CONTENTS

Point of order

Correction in Votes and Proceedings. Mr. Gibson — 2365

Routine proceedings

Podiatry Act Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 89). Mr. Wallace. Introduction and first reading — 2365

Oral Questions

Possible purchase of Ginter brewery. Mr. Morrison — 2365

Increased contributions to Lions Society for Crippled Children. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2365

Suspension of BCR auditor. Mr. Wallace — 2366

New ICBC underwriting guidelines. Mr. McClelland — 2366

Insurance coverage during ICBC strike. Mr. Gardom — 2367

New ferry terminal at Gabriola. Mr. Curtis — 2367

Tax rebate and federal subsidy for ferries. Mr. McGeer — 2367

ICBC marine insurance. Mr. Smith — 2368

Point of order

Clarification of procedure in Committee of the Whole House. Mr. Speaker — 2368

Point of order

Possible release of Hansard tapes to the media. Mr. McClelland — 2373

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

Division on vote 20 — 2376

On a point of order. Mr. Gardom — 2376

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2377

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2378

On a point of order. Mr. Gardom — 2379

Suspension of Mr. Gibson from service of the House — 2382

On a point of order. Mr. Wallace — 2382

British Columbia Recycling Corporation Act (Bill 13). Second reading. Mr. Steves — 2387

British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act (Bill 14). Second reading. Mr. Steves — 2390

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975 (Bill 23). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2394

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to Hon. Members a sister of a former Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia, Mrs. W.A. Duncan of Toronto, my aunt.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Today in the gallery there are 10 students from Houston Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Sharon Beedle. I would ask the Members of the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. D. F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of having three guests in the gallery: His Honour Mayor Jack Pinder from Powell River, Captain Thomas Hercus from Gibsons, and my good wife. Please join me in welcoming them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome four guests from Hope: Mrs. Gentry, Mrs. Morrison, Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Petersen. I ask you all to give them a hearty welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, May 14, it is written on page 2:

"Without the committee rising the Chairman reported he had ruled that the fact of interim supply having been previously granted did not empower the committee to deal with each vote other than to pass, negative or reduce such vote and that his ruling has been challenged."

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if your Honour could, perhaps, take into consideration the Hansard proofs. My appreciation of what the Chairman actually ruled in the committee was not on the substantive point of order but rather that the point of order itself could not be considered by the committee, and there is, perhaps, an important distinction there which Your Honour could look into.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that we all know that the questions of order of that' kind would have to be taken up in the House as far as leave. Anyway, I will check that to see what it is all about. I can't recall it myself at the moment. I will have the Clerks look at the Hansard proofs.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 89, the Podiatry Act Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF GINTER BREWERY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Could the Minister advise the House if he has met yet with Mr. Ben Ginter?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The pleasure of my meeting with Ben Ginter will be at 3:30 this afternoon.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental. Could the Minister then advise the House: do you intend to have discussions with him concerning the purchase of his brewery?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't expect Ben will offer the brewery to the government.

MR. MORRISON: What about the other way around?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think his problem is something else. I think it's to do with another winery, because the Province of B.C. is a prosperous, thriving economy, and new businesses keep pounding at our door. Sometimes we have to fight some of these people off, even with a stick.

INCREASED CONTRIBUTION TO
LIONS SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I trust the Attorney-General has a stick ready for Ben Ginter.

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I wonder if he would indicate whether he's now in a position to announce increases in government contributions to the B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children for the cost of transporting people who are in wheelchairs or otherwise handicapped, and who, at the present time, have to bear the vast bulk of the cost of transportation themselves.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, we're still having discussions about this. We have until the end of June to get back to them on this.

[ Page 2366 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, may I ask the Minister whether or not these discussions are with respect to an increase from the present 14 per cent contribution to something substantially more than that?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're looking at that, and looking at another thing, too, which is in relation to a number of other transportation systems that we're operating, about which we have started discussions with the B.C. Lions as to where their role might be in that as well. So there are a number of things going on at the moment.

SUSPENSION OF BCR AUDITOR

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Premier as president of the railway: in reply to a question asked yesterday, the Premier stated that one of the reasons for delay in presenting the financial report to this House was the suspension of one of the former auditors by his own professional association. I'd like to ask the Premier: can he assure the House that the reason for the suspension of the auditor by his professional peers was not related to any failure in his duties as auditor to the railway?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, it appears that the reason for his suspension was related to the performance of his duties with the B.C. Railway, and this is a matter of great concern to us. There apparently were statements in former B.C. Railway annual reports that were not totally correct, and this led to the auditor's suspension, as I understand it, from the professional association and after he resigned from the railway.

At the time of his resignation a statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) that there were political reasons for this. That was absolutely false, and the circumstances have developed where it appears certain statements made in the annual reports were not correct. This is a matter that is undergoing thorough examination by the railway, and also leads to the delay in preparing the annual report.

I must say, Mr. Member, that we are deeply grieved by this turn of events, and I will have to report to the House in detail all of its implications as soon as the material is available for presentation.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of that response by the Premier, can I ask: has in fact, then, the B.C. Railway lost money because of the actions of one of the auditors? Is that the implication? Is that the fact the Premier is trying to tell the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it is question of not presenting the true picture of the railway loss or profit that is a matter of concern and under deep investigation with the new auditors.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary. Can I ask, then, if the government has put the matter in the hands of the Attorney-General with the consideration of laying charges?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Attorney-General's department is studying the circumstances around the suspension of the particular auditor, and we're awaiting a report on that.

In terms of the new auditor, we are awaiting the complete details of accounting under the Canadian Transport Commission standards for railways. There appears to be some question that, although it was stated in the annual reports that the CTC regulations were being followed, indeed they were not being followed. I say there appears to be some question.

When this report is finalized, I will report to the House about it. But it is a very grave matter, and the Attorney-General's department is looking at the aspects related to the auditor's suspension itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For clarification, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier and Minister of Finance whether or not the annual report is to be delayed until such time as a full report can be given within the annual report of the events of past years dealing with the auditor?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have so instructed, through a board meeting, that the annual report must reflect the absolutely honest situation as the matter stands now with the new auditors and a whole review of what has gone on in the past. That is the reason for the delay in the auditing statement. I have instructed, through the board of the railway, to give an open, honest and total evaluation of the consequences of the former accounting procedures. You will note that is a matter of record that the comptroller-general, Mr. Minty, stated in his report that the former directors did not allow the comptroller-general to have access to the B.C. Rail accounts. This was done on the request of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That report was tabled in the House — Mr. Ministry's report.

One section complains that they never had the opportunity of access to the B.C. Rail reports before. This was a part of the process that led to the problem with which we are now faced. I have instructed that everything must be in that annual report. Hopefully, it will be ready within two weeks.

NEW ICBC UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES

[ Page 2367 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. With regard to the latest personal-lines underwriting guide issued to all agents in the province for ICBC, it states that risks in older or run-down neighbourhoods or in high-crime areas must be written cautiously, and further says that wherever there is a moral hazard, that is an uninsurable risk. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what constitutes an unacceptable degree of moral or physical hazard under these underwriting guidelines.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I couldn't give you a definition, but I understand that it is standard terminology. The market, as every insurance agent knows, is experiencing great difficulties and has been for the last year or so. I have stated publicly, and I repeat here, that I have no intention of ICBC becoming the commercial insurer of last resort. We are willing to take our share of the more risky operations, but we have no intention of taking all of them. It just isn't a good safeguard.

I couldn't give you the description of that. I am not an expert on those definitions, but I presume that every insurance company looks at what it's being used for. I suppose that if a house was being used for bootlegging and they knew it, they would refuse to insure it — something like that, I suppose.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to whatever the Minister said. One of the guidelines for an unacceptable risk is an applicant who travels extensively, risks affected by moral hazard or which do not evidence a reasonable standard of maintenance and housekeeping. I would like to ask the Minister if he could expand on that definition a little and tell us whether living common-law or being single and under 25 would constitute a moral hazard, in the Minister's opinion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that.

INSURANCE COVERAGE DURING ICBC STRIKE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. In view of the suggested work disruption or strike in ICBC, is the Hon. Minister prepared to give the general public his undertaking that insurance coverage for the public will prevail, notwithstanding any work stoppage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am hoping that any work stoppage can be avoided. They are still talking at the moment. That's the report I have.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary to the Hon. Minister, who didn't answer the question. In the event there is a work stoppage, Mr. Minister, are you prepared to give the public your assurance that there would be a suspension of criminal charges for an individual failing to have evidence of insurance coverage? If there is a work stoppage in ICBC and it is not possible to crank the paper into the hands of the general public, people can face prosecutions, fines and possibly jail as a result of failing to have the necessary material. I think it is fair that you would be able to give the general public that assurance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take a look at all the possibilities.

NEW FERRY TERMINAL AT GABRIOLA

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Transport and Communications, regarding B.C. Ferries and the proposed terminal on or near Gabriola Island near Nanaimo. I wonder if the Minister could indicate the current status of this proposal. Is there or is there not to be a new terminal on or near Gabriola?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer the question yes or no. The current position is that it is in the hands of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and they have their staff making a very thorough investigation of the social impact, economic impact and so on that any such terminal would have. So we are waiting for that report.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister indicated, quite some time ago in fact, according to my notes, that the ELUC had been requested to examine this. Has the Minister or cabinet received any preliminary report from the ELUC with regard to this proposal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

TAX REBATE AND
FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR FERRIES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Transport and Communications: following his journey to Ottawa, has the Minister been able, to determine whether the Government of British Columbia will be paid back for the tax it paid on the latest ferry that it imported from Europe, and has he made any progress in obtaining a subsidy for the ferries from the federal government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It wasn't the purpose of my trip to Ottawa on this occasion.

MR. McGEER: I know that.

[ Page 2368 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've recently had a meeting with Mr. Stanbury, the former Minister of National Revenue, and I've had a meeting with Mr. Basford. I am pursuing it vigorously in both cases — the subsidy of some kind for the ferry system itself and the repayment of the import duty. I sent a letter just last week, I think, to Mr. Basford, reminding him of a previous letter he had sent me. My understanding is that the request for the money to be repaid to British Columbia is in the hands of the Treasury Board in Ottawa, awaiting approval.

ICBC MARINE INSURANCE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Is the Hon. Minister aware that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia recently has refused to renew the insurance coverage on river boats throughout the province, but at the same time they are prepared to issue and renew coverage on any other type of marine craft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not sure that we ever did insure those river boats. I'm not sure that we did. If we did, then it's a case of, I would say, a mistake in giving coverage on that type of craft. These are river boats that are used for exciting adventure, going through the rapids or down the river in some way. No other marine insurance company will extend coverage to them, and I don't see why ICBC should. They have a very high risk factor. They are very expensive boats, as I understand it — I think it's around $14,000 each.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and we just don't feel that it's the sort of risk that we want to accept by ourselves.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Why, then, the distinction between a river boat and a 15- or 20-foot runabout which can be used in the same circumstances, on the same rivers and on the same lakes under the same conditions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not going to debate an issue with you across the floor as to why this one gets insured and why that doesn't. I think it's obvious that if the use of the boat is a commercial venture, and the boat is going to be used only for that purpose, and in what is really a dangerous way, I'm told, then the risk, the expectancy of being faced with a claim is much higher than someone who owns a boat himself and maybe once a year embarks on such a trip.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed on orders of the day, I was asked for my opinion in regard to the matter before estimate right now, on a point of order that had been raised in the Committee of the Whole House. You understand that this is not a ruling, but it is certainly a report on my investigations of the practice in presenting estimates in this House as compared to the practice in the United Kingdom, as outlined in May, and also in Ottawa.

I would like briefly to present this to you because I think it's important in considering the point of order, if it should arise in the Committee of the Whole House. I was asked for my comments on the financial procedures used in Committee of the Whole House as compared to the British practice to be found in their standing orders, and in particular in May, 18th edition, at page 717.

Because of the present British standing order 18(5)(b), their rules include passing what are called "votes on account." See in that regard page 724 of that edition of May where it states:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an advance is sought, may be discussed in anticipation, upon the motion for the grant on account; though the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House."

And at page 717:

"The motion states the total sum required; and the various amounts needed for each department, which compose that sum, are stated in a schedule appended to the resolution. The question proposed thereon from the Chair follows the terms of the resolution, and places the total sum, the aggregate grant, before the House for its decision; and upon that question amendments can be moved for the reduction of the whole grant, or for the reduction or the omission of the items whereof the grant is composed."

It should be noted in this regard that May states at page 716 that the British House revised its definition of the business of supply in rule changes in 1966.

To give an example, in the British Committee of Supply, they could be dealing with a vote — No. 10, for example — for 10 million pounds, pass a vote on account for 1 million pounds, and subsequently go back to vote and debate the remaining 9 million pounds. That procedure results from their standing order 18, which is not in our standing orders.

In Ottawa on the other hand, Bourinot's fourth edition states:

"In the Canadian House, on a number of occasions, it became necessary, owing to pressure of time, to obtain supplies for a short period before the estimates could be passed in due course. Consequently, by an agreement

[ Page 2369 ]

between the parties, a certain proportion of the estimates — one-fifth, one-sixth, or one-third — was passed without discussion and included with all resolutions previously passed in an appropriation bill which promptly received the royal assent. Later, the balance of the estimates were fully discussed and voted in due course."

So you see, there is quite a difference.

Of course, Ottawa has in its standing order 1 a similar provision, as does our first standing order, yet that House has developed its own financial procedure, different to the system described in Britain and, indeed, different to the one used here. A certain proportion of the estimates were passed without discussion, and later the balance of the estimates were discussed and voted in due course. That variation of procedure developed and was sanctioned by the Chair in many succeeding years.

