[ Page 4145 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4145

Mr. Wallace — 4145

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act (Bill 158).

Second reading.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4145

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4146

Mr. Morrison — 4146

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4146

Mr. Chabot — 4146

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4147

Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4147

Universities Act (Bill 157). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4147

Mr. Schroeder — 4148

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4149

Mr. Wallace — 4149

Mr. McGeer — 4151

Mr. Gardom — 4153

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4153

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

On motion 34.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4154

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4154

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4155

On motion 32.

Mr. Chabot — 4156

Mr. Gardom — 4158

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4164

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4164

Mr. Cummings — 4166

Mr. McGeer — 4166

Mr. Wallace — 4168

Mr. McClelland — 4170

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I promised to look at the complaint made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). I have looked at it, examined the record on the two important pages of Hansard of May 30, page 3569 where it starts and where it was cleared up by the Hon. Member for South Peace River on page…. I can't get the page number here.

I do want to point out that at a subsequent page, a few minutes after the first exchange that took place on the question of whether a letter asked the Premier to keep the letter in confidence, the Hon. Member for South Peace River stood up and said as follows:

However, again the Minister suggested that the letter I read to the Legislature was somehow to be kept in confidence. I don't know where he got that impression or is it just another one of his ways of trying to intimidate the little Member for South Peace River?

Mr. Chairman, I will read the last page of this letter. There's nothing in it about keeping it confidential, to my knowledge.

I point out that at that stage he corrected the Hon. Minister as to his reason for reading the letter. It should have ended the matter right there, according to our rules. There's a tendency in this House to raise as a point of privilege a difference of understanding of the facts in any matter, when the proper course is to raise a point of order at the earliest moment after the Member has taken his place and made his remarks. If you wish to correct any statement made in committee by another Member relating to you, the proper course is to state the facts as you know them and the House accepts it without question. It does not call for any withdrawal unless unparliamentary expressions are used by one Member against another.

In the circumstances, I cannot find it a point of privilege. It's simply a question of a point of order that occurred in the committee 17 days ago and should not at this stage really be raised.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill 15 5.

LANDLORD AND TENANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, this bill prevents people being evicted, pending the new Landlord and Tenant Act which the

House so graciously passed this afternoon, on the basis that they're speaking up for their rights under either strata titles, conversions or the 8 per cent law. They shouldn't be evicted on that basis, so this gives the court the power to prevent that eviction. I'm sure that questions can be answered in committee stage in detail. I move second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I can be very brief. I have examples in Oak Bay in the apartments where in fact as recently as this afternoon I was contacted by a person who has been asked to pay more than 8 per cent. At the bottom of the notice is the fact that if she doesn't sign then she can be considered as having concluded her agreement.

So while we have reservations about Bill 75 and the Landlord and Tenant Act, inasmuch as this bill will at least protect these people until these two Acts become law, I strongly support Bill 155.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

Bill 155, Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to take the advice of the House. Perhaps we could move 158 and 159 into committee and then go on to the other. So I call second reading of 158.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources): Bill 158, Mr. Speaker, is to establish an independent economic analysis group at the University of Victoria. We are convinced it would be beneficial for the City of Victoria, particularly the government, the civil service and the University of Victoria. We think it would be beneficial for all these entities.

One of the things that impressed us as a new government, Mr. Speaker, was the need for an independent economic analysis group, the need for bringing senior academics to Victoria. It's clear that to bring some of the better people to British Columbia, a joint academic and closer-to-real-problems group is needed.

As many Members may be aware, several conferences have now been held, the latest one being with respect to pollution control, held at the University of Victoria this past week. It included some of the outstanding people in the field in North

[ Page 4146 ]

America.

In addition, in recent ones the senior staff of numerous departments have had the benefit of a course in cost-benefit analysis, which is a significant area, which the civil servants I think have benefited from considerably. There is actually a line-up for subsequent additions to this course work.

So we're very pleased that the senior people of the University of Victoria — the president and some of the deans who have been involved in this process are as enthusiastic as we are as well. We think this is most worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure most of the real debate might take place in committee. I move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, we're all in favour of the government getting a little more advice.

I was interested when the Minister gave his clear, concise and precise speech. We think there is a need for economic analysis. Perhaps the Autoplan cost overruns might be looked at closely by this institute. Perhaps the $2 million that the Premier lost in his share purchases of Westcoast Transmission will be looked at and they will advise on this.

We are sure that the Minister who introduced this bill will have Can-Cel and other purchases and economic policies of those companies looked at by it, and we are sure that the cost benefit analysis will be beneficial to the government. We're rather surprised that this is suddenly being discovered, but better late than never.

We'll be dealing with this bill in more detail in committee. However, I would like to congratulate the Minister on speaking on this bill and not the one before on condominium conversions. Undoubtedly there was a very fine cost benefit analysis before he made the changes that he did in the rental agreement with his tenants of his former apartment building.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Good. Was it Granny or your mother, Mr. Minister, who made the profits?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mother or mother-in-law. At any rate, we'll be discussing this further in committee stage.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. I'm a little disappointed that there wasn't one large group of people represented on that board of five. Perhaps they could increase it to six. The group that should be represented are the taxpayers.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I just have a few words to say on this Act. I think it's an excellent one, something that's badly needed in the province.

MR. WALLACE: You're embarrassing the Premier. (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Cummings is going, not you.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: However, I find it very strange that so often when an Act like this is set up and they pick an institute of learning, it must be on the lower mainland. Why we have to have the University of Victoria, the University of British Columbia or Simon Fraser University, when we have so many excellent colleges around the province who could do the same thing….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, the University of Victoria is not on the lower mainland; it's on Vancouver Island. As a representative of southern Vancouver Island I ask the Member for the Interior to be more precise.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's a point of order — maybe a matter of protest.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, perhaps I was wrong and for once I have to agree with the black sheep of our family. (Laughter.)

There have been years spent in setting up very many excellent colleges around this province. I certainly would say to you here tonight — and I'm sure that there are many who would agree with me — that the finest college in British Columbia is in Kamloops — Cariboo College. I would hope that some of the work of this commission could be farmed out around the province. Certainly Cariboo College should be considered when there is some of the work to be done with this commission.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking to the principle of the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act, in the few words that he did say in setting up this costly structure to do research for government the Minister suggested that it be kept on an academic level. It is quite obvious to me that the Minister has not read the bill. If he looks at one of the particular sections in the bill, they are going to appoint people from the labour movement, people from the consumer market and people who are producers as well. Under those circumstances it is going to be extremely difficult to keep it on the academic level, if you're going to carry out the points that are outlined in the legislation. Whether you are going to do that only time will tell.

I hope, when one looks at the final section of this

[ Page 4147 ]

legislation, that the Minister, when he tables his report to the Legislature, tables it before his estimates come up so that we can clearly have an opportunity to examine the worthiness of the legislation and whether it is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province to set aside the millions of dollars for the functioning of this new mechanism of government.

This will be a new departure for that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), if he is to table an annual report before his estimates come before the House. We find that the Minister has great difficulty in answering questions in the Legislature. Of the 60-odd questions that are unanswered, 25 belong to that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Basically we will support the principle of the bill. I hope that the Premier doesn't rush out on television and say that we didn't vote against it. Any experiment that may be worthwhile to the economic community of this province we will go along with providing it is shown that there is justification for the establishment and setting aside of the kind of dollars which you are requesting we support at this time.

We will support it openly. We look forward to seeing the first annual report. Then we will give you a more clearly definite appraisal of whether the structure you are establishing here, which is not on the academic level, will do something worthwhile for the people of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am most pleased to have the suggestions from the Hon. Members — from the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson). They will be given most serious consideration. They are greatly appreciated.

I'm sure that the annual report will be received prior to the time that the Member for Columbia River wishes. There will be farming out. There will be work with the other institutions of the province. We look forward to great progress in this era.

I move that the motion now be put, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 158, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 159, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading to the Constitution Amendment Act, 1974, may I say that this bill bears no resemblance whatsoever to the drivel we heard on CKLG and CJOR over the last week?

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, you will find on page 22 of the orders of the day for this evening amendments to this bill. Two drafting errors are corrected. We've refined the procedures on adjournment and we removed ambiguity in the bill. I think it can be dealt with in committee. I therefore move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 159, Constitution Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we will complete second readings by having Bill 157 go into committee; then we can go into committee work.

Second reading of Bill 157, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITIES ACT

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly that one of the most important sections of the new Universities Act is the establishment of the university council. I think the best way to explain the purpose of this is to quote directly from the task force report, which states very briefly that universities are a public institution spending public funds and performing public functions. Governments must have some means of ensuring that universities are spending public funds wisely.

Equally, however, universities should be concerned that governments do not interfere in any direct way with their operations. That is why this intermediary body, known as the universities council, will reconcile public accountability with university autonomy and will ensure a greater sensitivity to social needs in the development of university education.

I'm very aware of the importance of the appointments of the people to the university councils. We will be seeking names from across the province from people who will be able to bring into being what we consider will be a very excellent intermediary body.

The powers of the universities council are clearly spelled out in the bill. I know that when we go to committee there will no doubt be questions on that I would like to also mention that there are other sections of the Act which are equally important. One of them is, of course, that for the first time in the Province of British Columbia faculty will be able to sit, following passage of the Act, on the board of governors. We are also doing something that to my

[ Page 4148 ]

knowledge no other province has done in allowing for the election of someone to the board of governors from the non-faculty, full-time staff. Also it allows, of course, for two student representatives.

The composition of the university senate is changed to provide for official recognition of student representation. It brings it up to almost 25 per cent.

If there are any further questions on this, as I say, I will be most pleased to answer them in committee.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): We must commend the Minister for the bold step she has taken not only in the construction of the bill; but now, having introduced the bill for second reading, she has suggested that it is one of the aims of the department to establish the universities of British Columbia as autonomous bodies without interference from the department insofar as it is possible.

But in studying the bill, Mr. Speaker, we find that we must register a protest. We see signs in the bill that exactly the opposite is true.

She would like us to believe that perhaps the most important section of the bill is the section that establishes the new councils. But there are other changes that we must give some consideration to. For instance, there are changes in the board of governors. While the board of governors will now, I must admit, have the additional representation of faculty members, nonetheless I looked in vain for representation on the board of governors from members of the senate.

There was no transfer of representation from senate to the board of governors. This I find not only amazing but also alarming. The senate is, of course, involved in the academic policies of the university, whereas the board of governors is involved in the operational. These two facets of the universities are interlocked and are inseparable. I can't see how a university could operate with these two bodies so autonomous that they have no interlocking influence at all.

I would ask the Minister to consider introducing an amendment. If she doesn't, then I must. It would allow for representation of perhaps two members of the senate, elected by the senate, on the board of governors.

