CONTENTS

Presenting petitions

Request for continuance of summer student employment programme.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2487

Routine proceedings

Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 88). Hon. Ms. Young. Introduction and first reading — 2487

Oral Questions

ICBC strike. Mr. Fraser — 2487

Cass-Beggs successor. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2488

Indian blockade of Vancouver Island highway. Mr. Wallace — 2489

Claims service during ICBC strike. Mr. Smith — 2489

Policy on Indian land claims. Mr. Gibson — 2490

Assistance for bear victim. Mr. McClelland — 2490

Retrieval of accident information. Mr. Curtis — 2490

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

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2490

Motions

Motion 3.

Mr. Rolston — 2491

Motion 4.

Mr. McClelland — 2492

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2494

Division on adjournment of debate — 2494

Motion 6.

Mr. Wallace — 2495

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2497

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2497

Motion 7.

Ms. Sanford — 2498

Motion 9.

Mr. Rolston — 2499

Motion 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2501
Hon. Mr. Lea — 2505

Motion 13.

Ms. Brown — 2505
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2506
Hon. Mr. Lea — 2505

Motion 14.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2508

Motion 16.

Mr. Smith — 2508

Amendment to motion 16.

Mr. Phillips — 2511
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2514
Mr. Wallace — 2517
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2518

Point of order

Clarification of motion 16. Mr. Gibson — 2520

Mr. Speaker — 2520
Mr. Gibson — 2521
Mr. Speaker — 2521

Routine proceedings

Motions

Motion 16.
Mr. Chabot — 2521

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House today to two visitors from the fastest-growing and most prosperous area in the province — Elkford, B.C. They are Mayor Maartman and Alderman Grieve.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Alderman and Mrs. Dennis Shuttleworth from the municipality of Sechelt. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: I might also say I have sent a floral bouquet to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) who is, unfortunately, in hospital. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the House will join me in expressing our hopes that he gets better very quickly.

Presenting petitions.

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

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"To the honourable Legislature of the Province of British Columbia, the Legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned of the City of Nelson humbly showeth that we respectfully and earnestly object and protest against the curtailment of the summer employment programmes, and therefore present to your honourable assembly a petition on behalf of residents of the Nelson area of British Columbia, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House may be pleased to recommend that the summer student employment programme not be cut for the summer of 1975, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

Signed by: myself as their legislative sponsor; Lorena Frattura; Wayne Glaab; Andy Shadrack.

Introduction of bills.

TRADE PRACTICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Ms. Young, Bill 88, Trade Practices 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.

ICBC STRIKE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Will the Minister confirm that, effective May 21, the RCMP have been instructed not to prosecute any citizen with an invalid driver's certificate until the ICBC strike is over?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I can't give any such assurance. I have no information that any such instruction has been given and, certainly, I have neither given nor asked for any such instruction.

I certainly regret any inconvenience that may occur as a result of this strike. It's a very complicated situation. I think the House is fully aware of what is taking place. The negotiations took place in which the union asked for a package which would have been a 100 per cent increase in present labour costs. Right now the salary items alone still stand at about 61 per cent. We have offered an initial 26 per cent which has since gone to 29 per cent, and that's the way the situation is.

Now the fact that the motor vehicle branch is involved in the handling of some ICBC work creates a problem and that was why instructions were given. First of all, I would say that management asked the union to make a joint application to the Labour Relations Board to have it define what picketing and where, when and how many, because I don't want any problems or any holdups of any kind in normal government business. For that reason I gave the instruction that the motor vehicle branch should not handle or do any business as related to the ICBC.