May states that the financial procedures are developed through actions of the Chair over a long period of time, and the same is true in Ottawa and in this House. The long-established financial procedure in this House entails, in matters of interim supply, a bill, in this case now enacted as Bill 11, Supply Act No. 1, 1975, which has been given royal assent.

That bill states, in section 1, as follows:

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such a manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $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 the present session."

Significantly, section 2 states:

"No sum out of the supply shall be issued to any purpose other than those provided in the main estimates, or in excess of the estimate of expenditures therein, and the due application of all moneys expended under the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

So you see the different method used here as compared to Britain.

May explains the development of financial procedure at page 691 of the 18th edition as follows:

"The standing orders cover a comparatively small portion of the field of financial procedure, and the prescription and the application of general rules of that procedure are based largely on practice."

That is a very important quotation, in my respectful view.

Further down, May states:

"In the case of expenditure by estimate (supply) and of taxation (ways and means) the expression of the financial initiative of the Crown is not required under any standing order but (as stated earlier) is dependent on practice based on ancient usage...."

To say our practice is wrong when it developed, as did the British practice, based largely on practice, is to say all previous Speakers of our House have been derelict in bringing before the House a practice contrary to that used in Britain. Since our practice after 1871 developed from the procedures approved by the Chair, it would be wrong, in my view, to make such an assertion as to our long-established procedure.

As has been mentioned, this House approved a large sum in interim supply, which is now the law, and the House left it to the government to allocate and use that money in any departments in the main estimates, still to be voted, but subject to: "the due application of all moneys expended under the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

If we had Britain's standing order 18, with votes on account, it could not now be made practicable in view of the present practice and this statute. If it were shifted to the British practice now, you would have to revise these estimates daily, a ludicrous and impracticable alteration after 100 years of a different procedure.

That is my opinion of the matter. It is really not a ruling, but you will no doubt be encountering this when you get back into Committee of the Whole House when the Chairman and the House will have to consider that issue.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the main point that you made, as I listened to your dissertation, is that when we get into a situation like this, we go mainly upon the procedure as based in past parliaments and past legislative sessions. I think that perhaps in so ruling, or at least pointing this out to the House — you say it is not a ruling, and I'll accept that — you fail to make a distinction between what has ordinarily been the course of events in past parliaments and past legislative sessions, and the course of events we are now obliged to follow with regard to supply in this House, which started with this session this year in which for the first time we departed from a procedure which allowed full debate on all estimates on the floor of this House until such time as each and every vote had been completely covered and the debate had taken place.

True, we have had interim supply before, but we have never been faced before with both interim supply, which granted one-sixth of the total amount of the estimates to be debated, and a closure of

[ Page 2370 ]

debate so that anything that was left on the order paper or anything that had not been debated after the completion of so many days and so many hours would not be the subject of either debate or amendment. I suggest that when we are in a position of actually breaking new ground with respect to the procedure in this House, then there is an obligation upon all of us to look to sources other than our own standing rules and our own orders....

MR. SPEAKER: For a solution.

MR. SMITH: For a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: We can't go back to an impractical solution, as I pointed out, however.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that May at page 717 is quite clear that when we passed an interim supply bill we did vote $500-odd million of money — one-sixth of the total — as a vote on account of the total amount to be debated. Had we followed the normal practice of continuing debate in the Committee of the Whole House on each and every estimate, there would probably have been no need for anyone to question the past practice.

But I suggest to you now, Mr. Speaker, that we have departed from what we used to do; we're in a completely different set of circumstances now. I think it's only fair to the Members of this Legislative Assembly that if we're going to be faced with the imposition of a closure rule, then each and every vote beyond that time — even before that time, perhaps, but at least beyond that point — should be reduced by one-sixth of the total amount.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's unfortunately not what the law is at the moment by reason of Bill 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member forgets that in the Mother of Parliaments they have what you've chosen to call closure of debate. In other words, they have time limits devoted to the debate of estimates. They also have interim supply and they also have the detailed consideration of those estimates within the time frame. So, really, what was quoted from May, therefore, is very applicable to case. We're just catching up, really, with the parliamentary practice almost all over the world.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out on the point raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River where he suggests....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member suggests that because there are time limits here it somehow is related to the financial procedures, and that because of that imposition of time limits here, votes on account should therefore reflect somewhat the British practice. But, of course, the British practice gives 29 days only for estimates and they have a House with over 600 Members in it.

At any rate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has a point of order as well, I presume.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the arguments raised in your judgment, but I would like to draw your attention to what I believe....

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a judgment; it's just an opinion. I can't make a decision; I can only make an opinion. When the matter is in the Committee of the Whole House and it has been referred to me for some advice, I can give that advice, but it's merely an opinion. Anyone in the House can have an opinion, I hope, even more studious, if you wish.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in reference to your learned opinion, Sir, I would like to make one or two points where I believe you may have been in error.

First of all, the references to Beauchesne and the practices in the Canadian Parliament are relevant to our House....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. That was Bourinot.

MR. McGEER: Oh. The reference to the practices in the Canadian Parliament are only of value to our House when we have no instruction from our own standing orders and no instruction from Sir Erskine May and the parliamentary practices of Britain. Since we do have that instruction very clearly laid out, it is my opinion that we are obliged to follow those instructions. I disagree with the final conclusion of your opinion in that to follow the British practice would require daily adjustment of the estimates as being quite incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you would have to amend....

MR. McGEER: Because our supply bill, Mr. Speaker, if I may just present my argument, very definitely states that we have allocated one-sixth of the total estimates; that is spelled out specifically in section 1 of the legislation. The time-frame is quite clearly confined to a two-month period.

For practical purposes, this supply Bill 11 specifies exact amounts of money for the complete range of estimates that are in our green books. This is merely a convenient way of dividing everything in those books by six. But, clearly, what is left, then, in a subsequent bill is to vote the remaining five-sixths, which I

[ Page 2371 ]

suppose the government could do if it wished by a single bill. But if it is to do it vote by vote, which is the appropriate way in parliament, then it must take the remaining five-sixths as the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) so aptly pointed out — not to adjust it day by day but to pass the remainder of the sum. One-sixth has been completely passed and five-sixths remains to be passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member permit a question?

MR. McGEER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member advise the House what he would do with Bill 11, which is not the law of the land?

MR. McGEER: Bill 11 is the law of the land; it's left. We need a companion bill to cover the remaining 10-month period or the remaining five-sixths.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not the authority that was given by House in Bill 11.

MR. McGEER: That's my interpretation of Bill 11 and I voted on it, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of that, what's said on page 691 of May, it seems to me, is perfectly clear. The practice is spelled out in what is our parliamentary guide when our standing orders are silent. I still maintain that the Member for North Peace River is absolutely correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you may very well, but I point out also that the reason I quoted Bourinot is because Bourinot deals with standing order 1 of the Canadian parliament and, in effect, with our own standing order, to point out how a differing financial procedure developed in Ottawa. What he says there is very pertinent to the very same development and growth that took place here over 100 years which varied from that British practice and does not contain in it the standing orders that they have in Britain.

One thing that Bourinot says — and so does Beauchesne — is that where you have differing standing orders, you are not in any sense bound to adopt the standing orders of another parliament. You may obtain advice and opinion and decisions of various Speakers, but always when you look at them you have to do it from a standpoint of their standing orders as opposed to ours. That is one of the problems.

The other thing is, of course, that if the purpose of this would be to allow some debate, the House always has the power by agreement to...for example, without increasing the amount of time that it is spending in the afternoons, the Committee of the Whole House could meet in the morning to discuss specified estimates and these could be voted on in the normal fashion under standing order 45A in the afternoon. That was, I thought, the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). But it's not for me to take a position on such a matter; it's for this House, if it could agree on such a procedure. But that is for both the government and the opposition to decide.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that where we are obliged to now pass each estimate without debate and without amendment, we are really in contempt of our own rules and in contempt of the supply bill that we've passed, because when we're dealing with these estimates, the vote that is put before this House and laid upon the table is the vote for the total amount. Now if it were possible, we could move an amendment reducing each individual vote by one-sixth of the total. I think that would be correct and in order, but since we're prevented from doing that by rule 45A, which says that the votes must now be put "forthwith" and passed without debate and without amendment, I think really that because of this new procedure we are in contempt of the rules as they should be practised and followed within this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that if you look at the new standing orders in Ottawa, standing order 58 deals with this very question. In that House the adoption of all unopposed items may be proposed in one motion and there is no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it, except on an allotted day, and then in the final 15 minutes all the indisposed motions or resolutions are then voted on without debate, which is somewhat similar to our process under standing order 45A, except that they have sent them to separate committees of the House rather than to the Committee of the Whole House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate Your Honour's opinion given earlier on today, but I have to say that I am puzzled about one aspect of it. If our current system is, indeed, the valid law of this parliament, then it must be possible to trace back its lineage, so to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't always do that on standing orders, though.

MR. GIBSON: But this is not a question of standing order, I think. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your own citation yesterday from May, 16th edition, page 686: 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. You came to the same conclusion

[ Page 2372 ]

today, quoting page 691 of the 18th edition as follows:

"The standing orders cover comparatively small portion of the field of financial procedure, and the prescription and application of the general rules of that procedure are based largely on practice.

" The rule relating to the legislative authorization of charges is not prescribed by any standing order."

If I understand properly, Your Honour, our standing order 1, providing that our usages where not otherwise provided by standing order shall be those of the British House, was adopted at the institution of the assembly. Unless there was specific authorization of this assembly at some time pursuant to the adoption of standing order I with respect to the financial allocations in this House, it seems to me that we must still be subject to the general British rule except where the standing orders otherwise provide, or the sessional orders, neither of which otherwise provide in this current context.

So to say that the practice is law because it has been done in the past seems to me not sufficient. One must be able to validate what happened in the past and say that it had been at some time authorized by this House — not merely indirectly in saying that's what has happened but directly in terms of a specific authorization of this chamber to depart from the customs of the usages in Bahrain at the time standing order I was adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: I merely point out that if you read the first page of Beauchesne it clearly sets out:

"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" — as in force at the time — "shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

So they have exactly the same standing order as we do. They have a different financial procedure which they have adopted over a long period of time by practice, as we have done. It doesn't seem to disturb them overly in the federal House that they are doing it this way.

It appears from the ancient practice that as financial procedure developed in Britain, it also developed by custom and by adoption by the Chair or by innovation by the Chair from time to time in presenting the form of the estimates to the House. I cannot say that that means a slavish conformity to anything that the House has adopted in Britain since the time standing order I was first conceived.

MR. GIBSON: Surely something is not right simply because it has always been done. To become right and law in this House, it must be legitimized by this House by affirmative motion...

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the obvious answer to that, if you want a change....

MR. GIBSON: ...but not simply by having done it, to ask: where is that affirmative action?

MR. SPEAKER: If you want to change any practice in this House that has been formally adopted or used over constant practice, it seems to me that the way is to propose a new standing order that would vary an existing custom. I can't see any way of doing it by the Speaker pronouncing on it as if he were some kind of dictator. You can't do that.

MR. GIBSON: No, I agree with you, Sir. What I am asking is: where in our history was the affirmative action which legitimized the financial procedure we are using today as distinct from the financial procedures...?

MR. SPEAKER: In the limited time available I have tried to trace it. But we don't have any Speakers' decisions on it, so there is no source there. We don't have any other accounts in the Journals I can find that so far really explain how it developed, other than that it has been constant for many years. I have Mr. Speaker Davie's notes on financial procedure, which are most industriously prepared and show a long-standing formula that was adopted by the Speakers of this House in presenting them in the way they are done now. So there has been no departure that I can see from what he outlined as he gathered it from the years of experience he had gained.

MR. McGEER: The departure has been in the last two or three days where we have had closure on debate on estimates presented. It is this departure from past practice which calls on you particularly, Sir, to interpret very carefully what has gone on in the past with accepted practice in more mature parliaments. It is in this respect that we are so disappointed that at a critical time we should simply let unimportant point for the future be decided on the basis of indifference and vague past practice which nobody seems to be able to define precisely.

Here we are bringing before you a case which in the future will be far more important than the other relatively transient matters that are being decided by individual votes. The practice is something which may endure for many, many years. Of course, we hope that the practice of the last day or two will be something which will disappear as a very unhappy chapter in the legislative history. From it, perhaps something of strength will emerge. I can find nothing

[ Page 2373 ]

of strength in your decision or your opinion to date, but I hope that through further consideration something of strength and enduring merit will emerge.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have been most grateful if the Hon. Member had actually been able to cite any authorities that would have assisted the Chair. However, I will give consideration to the problem. If there is any possibility of a proposal that I could t make that would be of interest to the House, I would be glad to make it at 6 o'clock, in regard to how we could possibly not delay the proceedings of the t House, which, after all, is presumably the purpose of standing order 45 A, as it is in other Houses, which are called mature parliaments, where they have similar closure, where they put the motions — or deem them to be put....

MR. McCLELLAND: All it is is closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's not that way.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is. It's closure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think it's clear that the matter of 45A brings to an end debate, and all motions are to be put without debate or amendment.

That is clearly what standing order 45A is all about.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Closure!

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, the Speaker and the Chairman are not allowed to make up a new rule 45A just because you and I may consider what the subject of the standing order is.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing further I can do on the matter, Hon. Member. Do you have a further point on that? Or what?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Having now established a precedent, and since the Premier has refused to make the same comments outside the House that he made in the House this afternoon, I wonder, in order that the people of British Columbia could be ensured of a high degree of accuracy, whether you'd consider making available to the press the Hansard tapes of the answers to the questions put to the Premier by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid you're a little late.