There is another area that certainly must come in for honourable mention, and that is the redesigning of the senate itself. The senate used to have 99 members. It has now been suggested that the senate be given a dressing and that it will be now limited to 66 members with perhaps other additional members a little later on.

However, in the pruning of the senate, there are some members cut. They are conspicuous by their absence and, I think, to the detriment of some of the affiliated colleges. For instance, the affiliated theological colleges now will have no representation on the senate. I would have to call on the government to have at least one representative of each affiliate college, whether they be theological or not, on the senate.

I would like the Minister to give every full assurance that this would be possible because these colleges rely on this representation for their only connection with the university. They would like the Minister to give every full assurance that this would be possible because these colleges rely on this representation for their only connection with the university. They would rely on meeting together in senate for the direction they require for the growth of their colleges and for the direction their colleges shall be taking. I'm sure this is just an oversight on the part of the Minister. Although I have studied the amendments, I see no amendment proposed that would allow representation of these colleges. Therefore, I think that before we reach the committee stage this should be drawn to the Minister's attention. I strongly call upon her for representation from these various colleges.

I notice that the standing committees have been increased from seven standing committees to ten, and I think this is commendable. It gives a greater scope for the operation of the universities.

There are other questions that I must ask. Perhaps they relate more directly to individual sections and I'll have to ask them in committee.

Nonetheless, we must register a protest in the redesigning not only of the board of council but also the board of governors and the senate. There has been a reshuffling. Rather than redesigning these boards so that they will be given autonomy, they have been designed to give the government, this cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the big club in the direction of these various boards.

For instance, on the board of governors I notice that the appointees to be appointed by the cabinet have been increased from six to eight, obviously so that the appointees from the cabinet will outnumber those elected or appointed by other boards. I think this registers with me as a distinct fear in this cabinet of losing control.

Now, Madam Minister, I say to you, if you wish to give autonomy — and you say so out of one side of your mouth — then you must be consistent and give autonomy. Do not overload these various boards with appointees from the cabinet. There were six before; there were some additional added. I welcome the idea of having 15 members on the board instead of 11. But, my goodness, surely to heaven six appointees by the cabinet would be enough representation. Why not let autonomy be real autonomy and give the majority of the members to those elected from other sources?

I commended the other day the bravery of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in that his was the first of these many committees or boards

[ Page 4149 ]

or commissions that were appointed in which the board was not heavily overloaded by cabinet appointees. I commend that kind of an approach. Madam, I would suggest that you do the same and reduce the number of Lieutenant-Governor-in Council appointees at least to six.

I'll have more questions in committee; we must register this protest now. Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister, in introducing this bill for second reading, made a statement which we really do agree with: the government should not interfere directly in the operations of the universities. Then we think of the happy history of the last few months in terms of financing the universities — financing which was inadequate even to cover last year's costs — and statements by the Premier that if they came up with something bold and imaginative they could come directly to him for financing. When we think of the problems that we've had and the totally farcical budget that was put forward during estimates for university financing, we realize the government and the Minister are right; the governments should not interfere directly as they have been doing because they certainly have caused a great number of problems.

We would like to see a universities council we think this buffer body is a good idea. However, we would point out that if the government control is as extensive as we suspect…. And in terms of government appointments we just hope that it will not turn out to be a body which spends its time trying only to serve the government rather than serving universities and the people of the province.

The real question now as far as the universities council is concerned is, first, the wisdom the government displays in whom they appoint for these various positions. I think that if good choices are made, the council will work effectively. I think if these people in their turn display a fair amount of wisdom in their work, we will have a more efficient and effective system than previously. Certainly it will be better than the type of system that has been in operation over the last few months where the universities haven't known where their money is coming from and what bold and imaginative programme will attract the Premier or the Minister of Education at any one time. They have not known whether they would have the funds to even continue last year's operations, let alone any new programmes.

We think of the programmes that were wiped out because of the government funding uncertainty. Programmes such as women's studies, for example, were wiped out at UBC. We realize there is a need for the universities to know in the long term and over the years what their funds are likely to be and how many of their expectations can be met. We think the universities council perhaps is a good method of achieving this end.

As far as debate in principle goes, it really will depend upon the quality of the people chosen and the wisdom they display in carrying out their duties. We trust the Minister will bear this in mind when she is making these appointments. Certainly, the system will work very badly if we have poor appointments and if they're unable to do the job effectively.

MR. WALLACE: We feel this is a very important bill and it is a great pity it is being brought in so close to the end of the session. We've had very little real opportunity to go into this in depth and to talk to the various people who are most concerned and affected by this bill. I'm talking about the various faculty associations and the various authorities in the three universities. We got a very detailed reaction by the Confederation of the University Faculty Associations of British Columbia which came in the mail this afternoon. For us as responsible opposition Members to try and read the reaction of these people and participate intelligently in this debate is extremely difficult.

I think it's rather unfortunate that the Minister did not see fit either to hold it over until another session or perhaps to consider referring it to the committee on education in the meantime with a report of that committee to come back to the House.

While the Minister introduced this bill and said that a great deal of the bill had been based on the report of the Young committee. the committee on university governance, it's quite obvious that many of the representations made by the universities to the Young committee have been either ignored or contradicted. The report of the Young committee in no way, completely or even in the greater part of the report, includes all the points that were made to it in representation by various university associations. I think it's really unfortunate, since this is not a bill that is highly contentious, that we should be pushing it through in this way. I really don't feel that is justified.

Even those who have had time to react to this bill from the university environment have stated that it would not seem unreasonable to proclaim part 12 of this bill, which is the universities council and about which there is rather general agreement at least in principle. The rest of the bill is not urgent; there is nothing highly contentious. It seems to me a very reasonable argument since this bill was only introduced a few days ago. Here we are, racing through second reading and into committee tomorrow presumably to pass it. I just think this is the kind of behaviour of this House which demeans the House in the eyes of the public.

Interjection.

[ Page 4150 ]

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce says, "Get on with the bill and just forget the content of the bill."

You're in a great big hurry are you, Mr. Lauk? Maybe you're going to Japan to see about some more steel, are you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member kindly address the Chair and proceed?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important and it's very much a matter which relates to the principle of this bill that it has far-reaching effects, which we will debate in more detail in committee, which should be studied in order to make debate meaningful. But the details are such that we cannot do them in a sense of haste or the last day or the second but last day to the proroguing of this session.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) may not think that is important, but there is a tremendous amount of work gone into this and there is a great deal of community input which is eager to react to this bill. By the time we get it in the mail and by the time we've had a chance to consult with many of the people in the community, this bill will be passed. I just don't think that is reasonable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Hear, hear!

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Have you got your own view about the bill?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I have.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, then, give it!

MR. WALLACE: My view about the bill is that it contradicts some of the principles which the Minister herself has espoused. Though we shouldn't have government interference in the autonomy of the universities, the new universities council consists of 11 people all appointed by the government. Answer me that.

You set up a universities council with all 11 members appointed by the government and then turn around and say that this government has no wish to interfere in the universities. If some of the appointments which have been made to Simon Fraser University are any indication lately, we can expect to have a somewhat partisan universities council. That's my reaction, Mr. Minister. And if that's wrong, maybe you should give us more time to get public reaction to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The Minister says that it is very important, and she quotes the Young report. I notice she didn't do us the courtesy of telling us which page 1n the report she was quoting so that I could track it down as she spoke. The Minister talks about the importance of public involvement in the universities, and I think we are all agreed on that. So why reduce the size of the senate? The whole thing is contradictory.

With one voice we are being told the community and the alumni association and people with concern who are not actually in the university circle should have input as to how universities should be governed and financed. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) applauds and I applaud. If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, why, in heaven's name, do we reduce the size of the senate from 99 to perhaps 76?

If we don't want government interference in universities, why do the majority of board members have to be appointed by the government? Another contradiction.

We have this universities council which really has very substantial powers, a newly-created body with extensive power and all the members appointed by the government. Yet we can't even decide to let the majority of the board be composed of people who are not government appointees.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce asked for my reaction to the bill. This bill is full of contradictions. The Minister says the senate should be more involved and more responsive to community input. She reduced the size of the senate and increased the number of working committees of the senate.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of the basic work in universities is done by the standing committees of the senate. We previously had seven standing committees; now we're to have 10. We reduce the total number of people on the senate. Now, how you can put all this together and get any sense out of it, I don't know. How you can square the claim that this government is interested in community output and more involvement of the general population in university affairs with the fact that they're reducing the number of people on the senate who are representative of the non-academic staff and also increasing the number of committees of senate while reducing the number of people you have to choose from to create these committees, I find very difficult to understand.

In the short time that has been available since the bill was tabled I've been contacted by telephone by the alumni association of the University of British Columbia. Of course, they have been severely affected by the changes in the composition of the senate. As I understand it, there is no assurance whatever that there will be a member of the alumni association on the senate at all.

[ Page 4151 ]

This is a body of people who have a deep and abiding interest in the future of the University of British Columbia. Their record is one they can be proud of in the work they have done to function on senate and to act as some kind of Link between the population at large and the senate and the board of the university, the board of governors.

It seems to me this kind of supposed aim which this bill has to make the whole management and administration and operation of the universities more effective and more responsive to what the people at large want in our society — and then look at the changes which have occurred in the senate and the board and the composition of university council — to me is just a contradiction of the aims and the goals which this bill is supposed to seek.

I wonder if the Minister, in particular in winding up second reading, would tell us why the alumni association is totally excluded under Part VII in its capacity to elect members to the senate.

We have other gaps there. I know the Member for Vancouverer-Burrard (Ms. Brown) would be very interested in the fact that the dean of every faculty is to be represented but the dean of women apparently doesn't merit a place in this bill in the composition of the senate. The Member for Vancouver-Burrard might be interested in this if she would just listen to the debate. While all the deans of the faculties are represented, in section 35 the dean of women isn't represented in the senate. She has no status, apparently, under this new bill. All the other deans are represented by section 35.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: In fact, the attitude of the government to the alumni association is rather interesting. The government in this bill doesn't even take the trouble to define what the alumni association is or what alumnus means. When we look at the record and when we look at the effort these people make on behalf of the university, this is rather a distressing omission.

There are many areas that we can certainly debate in detail in committee, but there's no doubt in my mind, from the time we've had to try and get reaction from the university staffs, the faculties, and from comparing what we have here, particularly in these three parts of the bill, the senate, the board and the council, we have a very sad contradiction to what the Minister and this government have said is its basic goal in the field of education.

That doesn't just apply to universities. We've heard during the estimates; we've heard in the White Paper discussion, we've heard outside the House that this government truly wants to have community input into education, to listen and to have people from the community — parents and citizens and ordinary employees in various areas of endeavour — join an active interest and have an opportunity to participate in the life and the administration and operation of universities.