This is creating problems which we are examining in order to see what can be done. But there is that situation that we must keep the motor vehicle branch and the government buildings completely free from any reason for any picketing. That's the problem we are facing. As long as we keep ICBC work away from the government agency, then, of course, there is no reason for picketing the motor vehicle branch.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In thinking of the inconvenience to the public because of the strike, what is the Minister going to do about the weigh scale operators refusing to issue temporary permits for unlicensed vehicles? I might say to the Minister that the logging industry is just trying to get back to work and they have to move their unlicensed vehicles along the roads. They have to have

[ Page 2488 ]

temporary permits to be legal, and no one will issue them temporary permits. What are you going to do about that situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as I said, we are examining every aspect where there is any delay of any kind. There is a strike on. I think you appreciate that. There are those circumstances....

MR. FRASER: The weigh scale operators are not on strike.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, related to the weigh scale operation for temporary permits there is an insurance factor because they are moving on the highway. I think you have to keep that in mind. But there is a strike situation that none of us are happy about.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A supplementary on the same subject — ICBC and the present difficulties. May I ask the Minister what contingency plans have been implemented for those accident victims who are receiving ICBC compensation payments on a regular basis? One case in particular — this man is entitled to $50 per week. He received it every four weeks, which I believe is the rule. His next cheque or draft from ICBC is due this Friday, May 23. He is unable to work at any job as a result of the accident last year and this is his only means of income until he can return to work and until full settlement is made. Will he be able to receive his cheque this Friday? I am sure he is by no means alone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I am quite sure the management and staff will do everything they can to avoid any person in that situation being without their regular payments.

MR. CURTIS: I take the Minister to say, then, that accident payments of this nature described will be given some sort of priority.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made my statement very clear, I thought. I am quite sure the management and staff will do everything possible to prevent anyone in that situation from being without a cheque.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Minister of Transport and Communications on a supplementary: with regard to ICBC's order to small auto body shops that they must carry ICBC costs during the current strike situation, has ICBC made provision to pay interest to the body shops for these costs that they will be carrying on behalf of the company?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, first of all, Madam Member, that statement is completely erroneous, wrong and completely unfounded.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you want to withdraw your letter to them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We didn't ask anyone to carry anything. The communication and the statement made it very clear; I read part of it yesterday.

The body shops will be compensated at the same time as they always have been on an average basis. They know that. In order to ensure the cash flow to the body shops, we will take this action because we realize that they can't. I don't know whether anyone else would have done that, but that is certainly what this corporation intends to do: to maintain the cash flow to the body shops at an equivalent amount so that they have that kind of money to keep on operating.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary regarding the ICBC situation. This noon, a spokesman for the ARA announced that cars, after being repaired in a body shop, will not likely be turned over to the owner without full payment of repairs, which is in direct conflict with statements made by the general manager of ICBC. I wonder what contingency plan the Minister has to overcome this serious customer inconvenience.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as I say, there is a strike on. If there are sections of the community who are going to create more problems, then we will have to face up to them. But I'll take your question as notice. What I explained to you was my understanding of what is taking place.

MR. CHABOT: Just one short supplementary. In view of the lengthy delay of ICBC in refunding overpayments on premiums, can the Minister, in the event that there is a pay-out by the customer on the repair for a car before he can retrieve his vehicle, give us an assurance that there will be prompt refund of these charges to the customers of ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't make any guarantee. There is a strike situation on. You know that you can't expect a perfect organization or a perfect carrying on when there is a strike situation.

CASS-BEGGS SUCCESSOR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Premier — and Minister of Finance with reference to the Premier's statement in the House yesterday concerning Dr. Cass-Beggs, that he does not completely agree with

[ Page 2489 ]

him all the time. He agreed to come and stay two years, which he has done. Finally, now Hydro has to move to the next step. Can I ask the Premier whether any discussions have been held recently with a view to selecting a successor to Dr. Cass-Beggs?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter between the board of directors and Mr. Cass-Beggs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask then, Mr. Speaker, whether the Premier would indicate, as the man responsible ultimately for Hydro in the absence of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), whether or not one of the points of difference between the government and Dr. Cass-Beggs is the latter's opposition to reopening the Columbia treaty?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whose opposition?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Dr. Cass-Beggs' opposition to reopening the Columbia treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this is a matter between the board of directors and Dr. Cass-Beggs, but I ask the Premier if he has any knowledge of it. Just a simple question: has he any knowledge of such a meeting suggesting his replacement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Any knowledge of a meeting...?