The other question I wanted to mention was that, n view of the statements made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) last night — and he's not in the House, I note — I've asked Hansard to make available the main tape, which has not been moved from this chamber and which has been carrying on its function here every day, to the Hon. Member after 6 o'clock until 8:30 tonight to compare he tape on that with any other tape which has been used in broadcasting the eviction that took place the other night, because he has made some statements hat are obviously inaccurate in regard to that tape.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not even here.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm very sorry to hear that. Very sorry, indeed.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I don't think was quite clarified yesterday — I realized raised the point in a somewhat circuitous fashion — was with regard to subsections (5) and (6) of standing order 129. It's with regard to release of tapes and what is implied in subsection 1 — that the Speaker has the final authority to release — but subsections (5) and (6) imply, at least to me, that the individual Members have some right of protection from release.

So the question that I really want to put is: in the specific tapes that were released yesterday, I had at first, thought somebody had obtained a bootleg copy, but was a specific request made by anyone to have those tapes released? In future if tapes are to be released upon the specific request of someone...this is the second. The first is: did anybody make a request?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. I decided to release them to one agency, and the others requested it.

MR. McGEER: That is to say....

MR. CHABOT: He did it on his own.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the authority to do so, and did so because I thought it was a matter of great importance publicly that the public of British Columbia know that there was no agreement by the Speaker with anybody, particularly the government, to do anything with regard to any Member of this House.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Are you suggesting there was an agreement? If you suggest that, then I suggest

[ Page 2374 ]

that you prove such a thing. It's monstrous to suggest it. Absolutely monstrous.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is that the tapes clearly show that the misconduct of the two Members concerned could not be disputed by any person in the Province of British Columbia if they heard the tapes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you suggesting there were agreements between the Speaker of this House and the government? If so, be man enough to say so, and prove it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That's what the Hon. Member is suggesting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Now I want to get on with the business of the House. What else has the Hon. Member to raise?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one ever to make an assertion of that sort, and in asking the question, I hope you wouldn't think that I was implying anything of that kind.

My point is a little more long range than that. My understanding, from what you've said, is that you released the tapes — or that particular portion of them — on your own initiative to establish a point which you thought was valid, and therefore you felt it appropriate to summon the press for that purpose.

But it may be that on some future occasion myself or some other Member of the House might be misinterpreted on a tape. That is, our microphones are sometimes cut off; shouting can take place in the background; it's sometimes difficult to identify voices. It's conceivable that a tape could be released, a Member's voice mistakenly identified on the tape and the Member being placed in an embarrassing position where, if he were given an opportunity to identify whether or not he said that, he would be able to state unequivocally that he did not, that in fact it was not him, just as he's given an opportunity to correct any mistranslation of statements he might have made from the tapes to the written word.

I would hope that you would give a judgment yourself as to whether it would be appropriate for any Speaker at any future time to release tapes to the press without the Members' approval so that this kind of understanding could never occur.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an excellent suggestion. I'll certainly take it up on the basis that I will see in future that when any tapes are released, they are with the assent of this House, where Members are concerned. The Members should, I think, be consulted about it first. I would be glad to do it that way; it's an excellent suggestion which I would adopt.

MR. GIBSON: On the other matter we were discussing earlier, Mr. Speaker, you indicated that you would find it possible to continue to delve into this question of the financial procedure. I would ask that Your Honour could pay particular attention to the forging of that vital link between the present-day practice, if it is indeed legitimate, and the practice in the United Kingdom at the time that standing order 1 was passed. In other words, when did this House legitimize such a change, if, in fact, it did? I submit that if it did not, it is not valid.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that this went back before 1871. In the British House their formula developed by practice and was not really written up. So we're faced with a similar development here.

MR. SMITH: If I may just clarify my point: at the beginning of your remarks concerning the matter of the tapes and the release of them, you suggested that this was done after remarks made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in the House last night; we weren't sitting last night.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say they were made in the House.

MR. SMITH: Yesterday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: They were heard on the media and I had a report.... I haven't got the exact details of it, but because I don't know....

MR. SMITH: The inference was that the Member was in the House, and I would just suggest that he was not here yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret that he isn't in the House. You know the rule: you bring the matter up as quickly as possible when it arises. Unfortunately, he's not in the House so that I could get his version of what he had said on radio last night. I am looking for that now; I hope to have it later.

But in the meantime I have offered to him the access to the main tape which is in this chamber,

[ Page 2375 ]

which goes on all day, which is still here as it was; it hasn't been touched by anyone. It will be available under supervision of Hansard for him if he suspects for one second that there is anything that is untoward in any tape that has been given to the press.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just on a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell the House whether or not you have had more than one opinion and whether you can give a guarantee that a Member does not lose his or her privilege of immunity if tapes are broadcast at your direction over the airwaves.

MR. SPEAKER: In certain cases, this is where I think the.authority of the Chair has to be given great thought — that is, where something is said in the House and is then given to the media either in the Blues or on tape. The question is whether it was done with the authority of the House. If it was done by the authority of the House, then it might be a libelous matter. Then, of course, I think that both the Speaker and the House should proceed with some care on the matter and make sure that the individuals concerned are not perhaps exposed to a change in the rules regarding immunity.

MR. GARDOM: How could they be?

MR. SPEAKER: There the question is — if you study the very valuable report of Dr. McWhinney — that the House in such cases of libel would have to give some authorization as we have in the Public Printing Act of 1840 which we adopted from the British House and that we have in the Bill of Rights....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I say in this case that we just did. That's why I asked for leave.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just a little further on that point, there seems to be some doubt in your mind about whether or not a matter can be libelous even though it was said in the House. I wonder whether it was wise to allow the tape to be distributed before we are absolutely sure of the kind of ground we're on. Who guarantees that a Member of this House might not be facing a libel charge, whether or not that libel charge succeeds?

MR. SPEAKER: The authorization by the House is still subject, I think, to this: the Member concerned certainly has his rights as far as his immunity is concerned. If there is any doubt of his immunity for anything said in this House, then, of course, you will agree that it should not be proper to release those tapes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a further point, the two Members who were concerned when you released that original tape certainly didn't have any choice in the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you suggesting they were guilty of any libels in the House?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I am suggesting that you were guilty of a serious indiscretion.

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. I thought very carefully.

MR. McCLELLAND: You never....

MR. SPEAKER: I listened to the tapes. For you to suggest that, of course, is quite wrong, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On a further point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you qualifying yourself as a master on the subject of libel or what?

MR. McCLELLAND: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have said yourself that the people involved and the people whose tapes are being released should have the opportunity to at least enter into discussion. You never gave them....

MR. SPEAKER: Where there is any serious question of libel involved.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the decision you made....

MR. SPEAKER: Then you were the one who made that decision today when you decided right now that you wanted the tape...

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't!

MR. SPEAKER: ...issued to the public.

MR. McCLELLAND: What a strange piece of logic that is.

MR. GARDOM: Just on the point the Hon. Member is making — and I think it's a very valid point — he put the question to you, Mr. Speaker: does the same privilege extend to a tape that extends to Hansard? Now there's complete privilege....

[ Page 2376 ]

MR. SPEAKER: We'll check it out.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think....

MR. SPEAKER: I think if you look at the report by Dr. McWhinney on this, you'll see something in there.

MR. GARDOM: If you could give me a copy of that, I'd certainly appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: You were supplied with a copy.

MR. GARDOM: Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I don't have the bloody thing here. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I can't be responsible either for the post office in this provincial jurisdiction, or your own office. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chairman takes the chair, may I say that I regret that the Deputy Speaker's wife is in rather serious condition at the moment. He has gone home. I think the wishes of the House will all be that we convey our sincere concern.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order. I won't vote a dime of this vote without the right of debate. I therefore ask for division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not the practice of committee, and according to rule 45, the time has expired for debate.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Closure!

MR. GARDOM: You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, if you listened to my remarks, I am not debating....

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you're going to raise a point of order...

MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...I would advise you that you should tell me what rule you are going by.

MR. GARDOM: I am just going by the rule of common sense, Mr. Chairman, that it be advisable....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We have to go by the rules of this House. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You said it, Mr. Chairman. You said it! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules say that the time has expired. You have no point of order in that case.

Vote 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it would only be practical and useful for future record in this House that there be inscribed in Hansard a description, at least, of what the vote consists of as opposed to merely furnishing the bare figure. I think it would be advisable under these circumstances to read into the record a description of what this vote deals with. I see it says this, Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't use common sense under any circumstances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have a point of

[ Page 2377 ]

order.

MR. GARDOM: Bear with me a moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have already made your case, and you do not have a point of order. Will you please take your seat?

MR. GARDOM: No. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: ...that you would acquit your responsibility better if you used your ears instead of your mouth until I've made my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have tried to make your point of order and you do not have a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: I have not yet made my point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you have.

MR. GARDOM: Get back in your chair, Mr. Chairman, have a deep breath and a glass of water. It's springtime, you know. There's no need to be so....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I, would ask the Member to take his seat.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Remember him, Garde? He's your running mate.

MR. McGEER: You're very hard on him, Mr. Chairman. He's got a bad back...

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

MR. McGEER: ...and he's got to protect his back.

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

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're finished. I recognize the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I have trouble seeing. I am not as big as he is and I get stuck behind these chairs and people bobbing up and down. It's very difficult in the back bench, I am discovering. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to tell me what point of order he is raising and what rule he is raising it under.

MR. McGEER: Order, Mr. Chairman. Order. I am referring you to standing order 16(2), which states that Mr. Speaker, or in your case Mr. Chairman, "shall state the question." It's normal practice in the House for the Speaker and the Chairman of the committee to state every question before he calls for the vote. Now, Mr. Chairman, we haven't been stating the question. Vote 16 is not the question. You have to state in total what it is. I think the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) only yesterday pointed out that the sum which officially goes into the Journals and which is taken out of that diplomatic pouch....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have heard your point raised and I have looked at rule 16. The way the vote is being put is the way it has always been put in committee and it's always been the acceptable manner in the Committee of Supply.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, it's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't have a point of order! We've reviewed the rule that you have raised and we've....

MR. McGEER: You are not giving me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There's no debate. You've raised your point of order, we checked it and....

I ask the Member to take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Members take

[ Page 2378 ]

their seats? They know very well there's no place on the floor for two people to be standing at once. You have made your point and you have no point. It is my duty to rule whether or not you have a point and you have no point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How do you know? You don't listen!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on a point of order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: He challenged your ruling. What did you rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That he has no point of order.

MR. McGEER: We'll challenge that, because you have to state the question. You wouldn't let me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: When you challenge the ruling of the Chair, I will call the Speaker in to see if the Chair will be upheld.

MR. McGEER: I'll challenge it. But do you want to hear me out or would you rather have me call the Speaker? If you want to hear me out, we can save trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to call for the Speaker, Mr. Member. You may take your seat. The Speaker will decide whether or not the Chair will be upheld.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I have asked the Speaker to come in to rule on the....

MR. FRASER: Iron rule. Iron hand.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While in committee on vote 21 a point of order was raised as to the manner in which the vote was being placed and I ruled that there was no point of order. The Member has challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I don't think the Chairman adequately expressed to you the concern in the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think we have to put the question and I intend to do so. The House is aware....

MR. McGEER: The Chairman ruled that there was no point of order and that the question should be stated before it was put. Surely to heavens in the House you state a question before you put it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please?

MR. McGEER: The standing order says that, and to say that it isn't practice to state a question, Mr. Speaker, is asininity.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat? The question before the House is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): While we are waiting to carry out the division, could I have the privilege of introducing to the House the federal Member for Victoria, Mr. Alan McKinnon, who is in the gallery. I would like the House to welcome Mr. McKinnon.

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 14

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

[ Page 2379 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was standing in support of the ruling being recorded. Or was he just having some exercise?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that was the purpose of the three Members rising. Was it?

MR. McGEER: Yes, it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I wasn't sure. You started to wander around.

MR. McGEER: Just a quick breather before the next division.

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

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

I recognize the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since debate is denied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you refer to the rule you are raising your point of order on?

MR. GARDOM: Debate denied is democracy denied. I ask you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am asking you to refer to the rules.

MR. GARDOM: You let me state my point of order my way, thank you very much!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: You are not going to start dictating how I make points of order in this House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You have to have some order in this House to be able to function, and you have to state what rule you are raising to make a point of order. I want to know what kind of point of order you are making.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You haven't been recognized.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to state the rule you are raising your point of order on, and make your point as clearly and as quickly as you can.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GARDOM: You are now insisting, Mr. Chairman, that I initiate my remarks on a point of order by referring to a specific rule. I draw to your attention that the rules we have in this House did not come down a beam of light. They were invented by man, they have been made by man, they can be changed by man and they can be interpreted by man!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like the Member to take his seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You don't begin making a point of order by making a speech, and I am not going to allow that to take place. We are on vote 21.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GARDOM: I am asking you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have got a point of order to make, I'll recognize the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is this: is it or is it not reasonable and fair, practical and desirable that the Hon. Members, the Chairman, this Legislative Assembly and Hansard, at the very least, be entitled to an explanation of what the vote is all about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: That is my point of order. I am

[ Page 2380 ]

asking you to read into the vote...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's not a point of order.

MR.GARDOM: ...a description of the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him finish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I would ask the Member to take his seat. That matter has been dealt with. The vote is put in the normal manner. Shall vote 21 pass?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't challenge that, Mr. Member, because that matter has been dealt with already. It was just dealt with.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GARDOM: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the....

MR. GARDOM: Do you not recognize the challenge?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you haven't got the floor. I recognize the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, under the authority cited on page 341 of May, at the bottom of the page....

MR. CHAIRMAN: What edition?

MR. GIBSON: Eighteenth edition. If you would like to take a moment to look it up...otherwise I can read it out. It is headed up "Matters Requiring Immediate Intervention of the House."

"Urgent matters which require the immediate intervention of the House, may be raised during a sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption of the 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."

