We could have had many others.

The fact is that we were in no way short of time to debate the estimates but the government did not take advantage of the opportunity presented. The Premier said at that time: "The MLAs are well paid. It won't hurt them to come in to work in the morning. It's bankers' hours." That statement from the Premier back in March was never followed up and therefore we are now being told that somehow or other we need rule changes because of some lack of "appropriate rules for completing the estimates in committee within a fair and reasonable time." There was really no effort made by the government to use the time available. The result is, after a little over three months, we are still debating estimates. We are quite willing to continue to discuss estimates. We fail to see why there is a need for rule changes of this nature.

The problem for the opposition is that the government in the last three months has constantly failed to come up with workable agreements with us on a day-to-day basis. It failed last Thursday when we received from the Deputy Premier a list of bills conveyed to us by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). It turned out they were not going to follow that; they followed another one. Then they changed their minds again. I met the Attorney-General outside the House and he gave me instructions on this motion, in fact, which was to be discussed after the supper hour. When I came back after the supper hour it was not discussed. In other words, I think there were three full-fledged changes and one you can call a partial change that very day by the government.

Our difficulty, of course, is that we have not had any real effort by the government to meet with the opposition to organize work on a day-to-day basis. In anticipation of future problems, future estimates, future sessions, how are we to arrange a system of rules to govern these when we have not been able to arrange on a day-to-day or week-to-week or month-to-month basis among ourselves in the last three months defies understanding. I cannot see how we can expect that to be successful.

We have proceeded in the last few weeks with quite a number of the Ministers' estimates. Some have taken much longer than others and we feel in the opposition that there has generally been good reason for that. I am quite sure the backbench Members who spoke on Ministerial estimates felt their contributions to be worthwhile. But to try to cut off and anticipate what might, happen in the future when we have been so singularly unsuccessful in the last three months to organize things on a day-to-day basis is quite unrealistic. The opposition cannot accept this type of motion, which essentially throws all changes of the one opportunity that the opposition has to check the government — namely, the Committee of Supply —into the hands of the government-appointed Members of this committee.

If the government wishes to have a proper analysis of these points, as well as many others, let them bring in a resolution for a special committee which is composed equally of opposition and government. Let them also consider the prospect of having, as a requirement of the paragraph or article going into the report, each paragraph approved by a majority of the opposition Members on that as well as a majority of the government.

The simple fact is that this motion, we feel, will be the death of the free debate we have in this Legislature at the present time and which we feel to be necessary. The fact is that a government which has made no real effort to negotiate, discuss or make agreements based on understanding on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis can hardly suggest it is a lack of rules or a lack of opportunity for completing estimates in a fair and reasonable time.

We have been sitting essentially since the beginning of February. The throne speech debate, to people's surprise, lasted a mere three days. How could we have foreseen that? How could the government have foreseen the opposition tactic of ceasing debate at that particular time? It couldn't have. What would have happened if we had structured things in a tighter way? I just wonder.

The estimates came up and there were some very good reasons for the estimates of some Ministers taking longer than those of others. Clearly, we have had dispute on that; I won't go into the issues involved. But we fail to see how, in anticipation of future debates, we can tell what the issues will be and which Ministers the opposition will want to question closest and take the longest time over in their estimates.

The proposals in motion 29 are just unacceptable

[ Page 2856 ]

to us as they are written. To hand over this enormous power over the opposition to government backbenchers which these changes imply is thoroughly unacceptable. It is unacceptable because we have seen this government, with all due respect to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) take more and more and more power unto itself. We have seen Ministers acquiring the right to form companies and acquiring the right to enter enormous numbers of fields. Generally, they claim they don't wish to use these powers, but nevertheless they have them. It is really only in estimates that we are going to be able to go in and look at that.

