CONTENTS

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

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

1974 BCR financial statement. Mr. Fraser –– 2337

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

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

Talks with federal government on Vedder Mountain property. Mr. Schroeder –– 2338

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

Sale of mobile homes. Mr. McClelland –– 2339

Cost of Marguerite refit. Mr. Curtis –– 2339

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

Columbia River inquiry. Mr. McGeer –– 2340

Revelstoke Hydro dam project. Mr. Chabot –– 2340

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

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

Point of order Release of Hansard tape to the media. Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 2341

Point of order Request for clarification of procedure in Committee of Supply. Mr. Gibson –– 2342

Point of order Release of Hansard tape to the media. Mr. McGeer –– 2344

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney — General estimates.

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

Division on vote 12 –– 2346

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

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2346

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2346

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

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

Division on vote 13 –– 2347

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

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

Division on vote 14 –– 2351

Division on vote 15 –– 2351

Division on motion that the committee rise and report resolution –– 2352

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

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

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2352

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2355

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

Division on vote 16 –– 2355

Division on vote 17 –– 2355

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

Division on vote 18 –– 2356

Division on vote 19 –– 2356

Division on motion that the committee rise and report resolution –– 2356

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

Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 2357

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will be pleased that in the gallery this afternoon we have a very distinguished editor and publisher, Mr. Sid Govard, who is the editor and publisher of the B.C. Orchardist. This is an authoritative publication on the British Columbia tree fruit industry.

It would further interest you, I am sure, to know that Sid is a gentleman with a distinguished journalistic career, having served and won his honours with the Manchester Guardian, latterly with The Vancouver Sun and The Province, and he also has the distinction of having served with another illustrious journalist of our press gallery, Jim Hume, when Jim was publisher and editor of the Penticton Herald. Mr. Govard is a friend, a knowledgeable friend, of the B.C. fruit industry. Some of them will know that he doesn't hesitate to tell us where we go wrong. I would ask the House to welcome this gentleman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome this afternoon a group of students, some of whom are in the gallery now and some of whom will be in at 2:30, accompanied by the teacher in charge of their group, Mr. Pashak, from Langley Secondary School.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the Member for Nelson-Creston, I'd like to welcome to the Legislature 47 students from North Shore Elementary School in Nelson, B.C. The students are comprised of grades 1 to 7, and I understand it's the youngest group that has ever visited Victoria. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Hebig; chaperons Mrs. Dought, Mike and Barb Brown, Mrs. Lock, Mrs. McKen, Mrs. Bryck, Mrs. MacIlwaine and Mrs. Makasoff.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, later on this afternoon we will have visiting with us from Bella Bella a group of 25 native Indian students, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

Presenting petitions.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member read out the petition — that is, the operative plea?

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

"To the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned, Olaf Baumgartner, of Richmond, B.C., humbly showeth (1) whereas my enjoyment of my property at 1135 River Road in the municipality of Richmond is being unduly hampered by the application of expropriation proceedings, and (2) whereas my personal liberty is in jeopardy as a result of my efforts to protect my rights and my property, I hereby humbly pray that your honorable House will move swiftly to consider legislative changes in the expropriation field of the sort proposed by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, thereby protecting others from the problems which have befallen me; and as duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

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

Signed by Olaf Baumgartner and myself.

Oral questions.

1974 BCR FINANCIAL STATEMENT

MR. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question To the Premier as president of the British Columbia Railway. I asked some time ago when we could expect the financial statement of this operation for the year 1974. Could you advise the House when we can receive the 1974 statement?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I still do not have the 1974 statement. I am hoping that we will receive it before the end of the month. As the House is aware, there was a change of auditors. One of the former auditors has received a suspension from his own association. More of that, of course, will have to be discussed in the report itself and the bill relating to it. Because we have new auditors and the previous auditor received a suspension, and because of other problems related to the accounts of the railway, there has been a delay in preparing the report.

As soon as the report is available I'll file it in the House. Then, of course, we'll be able to debate it during the bill. I'm sure that all Members of the House, especially Members of the opposition, look forward to that debate.

EXPROPRIATION OF BAUMGARTNER PROPERTY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney-General aware that Mr. Olaf Baumgartner of 1135 River Road, Richmond, B.C., is now the subject of a warrant ordering his arrest and incarceration as a result of his efforts to ensure adequate compensation for

[ Page 2338 ]

expropriation of a right-of-way across his property?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any legal proceedings. I am aware of the general problem, which is that he lives on the river. The law requires that people living on the river dedicate enough of their property by way of an easement to the Crown for the purpose of diking and protection of that land, and that's all I know about it. The part about legal proceedings underway at the present time I can't answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Attorney-General then indicate to the Legislature when legislation such as that recommended by the Law Reform Commission in 1971 four years ago will be introduced to revise this province's outdated expropriation laws so that the rights of people, such as Baumgartner can be protected?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A bill will be tabled for first reading at this session of the Legislature — and I'm referring to the spring session. I would expect it would be furnished at that time. But whether or not it will affect the laws of diking insofar as the adjacent owner to a river should for the protection of his land as well as the community dedicate a portion so that the community can at their own expense build a dike — I very much doubt if that will be affected by the bill proposed to be tabled.

CRIMINAL THREAT FROM
COCAINE USERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, in view of the evidence presented at a supreme court trial in New Westminster by Dr. John Unwin regarding the fact that all groups in society, including 15-year-olds, are using cocaine and that that use is spreading right through the social structure of British Columbia — and there's been another double murder which appears to be related to the use of cocaine — and in view of the fact that the effects of cocaine induce violent and aggressive tendencies, has the Attorney-General ordered any specific investigation of this new serious threat to society from cocaine users?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the threat is very real and perhaps even more real than in the case of narcotics. It's a white death which is becoming more prevalent as heroin becomes a little less prevalent in our society. We've had through CLEU a very successful seizure of cocaine that was being imported through an international ring from Peru recently. It was about seven or eight days ago.

It's a matter of great concern to me.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could we not have some assurance from the Attorney-General, though, in view of this very serious threat, that some special emergency measures can be taken, either by his department or through the agency of CLEU to reassure the public that this is a matter that the Attorney-General is very much aware of and is in effect treating it as an emergency situation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to consider that, and I'd be very glad to speak with the Hon. Member privately if he has any suggestion at all.

TALKS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ON VEDDER MOUNTAIN PROPERTY

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The question is for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Have negotiations with the Department of National Defence regarding some 750 acres, more or less, of Vedder Mountain property — that is, provincial Crown property — reached a conclusion?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): There have been discussions, Mr. Speaker; there's no final conclusion that I'm aware of.

MR. SCHROEDER: Would the Minister tell me whether the negotiations are on the basis of a lease or fee simple?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would think that's negotiable, although I think the federal Department of National Defence would be interested in fee simple ownership.

FATALITY ON HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) questioned me in regard to a fatality on the Hope-Princeton Highway. First, some background. A Telex from the RCMP subdivision in Kamloops:

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

Interjections.

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

"...two cars were going towards one another. A car driven by Berthold Stephen of Vancouver swerved to miss a pothole in the road and went

[ Page 2339 ]

into the eastbound lane, colliding with a vehicle driven by Susannah McGovern, the deceased, and another passenger" — it doesn't say which car she was riding in — "was taken to hospital. Both of the other two people involved in the accident had minor injuries, but Miss McGovern was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital."

The section of road has now been repaired. The regional highway engineer in Kamloops advises that this section of the Hope-Princeton suffers badly every year from spring breakup. While the condition lasts, there are temporary markers that are erected at rough spots and general warning signs — "rough road ahead — so many miles." These signs were posted.

The coroner's report hasn't been received by my department yet. I have asked that the report be placed in my office so that I can review it. If there is any action to be taken, it will be taken.

SALE OF MOBILE HOMES

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. I'd like to ask the Minister whether she has had any complaints about mobile–home owners who are being told that they cannot sell their homes on privately owned lots unless they move the home off the lot or pay a commission to the lot owner. If she has, what action is her department taking?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I take it that you mean that the mobile–home owner cannot move the home off a park owner's lot.

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

HON. MS. YOUNG: That's what I mean. But you said "privately owned" pad which implied to me that the mobile–.... No, I have not had that kind of complaint but I can assure the Member I have had quite a few of the others without an exit fee. We are looking at that problem very closely in conjunction with the Department of the Attorney-General and the Department of Housing.

MR. McCLELLAND. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there any protection for the mobile–home owner in such a case, either under your legislation or under the rentalsman legislation of the Attorney-General?