Mr. Chairman, this procedure was followed on Tuesday night. You will find it recorded at page 273-3 slm of the Hansard proofs and 273-4 slm, if I may just check that reference.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the public is entitled to be confused as to exactly what is happening in each vote here, as so well put by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), I would suggest to you that following the precedent of the other night, and following the suggestions made several times yesterday afternoon by the Hon. Deputy Speaker then in the chair, it would be appropriate for me to move or for you to move, if you wish, that the committee rise and report progress for the purpose of the Speaker giving attention to this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, you haven't established an urgent matter, and the Chair will not accept that motion.

Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You can't appeal an opinion. You can't appeal that. We're on vote 21.

MR. GIBSON: There is an appeal to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You haven't established an urgent matter.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find that I can, and have, expressed an opinion that you do not have an urgent matter, and my opinion is not appealable.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair, as the only redress available is under standing order 62.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Chairman, on considering this motion I would ask you to consider standing order 44:

"...the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, if he shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of debate, or of the House...or that the Chairman to report progress, or to leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House...he may decline to propose the question of the House."

[ Page 2381 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A point of order has been made, and point 44 is raised. The point is well-taken, and I'm not accepting that motion at this time.

MR. GIBSON: You will hear argumentation on it, or you are a thug!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You must withdraw that kind of a statement.

MR. GIBSON: I will not withdraw that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the logic of a brutal ruffian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Will you please take your seats?

There are rules, standing orders, that we have to go by, and I would ask the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to withdraw the statement he just made — without reservation.

MR. GIBSON: Let me read the definition of the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am asking you to withdraw.

MR. GIBSON: Why do you think dictionaries are kept in the House?

MRS. JORDAN: He wouldn't know; he never reads them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the Member to take his seat.

The question really is whether you used words that are unparliamentary and offensive, and offensive to the Member in the chair, and I've asked you for an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. GIBSON: I withdraw, and replace it with "arrogant dictator of this House."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'll ask you to withdraw that as well.

MR. GIBSON: I won't withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member well knows that he cannot make an attack on the Chair. It is not a question of personalities; it's a question of the Chair. I ask you for an unqualified withdrawal. You know the rules.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I sought to deal with what I saw as the deficiency of the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I am asking you....

MR. GIBSON: I'm making a motion that you leave the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: The House could have voted on that motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GIBSON: You denied that. What redress do you leave anyone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the rules. May I ask you to make an unqualified withdrawal?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to withdraw his statement; it was an attack on the Chair.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to call for the Speaker to deal with the matter.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee has had an incident where a Member has made a statement, an attack on the Chair, that's offensive. I have asked to have it withdrawn. I have ordered it withdrawn, and I haven't had that kind of co-operation from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. I ask the Speaker to deal with the matter.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2382 ]

The Hon. Member knows the rule that we do not speak of each other in this House in an offensive manner. Particularly, an attack on the Chair is considered to be a breach of privilege and a serious contempt of the House and the dignity of the House. It may be that Members may from time to time disagree with rulings but all of us are placed in the position some time or other of having to take the chair at some time in our life, and we realize the onerous responsibility of having to make decisions which may or may not be right. Nonetheless, one must make those decisions. If one quarrels with that decision, there are ways of dealing with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not with that Chairman!

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that you may not be able, under our rules, which we all are supposed to respect, to deal with it immediately. But there is a way of dealing with it on a substantive motion, and that is the route that one is required to follow under our rules.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules of this House have been in existence for centuries and deserve the respect and consideration of every Member. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that one prerogative of the Chair is to determine whether in the opinion of the Chair a motion is in order, whether a motion is a repetition or is an obstruction, or should not be called at this time for any reason that is within the discretion of the Chair. If the Hon. Member made a motion that the Chair would not entertain at this time, he was doing so under the clear powers given to him by the rules of the House.

Therefore the question is, really, that using an offensive expression against the Chair only undermines the respect and dignity of the House itself, from which the whole House suffers — not just the person in the chair.

I am sure the Hon. Member has enough respect for parliament that he would be magnanimous enough to withdraw the expression he used and take those remedies that we always have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We don't have remedies any more!

MR. SPEAKER: We do. I pointed out the remedy. It's the only remedy the Hon. Member has, and it seems to me....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member does not like a rule of the House, the answer isn't to invite anarchy; the answer is to apply the remedies we have, one of which is to change the rules of the House. It's like asking the people of this country to obey laws that you promulgate, and at the same time not be prepared to adopt, enforce and respect the rules that you promulgate for this House. You can't expect the public to obey our laws when you're not prepared to accept them yourself. How can you go out to the public and say: "Obey the laws of the land"?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman has that prerogative. If you quarrel with that prerogative, then change that particular standing order; but in the meantime don't undermine the parliamentary system by attacking the Chair, which has a duty to the House itself.

Would the Hon. Member please withdraw?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it deeply grieves me to have had to attack the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure.

MR. GIBSON: I sought redress in other ways of a situation which I thought was intolerable. I agree with Your Honour that there are rules in this House that must be respected. When those rules are abused by those in power and when the redress provided for is denied, then some other kind of protest and statement must be made.

The Chairman, Your Honour, declined — not just to me but to several Hon. Members — to hear points of order out to any reasonable extent. I sought the only redress I had. Under standing order 62 I moved a motion which is always in order. The Chairman, acting under his authority, said that he would not accept that motion. I do not question his legal authority to do that; I question his moral authority.

I say to you, Sir, that I then issued a description of that Chairman as an arrogant dictator, which I will maintain as a statement of fact, and not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon, Member is not prepared to withdraw the statement. I am very sorry. I have no alternative, as you know, but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw from the House for the day — from the proceedings, I should say.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask you for clarification. I have listened over several days to this wrangle on procedure, and the deterioration that's taking place is, I think, one of the

[ Page 2383 ]

most serious situations this House must have faced in many a year, whatever the cause.

One of the reasons, I think, for the action of the Member presently withdrawing from the House is that we reached the pitch, a few moments ago, where the Chairman refused to allow a Member of this House to challenge his ruling.

While one can perhaps argue, Mr. Speaker, as to whether a Member has a point of order, we surely have reached a very serious level in this House when, because of the legitimate tactics of the opposition to fight a cause they believe in, they cannot even now, apparently, have the right to challenge the Chairman's ruling. I would ask your clarification. If this is the case, then indeed the opposition have lost just about every right they have in this House. I think it would be sad if the situation were left to deteriorate further.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member must make a distinction between those particular matters where there is no appeal, where it relies on the opinion of the Chair, and in some cases, for example, emergency motions to debate a matter of urgent public importance. In strictness of the interpretation of the rule, the Speaker on such an occasion is dealing with what, in his opinion — and that is in the rule — is a matter of an emergency, in that sense the emergency of debate. So it is left to the Chair to decide that issue, not by appeal from that decision or opinion.

The same applies when you deal with standing order 44, where it gives the Speaker discretion to decide whether a motion is vexatious, frivolous or repetitious, or for any other reason — for example, in cases of closure of debate — he may decide that it would not be proper or fair to the minority in the House that there be closure of that debate. In such case his opinion is not reversible by the House, or, as I pointed out the other day, the majority would simply steamroller right over the Speaker. Therefore he is given and it is reposed in him that responsibility to rule, in certain cases, that certain motions will not be accepted at this time.

Now on the case in question, if the House has made a ruling or decision a few moments ago on the very same point of order, it would not be proper for a Member to raise the same point of order when the House has just dealt with that point of order. Therefore, he would be, in my view, quite correct in not accepting a renewal of the point of order that the House has just dealt with.

Now if that is the case, then I would say it would be improper for the Members to try to raise again That the House has just given its judgment on.

Which is the case to which you refer, if we are looking at it in context? Which position are you referring to?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to your interpretation of the point I was trying to make....

I think, above all else, this House lacks consistency in judgments from the Chair. Many of the issues which have been decided and rulings which have been challenged very similar to what happened 10 minutes ago have been allowed to occur. It seems, if nothing else, that there is a serious lack of consistency.

Regardless of that, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I require leave, but I would wish to move that the House recess for 30 minutes in an attempt to find a solution to the obvious impasse which this House is in. I don't know if such a motion is in order, but I think it is well worth considering at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, before dealing with that and asking leave, I would point out to the Hon. Member that I was called back to the Chair to deal with a particular matter of breach of privilege. The House is really not in session as a House. We are in Committee of the Whole House and, without the committee rising, we may deal with this question when the Speaker is back in the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: The grave difficulty that is being experienced is the fact that the Hon. Members are not given a fair opportunity by the Chair to state their point of order.

Everyone, Mr. Speaker, has a different style, a different substance, and people articulate things in a different manner. I think it is incumbent upon any Chairman in any Legislature anywhere to listen to a point of order and to then assess his judgment and make his decision after he has heard the point of order.

There is not much to be gained in a democratic society by a Chairman constantly gabbling in the middle of a Member attempting to make a point of order. We are getting into a situation of Mutt and Jeff, up and down, up and down — and it is almost like a Pinocchio show — before a Member can finish his point of order. Most of the points of order — certainly all that have been raised this afternoon — have been short, succinct points of order. But the Chair does not give the Member and has not given the Member an opportunity to state it. Now that's the first point, and that's probably how this initiated this afternoon.

The other one was this — and I thoroughly agree with the very unfortunate position that the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was put into, because he moved, under section 62 of the rules, Mr. Speaker, a motion that the Chairman leave the chair — a motion that shall always be in order and shall take precedence over any other motion and shall

[ Page 2384 ]

not be debatable. In essence, the Chairman refused to hear that. He attempted to call a division on it and he couldn't do it.

Now are you going to suggest to me, Mr. Speaker, that rule 62 does not apply in this House any longer? We faced that this afternoon when the Chairman was in the chair, and that's not correct. Either this rule 62 means what is says, or it doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think you will understand that that particular motion is known as a dilatory motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, no!

MR. GARDOM: The Chairman never made that assessment, Mr. Speaker, at all. He only said he wasn't going to hear it, and started to call the question again.

MR. SPEAKER: Anyway, I would suggest that standing order 62 is always subject to standing order 44. That is that the Chairman still has the power, if he feels that the motion would not be appropriate in view of the circumstances that have transpired....

MR. GARDOM: Then he has a responsibility to state that, and not come in with a mailed fist, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's not only closure; it's absolute closure.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, of course, that the Chair should.... Perhaps Hansard will tell us, when the time comes to look at it, whether standing order 44 was referred to by the Chair in the course of this event. I can't judge that matter when obviously this took place in committee.

I refer you to pages 429 and 430 of May for your future guidance in regard to the effective restraints upon obstruction that may occur in cases where the standing order 44 is a remedy by the Chair, where it says:

"A Member who 'abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House,' that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct."

I didn't say you were or anyone was. I'm saying that the invoking of standing order 44 is most often used in those instances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know, since I wasn't here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, rule 44 is a tremendous red herring — a red whale, in fact. It really has no bearing. The point raised by the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) and the point raised by the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) all dealt with the general question of identifying the vote by reading the words of it. This is a new point — and I've been in this House for a fair number of hours over the past few days — not yet canvassed. How could it become one of those repetitive requests for the same type of ruling as previously? It could not, because it was a new point.

Rule 44, which you have thrown into this, simply cannot apply when a new subject is raised. Had it been the 15th time or the 60th time or the 67th time — when one considers the Member for Port Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) — had it been a frequent occurrence that he had attempted to have this point clarified, it might well be a different situation. It's not possible hypothetically after the fact to recreate the facts of the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore I think we should rather desist on this subject, because I was asked...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So let me move on, then....

MR. SPEAKER: ...on this point. But I'm not inviting a speech on the substance of the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, nor am I giving a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules are there. If the Chairman doesn't apply them, in your opinion, the way he should, you have a remedy to appeal certain cases.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Where it's discretionary, you don't, as you know.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we were not permitted to challenge something which is a new point to the House at large. So we were denied that right.

Secondly, you do refer frequently to substantive motions. May I remind you and everybody in this House that, I believe, it's 18 months since a substantive motion of the type you're suggesting has

[ Page 2385 ]

been debated? It is an absolute blind alley, a dead end as far as attempting to have any change or any remedy from the problem we're faced with today.

Therefore the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano rightly suggested appealing it to the Membership of the committee, and the Chairman refused. The Chairman has no right to refuse when new points are raised about the defining of the vote and how it shall be put to the House. He has no right whatsoever to deny an appeal to the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. If the traditional method of putting a vote is under consideration, as you suggest, and that method of putting a vote is then confirmed to be the method by the House on appeal, then it would be quite improper....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right! And there was no appeal to the House; that's the point. There was no appeal to the House. You have agreed with the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is quite mistaken. There was an appeal to the House and the House decided that the method of putting the vote was correct and proper. Therefore for anyone later to rise on another point of order relating to the same point the House had just decided would be vexatious and certainly should not be considered as a fresh point of order at all. The House had just decided that point.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. The point of order was simply to this effect: we are having votes here of enormous magnitude and it was my view that in the public interest they be recorded at the very least with an explanation of what the vote is about. The general public are surely to goodness entitled to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member was then suggesting....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! May I ask the question? The Hon. Member was asking for a different method to be used than is in current use?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I was.

MR. SPEAKER: Then he would have been out of order.

MR. GARDOM: No way! No! Let me make my point. I was making my point with the Hon. Chairman and he constantly interrupted me — constantly. Then the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey got up and started to refer to rule 16(2), I believe it is, talking about stating of the question. Fine and dandy.

But still that did not deal specifically with the point I had raised, nor has that been dealt with. Then later on, Mr. Speaker, I got up and I tried once again to establish the point. The Chairman took the position that it had been considered. Then I said: "Well you've made a ruling." Then I challenged his ruling, and he refused to accept the challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, well, I think the Hon. Member is aware he should have perhaps put a motion to the House at some date asking for a different method of putting motions than has been the custom in the House.