MR. GIBSON: Of a meeting discussing his successor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

INDIAN BLOCKADE OF
VANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to his involvement in Indian affairs. I am referring specifically to the action of Indians who have blockaded the only highway in the northern part of Vancouver Island yesterday, charging tolls of $1 per car, 25 cents per passenger and $25 for a commercial vehicle. Has the Minister, or perhaps the Deputy Attorney-General in the absence of the Attorney-General, taken any action against what in effect is an illegal action?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I just ask, though, in light of the fact that the provincial government has agreed to negotiate with the Indians, whether the Minister has or will the Minister consider asking the Indians, in the light of this initiative by government to meet their request for negotiations, to discontinue this harassment of the public until such time as negotiations get underway?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, you may recall that when we made the statement, when I read the statement in the House on May 8, I indicated at that time that I hoped that our indication to meet with them would cool things off. At that time I was dealing particularly with the question of meeting with them. We obviously are discussing this matter. There are several cabinet Ministers involved with it.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister advise the House why a date so long in the future was set for meeting with them? If you are going to sit down and negotiate, why so long in the future?

HON. MR. LEVI: I reported to the House that I said that we would like to meet towards the end of June. On the phone, the Indian leaders responded: "How about June 26 and 27?" That was their response to the statement I had in proposing the latter part of June. The other thing is to enable us to co-ordinate all of the cabinet Ministers who are in and out of Victoria to be present at the meeting. We have not yet scheduled a firm date.

CLAIMS SERVICE DURING
ICBC STRIKE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Considering the fact that many people will be inconvenienced by the fact that they will have problems getting claims adjusted by ICBC during the current strike, is the Minister prepared to use the 87 private adjusting firms which operate in the Province of British Columbia to do the insurance adjusting during this particular period of crisis for people who are involved in accidents?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the statement I read yesterday indicated that there should be no problems, and that I was expecting cooperation from the auto body shops, in view of the fact that they were being guaranteed their cash flow income. If the auto body shops will go along with my suggestion and with that financial protection for them, I can't see that there should be any problem for any individual

[ Page 2490 ]

to have his needs met very expeditiously.

POLICY ON INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. GIBSON: To the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, I think the late June meeting he was discussing earlier on relates particularly to cutoff lands. But I'd ask him a question on the more general case of the so-called B.C. land question. Since the NDP convention adopted a resolution for the immediate joining of the provincial government to the negotiations between the Indian people and Ottawa, is this now government policy?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it's NDP policy.

ASSISTANCE FOR BEAR VICTIM

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question to the Premier. Early this month the Premier received a letter from one Malcolm Aspeslet, a young man who was attacked by a grizzly bear in 1971 in Glacier National Park. This young man lost his scalp in saving the live of a young woman who is now his wife and has asked the Premier whether or not the Premier would look into the possibility of financial assistance to get a permanent wig and plastic surgery to restore his head to a better condition. I wonder whether the Premier has taken any action on that and whether he intends to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The matter has been referred to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), where the case is being reviewed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I wonder whether the Premier or the Minister of Health would be prepared to accept a notice of motion offering an act of grace from this Legislature to make the money available for this brave young man.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under review by the department. Until a decision is made there, there's nothing more the government can say.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will you be replying to this man soon? He's been waiting for a reply and hasn't heard from you or the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we have the letter and the Minister's department is looking into it.