Mr. Speaker, there is another point I think you in particular should be sympathetic to. Earlier today you asked me as a party leader, along with other party leaders in this House, to meet with you. I am delighted to do so. As you know, I contacted your office last week very shortly after the initial request was made, saying any time, any place, providing it doesn't interfere with the work of the House. There is another area of rules governing the House. It is the Hansard. It is the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, which is certainly your responsibility, and I would think this would be too. You would like some discussion on how we are going to proceed. Here is another committee of party leaders formed rightly by you whose job it is to have a look at the general nature of how this House should operate in terms of Hansard and the distribution of Blues.

This type of resolution, I think, flies in the face of the approach you are taking. I find it inconsistent that we should have a government back-bench-dominated committee being responsible for rules affecting the opposition.

We have had statements by Ministers of the Crown; we have had a statement by the government Whip (Mr. Barnes) made back in March stating that he was going to recommend "...an all-party legislative committee on rules study them with a view to instituting massive changes for future sessions." In the same article, of course, he admitted that the government had lost control of the Legislature. Well, the government is not going to regain control of the Legislature by pushing onto the opposition arbitrary rules by a government-dominated committee. It is not going to work that way. Again, I warn the Provincial Secretary that this approach is the wrong one.

If we are to have rule changes that succeed, that are durable and will last despite the fact that this government might be in opposition and the opposition may swing to the government side, we are to have, of course, something that is acceptable to both sides of the House so that we don't simply have government adopting rule changes that suit governments and oppositions, when they become government, simply carrying on in the same way because it is to their advantage.

We are in a situation where the cabinet is in control. The cabinet has made statements — one made by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) on Saturday in Nanaimo — indicating that these rule changes are to curb debate and to curb the opposition. We do not think, when the back bench is dominated by the government, that we can accept a committee of the back bench and a majority of the backbenchers changing rules for us in a manner proposed by this resolution.

The Legislature is the opportunity of the people of British Columbia, through their elected representatives, to question the executive. To restrict that right of Members, opposition and back bench, to question the executive is a momentous step. It is not something that can be embarked upon as carelessly, I believe, as this motion would indicate or, indeed, done in as short a time as this motion suggests. It simply cannot be done that way. As the government acquires more power, the need of the opposition to question on behalf of the people is greater.

In the resolution there is talk in section 4 of "bearing in mind the practice, in this regard, used in Ottawa, Westminster, and elsewhere...." I wonder how we are to look into "Ottawa, Westminster, and elsewhere" adequately in the short time available when we know there are many other things that must be done in this House. It may not be possible.

The suggestion that the committee can, of course, come back and say it needs more time may well be true. But, on the other hand, the committee is very clearly instructed that it shall report its recommendations before the conclusion of this session, which I think is generally understood to be something like three or four weeks. That is my understanding in any event. So they are put under tremendous pressure to do it as fast as they can and not to request more time. If the wording were different I would believe the government intention was different. It is not; it is as I stated to you.

To end, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we've seen nothing from the government, in particular nothing from the cabinet, to indicate that the right of the people of British Columbia to question the executive branch of government through the opposition and back bench Members of the government will be adequately protected by this committee.

There is no way that this committee is acceptable to this party, or indeed to the opposition. I warn the government that if this committee is not acceptable to the opposition there is no way that rule changes from this committee will be acceptable to the House as a whole. There is no way that we in opposition can accept the dictates on what we consider to be our long-standing democratic privileges under the British parliamentary system from a group of back bench government supporters. We warn you at this time that

[ Page 2857 ]

this course of action is extremely unwise.

MR. CHABOT: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I rather enjoyed the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) speaking this afternoon, talking about the introduction of the question period by the government where we have Ministers that give us only, "I'll take it as notice." Here we're looking at a very serious situation where the government is attempting through a committee structure to erode the rights of scrutiny and the rights of examination of the estimates of various departments of government. If you're going to point to the matter of introduction of the question period, and then in turn take it away, take the real effective means of a Member interrogating a government away, I suggest to you that you're in turn trading a rabbit for a horse. The government wants the horse and has given the rabbit to the opposition.