MR. GARDOM: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't do it by challenge.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the few times in the history of you and I being in the House that there have been descriptions of votes to the extent they are now described. This is also the first time in the Legislature in your experience and my experience that the estimates have not been debated in the Province of British Columbia. I say, for God's sake, that the general public is at least entitled to a description of what a vote is about as opposed to reading "$27,501,093." We are supposed to be doing a job here, not for the mechanics of the NDP or for the opposition. We are supposed to be doing a job for the general public; they have a right to be informed, and they are not being informed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, all right, now I've got the sense of your objection. But the point is, as I have said, that you don't take that as a point of order, and then demand a division of a testing of the ruling, because it is obvious that the method there sought to be invoked to record things differently than at present would have to be done by some substantive motion.

MR. GARDOM: But, Mr. Speaker, I don't find anything in the rules saying that you have to refer to the correction services by an amount of money. Can you find that in the red book for me? No way, Mr. Speaker. No way!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Chairman is using and adopting a method of presenting the resolution to the House that has been customary.... To alter that, I would think it would take more than his own opinion of how to do it.

[ Page 2386 ]

MR. GARDOM: He has not indicated what the custom of the House is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore I can't possibly deal with a point like that, because there is no motion upon which it can be debated.

MR. GARDOM: I'm just letting you know that there are serious problems we are experiencing in committee, Mr. Speaker. I rather agree with the assessment of my friend from Oak Bay. Perhaps it would be a very good thing if we did have an adjournment and you could consult with the Chairman. Bring him up to date on the point.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll put the request for leave on the Hon. Member for Oak Bay's suggestion, if I may. I think the Hon. Members realize that all this debate is really by the side for the reason that in the House, in parliament, you are not supposed to be debating without a motion before the House or on a specific point of order that relates to something that is going on in this place at this time. I'll put the question of leave. Shall leave be granted on the motion proposed?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we are still in committee. How is one expected to vote in committee?

MR. SPEAKER: No, that is not correct.

MR. SMITH: Should we not rise and report progress or report resolutions?

MR. SPEAKER: Without the committee rising, the House reconstitutes itself for the purpose of dealing with a matter that arose in committee. That is what I have done. It dealt with the matter of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Other questions were raised which I have tried to deal with simply in the manner of informal advice.

MR. SMITH: Well, would you put the question again, please? I was on my feet at the time you put it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was whether leave be granted for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to put a motion without notice, and leave was denied. Again, shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: May I get the Chairman back now and go into committee?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Previously the House Leader did agree when consulted — I'm not sure if it was yesterday or the day before — because the policy had been to call the vote by number, not mentioning the name of the vote or the amount. When the House leader was consulted, she did in fact agree that the vote could be properly identified. That is exactly what we are asking for today — not only that the name, lumber and amount of the vote but that what it consists of be.... The House has agreed to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair puts the motion, really, on money resolutions that are presented to it from the House Leader. The House Leader, in a sense, is the one who puts the motion, which has become almost a short-form variation over the years. It's entirely up to the way the motion is moved.

MR. MORRISON: It wasn't a motion when she agreed to it before; it was a request and she agreed to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not saying it was a motion. I'm saying that whatever she presents to the table on money resolutions is usually a short-form type of motion.

MR. MORRISON: This is what it is. This is what we're asking for. That's exactly what we're asking for.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we'll see what the House leader does.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, where there is a dispute that would require the intervention of the Chair, there is provision in May for us to rise, report progress and ask him for advice. This can be done in two ways, apparently: one by the Chairman himself doing this, as was done last Tuesday; the second way is, I believe, for a motion to be put, although that has not yet been done in this House.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the extremely slow progress and the genuine and serious difficulties that surround this matter, I would urge that you consider, yourself, having the committee rise and report to him to ask for clarification. Failing that, I would move myself that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again so that we could thereafter have a recess, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

[ Page 2387 ]

Wallace).

Earlier this day I wrote a letter to the Premier, copies of which were distributed to other party leaders, proposing a solution to our current dilemma. I do believe that this afternoon's most unhappy developments have only reiterated and underlined the importance of having a fresh look at the way we are handling committee activity.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to consider, yourself, rising and reporting progress so that a motion could then be put to adjourn or to at least have a recess of 30 minutes. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I so move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We would be agreeable to the motion. However, we would, in agreeing to that, like the Whips to meet to discuss this matter and we would like to continue the House work with legislation at that time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The motion that was placed by the Member was listened to by the Chair, and the motion should be that you report resolution and ask leave to sit again. For the reasons you've stated, the Chair is prepared to accept the motion and put the motion before the House.

The motion is that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee wants to rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again. We also report that there have been a number of divisions that should be recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall leave be granted to record the divisions?

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if I could again ask leave of the House at this point to introduce a motion without notice to the effect that the House have a recess of one half hour.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring you to standing order 25, this being Thursday, should we not proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll call public bills in the hands of private Members. The Hon. Member is quite correct.

Bill 12. The Hon. Member is not here at this time so we will move on....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the Hon. Member would like to have an opportunity to speak on it. I would like to move now to Bill 13 so I will move adjournment on behalf of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst).

Motion approved.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RECYCLING CORPORATION ACT

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to get up and support Bill 13.

MR. WALLACE: I hope you are grateful to the opposition for letting you do this. That's co-operation.

MR. STEVES: Well, thanks for giving me such a great amount of time to prepare for it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in British Columbia with a lot of resource waste and a lot of materials that could be re-used for beneficial purposes — newspapers and so on that could be re-used rather than being wasted and filling up our garbage dumps. I envision that we might in the future have some type of corporation set up that would oversee the re-use of these resource materials that are now being wasted and that that corporation would be able to work with municipal bodies, regional bodies and so on to set up programmes by which waste materials could be collected, taken to central locations and distributed to processing plants of various types that they may be put back into use as useful products once again. I think that is something that's very much needed in British Columbia.

Fifty per cent of the waste materials going into garbage dumps could be cut down, and it would provide much preservation of our environment and our resource material. At the present time there are a number of small organizations throughout the province carrying out recycling on a voluntary basis. I have received letters and petitions and phone calls from, probably, 3,000 people and organizations in support of this bill in the past year. I think that it's very popular in the community. Therefore I would

[ Page 2388 ]

like to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding, I must point out to the Hon. Members that Bill 13 would be out of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, no. However, if there's no objection, I think Members can continue speaking on it, but I must make a decision on the matter before the motion is put, as you know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would agree, and only ask for one minor point of clarification. It seems that everything is put upon your shoulders, and it would appear to me desirable that you not make decisions without, of course, having someone bring it to your attention. Why should you be the unfortunate individual singled out to perhaps destroy the child...?

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. I volunteered for the duty. I have the obligation imposed upon me to see that the rules are observed, including rule 67.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, Mr. Speaker, but I would correct you. If my memory serves me correctly, you were dragged, struggling, to the chair; you did not volunteer for the job. It seems unfortunate that you should be subjected to the abuse that might come your way from our friend from Richmond simply because you had to make up your own mind as to whether it was out of order. That's the government's job if they think a private Member's bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I must differ with the Hon. Member. The standing orders clearly set out that the Speaker has to decide the issue, not the government, and not the Hon. Member speaking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which.... We won't try to take this to a conclusion now because I'm quite sure you and I could have an interesting discussion outside this chamber on the same matter. I believe I'm perfectly right, although I'm listening to your views with great interest.

But on the bill itself, I think that the Hon. Member has an excellent suggestion here. There may well be minor changes that we might like to suggest at third reading, the committee-stage reading. There may well be changes to work in the municipalities. There well may be improvements that could be suggested from all sides of the House. But in terms of principle it's clear that this bill will assist in recycling what are now considered to be waste materials. Therefore, in that respect we think it's an excellent bill. It comes at a very opportune time, and I, on behalf of my party, would like to commend him for it and urge the government, as well as the Speaker, to look with favour upon this particular piece of legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I, too, would like to rise to support the bill from the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). One of the problems that we face in this province, and one particularly the municipalities face in this province, is the growing shortage of land available for the disposal of the massive amount of waste that we in our society create each day. In view of the limited amount of land we have for the development of housing facilities, the construction of roads and railroads and the conduct of agriculture, the continued use, even by methods of sanitary landfill as a means of disposing of wastes, is creating a very serious problem — that, together with all of the problems which are related to disposal, and in particular the disposal of those substances which have a poisonous effect on the environment.

Many studies have been conducted into techniques with respect to the recycling of waste materials. Other nations have found it essential that they develop these new techniques. The country of Japan comes to mind where they use recycled paper for many uses within their society. They produce building materials out of garbage. I think the time is long since past when we in this country can ignore the example that others are giving to us.

One of the difficulties that faces us in such an enterprise is the lack of research, the lack of facilities and, indeed, the lack of funds with which such an enterprise can be carried on. Some private organizations have attempted it with minor success. Certainly those in the paper industry have attempted to re-use waste paper that produces serious problems so far as the ink is concerned.

I think that until government takes the serious hand in this, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be plagued with these problems. We will build bigger and bigger piles of garbage, we will fill more bogs, we will continue to defile our coastal areas with waste, much of which does not degenerate but continues largely in its natural state. I think a determined effort should be made in this regard, and approval of legislation of this kind would indicate a willingness on the part of government to concern itself with such an interesting, indeed essential, occupation.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I think many Members on both sides of the House really want to commend this Member for Richmond

[ Page 2389 ]

(Mr. Steves), you know. I don't know if you realize, Mr. Speaker, if you've ever been in our caucus room, which I don't remember you being....

MR. CHABOT: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: I don't remember you ever being in our caucus room.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad you've got a good memory.

MR. ROLSTON: But in the corner of that Member's office there have been great stacks of newsprint that he takes in his truck back to the recycling depots in Vancouver. The members of the press gallery realize that we get probably five or six journals a day to read as well as our own weeklies throughout the ridings — in my case that's four. It's just an incredible amount of paper to go through.

The Member for Richmond, I think, and many other MLAs lament the fact that there really isn't a place on the lower mainland .... In fact I can't think of one pulp mill that now will accept recycled paper. Ocean Falls, which has heavy water transportation costs, was up until recently — unless I can be corrected — one of the last places to take recycled paper. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has quite rightly pointed out the technical problems with ink.

I just commend this Member. I realize that if you turn to the back of the page it does involve the expenditure of money, but so be it. I think we want to put some onus on cabinet and on the people who are in government. The community expects this Legislature to give some direction in the recycling of an incredible amount of paper.

We used to say in the United Church of Canada we kept one pulp mill going. Well, I think in this Legislature we probably keep one pulp mill going. I think it can be done. It should be known, Mr. Speaker, that Boeing Aircraft, after some of the setbacks they had in the late 1960s, received some funds to, among other things, recycle solid and especially paper waste into various forms of asphalt. They're doing studies on that right now.

I think that this Member should be commended. Maybe he can add a few things in winding up the debate. We really are running out of space for dry landfills. I remember that the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that there would be $1 million in natural gas money to help the regional districts in dealing with waste problems, fencing, purchasing of property and other capital costs. But really I think there's an urgency and money needs to be spent to see that this corporation can be established. I certainly commend the Member and support this bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I too support the bill. One of the more recent incidents in our community of the capital region has been a strike of municipal workers, whereby householders in effect had to deal with their own garbage for weeks without the normal services. I've heard it said so many times since the strike ended that there is a real potential for householders to accept a greater individual responsibility in recycling a great deal of their waste in the ordinary home. In fact the municipality of Oak Bay seems to have taken that comment so seriously that I understand that we're only going to have garbage picked up once every three weeks. Many of the Members in the House seem to applaud that idea. It has the additional advantage of saving the taxpayers in Oak Bay $100,000, which means a certain number of mills, I'm sure.

They say that necessity is the mother of invention. Much as I deplore some of the inconveniences of a strike, it's quite obvious in our community that the strike proved that the much better, more efficient and more conservation-minded we are, the more we can accomplish in the handling of our garbage.

So this short bill certainly embodies these principles: that, the resources of the globe are finite and that with increasing population in the world and with the awareness that we can't just go down the slippery slope without trying to face up to the problem and come up with some productive or constructive solutions.

This surely has to be the kind of principle that all the parties in this House should support. I hope that this bill isn't so structured that when we give it strong support, and the Member winds up the debate on second reading, we find some unfortunate procedural reason why it is out of order. I would hope that the bill, in fact, has been so carefully structured that it can meet with your approval, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Members know the Hon. Member for Richmond has the privilege of winding up the debate on second reading.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to hear the wide area of support coming from the opposition Members and from my fellow Members of the back bench. I really hope that the government might see fit to find this bill in order, or at least to bring in similar legislation such as this so that we could see a recycling corporation set up in the province to get this project underway. I think it is something that is long overdue.

We are a resource-rich province, Mr. Speaker, but being a resource-rich province, I think we have, on the other hand, some obligation to show the way, show how our resources can be conserved and protected, how we can try to solve the problems of waste disposal and re-use the resources that we have

[ Page 2390 ]

available.

I would like to suggest that maybe the government might consider bringing this in as government legislation. With that as an idea, I would actually like to move adjournment of the debate on second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member could do so, since he was speaking for the purpose of winding up debate. Therefore it follows that there can be no one else speaking on the matter unless he is intending to conclude his remarks at some future time. If this is the purpose of his motion it would be possible to move it if that is what he intended.

MR. STEVES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would intend then, to conclude my remarks at some future time.

MR. SPEAKER: So the motion would be in order, I take it.

The motion is that the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION ACT

MR. STEVES: I am pleased to be able to present to the Legislature Bill 14, the British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act. This is another private Member's bill that I have had on the order paper for a year and a half now. It has undergone considerable debate in the community at large.

It is based largely on coastal-zone legislation already existing in the United States where coastal legislation was brought in 1972 in nearly every coastal state along the western coast of the U.S. and the eastern coast. Many of the clauses are from legislation in Oregon which I think probably has some of the best coastal legislation on the continent.