RETRIEVAL OF ACCIDENT INFORMATION

MR. CURTIS: Once again, to the Minister of Transport and Communications with regard to the ICBC situation. Is the Minister, Mr. Speaker, aware of any problems being experienced by RCMP or municipal police forces in retrieval of information which is important — vital, indeed — to them in the carrying out of their day-to-day operations? That is with regard to registered owners, licence numbers, addresses and so on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not that I am aware of.

Orders of the day.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, during discussion of my estimates I was asked for a copy of an article that talked about disease in the poultry industry in the Fraser Valley. With leave, I would like to table this.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

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

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 12

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

[ Page 2491 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a division took place in committee and requests that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this being private Members' day, I suggest the House move to motions or adjourned debate on motions. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to call motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is absent today. Should the motion be dropped from the order paper or...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Whatever the normal procedure is.

MR. SPEAKER: The normal procedure is to drop it from the order paper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Fair enough. I then call motion 3.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I move: "That the division of vital statistics of the Department of Health consider legislation that would encourage couples anticipating marriage to take counselling and reflection or attend a marriage course prior to getting married in British Columbia."

I believe the operative words are that the division of vital statistics should at least consider legislation, that they should encourage couples who are anticipating marriage to seek what I believe is surely reasonable — some kind of help.

This province has by far the highest divorce rate in Canada. It is 26.5 per cent. There is only some value in quoting that statistic when you are discussing marriage preparation. But I feel it is important that this House at least give some sanction, some encouragement to the fact that many people are getting proper training, that people are trying to, I think, help people in life's most complex relationship, the marriage relationship.

I would like to think that this motion and this debate in this House would at least recognize that a lot of people are being certified as teachers and counsellors, that many of us require three marriage counselling courses or marriage counselling preparatory interviews now. Some require a course. In the parish that I work in, I personally require two months, and we have for many, many years. In fact, there is no church in the city that I live in that will allow anybody to be married with less than one month's preparation.

I feel that some sense of restraint, some sense of at least this House recognizing that it's a very beautiful but a very complex relationship that requires some sense of adjustment. A period, I think, of getting a licence is reasonable, but I think it is especially important to help people look at the issues. Many issues surface that couples who have even lived together........ Incidentally, in my experience about 30 per cent of the couples that we marry are living together and have for quite a period of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is communication.

I think that some of the issues do surface, that this gives a chance for counselling and reflection. It gives a chance to look at the strengths, to look at the self-images, to look at the expectations of marriage, to look at what one values in marriage, what expectation there really is in being a parent. We can look at fight training — we can look at a variety of things.

I believe that the community should also have some input, We believe that there can be courses in the community to look at the legal, the credit, the budgeting, the sexual, the emotional, the spiritual and the whole community input into marriage.

Many people, of course, are forgoing the parenting aspect of marriage, possibly because there is a lot of information out there, but there needs to be a lot of thinking.

I was very impressed with an article on the editorial page in The Vancouver Sun yesterday by a physician in West Vancouver who said that there is a lot of information out there but there is very little chance to discuss it. We are not short of information, whether it is on sexuality or other aspects of simply growing up and entering into marriage. But it is a chance to, in a detached and, I think, in a professional way, view that information that I feel is quite, quite necessary.

So I am glad there is a chance to look at this. I think that, really, this is a common sense motion. It makes a lot of sense that we look at helping in life's most complex relationship, that couples are prepared. We want there to be communication. We don't want people to take marriage casually, which I personally feel is the biggest single reason for the breakdown in marriage — that people do take it very casually. Of course, in the marriage service you are indicted to not take marriage casually, and yet people do.

I think we are as strong in our society as our families are and as our marriage relationships are strong. This is a sound,  human investment. I, again, feel that you can detect weaknesses. You can sometimes detect people who are not compatible, who don't really have the full interest of the other person. As you spend time in counselling, in preparatory courses, I would even hope that

[ Page 2492 ]

eventually this could be dealt with effectively and systematically in effective living and family life courses in the schools.