If that's the case, not only are we making it more difficult in the ways I've pointed out but a body such as the alumni association, which previously had three members on the senate, now has no guarantee whatever. It may be possible through the mechanisms of the composition of the senate for one or more to be on the senate, but previously there were three. Three out of 99 surely isn't some enormous representation by the alumni association. Yet the fact is that these people are certainly contributing greatly to the university.

Perhaps the Minister can answer it. If there has suddenly become some doubt as to the value of the alumni association, why were they generally accepted in the past and given $300,000 from the budget with which to follow out their function as a body contributing to the progress of the university? I understand that every year they have themselves raised in excess of that amount of money which they were provided for operating costs.

This is something I can tell this House and tell the Minister from speaking to the representatives of the alumni association. They are very upset about this bill and they feel the very least the Minister might do is to introduce an amendment to the appropriate section of Part VII to guarantee that at least one member of the alumni — and even that isn't asking very much — or three such as they have had for many years.

I would like to re-emphasize the fact that this is a bill which we shouldn't be discussing in haste or passing in haste. I wonder if the Minister has considered the fact that it would be quite reasonable to pass Part XII, which is the new universities council, and leave the remainder of the bill for reaction and discussion and debate, perhaps best done by referring the remainder of the bill to the standing committee on education to be studied between now and the next session of the House.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I only want to speak rather briefly to this bill. I've got mixed feelings about it. Unlike some Members of the government, Mr. Speaker, I never felt that a rewriting of the Universities Act would do a great deal to solve the many problems that have occurred with our universities here in British Columbia, as problems have occurred with universities throughout the western world.

Mr. Speaker, the basic thing, I think, that has to be realized about universities is that they're not democracies. Universities can only function and bring value to the public for the enormous amounts of moneys that are spent on them if they're genuine

[ Page 4152 ]

meritocracies. I want to emphasize that, because if universities do not pursue and achieve the goals of excellence, they merely waste taxpayers' money. We cannot demand too much of our universities. In my view, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we do not demand nearly enough of our universities for the amount of money which is spent on them.

Like other Members who have spoken in this debate, I agree that the establishment of a universities council will be a positive step, provided people are appointed to that council who will demand that our universities be meritocracies and achieve much more than they have achieved in the past. I think the appointments of the government to the board of governors of Simon Fraser University were abysmally bad. I think that was poor judgment and low standards. I think that if the government continues to pursue that level in the people that they appoint to the universities council, this bill will be a backward step.

On the other hand, if they appoint people who are demanding, who have been achievers themselves, then it could be a positive step forward.

I disagree personally with many of the provisions of this Act. I know of no university anywhere in the world that has been furthered in its own standards by the appointment of students to the board of governors or to the senate, If there are people who can stand up in this assembly and tell me of universities who have prospered in that way, I would like to know of them.

I personally know of only two ways that universities around the world have been made great. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are universities that have had money spent on buildings, that have students attending them, who award degrees the same way as Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and so on do, but who merely waste the taxpayers' money and the students' time.

If we set low standards for our universities, the buildings will still be there, the students will still attend, the degrees will still be awarded, but the performance will be lacking. If taxpayers' money is to be spent and students' time to be invested, then we must demand of our universities that performance be there to justify that expense and to justify that time.

It does require adequate public financing. Such financing has been lacking for a generation in British Columbia. The new government, despite the wealth of money that it has had, has failed to produce the level of financing that can raise our universities out of their slump — out of their slump, Mr. Speaker, because that's what they're in.

In addition to financing, Mr. Speaker, the other thing which produces greatness in universities is accountability to those who can judge best the performance of those universities. Around the world in the stretch of history the people who have been successful in doing that are the alumni of the universities. May I choose an example which I believe some of the Members of the New Democratic Party government can understand? This is the law faculty.

If the law faculty is doing a bad job and turning out poor lawyers, who knows that better — I'm not mentioning names…the Minister of Industrial Development is starting to get nervous — who knows that better than the law graduates of the university who are out in the community performing?

If a medical faculty does a poor job, who knows that better than the doctors who are in a community practising?

If a faculty of business administration does a poor job, who knows it better than the businessmen who are graduates?

If the teachers who are graduating are doing a bad job, who knows that better than the teaching profession, who are alumni of those universities?

It is accountability that alumni can bring that does most to maintain and to raise the standards of an academic institution. Those universities that have become great — we know them in England, Oxford and Cambridge; we know them in the United States; we know them in Canada, too — are those institutions that have had adequate financing and that have had alumni associations that have made demands on the faculty to produce quality graduates. It is the only protection that the government and the public really has.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this particular bill almost totally removes that essential safeguard; and because it does so, I think it lets down the public of British Columbia. We Must regard as a positive move the establishment of a universities council because perhaps for once some rationality will be introduced to the financing of higher education.

I'm inclined to agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that the wisest course of action would be to proclaim that section of the bill which has to do with the universities council and with the financing of our universities in the future. But it seems to me that a far wiser course of action with regard to the remainder of the bill would be to stand it over until a committee of this House could sit and listen to submissions that undoubtedly would be made.

It would be my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the kind of submissions that would be received by the government through its committee would be such as to get across to them the positive steps that must be undertaken in British Columbia before we're going to get quality higher education in this province.

In my view, it would be a mistake for the public of British Columbia to be led to believe that the standards of our universities were high enough to be acceptable, because they aren't.

On the other hand, there is no reason why the

[ Page 4153 ]

universities of British Columbia could not collectively achieve the amazing standard which was achieved by the State of California through its public university system. We could become the best in Canada here in British Columbia. If we were to be, the future graduates of our university would lead the Province of British Columbia to new standards of achievement in the generation to come.

I cannot see this happening by the passing of this bill as it now stands. I can see it happening with the establishment of a universities council and a rethinking of the other parts of this particular Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Premier, who I know has a keen interest in this…. I think he would like to see our universities up to the standards of Washington University in St. Louis and of the University of California where his brother is at the present time. I'd tell him that this could be done with the resources we have here in British Columbia if they were applied in a more demanding manner than they are at the present time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The speakers earlier tonight have clearly and very dramatically enunciated the reasons why the opposition is upset with this legislation. With every respect to the lady Member for Burrard (Ms. Brown), it's rather appalling to me that the lady who has spent most of her life championing ladies' rights has not seen fit to stand up and say a few words about this bill, which obviously would certainly not go along with her philosophies at all. They don't particularly disturb mine but they must disturb hers. We find that her silence once again is deathly. Oh, the party line is a strong thing with her, Mr. Premier; it certainly is a strong thing with her.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: But this party, Mr. Speaker, has very long advocated a better attitude and a direction to the overall operation of the schools of highest learning in this province. I think the more unified approach to their administration without any question reflects the desires and the needs of the people in B.C.

However, the cabinet appointment procedure, which has never been illustrated by the Minister as being a needful thing with this bill or in this province, for that matter, has been absolutely overly larded and overweighted in favour of governmental appointees. Who are they going to be? Socialistic friends of the friends of the socialists.

The most severe criticism of all in the legislation, once again, is the weaning off of those people who are prepared to contribute their time and their effort and their expertise without reward. Those people are called the alumni. Those people have usually an extremely devoted interest. They're prepared to come forward very unselfishly and volunteer their contributions to the good and the benefit of something which they've always regarded as their alma mater.

They've always come from all areas in our province. When I say all areas, I mean provincial areas, vocational areas, economic and philosophical areas. They're very unselfish people. They're prepared to work for service and they have performed a traditional service in B.C. They have exercised a traditional function. They're community-minded people and they're people who are prepared to help.

They're the people who are now going to be denied, for practical purposes, under this legislation by the restriction in the number of those who can come forward. They're going to be the people who are denied that right of the opportunity to serve. I say, Mr. Speaker, that alumni have in the past been prepared and are today prepared to come forward to do a job. Why, in heaven's name, should they be precluded? Why do you have to go the socialistic route once again of appointment?

They've made a large financial contribution to our universities. I believe they plug in something in the vicinity of $350,000 to $400,000 a year. They've initiated programmes; they've commenced projects. B.C. needs these kind of people who are prepared to provide that kind of participation.

I say to you, by this bill in restricting the alumni and going the route of cabinet appointment, you've given them a slap in the face. I think it's a bad thing to do and it's not necessary. They should be included. Next year, for example, as far as UBC is concerned, is the 60th year of an alumni association for the University of British Columbia. I think those people who have served in the past and those who are prepared to serve today should be complimented. They should be encouraged. You agree with that. They should be encouraged. When you take the appointment route, you don't encourage it. That's the whole point of the thing: you curtail it. With this bill, you're doing just that.

This is the greatest criticism I have of the legislation. Apart from that, as I said at the outset, I think it's a good thing that we're trying to get things a little better under one roof from a philosophical and practical direction in the province. But, for gosh sakes, with the legislation that you're bringing in tonight, you're destroying a degree of participatory democracy. I think it's a bad thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members who participated in this second

[ Page 4154 ]

reading debate tonight for what I considered Were very concerned and sincere inquiries about the Act. I have made note of the points that have been brought up in your concerns. I'll discuss them with you when we move into the next stage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the question, Motion approved.

Bill 157, Universities Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By leave of the House, I'd like to go to motions 34, 36 and 37.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not on the order paper?

MR. SPEAKER: They're in the latest Votes and Proceedings on page 5, June 14, Friday.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to call 34 now, and then, with leave of the House, call 36 and 37. Then finish adjourned debate on 32. In the interim, I would welcome a meeting of Whips to decide which committees we should do.

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) isn't here for that 34.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, perhaps, I can….

MR. SPEAKER: Nor 36 or 37.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not prepared to do that? No, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, on 34, go ahead.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, 32 is adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: It's under adjourned debates on motions.

As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Members agree, we could start with 32 which is already under adjourned debate. The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to do is call 34 and, with leave of the House, call the two others, 36 and 37. If there's no leave granted, we'll leave those until tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the orders of the day?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was asking for leave to call them off Votes and Proceedings.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: What it amounts to is calling a resolution without proper notice and suspending the rules to do it.

On motion 34. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. HALL: Moving motion 34 standing in my name on the order paper, I would like to advise the House that this is just tidying up our standing order 129 to actually bring it into the area we have….

Mr. Speaker, have all Members got standing order 129?

Starting again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that what this resolution seeks to do is to amend standing order 129 to bring it into the practice that is presently going on in committee work of the House and in the standing committees of the House.

I think it is self-explanatory for those who have their standing orders in front of them. They can find standing order 129 on page 36(a). It was the addition that we made a couple of sessions ago. I hand the motion to you, Mr. Speaker. If there are any questions I would be pleased to answer them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, if I may draw the attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to the second part of this motion, which would add to standing order 129(8) the words "where such committee requires transcripts to be taken" the opening words of standing order 129 read:

"That the debates of the Legislative Assembly in the House and all committees of the House be recorded by means of magnetic tape recorders or other suitable recording devices in accordance with the following rules…."