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

COST OF MARGUERITE REFIT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard to the former CPR vessel Princess Marguerite: I wonder if the Minister is now able to advise the House of the approximate dollar amount which will have been spent on this ship prior to its commencement in the 1975 summer service between Victoria and Seattle.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I can't give firm figures at this stage, Mr. Speaker. There will be a press conference first thing tomorrow morning with respect to the operational aspects of the vessel.

What we've achieved is virtually the impossible in a short period of time, replacing a service that the CPR had abandoned for the capital city. As I indicated, there will be a bill before the House, and we'll deal with the financial aspects in the bill.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary to the Minister with respect to this service. The Minister indicated in answer to an earlier question that some form of Crown corporation was going to be established to cover the operation of the vessel. Is there any impediment in the absence of legislation passing through this House before June 1 which would prevent the operation of that service by June 1, which I understand is the date which has been given?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, the date is June 1. The Crown corporation will be British Columbia Steamships (1975) Ltd. I am not aware of any impediment; our staff has satisfactory arrangements with the comptroller-general.

COLUMBIA RIVER DOCUMENT,
AND GOTTESMAN CONTRACT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver — Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister. He has a habit of taking embarrassing questions as notice and never answering them in the hope that they will be forgotten. I want to ask him when he's prepared to answer two questions I have asked him, one two months old. When is he going to make public that 10-page document on the Columbia River that Hydro gave to CBC, a public corporation, which should be a public document?

Secondly, a question over six months old: when is he going to table the contract with Gottesman of a year ago, which is no longer commercially confidential?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I indicated that we would be tabling the Ocean Falls contract, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the other, there will be a

[ Page 2340 ]

commission announced in due course and all of that material will be available to the commission.

COLUMBIA RIVER INQUIRY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier to ask whether any progress had been made to set up this inquiry under the Columbia River treaty. Many Members, including myself, are anxious for this to get underway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate your anxiety because it affects your particular immediate political future. (Laughter.) I know that you wouldn't wish to join a party that brought that disaster upon this province. The inquiry will go ahead very quickly.

REVELSTOKE HYDRO DAM PROJECT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of B.C. Hydro's stated intention to switch to coal for power generation, can the Minister advise whether this indicates that the proposed Hydro dam project near Revelstoke has been cancelled?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: There is no question that the matter is still being analyzed, Mr. Speaker. But we should make it clear that most of the downstream benefit from the Columbia treaty of course went to the Americans. There remain some benefits in terms of machines on the river itself in Canada. That's why the Revelstoke project is still actively being investigated. An environmental analysis is still underway with the secretariat, B.C. Hydro and consultants.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. The Minister talks about power costs. What is the anticipated per kilowatt cost of future power to be developed at site 1 on the Peace River and on the Pend D'Oreille River near Trail?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's the Pend d'Oreille — I shouldn't by saying that to that Member. At any rate, if my memory, serves me — I don't have a current figure in terms of mill prices for the power because of inflation — but at the time of the previous energy board report, I believe they were in the slightly below 7 mill range. You have to apply the standard inflationary factor, I believe.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary. Would that be about 3.5 times more costly than power to be generated at Mica?

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not if you count all the losses downstream and all the benefits that we could have had.

EDUCATION FINANCE COMMITTEE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education: with respect to the committee on educational finance which the Minister announced to the House some time ago, may I ask her whether this committee has met and, if so, how many times it has met?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I can't give the exact number of times, but I know they have had quite a number of meetings — and that is the committee of department officials, representatives of the BCTF officials, and the B.C. school trustee officials. I can take that as notice to give you the number of times they've meat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll just accept the Minister's assurance that they have met more than once.

CNR-BCR CLINTON-ASHCROFT CONNECTION

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Premier, as president of the railway, a question in relation to a statement made in the federal House by Transport Minister Jean Marchand to the effect that negotiations with CNR and BCR regarding the Clinton-Ashcroft connection are proving to be very lengthy and tortuous. He, in fact, predicted that it would not go ahead until 1978.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are going on. They are proving to be lengthy, but the past experience, both with the previous administration and the present government, in dealing with railway matters with the federal government is that we've found that it's best to have everything nailed down before we sign any agreement.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick supplementary. Does the Premier feel, then, that it may well be 1978 before agreement is reached, or why was that figure plucked out of the air — it's three years ahead? Is it to be understood by the people in British Columbia — and there's a great deal of concern about the inefficient transportation system during the months because of problems in the Fraser Canyon — that the Premier's feeling that that 1978 prediction might prove to be correct?

[ Page 2341 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, of what the Hon. Mr. Marchand based the 1978 figure on, but I would hope that it wouldn't take that long. I don't see problems necessarily that large for that amount of time to take place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It's my understanding that under the provisions of standing order 129....

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) would be seated for a minute? I'll recognize him in due course. One at a time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Under the provision of standing order 129, Mr. Speaker, you gave authority to various broadcasters to utilize the magnetic tape recordings of last night's proceedings. This is, I believe, from my reading of the rules, entirely within your prerogative. But I would like to know, for the information of the House, whether it is now your intention that the magnetic tape recordings be made available to the media at the conclusion of each day's proceedings.

As a second question, which I believe should be discussed at the same time: does this mean we will have a departure from the present practice to allow the draft Hansard — the Blues of Hansard which is the report taken from the tape — to be made available to the media as well?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, on the first question, that the reason for the release of it, after it had been duly checked, under standing order 129, was to meet any suggestion that was given to the press last night that there was any attempt to suggest that the two Members were expelled by some agreement between the Speaker and anyone else, or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House and anyone else.

It was a deplorable statement in view of the fact that it was utterly untrue, and the illustration of the facts are clearly presented on the tapes themselves, which would let the public know that any such suggestion was false. For that reason I deemed it in the interests of this House and of the dignity of parliament that the public know precisely what happened in this House last night so there'll be no suggestion that the Chair is influenced by anyone, particularly by the government, in making decisions. Those decisions have to be made by our books of authority and under our standing orders, and I don't accept anything other than suggestions from any Member of the House. I certainly would not take any dictation from anyone, as was suggested by the reports that I heard last night.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you for your clear exposition as to why last night's proceedings were made public, but my question really was: is it your intention in the future that magnetic tape recordings of the day's proceedings be made available to the media at the end of the day? Also, will the draft Hansard, which is taken from the tapes, be made available as well?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The only thing I would add as a result of your comments is if it is possible for imputations against Members or the Speaker to be corrected in this way, what procedure should be followed by Members of this assembly who wish to have the magnetic tape made available? Do we appeal to you? How is it done?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be a useful consideration in this way. As you all know, I am in favour of the broadcasting of the debates of this House to the people, but there are technical difficulties that still exist in trying to implement that on a large scale. That is the problem I have at the moment to implement such a programme. Consequently, although it is simply enough to take a small segment of the day and give it to the press, it is not quite so easy to do it on a larger scale daily and properly and efficiently without considerable expense.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I think the members of the public will be able to judge the proceedings of this House as they hear them when they have that opportunity.

The second point is with regard to the proof copies — which is the proper name for them — of Hansard. It is difficult to make sure that they are correct, as the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) so vividly described yesterday when he pointed out that Hansard, mistakenly, had thought that the Liquor Control Board" was the proper description when in fact he described it correctly himself, and it had been altered in the proofs. That sort of thing makes it dangerous, of course, to the Hon. Members if they are released prematurely without very careful consideration.

Since the Speaker has the duty under the standing order to make sure that before they are released to the public they are correct, I find it an onerous responsibility to give them out, knowing that I would be blamed by the Members if it turned out that a mistake was made by Hansard on the remarks by the Hon. Member for Columbia River particularly.

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

[ Page 2342 ]

I will try to speed the Hansard proofs up. They're faster than they were. If Members will co-operate they can get copies of them in the morning by 11 o'clock. If they can get them back by noon it is possible to get the Hansard final copies rushed out, and I would like to see copies go as early as possible to the press.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under the provisions of standing order 49, for the third time of asking: that the provisions included in standing order 45 (3), Committee of Supply, on page 18, shall not be limited unless and until full debate has been completed on each of the remaining estimates by the Members of this Legislative Assembly. So moved.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Who said so?

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear a no. Perhaps you could call the vote again.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sitting where I can hear both sides of the House, and I heard noes, a number of them, and I must believe my ears.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has had almost four months to make that motion in the usual way and put it on the order paper on two days' notice, and has failed to do so.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, the government has had equally as long to determine what they were going to do with regard to estimates in this House. And what have they done? Pulled them!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member standing on a point of order?