I feel that this is a very worthwhile chance, and I am glad to now move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Motion 4 is a simple motion that the government should have no difficulty in accepting, I'm sure. It is one which calls for all of the studies relating to the petrochemical complex proposed for British Columbia, at a site yet to be announced, to be made available to this House right now. (See appendix.)

Based on the fact that the Premier made the announcement in Ottawa that there will be such an oil refinery-petrochemical complex built somewhere in British Columbia, it is important that the people of British Columbia know upon what the government based that kind of decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me for interrupting, but I should have reminded Members to have their resolutions ready, signed by themselves, to send up to the table. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would send his resolution up. I should have also reminded the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston).

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I really don't see why. As a courtesy, I've let Members proceed, but I think I should remind you of the practice. The Hon. Member hasn't sent up his resolution, which you formally should do before you enter upon your remarks. However, I'm sure each of you will be ready now. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will presumably be getting ready for the same thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, not only is it important to the Members of this House so that we can make some rational decisions upon which we can base either our opposition or our support of such a refinery, but it's also important to the people in those locations that have been mentioned as a possible site for the refinery: Surrey; Merritt; Clinton now, which was a late arrival in the stakes race for the refinery; and now we understand Roberts Bank is no longer being considered.

Some very significant statements have been made by Ministers of this government and by members of the petroleum corporation which are in direct conflict with each other. In making statements to a group of young people in Surrey, the junior chamber of commerce members in Surrey, members of the petroleum corporation have said that the refinery will be built, and it likely will be built in Surrey, where some 1,200 acres of land have already been optioned. People have been told that that land is being optioned for an oil refinery, and yet the government maintains the charade that they're looking at other sites. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) told this House one day, in the debate of his estimates, that there was no way that that refinery could be built anywhere but on the lower mainland of British Columbia, because to build it anywhere else would take it too far from the source of the market. Well, that indicates to most people in B.C. that the refinery is going to be built, if it's built at all, in Surrey, because the other site on the lower mainland has been ruled out.

A group of Victoria consultants was asked to do an environmental and land-use study on the proposed refinery. The information I have, and it's never been denied by the Premier, the Mines Minister (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Economic Development Minister or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), was that that group of Victoria consultants was given only one site to look at, and that was the site on the lower mainland. They weren't asked to look at Clinton; they weren't asked to look at Merritt; they weren't asked to look at any place but the lower mainland for this refinery. Well, that's hardly an objective study. We're told as well, and it's never been denied by the Mines Minister, the Economic Development Minister, the Premier or the Attorney-General, that the Environment and Land Use Committee has recommended that the site not be in Surrey, and recommended very strongly that if a refinery is to be built in should be in some other area than the Surrey area. That's never been denied, and yet all the evidence that we get from the government indicates that they're going ahead pell-mell with a site in Surrey, if there's to be a refinery built.

The site that's being proposed is the Hazelmere Valley area of South Surrey. It's one of the most aesthetically beautiful spots in British Columbia. It's a narrow valley which can't stand any more pipeline development or any more corridor development of railways, and I think it's a foregone conclusion that if that refinery goes into that Hazelmere Valley, the railroad tracks that presently go down the beach in White Rock will have to be relocated through that narrow corridor in the beautiful Hazelmere Valley in order to service that refinery. That would be over the, strong, vigorous objections of the Surrey council, the regional district and every person who lives in that area. Yet here we are with this government forging ahead without any concern for the people in that area or the council.

The petroleum corporation assures us it will be the

[ Page 2493 ]

highest-standard refinery with all of the latest pollution control measures, but we're not at all sure that even with those latest pollution control measures we're not in danger of a serious oil spill either offshore or on the land and into the rivers, which are already threatened in that area — the Nikomekl and Little Campbell rivers — which will threaten the ecosystem of that area for hundreds of years to come.