It seems to me that the opening words have implicit in them the recording of matters which take place in committee. It speaks of "committees of the House" without definition; therefore it must mean Committee of the Whole or any of the select or special committees.

With that preface, may I suggest to the Provincial Secretary that adding the words to 129(8) "where

[ Page 4155 ]

such committee requires transcripts to be taken" is to suggest that the committee has some choice. It seems to me that the recording goes on and that the committee doesn't have any influence thereon because "any member" of the committee may request that the transcript be prepared. Accordingly, it seems to be that the second part of the motion is unnecessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I follow the Member's reasoning; however, there are two points that I think he may have not taken full notice of.

One is that the preface which he referred to indicates that everything should be recorded. I think he is mentally substituting the word "recording" with the word "transcript." I suggest that while we have the instruction or permissiveness of the preface that we will record, we want to make sure that a transcript — that is, something that happens after the recording — is made available to members. That is one point I wish to make.

The second is that I am not entirely certain that the expression in the preface "all committees of the House" includes the select standing committees. I don't think the Member moved an amendment but I certainly want to, on behalf of the government, indicate that there is no intention at all to allow the thought to go abroad that there is some selectivity, none at all. In fact, I thought we were doing the opposite of making sure that it would be done. I can see the force of your argument but in response those are the only two points I can make.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm in your hands, Mr. Speaker. If the Law Clerk could kindly advise me of the accuracy of my second point - that is that I don't think the preface really does include select standing committees — then we could allow a further argument.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that the proposal is to amend standing order 129(8), which deals with select standing or special committees of the House. It does not deal with Committee. of the Whole House. Therefore, what you are doing here is amending that paragraph by adding the words "where such committee" — and that refers to those two types of committees, select standing or special committees — "requires transcripts to be taken." In other words, it is done upon request — that is the proposals that you are voting upon.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you raised the point because I will address these remarks to you on a point of order. Maybe the Provincial Secretary will listen.

Section 129(8) now provides that any one member of a select standing or special committee of the House may ask for a transcript and then it will be produced. The words that are being added would seem to suggest that the committee must request it. This means that if a majority of the committee decides that they don't want a transcript then the rights of a single member are ignored. Therefore there is a conflict. It is only because of that that I raise the question.

If one member can ask for it now, then obviously the committee can ask for it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the intent upon which you are voting — if I nay say that much without being chastised — is that there may be occasion when transcripts are not required by committees and it is really a matter for the committee to determine whether a transcript be taken, by the proposal you are voting upon. Where it says "where such committee requires transcripts to be taken" any member can then request that transcript. It is, in effect, altering the purpose of what you are voting on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, once a committee decides that a transcript is to be taken then the right of any committee member is still upheld.

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly. Now that we all understand the point of order, are you prepared to vote on the question?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Point of order. Then obviously if the committee decides that you can't have a transcript, then the rights of individual members are gone to have one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, it means that the committee itself, as I understand it, will vote whether or not they want a transcript. I don't see any problem on this point of order at all.

Motion approved.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to appear obnoxious or difficult to get along with on the matter of the motions not appearing on the order paper. I'm doing it strictly on the basis that I hope that the government, or whoever is responsible, will tighten up the procedures and make sure that the Orders of the Day clearly reflect the situation relative to motions and relative to

[ Page 4156 ]

legislation as well. Not only do you fail to see this on motions on the Orders of the Day — and that's our guide as to where we stand on the various items to be discussed…. We find that Bill 162, the Statute Law Amendment Act, doesn't even appear on the orders of the day. We don't know. We quickly passed it from second reading to the committee stage at 6 p.m. tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was dropped because it was on its way to committee.

MR. CHABOT: I know, but it is wrong. It is sloppy procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon. Members….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, just let me finish the last few words I have to say.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I want to point out to the Hon. Members and the House that in the June 14 notice of motion, on page 5 of Votes and Proceedings, it clearly says: "Notice of motions: on Tuesday next…." I don't think this is Tuesday, is it? Therefore it wouldn't normally be on the orders of the day until tomorrow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. That is why I asked the advice of the Members before I attempted to call the motions. That is why I asked for leave. Of course, I wouldn't ask for leave if leave is not forthcoming. I understand leave is not forthcoming, so I'm not going to ask for it. Therefore, the question you raise is not in order. It would have been in order, however, had I asked for leave….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debated on motion 32.

On motion 32. (See appendix.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before I go on, I examined the Orders of the Day for today and motion 32 doesn't seem to have been adjourned by the Member for Columbia River. There is an appearance on the Orders of the Day for June 13 that the Member for Columbia River adjourned the debate but that has been dropped from the Orders of the Day. It doesn't reflect that the Member for Columbia River….

MR. SPEAKER: I have a note here that certainly advises me that you did adjourn the debate. I would ask you if you wish to proceed on the motion.

MR. CHABOT: Who advises you, Mr. Speaker? I just want to know why it doesn't appear that the Member for Columbia River has adjourned the debate on motion 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a mystery to me but I point out that Hon. Member did adjourn the debate.

MR. CHABOT: I realize that I adjourned the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It wouldn't matter whether your name appeared or not from the standpoint of posterity. The question is whether you wish to proceed in debating it now.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there are some very loose procedures and wording here. I notice one motion here — motion 22 — which I adjourned some months ago. It still appears as if the Member for Columbia River adjourned it. Nevertheless, with your indulgence and recognition, Mr. Speaker, I think I have a few words to say about motion 32.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to advise the Member for Columbia River that his name is enshrined in history. On June 13, page 4 of Votes and Proceedings, it discloses that Mr. Chabot adjourns debate.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) wasn't listening when I said it did appear on June 13 but it didn't appear in any subsequent Orders of the Day. However, if one looks at the adjourned debate on 22, it's been carried forward.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the printer probably didn't believe it. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd stop attacking the printer. (Laughter.)

Now I don't know which Orders of the Day to go to…May 30, Mr. Speaker.

We are debating at the moment report number 4, from a legislative committee dealing with the supposed streamlining of debates in the Legislature, be it on legislation, throne debate, budget debate or estimates of the government. I want to suggest at this time that this is the most important motion to come before this House during this current session. It's one that should not be taken lightly, one which should be

[ Page 4157 ]

fully scrutinized by the Members of this House because it has extremely wide ramifications.

At first glance it appears to me that it's an attempt on the part of the government to discipline the opposition — not only to discipline the opposition but to suppress free speech within this chamber. That's what will result from the passing of this motion. Open and free debate no longer will be the rule in the British Columbia Legislature.

It's a shocking amendment which we're discussing at this time. As I said at the time as I sat on the committee, as the final report was marched through the committee and the final motions had been adopted, a little bit of democracy died in British Columbia with the passage of this report. I still believe that is the situation.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is what I consider to be vicious tampering and tinkering with the rights of full scrutiny of Members of this Legislative Assembly and the right of Members to carefully examine the expenditure of tax dollars. That's the area about which I am primarily concerned. Certainly there's a need for adjustment, there's a need for shortening up of speeches during the throne and budget debates and probably through the legislation, but certainly not within the estimates.

I wonder why the government wants to suppress the kind of questioning which the opposition poses to the Ministers during the estimates. What have you got to hide? Is there anything to hide?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: Well, one backbencher down there said there is. I don't doubt from that backbencher's response that that government has something to hide. What is seriously wrong with free debate within these four walls? Is there anything wrong with the Members during the estimates where we are discussing the expenditure of $2 billion of taxpayers' money? Is there anything wrong with taking the necessary time to properly scrutinize, to ensure that the taxpayers of this province get full return for their money? Don't you think that's a responsibility we've undertaken when we sought election to this assembly?

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the chairman down here, the chairman of that select standing committee (Mr. Cummings) that was responsible for the regimentation and the motions coming forward and being churned through the committee. I hope he will speak up tonight on behalf of democracy in this assembly. I hope he will say a few words and stand and tell us whether he believes in parliamentary democracy or not. Speak for your colleagues on that committee that railroaded these kind of motions through, that sees the kind of curbs that are going to be imposed on the right of free speech within this assembly. I hope you'll stand up and tell us clearly whether you strongly support or whether you don't support this kind of hampering of free speech in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking at length, because I've already had an opportunity to speak on two other occasions on this motion and at that time I quoted some very notable parliamentarians. I talked about Disraeli and his attitude about parliament, and I talked about Gladstone as well — two great parliamentarians, two great people in our history of parliamentary democracy, people that stand out.

Mr. Speaker, their words should not be lost by this government or by this assembly. They should be heeded, because these are people who had long experience in the British parliamentary system and their words should be taken very seriously.

One other point, Mr. Speaker, is that this Legislative Assembly established a Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act to scrutinize not only in Canada but throughout the Commonwealth the kind of laws and the kind of regulations that should apply within an assembly such as we have in British Columbia. We saw fit to send our Speaker to other parliaments in this country — other provincial parliaments and the House of Commons in Ottawa — to the mother of parliaments in London, to the grandmother of parliaments in India….(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, you travelled far and wide throughout this Commonwealth, to come back and report to the Legislature as to the changes that might be necessary in our rules and in our standing orders as well. You came back with three outstanding reports suggesting what should take place, suggesting new changes in this Legislative Assembly. I want to quote just briefly from one of the reports, and that's your second report, Mr. Speaker, which was presented on September 28, 1973. I only have to quote from your words, Mr. Speaker, and your well-researched, well-documented report from the information you gathered throughout the Commonwealth and from your impression of what takes place in other parliaments, be they similar to this or not. And this is the conclusion you came to, Mr. Speaker, in the presentation of your second report in September, 1973, on page 14. You said in the last paragraph:

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

You suggested in your report, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 4158 ]

there should not be any motion suggesting that there should be serious limitations on the debate of estimates in this House, which is contrary to the suggestion in your second report under the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act, Mr. Speaker. And I'm sure you will be deeply disturbed if that government over there sees fit to disregard the kind of knowledge, experience and research that you acquired by travelling throughout the Commonwealth.

Certainly this report must have some credibility, Mr. Speaker. After all, you travelled wide and far to secure that information to be presented to this House. And now we find the government is prepared to railroad a motion through this House contrary to the information gathered by the Speaker on his tour of the Commonwealth. You don't have respect for the Speaker of this House when I find you're attempting to destroy the kind of suggestion he made to you in September of 1973.

Certainly you must have more respect for the Chair in this House than what you are displaying by the introduction of this motion. It is most disrespectful to the Speaker, when he specifically suggested that there was a necessity for the shortening of the throne debate and the budget debate, but said very clearly: "Don't tamper with the estimates." Here we find in motion 32, which we are debating at this time, a serious destruction of the point of view of the Speaker of this assembly.