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano first.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, last night, just before the adjournment hour, Your Honour undertook to consider the important question as to whether a private Member could move under the operation of rule 45 that the committee rise and report progress. I was wondering, since it may have some influence on the debate today, whether Your Honour has had a chance to complete consideration of that question.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Don't discourage him. I've been called everything now, including "Your Grace." (Laughter.) I don't feel very religious, however.

MR. GIBSON: Not a saving grace.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, unfortunately, is one that the House has already decided by the motion that was made by a private Member, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), yesterday. I have had the opportunity to peruse the proofs of the debate at that time and it appears evident that the House did make a decision that where a private Member moves the motion, the House passes judgment on it.

In the meantime, because it is a serious matter, I have been in discussions with my Clerks and with the Clerks in Ottawa, where they just last night passed without any delay, hesitation or interruption their estimates in one fell swoop. That didn't help me any.

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

MR. SPEAKER: No. I'm not suggesting what you should do here; I'm suggesting though that I had a look at it from the standpoint that I cannot make decisions until they occur before me. I can try to make suggestions, when asked to do so, but you cannot make rulings in anticipation. The House has, in effect, made a ruling in fact on the motion made by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), if you look in the proceedings of yesterday. So I am still considering the matter.

Now the House, when it goes into committee, will have to carry on as best it can and rely upon the rulings it will either uphold or not, and bring them to the House for decision by the House as a whole. The Chairman and the Speaker are not in a position of making rules. That's for the House to do.

Our job is, where it's possible, to try and interpret what the House intended. But we cannot go beyond, I would think, a reasonable interpretation, as we can see it, from what the House was intending. If we are in doubt, it really is our duty to throw it back to the House to say what they did mean.

MR. GIBSON: A point of order, Sir. The question that was before you was the interpretation of the vote of the House on Monday that in fact a motion of

[ Page 2343 ]

that kind in committee, while rule 45 was in operation, was in fact in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The House did decide the matter on Monday and the matter was decided on Tuesday. In both instances, as I recall it — I think if we look at the proceedings you will see it — a motion was accepted from the government which was protested and taken to the House for decision. Further, on Tuesday, a motion was proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, rejected by the Committee of the Whole House, taken to the House and the House decided, not the Speaker, in both cases.

MR. GIBSON: No, the House, indeed, decided on Monday that a motion of that kind was in order but it has not, to the best of my knowledge, decided from which corner of the House it might be in order. That is the question which was brought before you last night under the provisions of May providing for....

MR. SPEAKER: Then all I can say is that when the occasion arises, I would prefer that the matter came up and not in anticipation. You are asking me to interpret something on which I don't have the facts and was not presented as the point of order. If that point of order is raised by you, then it will not have to be in anticipation if it occurs again.

MR. GIBSON: But the matter was brought before you, Mr. Speaker, under the section of May, page 341, titled: "Matters Requiring Immediate Intervention of the House." (That's the 18th edition.) You may recall that the Chairman reported progress and reported to you that this matter had been raised.

MR. SPEAKER: But as I pointed out to you, it wasn't on a motion of the House. He came out of the committee to ask for an opinion, and at this stage I am not prepared to make it until the matter comes up and is not merely in anticipation. What you are arguing about amounts to a theoretical point at this stage unless that exact point of order comes up again, as I see it. Now that's my recollection; I may be wrong, but I think that's true.

MR. GIBSON: I would have thought the intention of this kind of reference to Your Honour was to obtain a decision in advance of need in order that the conduct of the committee might be better governed, but we can proceed the other way.

MR. SPEAKER: You know the rules.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the Member's attention that I was concerned as well about this point in asking the Speaker. I think the advice from the Chair, as I interpret it, is to deal with the matter not in anticipation but when it arises. I would suggest that we follow that course because that is surely what the Speaker is suggesting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that it will be possible to take it to you for your judgment...

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and it will not simply be the confirming or otherwise of a vote of the committee. The whole purpose of my referring to May, page 431, last night to bring this to your attention in this way was as a result of your intervention in the preceding period, saying you had not been properly charged with the matter. When you were charged with the matter by the Chairman of the committee, we assumed there would be some sort of guidance for the House. The dilemma we face is that if we follow the course of action of merely waiting for the problem to arise, we will then be put in a position of voting on upholding or otherwise the rule of the Chairman, and you will not have an opportunity of giving us your words of wisdom and your learned counsel on this matter. The whole purpose of asking for a declaratory opinion from you was to make sure that when we do vote and when the Chairman does indeed make his decision, he has had the opportunity of being guided by your advice. If we adopt your present suggestion, which is to wait until the matter actually occurs, wait until the eventuality actually takes place, we will be waiting until the rules of the House will prevent you in all likelihood from making any judgment because it will simply be an automatic confirmation of a vote of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that all the advice I could tender at the time yesterday was merely advisory in the sense that I had looked at the rules to some extent in a cursory way because, as you can realize, you have to go through a lot of reading to find something on this point, and it's practically impossible to find anything except by analogy. Therefore I did cite to the Members, as you will see if you look at the statement I made in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings, particularly in the last paragraph of my statement there. May then goes on to state: "On days on which proceedings under the order are to be brought to a conclusion" — which was the case of standing order 45A — "or in some cases on any allotted day, dilatory motions," — which would be the kind that was proposed by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — "or that the Chairman report progress or leave the Chair, are forbidden unless moved by the government when the question thereon is to be put without amendment or debate."

[ Page 2344 ]

Now that's quite a different case, as I pointed out, from estimates, where you are in debate, and it says: "where they are being put without amendment or debate."

I have no other citation so far on this, although I have been looking at this matter and I have been in consultation with the Clerks in Ottawa on the question. They have a standing order 58 which may be of some assistance, but not necessarily.

Therefore I rely to some extent on the wise counsel of Mr. Speaker Lamoureaux, as he was on July 24, 1969, where he in effect advises the House in Ottawa that he feels that this is a matter with which he should not deal in anticipation. Although he was asked his advice in that case by Mr. Knowles under standing order 51 of their House, he refused to give his advice and thought that it was a matter better left to the House or a rules committee of the House.

I have given you the advice that I can; it is not for me to say what you do with it. If you decide in favour of it, that is your decision. It should not be left to the Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: (Mike not on.) ...and/or the government is prepared to give us the undertaking that we will in fact be able to test this question when we next go into Committee of Supply.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been trying for some time to catch your attention about the point of order raised earlier by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) concerning the apparent release of material recorded in debate. It had been my assumption initially that some kind of a bootleg version must have been obtained by the press and that in fact release had not been authorized.

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

MR. McGEER: Yes. I think we need a little bit of interpretation and guidance from you, Mr. Speaker, because rule 129(5) states: "That Mr. Speaker, may, on request in writing of any Member, use the magnetic-tape record to verify the words spoken by that Member...."

MR. SPEAKER: That is not the section upon which I relied. I think the Member is mistaken.

MR. McGEER: Yes. That subsection and the one following — That any Member may challenge the accuracy of the magnetic-tape record in cases where he alleges that words spoken by him have been attributed to another Member or vice versa .... — clearly indicate to me that individual Members of this House have some rights to scrutiny of the tapes and any written interpretation of them. That is why we have the Blues and an opportunity to record them.

What we need explained to us, Mr. Speaker, is under what circumstances sections may be released, even if the media requests it, without Members having had an opportunity to hear what has been said and to verify whether or not it was their voices that have in fact been heard.

MR. SPEAKER: I assure the Hon. Members that right in the chamber at this present time are the master tapes, which are not moved out, which are there now, which duplicate the ones that are sent down to the Hansard office. Anyone who feels the least doubt that Hansard is inaccurate in regard to the recording of the tapes (I have listened to them myself and I'm quite convinced they are absolutely accurate) can, if he wishes to satisfy himself, do so in the proper fashion under that standing order. In the meantime, however, the public use, employment, publication, transmission or broadcast outside the House of the magnetic-tape records of said debates or any portion thereof is prohibited without the express authority of the Speaker. In these circumstances of the public good, I felt that the public should know precisely what happened so that no stories would be going around to an opposite affect.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just speaking further to that, of course what is involved obviously is a transcript in which Members may have made statements that wrongly are interpreted by the magnetic tape. It is not always easy to make out voices clearly when microphones are cut off. I am really asking for clarification regarding the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to release these magnetic tapes at the request of the media without it first being discussed with the Members involved and the courtesy identification being permitted by those Members.