Basically it calls for the setting up of a commission somewhat similar to the Land Commission that we have had working in agriculture in British Columbia. The idea is to protect our estuaries, islands, conservation and recreational areas in the coastal areas — fisheries, feeding grounds, and so on, in the Gulf of Georgia and places like that — from incursions by adverse industrial development or any other development that might destroy very important parts of the coastal zone.

Implicit in the Act is that the areas would be studied; there would be an inventory taken to determine which areas had to be preserved and which areas would have development permitted to take place in them. These areas could be delineated in an overall plan for the coastal area.

The government has already embarked upon some aspects of this piece of legislation since I brought it in a year ago. Some inventories are in the process of being taken. A couple of weeks ago, I had a commitment from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) that the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat would start to undertake inventories on the estuaries in the coastal areas. This is very important because a lot of the estuaries are the first ones that developers and contractors and so on, industrial people, consider for locating their sites — whether they are port sites and so on. These inventories, I believe, will be started some time this spring. I am pleased to see that happening.

One other concern in the coastal zone is that the recreational use should be considered as well as industrial, environmental and other potential use, that resource management should be set up in an overall way that would actually consider things like Indian artifacts where Indian villages have been, recreational use, housing along the shorelines, as to whether people are able to block off beaches and access to the beaches, booming grounds, industrial development on the estuaries, as I mentioned, protection of the beaches, shorelines and islands, and so on.

Some of the stuff that the government has done that relates closely to this And which I think could be worked in with this idea are the resource management areas that have been set up by the government throughout the province.

I think that if the resource management teams were given the job of setting up some kind of coastal legislation or setting up some type of coastal management and particularly look at the priority areas like the estuaries, the islands and so on, we would be well on our way.

When the forestry and fisheries committee of the Legislature two years ago met, we looked at stream bank protection and we said that stream bank protection was very vital to the coastal fisheries. I think that if we were to meet again or if any other group was to look at this, they would see that just as important as stream bank protection to the fisheries and to the resources of the coastal area are the estuaries. I hope that either a coastal zone commission such as I have suggested can be set up or that the resource management areas that have been set up through ELUC could have their credentials extended to take in coastal zone management and the concept of the coastal zone commission — one or the other. I'm really not concerned that it has to be a commission but I would like to see the job done.

The idea of setting up a commission has received a

[ Page 2391 ]

fair amount of support in the community; it has also received some opposition from some regional districts who feel that they are quite capable of handling management of the coastal zone in their areas. I would like to point out that one of the major problems that I foresee in the coastal zone is that there are so many jurisdictions trying to manage the coastal area that nobody is able to set up an overall plan.

Basically, we have in my area something like five harbour commissions in and around Richmond. We've got the Fraser River Harbour Commission, the North Fraser Harbour Commission, the B.C. Harbour Commission, the Vancouver Harbour Commission and the National Harbours Board — that's five all operating in one part of the coastal zone. Then we have Squamish, Nanaimo and all the other communities up and down the coast along the Gulf of Georgia — each one, each harbour commission, each regional district, each city, each municipality j competing for more harbour development, for industrial development along the foreshore, for port facilities, and so on. Not every one of those communities needs them but each one is looking to have some kind of development like that to soften their tax base.

I feel that an overall authority could pull all these various divergent groups together, give some leadership, and more or less get them to co-operate with each other so we have some overall planning rather than them going on competing with each other for the available industrial development, which is often to the detriment of the environment and to the detriment of the communities next door. What may go in on my side of the river and in my community may be to the detriment of the people living on the other side of the river in the MLA for Delta's (Mr. Liden's) riding or perhaps in Vancouver or what-have-you. When you are dealing with waterways, pollution does not just stay where it occurs but flows back and forth along our coast.

With that as a brief outline of the proposed bill, I would like to move second reading.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this legislation. I think it's an appropriate companion to the bill which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) a few moments ago.

While we have gone apace defiling our land with garbage, the coastal waters which surround our communities have not been allowed to escape. The value of the estuaries in particular has for too long been unrecognized by our society. As a consequence over the years, large areas of estuary have been filled and converted to other uses: industrial uses, recreational uses, port and harbour facilities. As a consequence, valuable estuary has been lost.

Studies now show that those tidal lands — those estuary lands — are of immense value in the whole marine ecosystem. From those estuaries come those minute marine organisms which eventually become the food for the fish in the oceans and in our rivers. When we carelessly deal with coastal and estuary areas we do more harm than we recognize.

Studies in other jurisdictions have shown that just the simple construction of a pier out into the water or of a dike incautiously carried out results in subsurface changes of dire consequence. Areas which were fertile as far as marine organisms are concerned are completely destroyed. When we allow these to continue, we gradually diminish the capability of our seas to produce life — life which in turn is essential to our own. From those tidal lands — from those estuaries — comes the very beginning of the food cycle, which is so vitally important to human beings. This bill is an attempt for the first time in this jurisdiction to rectify the present situation, to attempt to prevent the proliferation of structures along our coastal waters which might have this consequence.

As the Member has said it is in keeping with the action which has been taken in many coastal states throughout this world. The sudden realization that no longer can we continue the practices of the past, and having some proper relationship between the uses that we must make of access to the water and of the consequences of that use is, I think, long past due in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to support this bill also — not that I have any great knowledge of all the ramifications in the detail that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) obviously has — but we have some real concern about the coastline around the Saanich Peninsula area and some recent consideration and heated public controversy about the wisdom or otherwise of a marina which was to be built.

Having seen some of the other areas, certainly in the San Diego area, where the value of coastline and the development of estuaries is being, I think, carried out very wisely, it would seem to me the time is due, if not overdue, for us in British Columbia, with such a marvelous amount of recreational coastline and water, that we should be giving every encouragement to this kind of legislation.

I sometimes think there is a danger that in the most well-intentioned efforts to respect the conservation of our coastline, we at the same time might over-emphasize the need to prevent any kind of development. Without casting criticism on any individual or group, I think that the example I mentioned a moment ago of the proposed marina development on the Saanich Peninsula is an example of where, looked at in a very local and parochial way,

[ Page 2392 ]

some of the influences which lead to the ultimate decision might not be completely valid, whereas if we had a coastal zone commission, in much the same way, for example, as the Land Act and the Land Commission is now functioning, to take a more comprehensive view of the provincial need rather than perhaps any one locale, this principle is something which we should certainly encourage.

The value to citizens who are interested in boating and recreation need not be impaired by the existence of this kind of commission, but I do think that we have to face both sides of the situation. Our population is increasing and the number of boats that are being purchased is increasing, and if you have a boat you have to have a moorage site. This might be something the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) was referring to when we talked about housing — everybody believes in more housing or more development, but not in their particular area.

The fact is that developments have to occur in somebody's area. It may well be that in certain localities a certain amount of development, as of a marina, is not well-advised. But on the other hand, if the authorities making the decision were people with the expertise who would presumably be serving on this kind of commission, then we might have balanced decisions where extreme efforts from the conservationist point of view might be avoided, or vice-versa, and unwise or ill-advised development would also be prevented from taking place.

So I do feel that the example has been set in other jurisdictions and in other countries, in particular to the south of us. I feel again, as I did with this Member's former bill, that this is an encouragement which I hope the government will heed.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I, too, wish to go on record as supporting the principle of this bill. As you are probably aware, my riding consists of some 2,800 miles of coastline, and so you can see the impact this type of bill would have on my constituency.

I have discussed this bill with all the regional boards in my riding, all the municipalities, in some detail. I might add that I did consult with the Hon. Member introducing this bill during the course of the drafting stage.

The general feeling of regional boards and municipalities in my riding was that while there was general agreement with the concept of this bill, all felt that they would like to have input and the opportunity to be in on the decision-making process in matters that affect their area.

In discussions, I've had with the Hon. Member who is introducing this bill, I think there is general agreement on this matter. I should point out, from experience on my part, that I am very much aware there has been a great deal of bad planning in the past within the coastal area that I represent, but I would like to go on record as saying that it is getting a bit better. But there is a great deal of room for improvement.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to repeat once more that I do support the principle of this bill. Thank you.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate on Bill 14 I would like to commend the Member who has sponsored it. That does not suggest, however, that I can support it as an individual Member of this House, and yet there are a couple of comments which I would like to make.

The Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), having just taken his place, spoke of consultation which he carried out with, I gather, various elected people in his riding, and I think that consultation is probably very helpful. I wonder if the Member also, however, in discussing the concept of a coastal zone commission, discussed it with individual residents — with individual constituents.

I can speak for a number of constituents in Saanich and the Islands, Mr. Speaker, in this type of commission or agency which the Member has proposed, and I would suggest to the House that these individuals — those in the Gulf Islands particularly; and I am sure it applies not only in the southern Gulf Islands in my constituency, but also on a number of other Gulf Islands — already have the feeling that they are, perhaps, the most over-governed, over-regulated people in this hemisphere. That's no exaggeration. They have the federal authority, as do we all; they have the provincial authority, as do all of us in British Columbia; they have the Land Commission to contend with; they have the Capital Regional District established under the former government — some 10 years ago, roughly; and more recently, as established and made operative by the present government, the Islands Trust.

Now I am very much aware, and I realize that this is debate in principle, but I must refer very briefly to one section, that is section 4, which makes reference to the fact that: "The commission shall have," et cetera, "...and shall assist and co-ordinate the activities of existing authorities operating in the coastal zone." The concept may have merit, considerable merit, but I think inasmuch as it is silent on shutting down the authority presently resting with, as an example, the Islands Trust, or inasmuch as it is silent on removing from the provincial authority — from various large and very powerful provincial government departments — the bill is incomplete.

We may well reach a point, quite soon perhaps, where some type of coastal zone as has been proposed in this private Member's bill has much to

[ Page 2393 ]

recommend it to all sides of the House. But, again, I refer to those individuals who, wishing to undertake perhaps even a simple building change, a land-use change, a renovation of some type — a new driveway leading off a provincial highway on one of the islands, as an example — find that for one reason or another they are kept busy — in many instances, Mr. Speaker, for weeks — going from agency to agency. Health; regional district; Highways for inspection; other provincial departments; again, the Land Commission in certain instances; the Islands Trust, both the local trustees and the general trustees; and on and on ad museum for many of these individuals.

I make the point that, perhaps if there is another opportunity, this Member or some other Member could introduce another bill which embodies this but also recognizes the problems I have outlined in terms of over-government and the multiplicity of jurisdictions to which an individual must turn should he find himself in a situation such as I have outlined in one of the Gulf Islands, and probably in other areas as well. We cannot lay this over existing agencies without reducing their power in some way, if we are to have any sense at all along the B.C. coast.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to speak in support also of this bill, the coastal zone management authority, which has been introduced by the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), and disagree somewhat with the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). Now I recognize the difficulties that many people in the province face in terms of the time that is required in order to have various improvements approved by whatever authority exists, but I think we run into a greater difficulty if we don't take the time and do the necessary work to ensure that we don't get ourselves into the messes that we have in the past. I think the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made reference to the problems that now exist in various estuaries.

In Campbell River, for example, the provincial government is now undertaking a six-month study to determine how we can undo the damage that has been created in that particular estuary. I submit that it is because we have proceeded too quickly, without allowing all of the possible effects to be studied by whatever agencies there are, that we are now in this difficulty. The people who are located there, who have business and industry located along the estuary of Campbell River, are concerned at the moment because they have not been able to renew their leases for the usual five-year period because this study is underway with a view to correcting the damage that has been done in Campbell River and with a view to relocating that industry. They are concerned somewhat about where they could relocate. Does it mean that they are going to have to put a stop to some of their operations and perhaps lay off some of their employees?

These are real considerations which I think a coastal zone authority such as the one proposed in this bill could avoid in the future. I support the bill.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I think the most essential emphasis in this is really the rather tricky balance between the private and the public sectors and interests regarding the coast. I have always admired Oregon; parts of California, certainly parts south of San Francisco; San Diego was mentioned; the Niagara parks commission; parts of West Vancouver; certainly parts of James Bay nearly through to Oak Bay; certainly many parts of Vancouver where there has been a real attempt to deal with the public access to the beach where there are great sweeping lawns and a real feeling that it is your ocean. It is an ocean that you can share. I think of parts of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

I gather that all life really emanates from the ocean. It is really crucial that this House see that this needs to be co-ordinated. There needs to be more access. I think Bowen Island is to me one of the most dreadful illustrations. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), I think, will admit that Bowen Island has, what? — I think 11 accesses. That is a bad illustration. There are some very good illustrations where there has been proper management. Certainly Oregon comes to mind as an excellent kind of prototype. It is not that this is all that new. It has been done in other jurisdictions, this desire of the House to see the delicate balance between the private and the public, especially the public access, the public view of the ocean, which is really the ultimate source of all life.

I think it is crucial that we have an inventory of all foreshore leases. One of the things that as a boater I have found very, very frustrating is the number of very old but incredibly powerful foreshore leases where booming grounds and private groups and individuals have been able to get a lease. I don't think it is that easy now but they have in the past been able to get a foreshore lease, and they can jolly well keep you off, even below the high-water mark.

I don't think anybody in this House wants to see over-government, over-duplication. That is going to cost money. But I think the Members in the municipal affairs committee remember the lack of time and competency that many regional districts had towards the Gulf Islands. I am sure that is probably true of other parts of the coast. I remember, as a member of the municipal matters committee, hearing how it was, I think, two miles in that time (I think it was two years ago), from Sooke out to Nanaimo — two or three miles of coastline that were actually in the public domain. I remember hearing that. I remember everybody on that coast being anxious

[ Page 2394 ]

about that.

Interjections

MR. ROLSTON: That's not correct? Well, let's hear the proper mileage from the Member when he completes or adjourns this debate.