What is wrong with this government? Why bother sending the Speaker throughout the Commonwealth to research the procedures, rules and regulations which should apply to this assembly if you are not going to listen to him? Certainly he should have had an opportunity to make his point of view known in the assembly, but you utterly refuse to listen to him.

I think this is a serious downgrading of the efforts of the Speaker in his research under the legislation, the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

How can you sit there and not stand up and speak on behalf of the Speaker of this House? You are going against the recommendations of the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is a disgraceful motion. Mr. Speaker, no doubt you've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to support the motion.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, you're doubtful.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) just said that I'm doubtful. I think I'll have to speak for another half hour to convince him.

HON. MR. LAUK: No! No!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion not worthy of support.

MR. GARDOM: The former speaker, Mr. Speaker, has made some excellent points both tonight and the other night, and the other night before that, and I commend him for his impassioned attitude to this proposal. It's rather late in the day finding Social Credit wishing to enshrine the rights of democracy in the Province of British Columbia. I certainly have had my difficulties with the socialists, but not with question period, which they brought in. I've not had my difficulties with the socialists with a Hansard; they brought in a proper Hansard.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to be kind. In fact that comes easy to me. It's repentance, I suppose — deathbed repentance on the part of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). However, whether it be deathbed repentance or any other repentance I'm glad to see that he's seen the light and perhaps the only way the socialists will similarly see the light is the time that they once again have to join the ranks of the opposition in the Province of British Columbia, because there was no way that the former government could have seen the need for the things that have been talked about tonight.

They had an opportunity to freely vote in this House for a Hansard. They had an opportunity to freely vote in this House for a question period. The former speaker was a Minister of the Crown. He didn't move. He didn't offer any suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: "How's the Majority Movement?" the Hon. Member says to me. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Member. The majority of the people in the Province of British Columbia recognize true and practising democracy — make no mistake of that fact. But debate is not a sin and it's not something to be decried or to be arbitrarily curtailed just, I'd say, for the luxury of an executive, and that is a luxury in my view that democracy indeed cannot afford. Debate is the essence of the democratic process and I'd say it is the counterbalance to the exercise, be it exercise by excess or otherwise, of the authority that is granted by the people to a governing party.

The job of debate in the norm is to portray the minority view of the people as represented by the opposition, and the majority view of the people, as represented by a government, or indeed the converse in this province, where we find the majority view of the people in British Columbia represented by the opposition parties and the minority view of the people only represented by this government.

But in either case, Mr. Speaker, and more particularly when the majority point of view is represented by a minority of the elected

[ Page 4159 ]

representatives, as we have here, that view has got to be freely and flexibly expressed, and the opportunity to have that view freely and flexibly expressed has got to be available within the mechanisms or the rules of parliament, call them what you will. And if a situation presents itself that is deserving and commands the necessity of in-depth research and in-depth consideration and in-depth debate, that debate, Mr. Speaker, becomes a democratic necessity, and that has to occasion. Anything less than that is autocratic and non-democratic curtailment, I'd say, of the democratic commitment of providing free and open and proper debate.

I'd like to refer to this report in detail, and there are six points. First of all I would like to say a few words about the address in reply or the throne speech. Its historic significance is gone, in my view. Certainly in B.C. no longer is it a beacon for government policy, but it's become essentially an account of the union and a statement of honours and glad ridings and visitors to the zoo and a whole bunch of rather musty, anachronistic statistics, because in the Province of B.C. legislation has become the vehicle of policy pronouncement, and the budget plus legislation has become the vehicle for economic pronouncement. So in view of the way we're practising in this province, I think the time proposals suggested in the throne speech are not overly disturbing. I'd say just a couple of caveats.

First of all I note that the leaders or designated speakers for parties have an unlimited period appointed time — that's fine. Other members have 40 minutes, but the mover and the seconder are granted 60 minutes. That's pretty silly, Mr. Speaker. It really needs a Hollywood script writer to come up with anything more than 10 minutes to complement the bare bones that one finds in a socialistic throne speech or indeed in a throne speech of the former government. So I think there is no question of a doubt that the Members will be fully prepared to support an amendment which I do hope my colleague for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) could draw for me while I am speaking…. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm enthralled.

MR. GARDOM: I think the mover and the seconder should be restricted to the 40 minutes just the same as the rest of the Members, and certainly fine and dandy for the rest.

Now if you take a look at the arithmetic in the throne speech you have four leaders, shall we say, speaking for about 90 minutes each. At the present time that would consume six hours, and then there will be 51 Members, and I'm allowing an intrusion there for the Hon. Speaker for a few extemporaneous witticisms….

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill's party…. Knock off an hour-and-a-half. He won't be here.

MR. GARDOM: Who's he?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's an empty chair here.

MR. GARDOM: You mean Nameless-Faceless.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nameless-Faceless won't speak.

MR. GARDOM: Well, he's probably going to come back sometime in August Or September, I don't know. No doubt he's likely to return.

You'll find that if you allow 40 minutes to the 51 Members, including the Speaker there for a little bit of interjection from himself, because we all remember how well the Speaker used to enjoy speeches in this House and I'm afraid he's not quite forgotten how nice it is to fly on one or two wings…but if you allow 40 minutes, you come up with 34 hours, Plus six hours for leaders. That's 40 hours.

Now, fine and dandy. Assuming that we have afternoon sittings of 3.5 hours and evening sittings of 2.5 hours, that's 6 hours. So we are going to have to do all of that in 36 hours to fill it in in the six days. But that does not include, Mr. Speaker, amendments or subamendments, which could really be an overwhelming time tilt because in this present House the workability of the proposal, even for the throne speech — and I'm going to refer to these other five points in my talk tonight — once again has got to depend upon cooperation between the parties. This has been a factor, unfortunately, that has been sadly lacking in this Legislature and in others that I've been in in the Province of B.C.

This greater flexibility is going to be required in order for the parties and the speakers to work within the time limit, because it's a day limit as well. I think if it were a time Emit then that might be one thing, but we've got a day limit here. If we suddenly find the people decide that they wish to hog the time of the House by amendments or subamendments, that can put other speakers in a very unfortunate and into a very invidious position.

Secondly, I'd like to talk for a few moments about the budget debate. There is a greater scope proposed here for the Members than in the throne speech. We find a sitting of 10 days and a minimum of 14 sittings. But in this speech, Mr. Speaker, there is only one amendment permitted and one subamendment. If there is the cooperation of the Members of the House, the time allotted for the budget debate could work really in a better situation than with the throne speech.

Bills in second reading: 40 minutes. Well, that seems to be okay, assuming that 40 minutes is not

[ Page 4160 ]

cumulative. This is not stated in the report from the committee. A great deal can happen there by amendments or hoist motions. Does this mean that if there is an amendment or hoist motion a person is only permitted to speak for a total amount of 40 minutes plus on the bill itself? Well, we're going to have to have a lot more than egg timers in here to time that thing out.

Bill in committee: 30 minutes. Again I would say that is satisfactory, but once again with a caveat that the 30 minutes is not a cumulative time proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: If the 30 minutes was a cumulative time proposal, it's highly unlikely that we would have had a bill that was criticized in this House, most genuinely criticized in this House, through within that period of time. A great deal of time can be spent on a section. A great deal of time was spent on a section this afternoon with the Hon. Attorney-General, and good came from it. The Hon. Attorney-General recognized the position raised in the House and he accepted it very gallantly. Congratulations to him. But it took time, Mr. Speaker, to present that position and to present that argument and to have it effectively accepted.

The fifth point, private Members' day. Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is perpetuating the farcical and the arrogant performance of the past government because private Members' day for bills and resolutions is, for practical purposes, non-existent in the Province of B.C. I have to criticize, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you, your report at page 40, when you said in your report that the time allotted to debate private Members' business in B.C. Is two afternoons a week.

Well, there's a difference between day and night, Mr. Speaker, between the allotting of time and the government granting time. Fine and dandy. You say in your report two afternoons per week. We haven't had 10 minutes in private Members' bills since this session commenced in January. To me that's an utter disgrace. The inference in your report, with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, is grossly misleading.

Private Members' resolutions and bills are not bad things, Mr. Speaker; they're good things. Unfortunately, in B.C. the public of this province, I think, are still totally deceived by the governing process concerning the introduction of these kinds of measures. They think they're going to be voted upon. They really do. They think they're going to be voted upon, but they never are. That's absolutely silly.

I say if the government objects to a private Member's proposal, let the government do so. Let it have the courage to do so. Say that. Or if not, and it wishes$ to incorporate a private Member's proposal, whatever side of the House it comes from, as its own measure and obtain the public credit for doing that,

let them do that as well. If it happens to like the private Member's proposal and is prepared to say, "Okay, we accept that private Member's bill," let it do that just as well. But let's stop once and for all this farcical and phony practice that we still carry on in this Legislature. It's an absolutely disgraceful procedure.

Private Members, in my view, should have an unequivocal commitment and an unequivocal assurance that they are permitted to have their day in court. I say throw out that stupid and very cobwebby rule of disallowing a private Member's points on the basis of Crown impost or on the….

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is going far beyond the terms of either the motion before us or the report. He's dealing with matters which are not really the subject of this debate.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I draw to your fact that it is because it has the usual two-liner dealing with private Members. It says, "With reference to item 5 in the motion, your committee recommends that the present practice relating to public bills in the hands of private Members and motions be continued."

Carry on with the phoniness; carry on with the farcicality, carry on with the absolutely unmitigated gall of refusing to hear what a private Member has to say. I say that has got to be stopped, Mr. Speaker. Private Members should have the commitment and the unequivocal commitment of assurance that they are entitled to a day in court.

I was talking about this rule of Crown impost and the expenditure of public funds, which one always hears when you come up with a private Member's bill — in the days when one would even be able to introduce a private Member's bill.

This is the longest session and will be 88 days, a piano keyboard if we finish on Wednesday. What date is Wednesday? The 19th — two days before the days in this year start getting shorter, Mr. Speaker. The longest session in the history of this province and private Members have not been able to have a say.

Ruling a private Member's bill out by virtue of the fact that it offends the rule that only government can introduce by message a bill that involves the expenditure of public money, I would say, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely silly and anachronistic today. If the government wishes to countermand any private Member's bill, let it do so. Let it have the gumption and the guts just to do that. But don't go ahead and try to say this rule has come down a beam of light and it's got to be absolutely followed. It was man-made and it can be man-changed and it should be changed as soon as possible.