Also, the government on numerous occasions has suggested in its rule changes and in its observance of the rules of the House that it's a new day in British Columbia and that they'll honour the private Members' day like it's never been honoured before. Well, would you believe that we had about 10 minutes of private Members' business in this, the longest session in the history of British Columbia? Yet the standing orders give us two days, just like the standing orders of other legislatures give ample time. The government has never seen fit to allow the opposition to discuss some of the motions and some of the legislation which they've introduced as an idea and as a suggestion to government as to how they should function.

When I look at this motion that is before us at this time to absolutely control the opposition as far as debate is concerned during the estimates, I have to look at the report submitted by the Speaker of this Legislature on the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act where he vehemently disagrees with motion 29 on page 14 of the second report, without saying where the time limits are. As we've suggested by our amendment, we are not opposed to the question of confining the debate during the throne and the budget speeches. That was pretty clear in the amendment which was introduced by the official opposition. But the Speaker points this out himself in his report on page 14. He ends up in talking about limits of debate in the budget and the throne debates in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and then he ends up in the last paragraph saying:

"Among parliamentarians it is common ground that the important detail of legislative work takes place during consideration of estimates in Committee of Supply and in examination of legislation in Committee of the Whole."

With that I concur.

"The proposed limitations would in no way affect the function of these committees and it would appear appropriate that serious consideration be given to a practical limitation of the time occupied by the throne and budget debates."

With that paragraph in the second report from the Speaker, who has seen other parliaments, not only in Canada but in other parts of the Commonwealth, function, I concur. Yet the government immediately, despite the fact they have this second report from the Speaker, is introducing a motion which goes contrary to what he realizes is the proper function of parliament. It was quite an elaborate study and I wish that you would seek counsel from the Speaker, because he is very knowledgeable in the matters of parliament.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we quote you on that? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Listen, I'm on my best behaviour today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You could have fooled me.

MR. CHABOT: When I look at this motion before the House I have to conclude it's gerrymandering. That's what it is, because they want to gerrymander with the Legislature. It sets specific goals and objects which will in turn be beneficial to the government of the day. The reason why it's been introduced is quite obvious, because I think the Premier or some of his colleagues in the cabinet have indicated very clearly that the House Leader has lost control of the Legislature.

What really should take place rather than this motion of referral to a committee is this. The government knows what it wants. Why don't you put your proposal before the House so we can debate it? We can debate what your ideas are. It's an excellent opportunity. Maybe you have your proposals before you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. It's a great time. Let's deposit them here in the House so that we can have ample debate on the suggestions you're making, because it appears from the time limitations and the limited number of spheres which you're prepared to debate that the committee is going to, in effect, be a farce.

The greatest concern, as has been expressed by many other Members as well, is about the infringement it has upon the rights of Members of this House — not only Members of the opposition but on the rights of the backbenchers to fully scrutinize and to fully express the views of the people they represent.

Then also there's that possibility that on the surface the amendments that might result from this

[ Page 2858 ]

referral to the committee might look interesting, but then again the government could in effect use the recommendations that are presented to the House to abuse the 17 little Members that are in the opposition. I'm fearful of that resulting, and I hope that it wouldn't result. It's quite obvious that you know full well what you want from this committee at this time.

You've often said that you are an open government. If so, what do you have to hide? Why do you want to restrict debate during the estimates, as is apparent here in subsection (3) of motion 29? It's quite evident that there is a determination on the part of the government to stifle debate and the opportunity of public issues seeing the light of day here in the Legislature. After looking at it again, it's legislation which....

If the government is going to gerrymander with the House, I can imagine what they'd do with redistribution if they're prepared to play around with the goals and objects and aims of this House. I can hardly trust the government with the redistribution bill that would gerrymander the rules of this House. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, it's with great reluctance and great chagrin that I find, after attempting for some considerable time to convince the government of the folly of this motion, that I find myself....

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...obliged....