I think there is a desire to see a co-ordination. The Environment and Land Use Committee, the Islands Trust, many, many regional districts are already involved, but there needs to be a sense of co-ordination. This is really our life. It comes from the ocean. I think the Member should be commended. If it involves money, so be it. Let's see the responsible Members in cabinet bring in their own legislation later to support what has been aired this afternoon. I certainly support this bill.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased with the support the bill has received from the House. I would like to answer one or two of the questions raised by various Members.

First, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) suggested that perhaps there already was a certain amount of over-government. In effect, this is actually the reason for bringing in this bill: to try and resolve some of the problems of over-governing the coastal zones. Right now we operate under a sort of hit-or-miss system.

Some areas have a harbour commission, regional government, municipality, the provincial government, the federal government and various agencies all operating in one estuary or one river mouth or island — something like that. Other areas, we find, have very little government. So sometimes the people in one area are dealing with all these various levels of bureaucracy and in other areas something slips by because nobody even noticed and nobody was in control.

I can give you an example in my own area right now, the Sturgeon Bank, which is probably the key remaining part of the entire Fraser River estuary. That is an area right now where I'm not sure whether it's over-governed or whether things are slipping by, because we find that under the municipalities it was zoned for agriculture; the Land Commission omitted it; the regional district has it declared as an undetermined reserve; the federal department of fish and wildlife is looking at it. They've had a study going on for two or three years and they haven't decided quite what to do with it. And the provincial government has people looking at the area as well. So nobody really has decided who is responsible for that particular estuary. This kind of legislation, I would hope, would set up the channels of responsibility...and that these various authorities would work co-operatively together. I think, too, that some of the authorities....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a short point of order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): There is very grave doubt as to whether the bill, setting up a commission, is in order.

Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that the Hon. Member will adjourn the debate so that we can study the matter.

MR. STEVES: That's right. I'm just doing that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, I was just intending to adjourn the debate, but first I'd like to just finish what I was saying about Sturgeon Bank. Basically, we do have a lot of jurisdictions there. Hopefully, this type of legislation could get the various bodies together and set up well-defined procedures whereby the general public could deal with the bureaucratic system that we have now. Things like the Land Commission, even in coastal areas, might even be combined in that function.

Now there is a lot of other information that I have that I could provide the Legislature. I don't have it available to me at this time because the debate sort of caught me unexpectedly. So I would like, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn this debate for further study at the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call public bills and orders now. Bill 23.

SPECIAL FUNDS

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as announced in the budget speech, there is to be an estimated....

MR. GARDOM: You're in deficit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're suffering from a sore back and a lack of ability to count, Mr. Member. Just sit calmly and listen.

As announced in the budget speech, there is to be an estimated $70 million surplus of revenue over expenditure for the present fiscal year. The special fund....

MR. CHABOT: You don't believe that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do, Mr. Member, and if you can prove otherwise, you prove it. Put your seat on it. I challenge you to stake your seat on

[ Page 2395 ]

it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, can we have a little order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As announced in the budget speech, there is to be an estimated $70 million surplus of revenue over expenditure for the present fiscal year. The Special Funds Appropriation Act indicates the government's proposal to use these funds for employment-producing programmes. An additional $15 million is to be added to the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. As the Hon. Members are aware, this fund has allowed construction of community recreation facilities in all parts of British Columbia. The extra $15 million now being provided will mean the continuation of these worthwhile projects and provide work in the communities involved.

The greatly increased traffic on the ferries necessitates additions to facilities, ferries, terminals and wharves. This bill proposes $20 million more for the capital ferry expenditure fund in order to meet those needs.

The Special Provincial Employment Programme Act, passed last year, was very successful in generating employment. The government, therefore, desires to continue the programme and is adding $20 million for the summer work programmes and $15 million for winter works.

The additional funds will not only allow the continuation of the programme but will provide for other new employment programmes as well.

I think that the economy of British Columbia has gone along at an exceptionally good rate. We are able to continue the programmes that I have outlined. I especially want to say, before moving second reading, that the community facilities fund has received no opposition from any Member of this House. Since the inception of the programme, as a matter of fact, we find that the requests come from all over the province.

Some Members of this House who sat on municipal councils in the past will agree that there was no direct funding available for community facilities until this government was elected, and communities as low on the economic base as some interior ones to a high on the economic base as Oak Bay have benefited from these funds.

All the ridings throughout the whole province have had an opportunity.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're part of the province, that's right. They're part of the province. There's the opportunity for all the areas and constituencies and the cities of this whole province to participate. To my knowledge, all of the MLAs, regardless of party, have been invited to ribbon-cutting ceremonies throughout these whole.... If any MLA has not been invited to a ribbon cutting, please let me know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I thought you were at the tourist opening up there. They wouldn't let you talk? Well, you were there to hold the scissors. (Laughter.) That's progress. I was never even on the invitation list.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Never on the invitation list. I didn't want to bring this up. (Laughter.)

If there are MLAs who don't want to be at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies of these tens of millions of dollars being spent because of this government's programme, please write in to the Minister and let him know that they don't want to show up because they're against the socialists. Because it's the socialists, Mr. Speaker, who are building this through these additional funds, and this special fund is because of socialist policies creating a surplus so they can be there for the ribbon cutting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Show business!

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Show business," he claims. (Laughter.) Good fiscal management! If they don't want to be there at the ribbon cutting, let the Minister know. We won't tell the constituents what it used to be like. We'll tell them what it is now. Even Oak Bay is helped. Even opposition ridings are helped. And will they crawl up to the opening and hold the scissors and say: "Thank goodness for this government doing it, but they're socialists "? Or will they quietly stand back and say: "Well, maybe they can do one or two things right "?

What will it be — politics or principle? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I move second reading, for full support of every Member in this House on this worthwhile bill.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought for a moment that these were socialists dollars we were talking about. I've always recognized that the dollars we are appropriating here apparently belong to the taxpayers.

[ Page 2396 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. CHABOT: They're not socialist dollars; they're not Social Credit dollars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. CHABOT: Neither are they independent dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were they before?

MR. CHABOT: They were people's dollars before, just like they are now, and continue to be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Never spent on the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: The people didn't get them.

MR. CHABOT: "The people didn't get them," he says. What kind of nonsense is that when we see the waste and extravagance and foolish renting of buildings by that government over there? Are the people getting that? Are the people getting that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill.

MR. CHABOT: Now the Community Recreational Facilities Fund is getting an additional $15 million. I stood in my place when the bill was introduced and supported it. There are very few pieces of legislation which this government has introduced that I've supported, but this is one of them. This is one of them. And it's good legislation. Now there are being appropriated additional dollars.

I don't have the specific number of projects that have been undertaken in the province, but it's in the vicinity of 200 with the expenditure of several millions of dollars. Now the question that comes to mind when I see this appropriation is that now that we've allowed the build-up of all these recreational facilities throughout the province, I think the time has come when we must look at further assistance to the municipalities. Because of the grant being available, in some instances there's an over-eagerness to build without taking into consideration the fact that it costs dollars to operate these facilities. Many of the smaller municipalities are facing the bind of operating these facilities because they've been lured by the grant. I hope that some of this $15 million will be allocated on a formula basis with the municipalities to the operation of these recreational faculties which we've built in the province.

Now the $20 million is the allocation we're giving to bail out the management — or mismanagement — of the Ferry Authority. We haven't seen yet the annual statement of the Ferry Authority. All we've had is a passing reference by the Minister to the newspaper reporters trying to ease the burden of the tremendous deficit that will be taking place once the annual report is tabled. If the Minister says it's $25 million that we've lost....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've tabled my report. You've got a copy of it.

MR. CHABOT: I haven't got a copy of it. You've tabled the annual report of the Ferry Authority?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure. It's all in the department report.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, he doesn't even read the report.

MR. CHABOT: No, I haven't got your report. But this is strictly an allocation for the bail-out of the mismanagement of the Minister of the Ferry Authority. Never before in the history of this province has the Ferry Authority lost so much money.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want to close the Ferry Authority down now.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) says: "When was the last ferry increase, Jimmy?"

I recall very vividly, Mr. Speaker, talking about the Ferry Authority when the now Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) was on the opposition benches sitting not too far from you, Mr. Speaker. He suggested that the ferries should be free. He suggested that they are part of the Trans-Canada Highway and that everybody should have the right to ride those ferries without payment for the car or for individuals.

Now they've never implemented that great policy and that great statement made by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. No, what we hear now is a complete reversal of that because the Minister is suggesting that maybe we will have to re-examine the fare structure. In other words, he is indicating the re-examination would be an upward revision of the fares.

Yet how can he possibly sit with the same Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in cabinet who firmly believes, and says so, that the ferries should be free? Now I don't know who won that battle in the cabinet, if there was a battle, but there are certainly two varying opinions on that question.

Certainly I appreciate the dollars that have been put in here for summer employment programmes and winter programmes. But I sometimes wonder whether

[ Page 2397 ]

there is sufficient money there for the creation of employment this summer because never have we gone into the summer months with such a high unemployment rate as we are experiencing at this time in the province despite what the Premier says, that there is going to be an upward surge in the economy of this province commencing early in May.

There has been no clear indication to those people out there who are unemployed by the tens of thousands. Maybe we haven't enough money here. Certainly we are going to be grateful for what has been allocated for summer employment but maybe it isn't enough. When one looks at summer employment, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), in the question I posed to him a little while ago in this House — I asked him what the allocation was for his department — told me that it was down by 50 per cent. The allocation of dollars was down 50 per cent for the summer employment programmes in the parks branch.

Last year the unemployment was not as severe as it is this year, and yet we see some drastic cutbacks in the allocation of dollars for job creation in this province. Now that's not very consistent with the needs of the community, Mr. Speaker.

However, examining the bill, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the government will take into consideration the few points that I have made and take into serious consideration a system of a programme of grants for the operating of these community recreational facilities that have been established throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The First Member, no Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I can't get used to you being in the front.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, no Mr. Speaker — I am having trouble getting used to you today, too. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: We both have problems of identification occasionally.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we find here a 19-line bill calling for an expenditure of $70 million and a lot of effort has been expended by Members of the House in questioning in spending estimates of this government. But there's been a paucity of questions raised this afternoon so far concerning the intentions of these programmes, concerning where the money is to be spent, when it is to be spent, for what specific purpose it is to be spent, for how long, the rate of expenditure and the degree of accountability. The Premier, in his opening remark, was not quite as colourful as he usually is, but he's been under some stress, and understandably so...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhhh, I've got a good back.

MR. GARDOM: ...and we hope...

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got a good back.

MR.GARDOM: ...now that spring is here he will get into a little better humour....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait for the windup.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weekend wino!

MR. GARDOM: He will repent and he will see fit to admit that he has made an error and will be fully prepared to indicate to this Legislature before the day is out that he is going to give unanimous consent of this House to the abandonment of rule 45 in order that the spending estimates...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is out of order.

MR. GARDOM: ...shall be fully debated. You see under this bill, too, Mr. Speaker, we are facing exactly the same drawbacks. The government has not indicated any specifies whatsoever of the actual day-by-day or programme needed for this amount of money.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it, then.

MR. GARDOM: I'm not...oh, now please don't come up with that simplistic attitude again....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't come up with responsibility.

MR. GARDOM: I intend to vote against the bill. That's not going to be a surprise to you. I intend to vote against the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're going to vote against this bill?

MR. GARDOM: We're not voting against the need for community recreation facilities, the $15 million. But we want to know where and we want to know how and we want to know why that money is going to be spent. We wish to be able to examine those spending processes.

If there is a specific need for additional ferry capital expenditures, okay. Go ahead and furnish specifies to this House. But please don't stand up and give a Punch and Judy show and say: "Okay, here's

[ Page 2398 ]

$70 million." They happen to be motherhood projects; everybody's supposed to vote for them in the dark.

Twenty million for summer programmes — what are those exact and precise summer programmes? Why have you not furnished this House with that this afternoon? There's $50 million for winter programmes. What are those precise programmes? Why have you not furnished the House with specifics of that this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker, we find the Premier with a government that has a record that has been unsurpassed in this province of being loose with public funds, of failing even to give proper accountability of the money that has been spent, of failing to give proper accountability of the money that is to be spent, coming in once again with the jolly fun dough, and because they happen to be worthwhile concepts, expects to receive the unanimous consent of this House to a specific expenditure of money.

That is wrong, very wrong indeed. Very wrong, when we find that there are these serious deficits occasioning in the province. Perhaps we've got to balance priorities with those deficits. When we find that ICBC is losing $36.5 million a year on their figures — I would suggest that that is probably exceptionally low — that comes in at $ 100,000 a day or $4,000 an hour. We find that the ferries are losing daily $68,500 — over $1,700 an hour. We find that Hydro is losing $46,600 a day — over $1,100 an hour. We've not yet been furnished with the losses of B.C. Railway; conceivably, they are going to be very, very high indeed.

How is this possible for the people in this Legislature? Perhaps you've given your caucus this information. It would be interesting to find out if you've even done that. How is this possible for people in this Legislature this afternoon to make an intelligent assessment of this request for $70 million without having any projections from you whatsoever as to the need and as to the need over other needs in this province to have these things come into effect.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated its paucity of accountability. It's demonstrated its complete inability to effectively manage funds by experience. It is now this afternoon asking for a rubber stamp for $70 million.

I am rather surprised, indeed, amazed, that the official opposition — who have been raising such a very, very valid stand against the spending estimates being improperly debated in this Legislature — have not seen that you put a fast one over on them this afternoon by asking them to vote for $70 million blindly. They have apparently agreed to do that. I hope that they'll have second thoughts before this does come to a vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Watch your back. Be careful with your back, Garde.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as with many other bills, contains more than one component. The government has the advantage of criticizing any opposition to part of the bill by making it impossible for us to vote as opposition Members only against that part we oppose.