The private Members in this House should be able to make their points. It is very much in the interest of the general public that they do just that. The

[ Page 4161 ]

procedure we should have in here is to ensure that it can be possible to do that, not impossible as it is now. Every reason is advanced why it can't be done and not one single reason why it should be done. If the idea is a good idea, the public should hear about it. If the government thinks it's a good idea, they should act upon it or grant the private Member the right to have his own bill or her own bill go through. It's the job of every elected representative, not just government, to do the best they can for everyone in our society.

I say we have to have, which this report negates — it's just a slap in the face — built-in procedure where private Members can be assured of being able to freely and democratically make their point, which they are not allowed to do today in the Province of B.C.

The last point I wish to talk about is the one dealing with the estimates. This proposal is a complete space-out, I agree with my colleague, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), when he talked about that. Some Ministers, Mr. Speaker, have made a farce of the procedure and of the process of estimates. I say, far from following the ground rules they so very religiously and sanctimoniously espoused in opposition, they went the other way.

I remember when they used to subscribe to the fact that it was the taxpayers' day in court in estimates, where, on behalf of the taxpayers, all of their representatives, the government side and the opposition side, would be able to interrogate Ministers as to their own performance, both past and contemplated, and as to the performance of their departments.

Historically, Mr. Speaker, Ministers are supposed to level with the public and with their questioners. I say that questions, unless contrary to the public interest — and with good reasons being advanced, such as, say national security — they should be answered.

We've run into a complication in B.C. We've run into a new lifestyle in B.C. It's an imposed lifestyle and it's not a welcomely-accepted lifestyle but it's a new lifestyle. The government went headlong into business. When they did that, we find the passing of the buck, or the debt, or the problem back and forth between one Minister and the other. They are evading their responsibilities to level with the general public as to the programmes that they have before them.

Some of the Ministers who are in conflict-of-interest situations with portfolios…. And I'm not talking about economic interests. I'll give you an example. It's a strong word, and I'm not attacking the Minister whom I am going to name: the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He has never been involved in a conflict in his life. I know the man; I've known him for longer than most people in this House. But he's in a conflict-of-interest position, Mr. Speaker.

He's the Minister of Municipal Affairs and he's a director of Hydro. The interests of Hydro are not necessarily the interests of a municipality, e.g. taxation. It's in Hydro's interest not to pay its proper share of taxes to the municipalities and it's the interest of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, perhaps from the viewpoint of doing the best job he can for Hydro, to see that it doesn't.

But it is a responsibility and a duty and in the interests of that Minister as a Minister of Municipal Affairs to see that Hydro pays what it is supposed to pay. This is how we get into conflictual situations — by virtue, again, of government getting into business. You're ploughing into business left, right and centre and these conflictual situations are going to present themselves to the extent of thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars.

The Crown pent, as my friend to the right says. In his view this is why government should not be in the business. We find the Crown corporations, the boards and tribunals and all of these companies in which government now holds shares — no end of emanations of government and an enormous bureaucratic maze. We find the situation of Ministers who have control of these areas in conflict with their duty and responsibility to level with the province because it may be hurting one or the other side of the coin of the operation. That is not correct. This is why we are not getting the answers we should receive. This is why we will never get, from this administration, the kinds of answers that should be forthcoming.

The second complication is the practice of evade and avoid. This, unfortunately, is very adeptly performed by some Ministers. To go ahead and put the cap on the bottle, which has happened with this resolution, as enunciated by my friend for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), you put the cap on the bottle for the need for accountability by advancing the democratically preposterous suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that the public's opportunity to question be limited in estimates. It's not the opposition's opportunity to question — it's the public's opportunity to question. It is a democratically preposterous suggestion you have raised that that be limited irrespective of public need, irrespective of public interest and irrespective of the need for proper and true public accountability.

Certainly some of the problems are technical. The availability of material and the availability of government officials and their capacity to answer to a problem — more important, their willingness in certain circumstances, which is an unfortunate thing to say — those are problems. Maybe there are difficulties at times of gainsaying the information. Everybody appreciates that fact.

I think; perhaps, it would be a wise thing to carefully consider the advisability that the questioning processes in estimates, dealing at least with the Crown

[ Page 4162 ]

corporations, be referred not to a Committee of the Whole House but to a separate and special legislative estimates committee for the companies and the corporations of which the government has control, and present in that special committee the people who can furnish the answers. Present the officials — the head of ICBC, the head of the ferries, the head of the B.C. Railway and of Hydro — have those officials there and have their back-up people so the Ministers may not themselves be unfortunately embarrassed. No end of them have been unfortunately embarrassed by virtue of a lack of expertise and knowledge on their own behalf.

These Crown corporations are behemoths in the province, Mr. Speaker. They are carrying by far the bulk of the public debt — about 90 per cent of the public debt. They affect the doctrines and lifestyle, in one way or another, of all of our citizens. I say that they should be subject to the closest of scrutiny and they should have the opportunity to provide the best of accountability. In B.C. In 1974 they do neither. That message, oddly enough, has still not got across to the general public.

From an accountability point of view the taxpayer in B.C. Is being conned.

I like the process of the Lok Sabha wherein there are built-in assurances to provide that cabinet Ministers do answer questions — built-in assurances to see that they answer questions. A committee is appointed in that parliament for that purpose — to ensure that a Minister will answer within a reasonable time or make a proper explanation to the House of why he has not done that. Is that a bad thing to have in B.C.? Would anybody put up their hand and say that is a bad thing to have in the Province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Labour did.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister of Labour didn't, I don't think. He was just….

Why don't we have that here, Mr. Speaker? The citizens of our province are, I think, sick and tired of the process of avoid and evade.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we have 20 portfolios — apart from Alf. We have 135 hours proposed under this resolution: 6.75 hours per portfolio; seven minutes in estimates per Member per portfolio. That's a tilt; it's ridiculous. Questionable performance requires intensive scrutiny, and this government does not wish to provide the means for that scrutiny. They want instead a built-in ball park that will limit and restrict the lawful, needful interrogation of excesses and mismanagement in government.

There is a power to prevent repetitious debate and tediousness. That is structured today in the rules. Any Member can make use of those existing procedures. But no, not that, Mr. Speaker; they are not satisfied with the rules as they stand. The government wants a built-in sword of Damocles, or a built-in sword of foreclosure is rather a better way to express it, Mr. Minister-over-there, hanging over the freedom of debate. That is what you want in the Province of B.C. and that is no way to effectively equate the priority of emphasis that Members may have to place upon one portfolio or upon another portfolio.

Fifty-two days in this session, I believe, were spent. on estimates. The proposal is 45 sittings and 32 days. If the government's proposal had come into effect in this session there would have been no time at all — not even seven minutes — to consider the estimates of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole idea.

MR. GARDOM: One Member says, "That's the whole idea." If that is the whole idea then you people have lost sight of democracy. You've lost the sight of democracy.

As I said earlier, who is going to run the clock? You're going to need a battery of timekeepers. I suppose we will have to have 55 clocks. Bells will be ringing like New Year's Eve in here.

HON. MR. HALL: How do they do it everywhere else, Garde'?

MR. GARDOM: That's a good question.

HON. MR. HALL: That's right.

MR. GARDOM: But Mr. Minister….

HON. MR. HALL: Before 11 o'clock, get done with it.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Minister, why do we have to be rushed when you are interfering with the democratic process and we are saying that the democratic process should not be interfered with? That's the whole point, you see. You see, it is the convenience of the Minister — he says, "Look at the clock and finish the debate." Never mind the democratic principles — that's his attitude.

HON. MR. HALL. Don't twist my words.

MR. GARDOM: What you were suggesting, Mr. Minister, is a haymaker to the democratic process in the Province of B.C. This is a very, very sad day.

You know, Mr. Minister, you or any Member over

[ Page 4163 ]

there can assure anyone of anything. Be those assurances correct and acceptable or be they questionable or otherwise, in any future parliament they are worthless. They are worthless in any future parliament.

If debate is being abused, the rules are there now. We have the frivolous and the irrelevant rule; we have the tedious and the repetitious rule. There is the power to call the question at any given time. But what you are proposing here, Mr. Speaker, is foreclosure in advance. Foreclosure in advance. Closure is a mighty harsh rule. It's used sparingly. But you've incorporated it without any degree of flexibility in determining the timing that you have set for the estimates. You're programming this right into the parliamentary lifestyle of this province which, at one time, was a very, very proud thing. Programmed closure and closure in advance.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, isn't that a nice, cheeky remark from Granny over there. The condominium kid to the timber tycoon in one easy year. (Laughter.)

What you are proposing here, Mr. Minister, is an extension of doctrinaire socialism at its very worst. That's right. (Laughter,) And you laugh. You fellows were elected as New Democrats. I'll tell you what you've done: you've Jekylled it and Hyded it or Jekylled it and hidden it — call it what you will — into Non-Democrats in two short sessions. Rigidistic control and absolutes for your own particular ends.

There is no need for this time limit in estimates, save and except to meet the convenience of this government that doesn't have the gumption, the courage or the responsibility to utilize the rules available. If Members are transgressing the rules on your side or on this side of the House you have the majority and you have the power to act. Why don't you do that? Instead you say, "No way, we don't want to do that because the public would get upset. We'll just build in our little trench and we'll put it down like that and it's all boxed in. You do it our way or you're going to be in trouble."

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Sure. And there is another design behind it too. There is, indeed. You want to weaken the opposition. You do. You want to fragment them left, right and centre. You want to have them quarrelling among themselves — that's right — for the fair allotment of time. This is just bread on the water for this kind of thing. That's what it is; bread on the water. Divide and conquer. The old principle.

Sure, they will grab up most of the time on the first estimates and the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who has an amazing contribution to make in the estimates to the Minister of Health will only be allowed three minutes to do it because somebody up there got exercised about his road into Sicamous or something. Yes siree.

What is being proposed by the government, Mr. Speaker, is something that is politically devious and deviously political.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: What you want to do is manacle the opposition. Their job is to question Ministers if the questions are necessary. If the questions are not necessary, fine and dandy; you have the opportunity to take care of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You have all the time you want; your leader is never here.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: These aren't my estimates. Are you asking me questions? I'm happy to answer a few questions if you want to give me a few questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GARDOM: Has anybody a telescope? (Laughter.)

Levity aside, Mr. Speaker, the most tragic suggestion in this resolution tonight is the limitation of debate for the convenience of government, contrary to the interests of the general public and contrary to the interests of the taxpayer of the Province of B.C.

There is no question that this government, hopefully having a fair attitude and being prepared to listen to suggestions from other sides of the floor, would be prepared to agree tonight that the Committee of Supply should not be restricted save and except that when Members speak — personally I do not find this to be an objectionable suggestion — let one speak for his 30 minutes and then let someone else have their turn. I don't think one Member should hog the time and I don't think it is a necessity to have that happen. But I can see no reason whatsoever why supply should be restricted to a maximum of seven minutes per Member of this House per portfolio. It is disgraceful and it is undemocratic.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 4164 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I worked on this committee for some time, of course, along with some other Members of this House. I had a few little qualms about putting rules into the time of debate for Members. After listening to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I certainly have no doubts now that there should be time limits on debate.