MR. SPEAKER: In this particular extraordinary circumstance, I think you realize that the Chairman was on his feet trying to report from committee to the Speaker. The Speaker then was on his feet trying to obtain order. The only persons who were really privileged to speak were those under our rules who had the right to speak. The other voices that are in the background make it pretty clear that there was considerable noise and that the orders of the Chair were not being obeyed. That is what the transcript clearly shows in the recording, as it will in the copies of Hansard. No Member need fear that anything untoward happened to him so far as the transcripts are concerned. I certainly am not at all afraid to have

[ Page 2345 ]

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

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

MR. CHABOT: An additional point of order on the same matter, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if you could advise me whether the release and the broadcast of those takes from Hansard jeopardizes the immunity which we enjoy in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I looked at it very carefully from that point of view and I am pleased to say that I could see nothing in that that in any way conflicted with the report of Dr. McWhinney on the subject.

MR. WALLACE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering, in light of your comment of a moment ago, if I could have some clarification of section 129(2), where:

"The public use, employment, transmission or broadcast is prohibited without the express authority of Mr. Speaker."

How does this interpretation relate, for example, to the request of an individual Member who considers circumstances might be extraordinary and would seek justification of his position, as you sought to explain your position?

MR. SPEAKER: I would be delighted if many Members made the same request as the press for a copy of something that they've said that they feel bears heavily upon either their character, their reputation, their integrity or the full, fair presentation of the facts of what happened in the chamber so far as that Member was concerned. I think it's better, actually, than bringing up these breaches of privilege motions that come from time to time.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of privilege.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, just speaking of integrity and one's reputation, I wonder if the Premier would advise the House if he's going to sign this document that's on his desk?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm afraid that the Hon. Member has no standing on that point.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members who are rising on points of order to so indicate when they rise. The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of order.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I am rising to speak on vote 12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated unless he is making a point of order?

MR. SMITH: I am not making a point of order; I am rising on behalf of the people of the Province of British Columbia to speak on vote 12....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member, under standing order 45, be seated, please?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

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

[ Page 2346 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I rise in my place to explain that it's not possible for me to vote on the estimates of the Attorney-General when it's not possible for me to get an explanation from him as to whether he allows charges of perjury...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...to go unchallenged. Therefore I have no intention of voting on this vote because I cannot get a reply from the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Vote 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

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

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

MR. SMITH: My point of order is simply this: under the provisions of the election of Members to this assembly, I claim my right to speak on vote 13. I claim my right as a duly — elected Member of this Legislative Assembly to speak on vote 13 and any other vote that grants supply to the Minister of the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the Hon. Member is free to speak under the rules of this House. However, under standing order 45, debate is forbidden on these votes. Therefore the Hon. Member, under the rules, is not able to speak at this point, except on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, 135 hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated unless he has a further point of order?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a point of order. Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

MR. SMITH: Any time the House abuses the Members of this House, this assembly, by denying them their constitutional rights and their democratic rights to debate the estimates of this House, it's an abuse of the rules of this House, and it's an abuse of the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member take his seat please, unless he has a point of order?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has ruled that there is no debate on these votes, under standing order 45A.

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

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

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply on consideration of vote 13, the Hon. Member for North Peace River rose on a point of order. His point was that he should have the right to debate on these votes. However, the Chair ruled that under standing order 45A he is not entitled to debate at this time. He challenged my ruling.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

[ Page 2347 ]

NAYS — 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of order. In previous parliaments it has been the conduct in the Committee of Supply for the House Leader, when presenting the vote to the table, to read out the amount of money that is involved. This has not been the practice in the last couple of years. I wonder if this practice is to be resumed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I will certainly do that. Okay? From here on in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the House Leader for that because it's the only way we can check whether our estimate books are accurate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Quite.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wanted to know whether vote 13...and since you have the vote, could you tell me if vote 13 is $7,880,171?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! It's not necessary to ask questions — there's no debate — that I would consider as part of debate. The Hon. House Leader has indicated she will read the amount on each occasion.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

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

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, we're not getting very far this afternoon, and I move that you do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 30

Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 13 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 12

[ Page 2348 ]

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

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

MR. SMITH: Would the Chairman be so kind as to advise me when we are dealing with a vote which includes a number of new departments...

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

MR. SMITH: ...why we should vote $6,447,738 of expenditure without debate?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated. I order the Hon. Member to be seated. I order the Hon. Member to be seated. Would the Hon. Member be seated? Order, please! If the Hon. Member does not take his seat I will be obliged to report the matter to the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply in consideration of vote 14, the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) rose in his place. I asked the Hon. Member to state his point of order; he did not state a point of order but rather debated the particular vote, contrary to standing order 45. I ordered him to be seated and he did not obey my order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member if he would be prepared to comply with standing order that requires him to take his seat when he is asked to do so by the Chair.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Then the Chairman should comply with the rules of the House.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon not only the Members who are seated in the Legislature but also the Chairman and the Speaker to apply or be guided by the rules of the Legislature.

There is nothing to prevent a Member of this House from rising on a point of order. I think my point of order was legitimate. I asked an explanation of why we were required to vote on estimates which had never been before this House before, and even before I made my point, the Chairman of committee was on his feet ruling me out of order. Now, surely to goodness, we can preserve a little bit of democracy in this House. Just a little bit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that the standing order clearly says that there shall be no debate, but it is also the prerogative and the duty of the Chair to determine whether, in fact, a point of order is involved. If, in the opinion of the Chair, under standing orders, it is not a point of order and he so rules that it is not a point of order, then obviously the Hon. Member is in error and must take his seat when he is requested to do so. The problem here is that the Hon. Member did not obey the legitimate order of the Chair to take his seat.

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, with due regard for your position and the position of Chairman, surely to goodness it is incumbent upon a Chairman....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute now. Would the Hon. Member be seated? I am not complaining about his conduct, but I am about the Hon. Member for Langley for saying that I am worse than a Chairman. I have tried to explain this matter of order and I find it rather reprehensible. I am trying to listen patiently. I know perfectly well, as does every Member, that there is no debate under standing order 45A, that the only thing before the committee is to vote on the particular estimates presented to the committee. Those estimates are well known to each Member. He has copies of them in his book, and if he wants to know the amount, he can find out.

The point is that there is nothing you can do to say it is a point of order, to ask whether or not there are any new estimates or any new votes in that vote, because, as you pointed out....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, As you know, it doesn't matter. Asking questions is tantamount to making a debate. Consequently, to suggest that the Chair could do anything else, I find extraordinary. If the Hon. Member for Langley has a suggestion how you can violate standing order 45 by having a debate and asking questions, then I would like his authority.

[ Page 2349 ]

But to criticize the Chair for clearly following standing order 45A is, I think, really an insult to the Chair. The Chair didn't make these rules, you know. The House did.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the rule; it has to do with the Chairman allowing a Member to make his point of order. There is no possible way in the world that the Chairman can rule on a point of order before he hears it. That is what he did. The Member never had more than about four or five words out of his mouth before the Chairman stood up.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure I was here. But the point is that whether I was here or not, the report that I got from the Chair....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The report I got from the Chair was that the Hon. Member had failed to take his seat when ordered to do so. The point is that I would not ask the Member to leave the House. I would hope that we could observe the courtesies towards each other and deal properly under the orders and the rules of this House.

I would ask the Hon. Member if he would state his point of order first and not embark upon any other dissertation other than the exact point of order so the Chairman can be guided by your objections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, would you suggest the Chairman be returned to the chair to listen to my point of order?

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The reason for asking the Hon. Member to take his seat is so I can make a comment in order that I can explain to him how a point of order should be taken. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated so I may make a point of order?

Would the Hon. Member be seated so that I may make a point of order in regard to the...?

MR. SMITH: What about my point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) be seated for a moment, please?

The Chair also has the right to make a comment if it is required by the standing orders or by the situation. The Chair simply seeks to exercise that right and responsibility.

In regard to the Hon. Member for North Peace River, if an Hon. Member wishes to make a point of order, he should rise in his place and say, "I rise on a point of order," so that it is quite clear that this is what is being done.

Secondly, the Hon. Member should quickly get to the point in terms of the rules upon which he is making his point and not begin to embark upon a debate upon the particular matter which we have before us. My point was that the Hon. Member was clearly embarking upon a debate rather than stating a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to stand and to make his point of order again.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you have a duty to this House to be impartial in the authority that you have before you and to listen to points of order before you rule them out of order.