That's an important waterfowl refuge, it's an important spawning area for salmon, and it's just too important to be left to the whims of this government without the proper studies being made available. We don't know yet whether those studies have been done or what they say. I think that the planning has gone far enough now that we must be given those studies today so that we can intelligently and honestly assess the situation and see exactly where the government is going.

Environment Canada, in answering a request from the Central Fraser Valley Regional District for a study into the possibility of an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain, in the Member for Chilliwack's (Mr. Schroeder's) constituency, has said that it would take a minimum of one year and probably two to three years in order to do the kind of environmental study that would allow them to safely go ahead with the establishment of a refinery there.

They have to look at fish kill; they have to look at the way the water flows. It's an important study that would take up to three years, according to Environment Canada. Yet we seem to be willing to go ahead with either no studies or, at the very most, studies which have been done over a period of a few months — not years, but months — in an area which is far more ecologically sensitive than that area on Sumas Mountain. Yet this government appears ready and willing to go ahead without the kind of studies that are necessary.

The opposition to this refinery in the areas which are mentioned in the lower mainland is overwhelming. It ranges from the Surrey council to the members of the regional district to people in the Langley area who are going to be affected as well. A huge new city of some 10,000 to 20,000 people going up in the Brookswood area of Langley is going to be directly affected by the spin-offs of that refinery if it's built in the Surrey area. It'll ruin a whole area; it'll alter the lifestyles of a complete, now urbanizing area of the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious conflict of positions among the Ministers as related to the civil servants who are involved in the petroleum corporation. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is quoted as saying he doesn't want a refinery in British Columbia. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) told this House we need a refinery right now. His shocking statement to this House was: "If you want to eat, you'd better have a garbage can in your back yard." What kind of nonsense is that, Mr. Speaker?

We say that the people in that area have a right to be protected from the excesses of this government, particularly in that kind of an area which is so sensitive and so important to the balance of life of British Columbia.

I mention again that the Victoria consultants weren't given any other site to choose from expect one on the lower mainland. If the government was really serious about honestly assessing the parts of British Columbia which might be able to stand this refinery, then it should have opened up that study to all of the sites that were mentioned — Clinton as well as the Surrey and Roberts Bank areas. The only area ruled out so far is Roberts Bank.

You know, it's not even sure that we need a refinery at this time in British Columbia, or ever. The present refineries — seven of them — are producing 150,000 barrels per day. The crude stock that we have, 40 per cent of it comes from British Columbia and 60 per cent is imported from Alberta. The present capacity of those refineries, if allowed to expand — the present facilities to manufacture non-leaded gas — would cover the B.C. requirements until late 1980 or early 1990s. So why do we need today to spend what will be probably a minimum of $350 million of taxpayers' money to build a refinery whose economic potential is, to say the least, very tenuous, and the need for which is also just as tenuous? We probably don't need it.

Certainly, the Premier has waffled in this House with regard to the supply of crude oil to sustain this refinery. First of all, in answer to questions from several Members of this House, he said that if there was no oil, there would be no refinery. We attempted to pin him down by saying: "Do you have an agreement with Alberta to supply crude oil for this refinery?" The Premier said: "If there's no oil, there's no refinery." Mr. Speaker, that's in direct contradiction to the other Members of this House who have said that there will be a refinery. There is no agreement from Alberta to supply crude oil, and you can bet your boots there never will be.

Now the Premier waffled the other day and says: "Well maybe we'll accept oil from Alaska." Maybe. Before in this House, in answer to questions from us he said: "No way will we accept oil from Alaska." Mr. Speaker, the waffling by the Premier suggests to me that when we don't get an agreement from Alberta for crude oil, we're going to see tankers loaded with oil plying the coasts of this province with the assurance and the complicity of that government on that side of the House. That's a shocking reversal of the kind of ecological pap that that government fed us in the beginning. They don't care for the ecology of this province and they never will.

Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the location, the

[ Page 2494 ]

environment, the feasibility and the marketing, but perhaps most important of all of the questions we've asked in this motion are the studies which we hope have been done relating to the social impact.