In the area I come from people don't spend too much time saying what they want to, except for the previous Member (Mr. Gaglardi) from that area. He used to spend a fair amount of time, of course. He talked for hours and said nothing. We've had an example of this in the last two speakers, I think, also.

They talked about the cabinet Ministers. "We have to have more time because the cabinet Ministers won't answer questions." What they are actually saying is that the cabinet Ministers are not giving the answers they want. Therefore, they have to keep on until they get the answers they want. The answers don't mean a thing until they get an answer they want.

They say also that the government Members and the government have the opportunity to spend all the time they wish in debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Any time the government wants, it can shorten debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're too late for the cabinet. You're waiting for Nimsick's job.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I would say to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that 1, at least, have the next year or two to look forward to. I think that is more than he has. Twenty-six votes. Next time I think it will be minus more than that.

We had a recommendation tonight that we should have a lot of committee study on some of these things. Mr. Speaker, we had the Members from the Quebec Legislature here last week. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to spend a lot of time with them. With 110 Members in their House now they have gone to the committee system in many ways. They also all said to us — agreeing on this unanimously — that a lot of the Members are losing interest in the business of the House unless they are on that particular committee that is debating some of the problems of the House in their province. I would hate to see our province go to that total committee system.

MR. CHABOT: You know why? It's because committees sit at the same time as the House.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We've heard the numbers game played, of course: the multiplication of the total number of Members into the hours that are set for the debate. It sort of reminds me of the Bill 3 I debate. It is a numbers game and you have about as much chance of winning it as you have at a cheap carnival.

MR. PHILLIPS: He was too late for the cabinet. He got bypassed.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I maybe got bypassed for a while, Mr. Member, if I had ambitions in that direction. But you have been lost entirely, not just bypassed.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't want to be in the cabinet. He has no ambition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: One thing the opposition speaker said, Mr. Speaker, was absolutely correct. Any time the government — any government with a majority, not just this one — wants to limit the debate they can bring in closure. This is a beautiful political situation for the opposition party, isn't it? "The government brought in closure; we didn't have a chance to say what we wanted to. My goodness, we had all the people's business to do."

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this session and these last two speeches have convinced me that any lingering doubts I had about limiting debate in this House have gone. They have disappeared entirely by now. I'm going to support this report of the committee 100 per cent.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This has been an interesting debate. It ranges between those who have some experience in the House and those who haven't. I have to call upon my brief experience and recollect how very well Members who are presently in the government performed when they were in opposition without any limit on debate at all.

I would say to the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) that it is unfortunate he wasn't here to hear former Members of this House who were Members of his party who hour after hour attacked the government in a proper and constructive way with respect to their performance on the Columbia River treaty. One of the Members who is now in Ottawa made major contributions to this province through debates in this Legislature which he could not have done had he been limited as is proposed in the report of this committee.

[ Page 4165 ]

The Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), both in the field of mining and in the field of workmen's compensation, took more than the time that would be allotted under this report in order to lay before this assembly the sad performance of the former administration in those two fields.

The Hon. Premier, when he was a member of the backbench of the opposition, made searching inquiries into the performance and lack of performance by the government in areas of welfare, needed reform in our correctional system, which he would not have made in this House had he been constrained by time limitations such as are in this report.

I'm not entirely opposed, Mr. Speaker, to some of the limitations which are contained in this report, but I am a bit dismayed at the limitations on estimates. I do not believe that we will achieve the required maturity as Members of this assembly by making rules such as this. If there is one thing that has bothered us perhaps overmuch in this assembly, it is the use and abuse of rules that we already have. What needs to be engendered in the minds of all of the Members, both on the government side and the opposition, is a better realization of why we are here and what we must do in order to discharge our responsibility to this House and to the constituents who send us here.

I spoke in the original motion of sending this whole matter to the committee for study. I made remarks then which I believe are even more meaningful now that we have the report. One of the things lacking in this report and in the recommendations for changes in our rules is some constraint upon the rights and the authority and the power of the majority in this House.

I oppose this particular motion. Not, as I say, because it tends to limit one's time to speak — I've never been known as a person who speaks very long in this House — but I am opposed because the government still holds, with the power of its majority, the right to regulate the conduct of the business of this House and the time when that business will be carried on.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The Member means closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kamloops just called "closure." I'm not talking about closure. The Member from Kamloops doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word. What I'm saying is that the government, through the House Leader and with its majority, is able to dictate what business will be brought before this House, when that business will start and when that business will end.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: That's closure.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not closure; that's merely a selection of the business which is brought before this House. We can move, as we have today, from bills in committee to bills in second reading, to motions. And if we were still at the stage of Committee of Supply, at the will of the leader of this House, using the majority power that he has, unless and until the Government of British Columbia, no matter which party it may be, is prepared to use this assembly as the responsible instrument of the people and to lay before this assembly in a clear, unmistakable way the business which it expects this assembly to do, we will continue to have chaos in the way in which we conduct our business, regardless of whatever limitations you wish to impose by the rules.

We have had a few, unfortunately too few, instances this year when this assembly did have its affairs regulated to an appreciable degree. The Members will know the days of which I speak — when the government took the opposition into its confidence and said, "Look, there is certain business which we believe we should accomplish today. And this is the order in which the business will be placed before the assembly. If we are able to get through this business, then this is what we will do after that."

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that's what we've had the last three or four days, with the government being prepared to indicate that it had reached the end of its legislative programme. And on those occasions, we've had full debate, we've had good debate, and the business of the people of British Columbia has progressed.

The government in making this move gave up nothing. It always has the control in the final analysis. But all it did was to unbend to the assembly, both for its own Members and for the opposition, and say, "This is what we intend to get done." We had on those occasions some leadership shown in this House and in the operation and the conduct of the business of this House.

Yet there's nothing in this report from the select standing committee; there was, indeed, nothing in the reference that was made to the committee which would ensure that we would have it in future sessions, once these Emits are imposed. And there is no question that they will be imposed, Mr. Speaker, because again the majority will vote in accordance with the government's wishes.

But unless we have this commitment from the government to use the majority power it has in a way which will encourage the progressive discharge of the business of this House, then the future of this assembly will go on as it has in the past. We will deal over much with personalities; there will be rancour;

[ Page 4166 ]

there will be mud slinging, and there will be no satisfaction for any Member.

It could be overcome by some amendments. And maybe in future years we will get the chance to overcome some of the difficulties. I think the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), when referring to the Quebec experience, indicated what should have been considered with regard to dealing with the matter in committee, certainly as far as estimates were concerned, where the time was allocated between departments rather than in gross, leaving it somehow or other to the opposition and to the government, who don't communicate anyway, to work out the number of hours. But perhaps bad experience will teach us what further changes need to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to deal any more with that, which is the main substance of my objection. I turn to something else which, while not necessarily so engaging as matters of limitation of debate, I think still bears the need for attention on the part of the Members. It's with respect to the recommendation concerning item (4).

This is the use of sound amplification and the microphones which are so essential to the functioning of Hansard.

If I may read the recommendation, it is that: "…the Hansard operators in the chamber be instructed by Mr. Speaker to cut off all voice amplification other than the Speaker or Chairman when the Speaker or Chairman rises." Then it goes on to say that when the Speaker or Chairman has risen, no words spoken by other than the Speaker or Chairman shall be recorded or transcribed by Hansard.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), the mover of the motion, that that last sentence needs some very careful consideration. I agree entirely — and I have said this in the House before — that when the Speaker rises, the Members must obey the significance of that action on his part.

HON. MR. HALL: That was the only unanimous part of the committee.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I agree that the sound amplification for a Member who does not desist from his remarks should be cut off. If I am to become involved in a breach of our rules with the Speaker or the Chairman, then I don't need to have the benefits of sound amplification. But I do suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Hon. Provincial Secretary that it is a mistake not to record both what is said under those circumstances by the Speaker and by the defaulting Member.

If I do choose to offend against the rules of the House and to remain on my feet and to continue speaking after the Speaker has risen to his feet, then at that moment, it may be of the greatest importance that the words I utter are clearly transcribed by the recording mechanism of Hansard for use on some subsequent occasion.

If, when offending against the rules, my microphone is cut off, if there should be any failure on the part of the transcription system to hear what I say when I am being disorderly, that may preclude the proper punishment of me at some subsequent time.

I say, therefore, cut off the sound amplification, but anything that I may choose to say when I am offending against the rules should still be clearly recorded. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that some subsequent investigation will find it essential that the words spoken by the Speaker when on his feet, as well as the words of an offending Member, are of the utmost importance. They should be clearly transcribed and intelligible to Hansard so that they can be reproduced without question.

We had one example in this House a year ago. Fortunately, it was perfectly clear from the Hansard transcription what had taken place between two Members and the Speaker.

That's the only point I wish to make. I just think that it would be a mistake if Hansard were somehow or other interfered with in recognizing what a disorderly Member was saying.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I didn't plan on taking part in this debate. But the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made great issue of the fact that a private Member's bill should be accepted.

I feel that he has misjudged it completely in the sense that the whole essence of the parliamentary system is that only the government can ask for the money to make the government run.

If I can rephrase this a different way…you have to understand that only the Legislature grants to the government the money to make a bill work. If he can't understand that, the whole parliamentary system goes down the drain. This is not a congressional system. Under a parliamentary system a private Member cannot….

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: It's very nice to hear from the Member of the pocket-borough of Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Actually there was just one point that I wanted to make and hammer home. A private Member's bill cannot be accepted by the government.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak

[ Page 4167 ]

briefly to this motion. I think that it's appropriate that the speeches should be brief, lest after 123 days of sitting, or whatever it is, the Members of the opposition this session be regarded as being windy.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I'm glad that the Member is awake and noticing. I wouldn't want to be accused of being drab in this House because we're getting close to the summer solstice, and close to the full moon that goes with the summer solstice. We have never sat at this time of year before. I don't think I've ever seen Victoria at this time of year. While it is a beautiful city, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislature will never again be sitting at this time of the year. I think that Victoria belongs to the tourists at this time of year.

Perish the thought, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to be the one to knock the government for some of the very worthwhile changes they have made. On the other hand, I feel that we have allowed parliament in British Columbia to take a giant step backwards with this particular resolution.

I say this because never before, in 100 years, has any government suggested that it be necessary to curb debate. I note that half of the committee that made these recommendations were sitting in their first parliament. I regret that, Mr. Speaker, because, in my opinion, had this committee been made up of people who had seen this Legislature operate, with all he faults that it had in previous parliaments, we might not have had a report of this kind.