My point of order is simply this. Under vote 14 we have over $3 million in new provisions and in new areas of this department which have never been before this House for debate before. I suggest to you that it is completely unfair to the Members of this House to ask them to pass without comment, without debate, those estimates which have never been before this House before. I ask you to seriously consider if this is not an abuse of the Members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, clearly we are governed by standing order 45A and therefore no debate is permitted, even if the Hon. Member thinks that he would like to. The fact is that the standing orders are quite clear.

[ Page 2350 ]

MR. SMITH: On a further point of order, since when, in this House, has either the Chairman or the Speaker, when he's in the chair, not had some latitude in listening to points of order by Members of the House, particularly in a situation such as we are involved in at the present time? I ask you to seriously consider the point that I have made as a point of order, and suggest to you that it is an abuse of every Member of this House, including the Members of the government. I ask you to consider it before you get so hasty with that hammer.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, further to that point of order, if that's what you can tag it, we have been subjugated to 135 hours of frivolous debate from the opposition so that they could do exactly what they're doing now. I would just like that to be on the record along with the rest of the frivolousness that has been put forth in this House since we sat last night.

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

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I am just startled by the audacity and the nerve of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to stand up in this House and suggest that three and a half hours...

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

MRS. JORDAN: ...for $700 million is sufficient. The Premier may have that much confidence in him but the people of British Columbia don't. Three and a half hours for $700 million!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state her point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: You have your gall. No wonder you had to have an early nomination!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Does your ruling to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) indicate that government Members can make partisan statements in this House without any limitation, and that then we in the opposition are not permitted to stand up and answer them? Is that what that indicates? That's what's been going on during this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) indicated that he wished to have a little longer in order to make his point of order. I granted that request and then ruled that his point was not in order. Similarly, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) was out of order.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, we're dealing with $6,447,000 of taxpayers' money. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether you could advise me whether I'm in order in asking this, because these are not our dollars; they belong to the taxpayers. All the people in the galleries help contribute....

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

MR. CHABOT: My point is that I am sure that they're appalled in the gallery today to see this kind of $6.5 million vote go by without so much as the ability of Members of the Legislature, who happen to represent various constituents and areas in the province, to ask questions to see whether there is wisdom in the expenditures....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is clearly beginning to debate the vote. I would ask him to state his point of order, then take his seat and let me rule on his point of order.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I'm wondering if there would be some way of canvassing the gallery, who are the people who help contribute that $6.5 million which we are about to vote on without the right of debate. Maybe they have something to say. Maybe they want to speak out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

Shall vote 14 pass?

So ordered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in the middle of a division. If it's a point of order in connection with the division only, in the procedure on the division....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Procedure only, on the division.

[ Page 2351 ]

MR. SMITH: In rising and calling a division, you asked for a vote. I heard many noes, but no yeas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's probably why the division was called. I think the Hon. Member's point is not well-taken. Anyone can call for a division in order to clarify the situation.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we should refrain from making points of order in the middle of a division, unless it's critical. If the Hon. Member has a critical point on the procedure, would she make it, please?

MRS. JORDAN: I just wonder if the fact that there were no ayes heard isn't in fact, an indication that the government Members are lacking in competence in the procedures of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This point has been made. Would the Members please refrain from interrupting the Clerks?

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

MR. SMITH: I'm somewhat puzzled; perhaps you could give us some clarification for all of the Members of the House. As I heard the vote put, there were many noes and no yeses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: On conclusion of that, you said, "so ordered." Does that mean that the vote has been refused by the Members of the House, or that it is accepted by the Members of the House, in your estimation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order: the Chair makes an assessment, listens to both the ayes and the nays and determines which side won. Then any Member can call for a division to clarify the situation. This has been done. Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

MR. SMITH: No, not until you've clarified the point. Have you accepted the vote as being passed or are you saying to the House that the vote was negated? Which way, Mr. Chairman?

MRS. JORDAN: We want to know your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair was that the vote passed. However, a division was called.

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

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Down at this end of the House, clearly we could hear no noes; it surely must have been all ayes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

Vote 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 13

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

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

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 12

[ Page 2352 ]

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 29

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On a point of order: on vote 15, when the division bells were rung...I would like to draw your attention to standing order 16(2), which says that the division bell should allow not less than two minutes nor more than five.

I missed the vote on 15 because the five-minute time did not elapse, and it is my understanding that the Chairman did not ask for leave to carry the vote prior to that time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rule is that it is no less than two, no more than five. I wasn't in the Chair at that time, but I think that the five minutes was taken. In any case, I will be sure that we have the five minutes.

MR. MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But the Speaker made the statement yesterday, when we were discussing this particular point, that he would wait the full five minutes or ask for leave.

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

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

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I represent the electoral district of Columbia River, and when I was elected in 1972, the people asked me....

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

MR. CHABOT: That's my point of order: the people asked me to come down here and scrutinize the expenditure of their tax dollars.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now we have a vote that we are discussing here, which is $8 million more than it was last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

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

You are well aware of rule 45, and there is no point of order at this time.

Interjections.

[ Page 2353 ]

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee was dealing with vote 16, and the Member for Columbia River requested to speak on it. He raised a point of order that he wanted to debate the matter. I told him he had no point of order. He challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: How does the Hon. Member rationalize that statement with a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order was, Mr. Speaker, that I was given a mandate by the people I represent in the electoral district of Columbia River to scrutinize the expenditure of tax dollars to ensure there is no waste and extravagance in government. I feel that the only way I can possibly do this, Mr. Speaker, is by having the opportunity to debate the various votes in the estimates.

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

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

In this one in particular, we are debating one which is a $12 million vote, which is substantially greater than last year. Last year it was $4 million; now we are looking at a 200 per cent increase in expenditures.

We have a right...

MR. SPEAKER: Under what standing order is that?

MR. CHABOT: ...to ask questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member indicate the standing order in which he says he has a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Well....

MR. SPEAKER: What standing order?

MR. CHABOT: I was given a mandate. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, you recognize the rights of people to elect Members, and what their responsibilities are as Members.

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

MR. CHABOT: Their responsibility is to serve the people in their riding, and not only....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment while I explain the points of order?

In the first place, I think the Hon. Member would concede that if somebody else had the floor he would not be entitled, by reason of standing orders, to stand up and speak, despite somebody else having the floor. I think we can agree on that point. Is that correct? — and he gets that from standing order 5. Therefore he looks to standing orders for the rules of the House.

Now he has not indicated the standing order on which he can found a point of order; consequently it is not a point of order. Not being a point of order, it should not really be recognized by the Chair.

How could it, therefore, in my opinion, be challenged, because it isn't a point of order? If you found it in standing orders, I would be the first to recognize that, and the House could deal with the question as to whether it's a point of order. But you have not indicated by virtue of what section of our rules you can base yourself on a complaint that your rights are being violated.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting for a moment that the standing orders deny me the right to speak in this assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all, as long as you comply with the standing orders. If you had said that there was a standing order that gave you the right to claim that you were being denied the right to speak, then I would say that you would have a case upon which the Chairman could rule. But how can the Chairman rule on something that you have not presented to him under our rules? Nothing you have said indicates any justification for pointing out a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I was challenging rule 45A which really denies me the right to speak in the estimates and the debate of the $3.2 million budget which we have before us.

MR. SPEAKER: Most Members have accepted the fact that standing order 45A exists, and many of them are complaining about it. Now you are suggesting that it is invalid — that it has no operation.

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

[ Page 2354 ]

that it's an undemocratic rule. It's one which denies the right of elected Members in this province to fully scrutinize the expenditures, the wisdom or the lack of wisdom of the expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars.

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

MR. CHABOT: I am being denied that right. I am being denied that right under the standing orders which have been railroaded through in this House by an overwhelming, crushing majority of that government — 38 Members against the wishes of the people. I'm sure if the people....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a minute? I'd like to explain to the Hon. Member that the proper course to follow in objecting to a rule that the Member does not like — it's obvious that the Member does not like this rule — is to put a motion on the order paper asking that it be changed, and getting the House to agree with him. Then he can debate to his heart's content — and for the full time permitted under the rules — the question of a different rule. But as it stands, there is a rule and the Hon. Member has not suggested any way in which he has raised a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour just invited the Hon. Member and the House, inferentially, to advise under what rule they might rise to quote a point of order of this kind. I draw your attention to May, 18th edition, page 430 — "Right of Members to Direct the Attention of the Chair to Supposed Breaches of Order" — I'll just read a paragraph here:

"Although it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance for the preservation of order when, in his judgment, the occasion demands his interference, it is also the right of any Member who conceives that a breach of order has been committed, if the Speaker refrains from interfering (either because he does not consider it necessary to do so or because he does not perceive that a breach of order has been committed) to rise in his place, interrupting any Member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter, provided he does so the moment the alleged breach of order occurs."