Just before I get on to that, I'd like to just say that the Premier also said that if Surrey doesn't want the refinery, Surrey won't have it. Then he went on to say: "If Surrey will first of all look at the environmental studies and then decide whether or not they want the refinery, we'll abide by their decision." It sounded great when he stood in the House and said that. But what did the corporation lawyer for the B.C. Petroleum Corp. say in his letter to Surrey council? Nothing like that.

I'll just take you back in history a bit, Mr. Speaker. Surrey council passed a motion in February that it was not in favour of an oil refinery in Surrey, period. It's as simple as that. So the petroleum corporation lawyer comes along and writes a letter to Surrey after the Premier's statement, and says: "Have you changed your mind about that motion in February? If you have, we'll let you look at the environmental studies." What kind of flip-flop is that?

First of all they say to Surrey: "Commit yourself to accepting the refinery and then you can look at the environmental studies." Mr. Speaker, the commitment and the promise made by the Premier was that, first of all, all of those studies would be made available and they should be made available at an open meeting so that the people of Surrey could have a chance to look at them as well — the people of the lower mainland also, for that matter. But he said: "First of all, look at the studies. If you don't like them and they don't look good, then make your decision." And the corporation comes along and says: "Hey, change your mind first and then we'll let you look at the studies." Boy, that's some deal for the people of Surrey. It's a sellout, that's what it is.

But finally, Mr. Speaker, the most important aspect of this motion has to do with the social impact studies which, if they haven't been done, sure should have been done before anyone went anywhere near proposing a refinery for the Province of British Columbia, particularly on the scale about which we are talking.

I have mentioned before that the whole beautiful part of British Columbia is going to be drastically altered if a $350 million oil refinery complex is plunked right in the middle of that beautiful valley. It's a shameful concept to begin with, one which I can't accept and will fight with every source I have available to make sure that that refinery doesn't go into the Hazelmere Valley. But if it does, Mr. Speaker, do you know what it will do to that lifestyle of the people in those communities? Langley will be affected. Delta will be affected. White Rock will be affected. Surrey certainly will be affected. The City of Langley, the Whalley area — all of those rapidly urbanizing areas which are now accepting the people who can't fit into the greater Vancouver core — are now accepting them in housing, accepting them in hobby farm areas, five-acre plots. A beautiful part of British Columbia is going to have a refinery jammed down their throats and there's no way their lifestyle won't be changed.

Policing costs will go up, as well as pollution-control costs throughout that whole area, because that refinery is going to smoke and smell and emit a heck of a lot of noise. Those costs are going to go up. The costs of social welfare are going to go up. The need to provide schools will be greater. And who's going to pay for it? — nobody but the taxpayers of the municipality of Surrey. If you've been reading your local papers lately, everybody knows that on the headlines of every weekly in British Columbia today, the headlines are screaming: "Twenty Per Cent Tax Increase" — "Thirty Per Cent Tax Increase" — "Fifteen Per Cent Tax Increase." And here we have a government which says that it's going to jam an oil refinery and the peripheral industries which it will attract down the throats of those people who live in that residential suburb. And they are going to say: "You pay for those peripheral costs." That's not fair to the people of Surrey either.

So, just in wrapping up, I must say that it's time this government told the people of British Columbia what it's up to. It's time the government told the people of British Columbia where we stand in relation to this oil refinery. And it's time we had all those studies right here right now.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the time is long past. It should have been done a long time ago. But the Premier or the Attorney-General or whoever is in charge of this refinery should now say: "Okay, here are the studies; let us get at them and look at them." Right now they've got the blinkers on and the people of British Columbia are being blinded to what the truth is in this whole matter.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): To borrow a phrase from the Member opposite, this House should be protected from the excesses of the Hon. Member. Due to the absence of the Minister, the Attorney-General, I move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 2495 ]

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member not being present....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask unanimous leave of the House to allow this motion to stand in the absence of the Hon. Member.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 6.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move:

"That a royal commission be established to examine the mining industry in British Columbia with particular reference to the impact of past, present and proposed federal and provincial taxation measures on the industry."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Minister of Mines?