I would be the first one to agree that this session of the Legislature has not only run out of control, but that it has run out of control to ridiculous excess.

I would also be the first to say that previous parliaments we have had have been the mockery of all of Canada. No other Legislature operated without a proper Hansard, without a question period, with the operation of the House carrying on into the middle of the night — and into the next day, yes. It was not a regular occurrence, but certainly it was an annual occurrence.

But, Mr. Speaker, at least we could talk all night. We could talk into the next day. There was never any limitation on how long a Member could go on, beyond his own endurance. If the occasion demanded — as I recall that it did once demand when the Leader of the Opposition, now elevated to the post of Premier, felt obliged to ask the same question 67 times…. He asked it into the wee small hours of the morning. But he nevertheless had the right to ask that question. The government got exhausted before he got exhausted.

But nobody curbed his rights under that extreme circumstance to extend the hours of parliament and to indicate to the public of British Columbia the degree of distress that he as a Member and the official opposition experienced as a result of the brutal authority being exercised by the government of the day.

The parliament in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, has 265 Members. I hope, if they don't continue to shaft British Columbia, that it is going to go up at least to 268. The House of Commons in Britain has in excess of 600 Members. Under these conditions it is reasonable, with so many people wishing to speak, to ask that there be some limitation on what an individual Member has to say.

But even with a record parliament for length, as we have here in British Columbia, we have gone less than five months of the year. Even with a leader of the government who doesn't seem to feel it necessary to exert his authority, and a Leader of the Opposition who doesn't think it's necessary even to attend parliament, we still have had only five months out of the 12 utilized by the Members of this House.

No one can claim, Mr. Speaker, that there are not enough days in the year to allow people who feel that they have something important to say to stand on their feet and say it.

Mr. Speaker, even if there were some necessity to limit the length of time in days that a Member felt it necessary to take to make his point — I'm not going to mention any Members by name, some have taken several days to make their basic point — there is no reason why, by order of this House, we cannot give an individual Member who felt terribly strongly about some given point the opportunity to speak for 24 or 48 hours or however long it was necessary for him to establish a record.

Mr. Speaker, for myself I would like to see a situation arise where a Member might feel it necessary to come in with a senator's helper to see whether his voice could stand up to 48 straight hours of debate. At least that Member would have an opportunity to have his day in the highest court of the land. That is the Tight which is being taken away by this report. It is being taken away really under panic. The option of the Premier and the House Leader is simply to sit the House past 11 p.m. on those rare occasions where a confrontation of major proportions, develops between the government and some opposition Member.

A second alternative would be to have a Leader of the Opposition who can really lead, spends his time in this House and keeps the Members of his party focused on the point under discussion.

To resort, as we are resorting tonight, to unnecessary, cheap and limiting rules which, on the one hand, make up for the inadequacies of the government, and on the other, express displeasure for the inadequacies of the opposition is to cheapen parliament, There are other, far better ways to go about the business of debating the issues before the public of

[ Page 4168 ]

British Columbia than to throttle them with rules that suit a dictatorial government. While the present government has so many times got up and lashed the opposition for the restrictions they have placed on the operation of democracy in British Columbia, it is the height of hypocrisy for that government to stand up and place restrictions that the former government, for all their excesses and abuses, would never even have considered.

Mr. Speaker, I might add that no one took greater licence with the rules that were permitted the Members of this House than the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who is so desirous now of limiting the opposition. What was fine for him in opposition is very distasteful for him in government. What was fine for most of those cabinet Ministers in opposition is very distasteful for them in government.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the things opposition Members say in this House are distasteful for government. They always will be distasteful for government and they always should be distasteful for government. But that is no reason for a cowardly government to bring forward rules in this House that throttle the opposition Members before they are even elected.

I don't think this particular government will long endure. I say that because of the kind of regulations it is bringing in not just to this Parliament, but to the way our whole economy shall operate. You want to regulate everything in every way to suit your preconceived notions. People simply are not willing to accept your halter. For that reason you will be gone.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that when this government is gone a new government will have the common sense to re-introduce to the Legislature the kinds of civilized rules of debate that will allow the government to operate satisfactorily under normal circumstances but will permit this Legislature to express itself in the extreme when those rare occasions demand that the opposition stand up for the rights of the people.

MR. WALLACE: This particular motion is one which I think it is unfortunate we embarked upon in this particular session of the House when it has gone on to a point in time when we are all feeling very much under the effect of the length of the session per se. With respect, I think it is a little unreasonable to compare what we are doing at this moment with what happened in the past. The method that was used before to curb debate or to limit the time of debate was certainly no more honourable — and was perhaps less honourable — than what at least has been attempted by committee.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Hooey! And you know it.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. The Member for Cariboo knows all about porcupine pie and hooey as well.

MR. FRASER: You know the facts, too.

MR. WALLACE: I know the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let each Member have his say, please.

MR. WALLACE: The fact of the former system was that, sure, you could sit here all day and all night and all the next day if you wanted, but if you consider that any more honourable, Mr. Member, than at least trying to work out some kind of programme, then I just have to disagree with you.

I've got a good memory, Mr. Speaker, and some strong feelings.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, I don't think it is quite fair to a Member who has the floor to shout him down.

MR. WALLACE: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that while I have some reservations about what we have brought forward in the motion, I want the House to know exactly where I stand, or where this party stands, when we start making comparisons with what went on before. While the House perhaps only sat for 12 or 10 weeks, or whatever number of days it was, don't let anybody forget that there was that sword hanging over the head of this House that the only freedom of speech depended on the length of time your physical and mental resources would keep you going in this House.

It's all very well for the Members down the road to get all self-righteous now and slang this government, but there was nothing honourable about the way we functioned before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: One of the Members says, "How many times did this happen?" You know, Mr. Speaker, it is like getting….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The suggestion made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) should be withdrawn immediately.

[ Page 4169 ]

Would the Hon. Member withdraw that statement? You made the statement about $8,500 as if you were buying somebody's vote or buying somebody's opinion in this House. No Member should make that imputation against another Member. I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should be thrown out.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're touchy tonight, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw if it bothers you.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Oak Bay proceed?

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Point that I am trying to make is that I was asked how often did it happen?

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit like getting a punch on the nose. If you get it once, you're not really interested in how often it might happen in the future — you just know it is there.

When I recall the fact that the then-Premier of this province exhibited very much the same arrogance that we now have from the Leader of the Opposition — he was never here anyway when it got late at night.

So let's get the record straight. The record was that that threat was there. Indeed, it was legislation by exhaustion; and on top of that, the man who held the whip, the man with the power, the man who said what would happen in here, half the time wasn't even here during the night sittings.

I'm just very interested that when we are debating the procedures of this House and presumably utilizing the experience of the past — I think that everybody who's talked in this debate on this motion has referred to other jurisdictions-I they've referred to other countries; they've referred to history — I just think that it is reasonable that we should refer to a little bit of Social Credit history when we discuss this. The history of the situation as far as I'm concerned is that that was a system which certainly had nothing to commend it, if it were to be judged solely on the basis that you could count on getting out of the House by Easter.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time I recognize that in getting one system improved you have to have some real caution that you don't go too far. I've really had a great deal of difficulty making up my mind finally on this total motion, because I am in agreement with four-fifths of it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): What else is new?

MR. WALLACE: Oh yes, there we are: chirp, chirp, chirp. If you have any difficulty in making up your mind, apparently this is regarded as weakness.

Well, I happen to regard people that make up their mind in a flash as sometimes being rather foolish and intemperate. It's always very obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when we get through that thick Social Credit hide and get all this reaction from down the way, we know that we've got them in a little bit of trouble.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, they have trouble living down the past, Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): How are they ever going to get together?

MR. WALLACE: I don't know. It creates some problems, I must agree. (Laughter.)

I think that having touched on the past, maybe we should think a little bit about the future now.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right — your future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: I am not the least bit worried about my future - if it ended tomorrow. We'll leave the people of Oak Bay to decide about my future.

In future, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question of limitation of debate, I certainly feel, in terms of the throne speech and the budget speech, that it is a reasonable proposal that the committee has put forward. The only area of this resolution that concerns me is the time limit being placed on the debate on estimates.

In the province now it's quite clear that we have an increasing degree of involvement of government per se in British Columbia. We have recently added two new Ministries, and there is a suggestion that there might be a third on the way without portfolio. There is an increased amount of committee work which, of course, results in, detailed committee reports coming before this House.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I will adjourn this debate till the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if we get leave of the House, we can let the Member finish.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: I just feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's quite clear that the government's total range of activity has increased and is increasing with more portfolios and with the involvement of government, particularly in the business sector, to a degree which

[ Page 4170 ]

has never occurred in this province before. It does concern me that there is, by this motion, to be a time limit on the debate on estimates.

I've listened carefully to the points of view that have been put forward by this side of the House as to the fact that there are limits in other jurisdictions in the other provincial Houses and in Ottawa and in London. Certainly when I sat in committee, that was an appealing argument, which at that time I felt was reasonable.

I do feel that if we are to limit throne speech debate and budget speech debate, along with the other limitations of the resolution, at this point in time it would not be unreasonable, in my view, to proceed on the basis of placing a limitation only on budget and throne speech debates, and to wait and see at the next full session of the Legislature to what degree the debate on estimates can be left to find its own time limit. I do feel that this particular session has been unusual in various ways.

This is the first time that the opposition has had an opportunity to assess one full year of performance by this government, and one or two other issues have come up which certainly are singular in their own respect.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why did you vote for the report'?

MR. WALLACE: The total picture, I think, is such that we could introduce the limitation as included in the motion if we could delete that section which at the present time suggests a limitation on debate on estimates. I feel that if one year down the road it is quite obvious that the experience we've had this year is not a singular experience, but is to be repeated over and over again with a great deal of time expended on estimates purely for the sake of emphasizing a point repetitively, then I feel that perhaps we should then put this matter back to committee.

But I think we are making some reasonable step forward, and all parties, I understand, unanimously agree on all the motion except for the limitation on the debate in estimates. I think that this would show a great deal of good will on the part of the government, and perhaps produce a degree of trust by the opposition to a degree which would perhaps never require a limitation on the debate on estimates.

So these are my considerations. I don't consider it any kind of weakness that I happen to have taken a different point of view in the long run than I have taken in committee. But I do feel that this is the kind of proposal which would be acceptable to the whole House. At the same time it certainly leaves the door open to the government if one year from now, or six months from now, the decision we reach today proves valid.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the government accept an adjournment on this?

Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.!

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:06 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 4154:

34 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move-

That Standing Order 129 be amended as follows:

By deleting in subparagraph 7 the words "That, after prorogation of the House," and substituting the word "That".

By adding at the end of subparagraph 8 the following words: "where such committee requires transcripts to be taken."