The three parts to the bill. I think in the light of experience, the first part, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund has been well-spent and has been accounted for. In that regard, the Minister concerned has made available an accounting not only of the money spent in each Member's riding to that Member but in regard to all spending under the fund. I think that this particular Minister has shown a great deal of initiative and efficiency in regard to that.

I would just state again that the Premier takes a great delight in referring to Oak Bay as having received money out of this fund as though Oak Bay was some kind of unusual part of B.C. or as though there was some reason why, perhaps, Oak Bay should be any less considered or less worthy of receiving the fund.

I just remind the House, as I have done earlier on in this session, that the people in Oak Bay pay taxes; the people in Oak Bay raise provincial revenue. If perhaps there happen to be a few millionaires in Oak Bay, there is also a very large number of individual citizens on low fixed incomes — pensioners and retired people. I just get a little sick of this constant harping on as though Oak Bay was some privileged community where everybody is rolling in money Oak Bay is a composite community with all social classes and all degrees of income. Any money that Oak Bay has received out of the Community Recreational Facilities Fund is no more or less than any other community or any other constituency deserves or merits.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on! That's the way it should be.

MR. WALLACE: With regard....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I notice that we did it when your government wouldn't touch Oak Bay, and we'll never win Oak Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the last one you'll win.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. But we'll still help Oak Bay.

[ Page 2399 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we'll still help Oak Bay.

MR. SPEAKER, Order, please. Would the Hon. Member on his feet continue with his speech?

MR. WALLACE: I'm trying, Mr. Speaker. It's difficult, but I'm trying.

It was just the Premier's statement in introducing second reading, when he said "even Oak Bay."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right! It proves we don't play politics. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is becoming more of a colloquy than a debate. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the people of Oak Bay very much appreciate the existence of the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. I just want it equally known to what degree the citizens of Oak Bay feel that they are every bit as entitled to its benefits as any other community in British Columbia, since Oak Bay happens to be, part of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: A very vital part of British Columbia. A very loyal part of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On occasion. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, the importance....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I even went there once.

MR. WALLACE: The importance of recreation throughout the province to our young people is tremendously important. Obviously one would be partisan representing one's own riding, but I do think that the tremendous record of athletic achievement by the students of the Oak Bay Junior and Senior Secondary Schools was really remarkable. If one looks at the amount of recreational activity among the young people in the whole of the capital region, I think we should both be thankful as parents and grateful that they are making this kind of contribution in the athletic and recreation field.

I would just say in passing that the latest addition to the gymnasium, the facilities at UVic, where a juvenile volleyball tournament was held a couple of weeks ago, is another manifestation of how we can involve our young people in healthy and productive pursuits, not only to the benefit of their health, but in my view keeping them from the trouble which idle hands frequently leads to, and I am thinking particularly of drug and alcohol problems. So one must recognize the value of the Community Recreational Facilities Fund.

The second part of the bill, however, makes life much more difficult for an opposition Member to support under the ferry capital expenditures fund. The budget last year had $35 million which, on page 16 of the budget, states that $35 million be set aside out of the surplus in the British Columbia ferries capital fund.

This appropriation will provide for next year's expenditure on the construction of two 376-car vessels, one truck-trailer vessel, and the necessary terminal modifications to accommodate these fleet additions, which was $35 million last year and in this bill we're looking for another $20 million, which is $55 million, without any specific figures as to the way in which the money will be spent, either on the new vessels or on the facilities, on what the breakdown ...

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in public accounts.

MR. WALLACE: Public accounts hasn't gotten around to saying anything about this $20 million yet, and, as the Minister interjects, public accounts are always so far down the road after we debate figures in this House that they really are very much evidence after the event, and after the money's spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but this is revenue.

MR. WALLACE: No, but the House could certainly help towards more intelligent debate if some projected breakdown figures were even presented, even if we can't expect, as the Minister says, to have the exact figures until the money's spent. Surely the Minister, after all, in asking for $20 million must have some idea just why it's $20 million, and in what way did he compile that figure. Did he just pluck it out of the air? Or maybe it should be $25 million or $30 million or $15 million.

It seems to me that when we place alongside the Minister's statement the other day of a $25 million operating deficit that we are now asked to invest, or approve, another $20 million for capital expenditure on the ferries with no outline or no kind of specific breakdown as to why he's asking $20 million. I think the opposition has every right to be concerned, to ask questions, and, in the absence of some explanation, vote against the $20 million for the ferries.

The same would have to apply to the third principle in this bill, that we have $20 million for summer programmes and $15 million for winter programmes. Once again, to appear to be against employment, as the Minister said — or I think the

[ Page 2400 ]

Premier said or one of the Members said — is like being against motherhood.

Earlier on in this session, I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) how the money was to be spent and what the programmes were to be. We have had some controversy in question period about certain efforts made to apply for funds under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour for summer employment. But here again we just have ballpark figures of $20 and $15 million for summer and winter programmes respectively.

I feel that particularly in the light of the atmosphere which pertains in the House at the present time, where there is great concern about responsible debate of government spending in whatever category or under whatever bill or estimate, I think it would certainly be very contradictory of this opposition and certainly of this party for me to be opposing closure because we can't debate estimates, and yet it would be ridiculous for me to stand up, I think, and approve ballpark figures adding up to $55 million.

I think the $15 million for community recreational funds, if it is to be handled and spent in a responsible way that the Minister has shown in the past, is fine. But in terms of the ferry fund and unemployment, the ground rules are just much too vague and there is not enough detail. For that reason, I will certainly vote against this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not going to vote against it, are you?

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I don't find the ground rules at all vague. If I can talk about that....

MR. WALLACE: Tell us about the $3 million on the ferries.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, first of all, if I heard you, you made a comment on the employment. My secretary has done some work here in the riding. She has found that there are $29. The salaries for the departments of the governments have been set at about $720 a month, which is equal pay for equal work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROLSTON: Each department sets the priorities that it sees. It is not an LIP thing. There was a group counting logs going down the Fraser River two years ago sitting out on the Mission bridge. That was federal money. That was the kind of prudence that the federal government seemed to allow. There are $10 million appropriated for departments of government on the same ratio as last year. Forestry, for instance, gets $4 million; $8 million to other non-government programmes; $2 million to the physically- and the mentally-handicapped students.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROLSTON: It might interest you, Mr. Speaker. We are talking $10 million to government departments such as would include $4 million to Forestry, $2 million to the universities. This is an eight-fold increase. The regional districts get $2.1 million. Nearly $2 million go to municipalities. Nearly $300,000 to status and non-status Indians. Two million dollars go for special needs to the physically and mentally handicapped. In my riding, what I think is a very reasonable sum, $85,000, has gone to the municipalities in my riding. Kent is getting $14,000; Maple Ridge, $35,000; Pitt Meadows, $22,000; Mission, approximately $10,000; the regional district, approximately $14,000.

In my riding, 19 students are being hired to work in the forests with the B.C. Forest Service, in Dewdney riding alone. We are concerned about the unemployment in our area. It might interest you, Mr. Speaker, that today there are, in checking with the IWA, 1,450 people out of a total of 1,800 people on the roll of the IWA in my local that are working. So I think that this section of this special funds appropriation for students is quite reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Right on.

MR. ROLSTON: In agriculture, even in federal institutions like the Agassiz Research Station, Mr. Speaker, we had students last year. We understand that you are pushing for students to work at that federal agricultural research station. Of course, we are having students at the Alouette Park and other places. I think that is a great amount of money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you doing on that side of the House? What are you doing on that side of the House?

MR. ROLSTON: I'm glad to be next to this Member for Oak Bay, though. Of all the people on my right, I would prefer to be next to that Member.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is still in the House, I want to continue to remind the House that the ferries are still oriented around the car.

That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this $20 million, and I certainly hope that the previous $35 million, are going towards helping passengers, Mr. Speaker. The Minister responsible hears me. He has heard before. As we do any changes to the Tsawwassen or Nanaimo or whatever terminal, we

[ Page 2401 ]

must begin to make it comfortable for the transient public, the people who simply walk with their briefcases — as thousands do every day — onto that ferry.

The previous government designed ferry terminals around automobiles. It is a very long walk for a person with suitcases, a briefcase or little children. With respect, I know you have a little jitney bus, but it is hardly convenient for foot passengers. I echo some Members in the House who said we should really have a bus service that simply drops you off at that ferry, maybe somewhat similar to the Vancouver International Airport where you can simply get out of the bus and walk a couple of hundred feet with your grips onto the ferry, Let's hope and let's register in Hansard the need to start changing the emphasis from the car to make it more convenient for the foot passenger.

MR. CURTIS: I don't want to be political...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. CURTIS: ...this afternoon as the Premier was. Really, for a while I wondered if we were debating the ribbon-cutting bill or the Special Funds Appropriation Act. Most of the speech, in introducing the bill for second reading, dealt with ribbon cutting.

AH HON. MEMBER: Wait till the wind-up.

MR. CURTIS: Oh, there's always a second act.

I think I was perhaps one of the first, if not the first, Member of this House to point out that the Community Recreation Facilities Fund, while very welcome, would at some time in the fairly near future, relate to operation of those facilities.

I'm also annoyed from time to time when we hear government back benchers equate it totally with money granted to municipalities. We've gone through the communities one by one and determined that a large number of the projects are not within organized areas. They are not within cities, municipalities or regional districts. Most are, but not all. So, please, let's not equate this, whenever we speak about it, with direct assistance to municipalities.

I have spoken about the desirability of the fund and the money which has been made available to communities, as opposed to municipalities, to provide a variety of recreational facilities for our young people, for adults, for senior citizens and for youngsters. It is a terrific programme in many, many respects.

However, again we have to recognize that for every,dollar which is granted, the community or the regional district acting on behalf of the community or the municipality or city has to find $2. It may have to borrow it, but nonetheless it has to find the $2. It could be that this fund in some respects resembles a discount on a particular luxury item which the family, if I may use that comparison, should not really enter into at that particular time.

I trust that whatever government will be in power in the next fiscal year, recognition will be given to the fact that, okay, many millions of dollars have been generated for the construction of the facilities. Now perhaps the time has come to gear down the construction, the capital grant, and move into some kind of operating assistance because the operating costs are increasing for those facilities which have been put up and which are being used and enjoyed.

Other Members participating in the debate have spoken about the second item, the capital expenditures fund for the ferries. Again, Mr. Speaker, referring to an event as recently as question period this afternoon, I think that the time has arrived for disclosure by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) or by the cabinet as a whole with respect to precisely where some of these millions of dollars are going to be spent.

Gabriola Island. The Minister has given me and given other Members of this House so many, not deliberately evasive answers, but inconclusive answers with respect to what is going to happen on Gabriola Island.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know.

MR. CURTIS: But at the same time, we see....

Well, Mr. Minister, you say that you don't know; but perhaps it is time you did know. We go back through Hansard....

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: I'll ignore the rather rude gesture that the Minister made. That is typical of that Minister when he is in a corner.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the fact is major expenditures have been made at Departure Bay, the resisting terminal, but we still have no specific answers with regard to Gabriola. Is the money at Departure Bay going to be wasted? Is it short term? If it is short term, how then do you justify a major expenditure there if you are going to embark over the next year or two on a very significant expense, a bridge-link road, parking area, terminal, ferry slips, and all the other components required in a major terminal at Or near Gabriola Island?

It is a very brief bill; it doesn't begin to tell us, In the absence of any helpful answers from a number of Ministers relating to particularly ferries, it doesn't begin to tell us precisely what the government has in mind.

[ Page 2402 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Very briefly, in support of the....

MR. CHABOT: I won't tell your constituents that you only introduce girl guides now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Member, I want to guarantee that I am going to be telling my constituents about you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on record as supporting the principle of this bill. First of all, my riding depends very heavily on ferries. As a matter of fact, we have no choice in my riding. People in my riding must use the ferry system in, order to get from point A to point B. It is a well-known fact that ferry management some years ago — 1971, in fact — suggested to the former government, realizing the percentage increase in passenger and vehicle traffic on these ferries, that they must have a capital expenditure programme to build and 'improve the ferry service. Yet that government of the day rejected that proposal.

I would like to say: I wonder where our money went, money that should have gone into the ferry service? Did it go into the Columbia River? I don't know. But I would like to tell this House that there is a great deal of room for improvement in the ferry service in my riding.

I must commend the Minister of Transport and Communications for the steps he has taken to date. We have improved scheduling; we have improved the service and kept fares at a reasonable rate. However, at this point in time in my riding, I have over 5,000 part-time residents — in other words, people who are not registered in my riding, people who live in the lower mainland or other parts of the province but who use the ferry system in order to get to their properties on the Sunshine Coast in the Powell River area.

This places a very, very heavy load on the ferry system, particularly in the summertime in my riding, when we often find line-ups up to six and eight hours long. So I must heartily endorse the section of this Act which will go for the improvement of the capital expenditure programme for new ferries.

In regard to the recreation complexes or recreation facilities fund, my riding has benefited in may, many ways to date. We have some excellent projects under way at this point in time: a new arena complex in Powell River, a complex in Sechelt and the curling rink in the Gibsons area. Mr. Speaker, we are always inclined to look at these big projects because they are visible and people see them and they cost quite a bit of money. But the fact is some of the smaller projects — improvements to ball fields, ski areas, rod and gun club projects — costing relatively little money, sometimes in the neighbourhood of $4,000 or $5,000. They mean a great deal to the communities involved. So I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I can support that section of the Act as well.

In conclusion, the third section of the Act which deals with the summer employment student programme and the winter student employment programme....

MR. CHABOT: Not enough.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Right. I agree. It could be more, Mr. Member. However, it's a great deal more than you ever did when you were the government.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, no, it isn't.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the student summer and winter employment programmes in my riding have benefited many, many students. It has made it possible for students in my riding to make a few dollars so they may attend university or college.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to conclude my remarks and support the principle of the bill, and I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.