MR. CHABOT: ...forced....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! How about that?

MR. CHABOT: ...to vote against this intrusion, this attempt to destroy parliament!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to be tempted into getting into the political harangue we've had....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! May I interrupt to remind the Hon. Member that he closes the debate on the resolution.

HON. MR. HALL: Because I think all Members know that they really want this thing to work, this motion has to be supported. All Members really know that this is the only course we can take. All Members know that the report from the committee will not infringe upon Members' rights. They all know that, but if you want to take that stand you carry on.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are five points. Two of them deal with the length of the speeches. There isn't a single Member in this House who hasn't said at some time or another that they want to see a limitation on the length of an individual's speech. Every one of you has said that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what can possibly be wrong? What causes the fear? What causes the suspicion, if it isn't just pure politics, that in every other jurisdiction they've got something along the line which is suggested in that motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against it.

HON. MR. HALL: Do you think that democracy has fled from the Province of Quebec, from the Province of Ontario and from the Province of Ontario. Rubbish! Rubbish!

If you really believed what you said about the Mother of Parliaments, if you'd examined the rules for one second there, if you put all of those fears and all of those misleading statements together and compared them with the kind of rules and regulations you have in the Mother of Parliaments, you'd obviously prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not even going to comment on what that particular Member did in the federal House because, frankly, I'm tired of getting those lectures from him, as I'm sure the House is tired of getting that kind of lecture.

Mr. Speaker, just for the information of those Members who maybe have more than a passing interest in this important subject: when you see, Mr. Speaker, that already we have had 64 sittings on estimates, which is double the kind of performance that's been seen over the last 12 years, I think the Members must realize that unless we start to consider those things that are in this resolution — at that geometric professional rate that we've examined, and you all know it if you look at your orders, or your journals, or your records that you keep — there's got to be something done soon about this thing; otherwise the whole year will be involved in just one aspect of the government's endeavour.

Already there have been 91 days pass during this session; already there have been 58 sitting days. Already every record has been broken and we've still nine Ministers to debate.

Mr. Speaker, when this point was raised two weeks ago, Member of the opposition after Member of the opposition applauded on his desk and said: "Yes, let's have a committee on the rules change." And where are you now?

You can drag this thing into the realm of politics just as much as you want, but you know yourselves that this is the only way to go. This is the only thing that can happen to drag this Legislature out of the

[ Page 2859 ]

bush league that you apparently have got the desire to push it into, and turn it into a proper Legislature of which we can be proud.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 13

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on an entirely different note, I'd just like to draw the House's attention to the fact that Colonel Donald McGugan died today. He was, of course, a distinguished soldier in World War I, and a great public servant of the people of British Columbia for many, many years. Regardless of political stripe, he was the friend of every MLA, whether he was front bench, back bench — a great British Columbian. I just draw that to the House's attention with sorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: May I also express the regrets, I'm sure, of the House to learn that one of our Member's, Cedric Cox's wife Eileen died. She was also the daughter of the very revered Member of this House, Ernest Winch. She passed away yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 2827:

That the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills examine the following matters:

(1) Recommendations No. 1 and No. 2 of Mr. Speaker's Second Report of September 28, 1973, dealing with the duration of debates such as the Throne and Budget Debates and second reading of Bills:

(2) Length of speeches generally:

(3) Some appropriate rule or order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable time:

(4) What, if any, authorization should be obtained from the House for the amplification and control of the Chamber sound system, bearing in mind the practice, in this regard, used in Ottawa, Westminster, and elsewhere with regard to control by the Speaker and Chairman of the equipment used for recording as well as the amplifying of speeches:

(5) An appropriate method of providing assistance to private members to ascertain whether or not Public Bills and Motions which they desire to introduce comply with Parliamentary rules and to determine compliance with such rules prior to such Bills being placed on the Order Paper for second reading.

The Committee shall report its recommendations on the said subjects to the House before the conclusion of this Session.