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that that refers to where a Member is out of order and another Member draws the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Member is in breach of the rules of the House.

MR. GIBSON: But, but....

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't apply to a question such as this where a Member is rising on what he claims to be a point of order, but does not tell the Chair or the House what the point of order is that in any way bears upon the rules set out in our standing orders. He certainly must direct the Chair to that in order that the Chair can say it's even a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: But it also applies to the case when the Member may feel that the Chair is out of order. The Chair having made a ruling in this particular case, what has been done now is that the Hon. Member challenged the Chair. The Chair has made a ruling; the Chair has been challenged. I suggest, Sir, that it is incumbent on you to put the matter to a vote.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member must recognize that the Chairman stated that it was not a point of order. The question comes down to this: how long the Chair must tolerate what appear to be not points of order at all. There comes a time when, if the points of order are not directed to the rules of this House, one can challenge whether or not the Chairman should be accepting them as points of order. If you have a valid point of order, make it; and make it cogently upon the standing orders of this House. But to suggest that you can debate when the rule says you cannot debate, can clearly not be a point of order unless you are able to stand on your head when you say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep calm, keep calm.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite calm, but I'm pointing out that you're asking the Chair....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You're asking the Chair to make rulings, and challenging those rulings when they are obviously not made on the basis of a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: The Chairman can rule a point of order out of order, if he feels so, but in this particular instance the Chairman ruled that I had no right to raise this point. He didn't suggest that my point was no point. He ruled, and, on the basis of a ruling that I have no right to speak in this assembly, I challenged his ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member refer to standing order 45A that says he doesn't have?

MR. CHABOT: He called the Speaker in for a division.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has made what

[ Page 2355 ]

I can only consider as point-no-point. However, if he wants the House to rule upon it. I would be delighted to call one more division. Shall the ruling of the Chair that it was not a point of order be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 12

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

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

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I would like some clarification. Mr. Chairman, in this free and democratic society, if you'd clarify that we really are voting on over $12 million...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You are voting on vote 16 and it's been properly presented.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...in what has formerly been a free and democratic society....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you confirm that that's $12 million without debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote has been properly read out. If the Member was listening, it's clear to everyone that we are on vote 16.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Vote 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 12

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 17: prosecution services, $4,656,790.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not prosecution; that's persecution.

Vote 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 18: sheriffs' offices, $8,191,248.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, this vote is one

[ Page 2356 ]

that increases the expenditure by some $6.5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member...?

MR. SMITH: I ask you, and implore you, to tell me if we're expected to vote a $6.5 million increase in the 30 seconds that it took to call the vote and for you to put it to the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, yes.

Shall vote 18 pass?

MR. SMITH: No!

Vote 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 10

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 19: official reporters, $2,584,252 — approved on the following division.

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 12

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We have no business at the moment. Could you wait until the vote is read? Would the Hon. Member state his point of order or whatever his business is?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just think that this is a completely debilitating process for everyone. The House is getting absolutely nowhere. This is obviously a silly system and therefore I move that the House rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again. And in the meantime, perhaps the government could come to its senses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 28

Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 20: police services, $20,131,203.

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

[ Page 2357 ]

MR. SMITH: You are anticipating, Mr. Chairman, as usual, but I do have a point of order which I would like to raise.

I draw the Chairman's attention to supply Bill 11, which was passed through this House some months ago, which granted:

"supply to the Crown in the amount of $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at its present session. No sum of the supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose other than those provided in the main estimates or in excess of the estimate of expenditure therein, and the due application of all moneys expended under the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

After reading to you the provisions of that bill, because I think that it would do all of us well to refresh our memories as to what it said, I would like to read also to you a quotation from the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 717, if the Chairman wishes to follow me, which deals with the supply resolutions before the Committee of the Whole House.

It suggests, Mr. Chairman:

"Each grant is placed before the House by a motion which states the amount to be granted and the particular service for which the sum is demanded. The amount to be granted is the total sum required for the service less any appropriations in aid."

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have already voted $537 million in aid as a partial payment of the estimates of this House. I further suggest to you that it is your duty now, on each and every estimate, to indicate to the Members of this House what percentage of the $20,131,203 of this vote is covered by the particular vote that we have before us at this particular time.

It would seem to me that having once voted supply in the terms of $537 million, it is incumbent now upon you, Sir, as Chairman of this assembly, in Committee of Supply, to indicate to us whether you require the full $20,131,203 or what portion of that is required to cover the costs of vote 20.

I would ask the Chairman to give consideration to this point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): On a point of order, I'm sure my learned shadow recognizes that was interim supply that was voted, that we approved the estimates. We've done that for years. The Hon. Member would not just be killing time, would he, with a point of that kind?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order, I suggest to you at this particular time that we have never before experienced the situation we are in now, in which the termination of debate on estimates by a motion of the government terminated all debate, and we are now in a position where I think that you owe an explanation to the House. It is your duty to explain to the House the exact amount of money that we are presently voting for. Is it $20,131,203, or what portion of that are we presently voting for? Until you can answer that question or somebody on behalf of the government can answer that question, you have no business putting that vote to this assembly!

MRS. JORDAN: A good point!

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Hon. Member — there are three points.

First of all, such a point of order should have been raised at the earliest opportunity, if it is a point of order — but the Chair is not ruling that it is.

The second point is that it is not a point of order in committee. The committee has been charged either to pass or negative each vote, and the matter which the Hon. Member raised therefore should be raised in the House, rather than in committee.

We deal with the vote that is presented to us, and then we either pass it or defeat it. Therefore I rule that this is not a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: If you rule, Sir, that this is not a point that can be appropriately considered in committee, then I would refer you.... Incidentally, I think that the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has made an excellent point of order, and a very important one to this committee. But if this committee cannot hear it, then I suggest that you should have reference to May, page 341, bottom of the page, where it makes reference to matters requiring immediate intervention of the House. This, as you may recall, Sir, was the section of May under which the Hon. Chairman yesterday called the Speaker back into the House, a substantial and important point of order having been raised, and asked the Speaker to take it under advisement. I would say to you that now is the time when that section should be applied again, when we should once again have recourse to the Speaker.

I would remind you that during the debate on the appropriation referred to by the Hon. Member for North Peace River, the government at that time

[ Page 2358 ]

sought to prevent debate, assuring this House that all matters being covered in that vote would be possible to be debated on the general consideration of estimates. That has now been made impossible. The government's word at that time was really not good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now beginning to enter into debate. The Chair has made a ruling that this is not a point of order in committee. Therefore the Hon. Member is out of order.

MR. GIBSON: No, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I suggested to you that this is a matter requiring immediate intervention of the House. I'll read you that section:

"Urgent matters which require the immediate intervention of the House, if they should occur during the sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption of debate or other proceedings (except a division in progress). A complaint on such a matter is entertained by the House as soon as it is raised, but if complaint is made in committee, the Chairman reports progress, and the Speaker resumes the Chair."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are, of course, in committee, so I would suggest that you report progress and report on the excellent point of order raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River, and seek guidance of the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're making a motion?

MR. GIBSON: I will so move, but I don't want to do that without giving the Hon. Member for North Peace River a chance to comment further, or for yourself, Mr. Chairman, to make that motion on your own initiative because it is an important point which requires consideration.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order: the Chair rules that this is not a point of order in committee.

Secondly, there will be an opportunity for the Member to bring it up in the House and, clearly, since we've been in Committee of Supply for some time and it could have been brought up previously, there appears to be no urgency about this matter. And I so rule. Now, you can challenge my ruling if you wish.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have now ruled and there'll be no further discussion of it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it's very important to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to challenge the ruling?

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please, so I can put the vote?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made a ruling. The alternative is to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair listened to arguments, and then made a ruling. Now we cannot persist all afternoon in listening to arguments. Once the Chair makes a ruling, then you can challenge the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is firm.

(Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. Does either of the Hon. Members wish to challenge the ruling? We are not debating it any further. Now you can either challenge the Chair or you can take your seat.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There has to be come order in the way that we conduct our business. The Chairman listened to arguments, made a ruling,

[ Page 2359 ]

and the Members have the alternative of abiding by the ruling or challenging the ruling.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now is this a different point of order? The Member for North Peace River on a different point of order.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. I will not tolerate any debate further on the ruling. You can challenge it.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. SMITH: What are you ruling on — my point of order or the point raised by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano? Would you please tell us?

MR. CHAIRMAN; Would the Hon. Member be seated? I will clarify the ruling for the Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the ruling on which the Member for North Peace River first made his comments, and then further comments were made by Vancouver-Capilano...it is on that point of order that the Chair is ruling. The Chair has ruled.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they were both on the same point.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that we were dealing with the point raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River that he should know what the amount is minus the appropriate amount for committee from the interim supply bill. Well, this is obviously out of order in committee. It's not a valid point. We've been presented with an amount to approve, and it has nothing to do with the interim supply bills directly. We have a vote before us with an amount of money on it, which we've been asked to approve. If the Hon. Member has a problem with this, he can raise it in the House; but as far as we are concerned in committee we are dealing with the amount on the piece of paper which I have in front of me.

Shall vote...?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made a ruling! Now, does the Hon. Member have a further point of order or is he challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, which point of order did you rule on — the first or the second one? I made a submission that this matter be referred by you to the Speaker. The Hon. Member for North Peace River made a submission that estimates in this House should be deducted by the percentage of the account that we had voted before. There are two distinct points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I dealt with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River. Now if the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano wishes to move that the committee rise and report to the Speaker — whatever motion he seeks to put — he can do that separately, but on the point of order I have made a ruling that it is not a valid point of order in committee. We have a piece of paper in front of us with an amount of money on which we are asked to consider. That's all that we are to consider.

MR. GIBSON: What I wish you to come to understand is that you would be well-advised to listen to evidence before you go off making foolish and premature rulings, as is clearly the case when no one even knew what you were ruling on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Member thinks that the ruling of the Chair is improper or wrong he may challenge it.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying that in the name of natural justice the Chairman should listen to arguments before making a ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has made its ruling, and the Hon. Member knows that no further debate can take place after the ruling is made. The Hon. Member has the choice of abiding by the ruling or challenging the ruling.

MR. GIBSON: You didn't say which ruling was made. How can we not debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling was that the point of order raised by the Member for North Peace River was out of order in committee at this point. Therefore we should continue with the vote.

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

MR. SMITH: In order for us to be perfectly clear...

[ Page 2360 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You'll never be clear on anything!

MR. SMITH: ...on what you're doing, could I suggest to you that you take the two points of order which were just made to you seriatim?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've ruled on one which effectively, in my understanding, also dealt with the other, unless the Hon. Member seeks to make a motion, which is a different matter.

Shall vote 20 pass?

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply considering vote 20 the Hon. Member for North Peace River made a point of order. (Mike not on.) I ruled this point of order out of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question is that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, it was drawn to my attention by the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I can't argue the question of the point of order. That was determined by the Chair. The only point of order that I could entertain at this moment is whether or not I should proceed to ask the House to rule. I don't see that your point is directed to that so I must proceed to put the question to the House.

MR. SMITH: The point, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. When we have a point of order to bring before either the Chairman or yourself, we are required by the rules of the House to do it at the first opportunity. I suggest to you in all sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that this was the first opportunity that I had to bring to the attention of the Chairman or yourself the provisions contained on page 717 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. It happens to be a volume of some 1100 pages in total; it deals with all things that could come before this House, including many of the things which our own rules are silent upon. This is the first opportunity that I have had to bring the matter to the attention of the Chairman and this House because this is the first time that I've looked at this particular rule in the way it would be applied at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder what the Hon. Member is referring to in regard to page 717.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's "Form of Supply Resolutions." It's the third paragraph down on page 717 of May: "Each grant is placed before the House by a motion...."

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, all that was done earlier and the total sum was allocated, talking about the interim supply...

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: ...and the grants of account.

MR. SMITH: $537 million worth of interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. It was a lump sum that would take care of three months' supply for all departments. But at this stage we are now entertaining motions on each individual department and each vote in each department, and that total amount authorizing each department is the subject of the vote. The fact that the interim supply has all been passed would not be relevant to this matter now before us because that was done some time ago and there is no question of any bookkeeping on each individual estimate to reduce it by the amount that was already authorized. What we are doing is getting blanket authorization in each vote for the full amount of each vote by this vote. Therefore there really isn't a point of order. Perhaps on explaining that to you, would you agree that we need not put the matter to the House?

MR. SMITH: No. Not at all. I would like to read to you what the rule says, and that is that the amount to be granted is the total sum required for the services less any amount already granted by a vote on account of any appropriations in aid, and that is exactly what we've passed by an interim supply bill, Bill 11, when we granted interim supply of $537 million to offset and defray the expenses of the operation of the government. So I suggest to you that that is completely relevant at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that I think this is not the proper time — put it that way — to raise the question. That is one that properly is made in the committee to the Chairman.

MR. MORRISON: He said it was up to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. I don't think that can be so. But when you have a ruling there, any arguments you might have or any submissions you have are made to the Chairman in committee. All I can do under my duty is put the question to the House whether the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. I

[ Page 2361 ]

must proceed with that because that's what I am in the chair to do now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, when we have an arbitrary Chairman who refuses to listen to arguments, how can we put the arguments to him in committee? It's up to you, Sir, to hear these arguments if that arbitrary Chairman won't.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that under the rule I must put the matter of sustaining the ruling or not sustaining the ruling to the House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point of order? May I refer you to standing order 1:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable in this House."

The Member has quite clearly indicated what the practice is on pages 717 and 718 of the 18th edition of May. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what is not required here is a vote to sustain the ruling of the Chair because that is arbitrary in any form. But what we must do is enforce the standing orders of the House or suspend those standing orders by unanimous consent. I think it would be possible for the House to proceed in committee if you were to ask for unanimous consent of the House, then we must apply standing order 1 and by the directions outlined in the 18th edition of May, page 717 or 718.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is absolutely correct. As you know, he's a House expert and he studies very well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Say that without smiling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No reflections on any Member, please. The point is here that we have for many years followed our own formula in granting interim supply. The process of interim supply has been set out by precedents in our own House for many, many years. I had supplied to me when I inherited my desk the forms that had been used in this House for lo, these many decades. That is our form we follow.

Page 717 of May of the present edition deals with the present British rules. If you look in Beauchesne, page 7 of the fourth edition, you see how in those matters in which our own usages and forms are silent, we look to the customs and usages as they were in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom in force in 1871.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: May I read for your edification rule 1 again?

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders..."

Now there are no sessional or other orders.

"...the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

At the time. The time is....

MR. SPEAKER: That was when the rules were adopted in 1871.

MR. McGEER: ...makes no reference to Beauchesne at all. To try and cite a reference from Beauchesne as a superior authority to what we've always gone by in this House, namely Sir Erskine May, and which is clearly stated in our standing orders, rule 1, I would think it's a transgression of the standing orders of the House and requires unanimous consent before it can be proceeded with. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that errors have been made in the past, but that's no excuse at all for allowing these errors to be promulgated into the future. I think now is the time for us to correct this procedural inadequacy by enforcing our own standing orders of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The unfortunate thing is that the customs and usages do not by that term mean the standing orders and the present rules of the British House; it means those customs and usages which have been imported into our parliamentary system from the model we adopted in 1871. In Beauchesne this matter is discussed. I personally would have liked to have adopted the view that we take on the customs and usages as they have developed. But that apparently is not the case from the only authorities I can find on the subject. Therefore I don't see how we can do anything else but follow our own customs as we've developed them. If our customs are missing, then perhaps we should look at the British customs and usages.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's circumlocution in the extreme; it's pleonastic tautology.

MR. SPEAKER: I know that you and I understand that, but it's not fair to the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) to talk that way to him. (Laughter.) I would suggest that the Hon. Member come down to our level.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I say it another way? That's a lousy decision. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2362 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't really made any decision because I don't see that one is needed in this case. My job at the moment, as I pointed out, is to deal with the question of whether the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. I must put the question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if the relevant guidance from May is the time when this province entered Confederation, why...?

MR. SPEAKER: It's when standing order I was first adopted. That has never been changed. I've looked back to the first standing orders, and I can't find any change.

MR. GIBSON: In that case, Sir, I would ask you why you ever bought a book past May's 1st edition, or whatever the edition was at that time, to cite sections that you....

MR. SPEAKER: That should demonstrate the reason: Speakers all over the Commonwealth value the decisions of May because the Speakers, in their experience over those years since 1871, had to put on record the reasons for their decisions. From that we can look and be guided by those decisions. Where they are in conflict with our own customs and usages or our own standing orders, we are not supposed to adopt them. But where they expound the rules of parliament on the traditional basis, we gain value from it.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that that answers the question then that the proper guide in this case is the latest edition of May rather than the earliest.

MR. SPEAKER: Only from the standpoint of it being an assistance to the House in formulating its opinions, but only where our rules are silent. It's not a question of their rules — I must emphasize that. We did not, thereby, import their rules, as they have changed them from time to time, unless we ourselves adopted a similar rule — which we did very often from time to time.

MR. GIBSON: But for my guidance, could Your Honour show me the rule which specifies that our estimates must be prepared in this form or that form when that form is in conflict with what is set out in May, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for North Peace River. Failing that, it seems to me that Your Honour....

MR. SPEAKER: The answer that they always gave in courts was that, "it came from time immemorial."

MR. GIBSON: That's not good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: That's all I have. I don't know how long we've had those forms, but we have used them for many years.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the procedural paradox in which you find yourself — that the House is unaware of what has taken place in committee. I must implore you to consider some appropriate action to end this difficulty which we are presently experiencing.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Members would like to hear me out, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Questions of order are being raised in the Committee of the Whole House. Before Members have had the opportunity of making full submissions to the Chairman, he is ruling. Then when Members quite properly wish to continue their submissions to him, he says: "I'm not going to listen to you anymore. If you don't like what I said, challenge my ruling." Then that leaves you, Sir, in the very difficult situation of having to undergo this kind of debate when the procedures which govern the operation of this House preclude you from taking any action.

It also does one other thing. The Chairman having made a ruling, the Members of this House then being asked to either sustain or negative his ruling, do so in complete ignorance because they have not heard the full submission for and against the proposition. When I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House is your Deputy, I think it incumbent upon you — as I say, I implore you — to take some action to ensure that before the Chairman makes rulings on points of order, he gives the Members every opportunity to make submissions so that he can come to a reasoned decision.

It may be in that way, Mr. Speaker, that the decision of the Chairman would not be challenged. But the grave danger is that when he makes a sudden decision without hearing full submissions, and then it is referred to you and to the House. The House, sometimes in its ignorance, votes to sustain the Chair, and then we have a faulty ruling of the Chair enshrined by a vote of the House. You, Sir, are then bound by that vote until some subsequent vote makes the change. I don't know how we could get around this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That is the alarming thing about the whole subject of appeals. That was the alarming thing about it.

[ Page 2363 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since we have no further appeal, it seems to me that some steps have to be taken to ensure that the Chairman, in the conduct of his responsibility in the Chair, is instructed to give Members the opportunity to make their submissions.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take that matter up with the Chairman...

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If that doesn't happen, then there is chaos.

MR. SPEAKER: ...to ensure that everyone feels they are making their point of order. I point out that the Chair, under standing orders, does not have to receive debate on a point of order, but I certainly agree with you that it is valuable and I try to do so myself.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order that I originally raised, I think that both you and I will agree that in some respects, particularly in Committee of Supply, we are breaking new ground in the Province of British Columbia in dealing with what is now known as Rule 45A, which is a rule that we have never had in this House before. Probably, in the past there was no valid reason for anyone, either in government or opposition, to bring to the attention of the Speaker page 717 of Sir Erskine May and the quotation regarding supply in that particular volume.

But at this time I believe we have a very real reason to bring this to the attention of the Chairman, and through him, to your attention. For the first time we have departed from a procedure which in the past allowed full debate by the Members on every estimate in the total amount until such time as all estimates had been passed. We are now in a position where we are being asked to pass a tremendous number of estimates — as a matter of fact, over $2 billion's worth — without debate and without amendment.

I think that is was incumbent upon the government to foresee a situation which would come about after we had granted interim supply, as we did through Bill 11. Because now is the first time we have had it drawn to our attention in this House, it should not be used as a weapon or a vehicle to circumvent the situation. We are faced with it now for the first time. Today. It has been brought to the attention of yourself and of the Chairman of the committee. I suggest that it has to be dealt with because our rules clearly specify that if our own standing orders are silent, we go to the rules of the mother House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt, if I can, to quote a thing I think is pertinent to your submission on this so that I can refer to it later on to any future estimates that may be drawn in another year? In Beauchesne, page 10, it says: "In the interpretation of the rules or standing orders, the House is generally guided not so much by the literal construction of the orders themselves as by the consideration of what has been the practice of the House with respect to them."

It has, as I pointed out earlier, been the practice of this House, from almost time immemorial, where interim supply was required, to vote a lump sum which would be sufficient for so many months, and then the individual estimates were later come to and voted upon — some had already been done so when interim supply was granted — and in the end all of them were passed and completed and approved. The only distinction here this year is that some of them have not been come to and are being voted on individually without debate because the time limit for debate is now up.

In view of the circumstances, I must merely point out that I will certainly discuss the matter as the Hon. Members for Vancouver–Point Grey and West Vancouver–Howe Sound mentioned. I will certainly consider the subject of how these are presented in terms of our practice and whether the British practice is preferable. But the point is that this has been our practice for many, many years. It is not enough to say that the rules are silent. The forms that are used here have been adopted by custom in this House for many years. Therefore, to change that would not be that easy.

In the English practice — page 686 in the 16th edition of May it says: "Ancient Usage and Standing Orders."

"The financial procedure of the House of Commons is regulated to a certain extent by standing orders, but to a far greater extent on unformulated ancient usage. It will be convenient to begin by showing to what extent and in relation to what kinds of financial business the general rules of financial procedure are based on ancient usage and on standing orders respectively."

MR. SMITH: Are you quoting from page 686 of the 18th edition?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I said 16th edition, I'm sorry. It's the only one I have available on this point at the moment. I could find it in the 18th if I had time. It's on ancient usage in the standing orders, that chapter "General Rules of Financial Procedure."

I will go on to say that, broadly stated, the procedure in respect of supply and ways and means — that is to day, in voting expenditures on estimates and in providing revenue — is based on ancient usage, while the procedure in respect of novel expenditure initiated by financial resolutions in based on standing orders.

We have, as I suggest, adopted our usage for a long

[ Page 2364 ]

time in this House. Consequently, to alter that, I would suggest it might have to be done by standing order now, because I have no precedents that show otherwise than the way we've done it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak a little bit further to this point generally, I recognize the urgency that the government apparently has to pass all of these votes. It isn't every day that the Members of the House apply themselves as vigorously as they have today and last evening to the procedures that are followed. That being the case, however, and these errors in our procedure having been discovered, it seems to me terribly important for you, Sir, to consider these extremely carefully lest legislative theoreticians at some future time stumble upon inconsistencies which they would not appreciate, having looked at them in the stretch of history. Therefore, it seems to me, the urgency of passing these votes should really be set better in the context of history, and that we should proceed with due care so that proper precedent can be set down for the future.

As you know, we're testing out new rules of procedure this year — rules of procedure that may not stand the test of time. Certainly they're meeting with universal objection by Members of the opposition. Therefore I see no rush at all in testing new procedures in the House or in ignoring precedents that have been set in that Mother of Paramount. I would be quite prepared, in order to give you adequate time, Mr. Speaker, to consider the points raised by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)...

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be glad to look at it overnight.

MR. McGEER: ...to move that the committee rise and report progress when it sits again so that we'll have an opportunity to adjourn this process and consider properly an appropriate course of action for the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The only thing is, as you know, that being in the chair at this moment I must put the question, which is whether the Chair's ruling be sustained. I cannot extricate myself from that duty simply by wishing to do so.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps if you asked unanimous leave of the House, that particular challenge could be withdrawn in favour of a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. That would be the way out of your dilemma, and I for one would be happy to go along with that course of action.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again because I do believe that we're on a very serious point with regard to....

MR. SPEAKER: You must do that at the proper time. You're in the House now.

MR. SMITH: I would withdraw the challenge on that basis: that we could perhaps discuss this further if the House Leader would be prepared to consider such a motion.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if you yourself feel that you need time to do this. I think that is what we must base this on.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say, in view of the hour, that it would be useful to examine the matter so that everyone is satisfied that the votes are being properly produced and presented to the House, for the reason that the Hon. Member has raised on page 717, because the practice differs there and I would like to examine the two practices to see if there's any validity to the objections. Therefore I would, with unanimous leave of the House, ask that the challenge to the Chair be withdrawn at this time. Is that agreeable?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Call the Chairman back, please.

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

On vote 20: police services, $20,131,203 — continued.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a number of divisions took place in committee and asks that these be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.