AN HON. MEMBER: He retired already.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this motion, I am attempting to find some kind of way in which the present deterioration of the mining industry in British Columbia might be mitigated and hopefully reversed.

We have had some long and bitter debates on the whole role of mining in our economy, and the degree to which this government is entitled to a share of the revenue derived from the production of minerals. There is obviously a real conflict of information, of facts and figures, I think, produced both by the federal and provincial levels of government to try and bolster and support justification for the legislation which has very recently been applied to the mining industry. I'm thinking particularly of the recent federal action in disallowing royalties as an income tax deductible expense. This was discussed in an earlier debate.

All along this government has maintained that this legislation and its royalty policies are not in effect damaging the industry. Just on that point alone, Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to look at the first-quarter reports for 197 5 from two of the mining companies in British Columbia.

Lornex Mining Corp. in the Highland Valley had earnings for the first quarter, before taxes and royalties, of $2.3 million. But taxes and royalties took $2.2 million, and the company was left with exactly $113,000. When one considers the investment of large sums of money to get a mine into production, and the plant and equipment, and you consider the return that I have just mentioned, one has to understand why there is very little interest in encouraging investment in the province.

In the case of Gibraltar Mines, in the first quarter of this year the company had sales of $5.9 million. After income and mining taxes and royalties, the company was left with $44,000. So regardless of political ideology or federal-provincial wrangling, it is quite clear from the figures available in the mining industry that it is in trouble and that the revenue being derived by this government is continually decreasing in the face of government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can suggest that the easiest and most appropriate way to tax the mining industry is a very obvious and easily calculated formula, The socialist government of Manitoba has admitted its own difficulties in trying to determine an appropriate return on the revenue from the mining industry under the Metallic Minerals Royalty Act, and even the Premier Schreyer himself is on record as saying that his bill is not aimed at increasing the amount of royalties paid to the provincial Treasury. But he has admitted that his original estimate of $30 million from royalties will not be realized and the actual figure will be around $17 million. As a consequence, Premier Schreyer has modified the original legislation and brought in a two-tiered system of mining taxes where there is the basic tax of 12.5 per cent on profits and an incremental royalty rate of 33 per cent. Under this new suggestion, consideration is to be given to the amount of investment involved by a mining company, depreciation and the rate of inflation.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clearly a complicated issue to try and reach that middle ground where all the legitimate goals of government are realized. I hope these legitimate goals of government are realized. I hope these legitimate goals could be considered as being mainly threefold: first of all, we need new mines as a means of continuing to derive revenue from our natural resources and to use

[ Page 2496 ]

that revenue for social services; I think it is accepted by all parties that we do need royalties or some form of taxation on mineral production; thirdly, and it might surprise the government side of the House to hear me say this, we do need regulation of the mining industry in terms of conservation and reclamation, and in order to maintain the least environmental damage from mining, whether it be strip mining or otherwise.

We feel that although these three goals are, I hope, recognized and agreed to by all parties, the manner in which we are going about the problem of taxation in particular leaves something to be desired. We felt, and still do feel, that Bill 31 was based on various data and analyses which were incorrect, and that to some extent, at least, the government was letting ideology overcome its capacity to interpret cold facts and figures in the business world and certainly in the mining world. We feel that this Bill 31 represented a very poorly structured system of mineral royalties.

But we do agree on one point — that the mining companies do not own the mineral resources, but they have rights to develop these mineral resources. Surely the real challenge to governments is to create a climate in which mining development can continue with the appropriate regulations and controls, which I've mentioned, and to establish conservation measures and attempt to minimize the effect on the environment. But surely equally important is that the systems of federal and provincial taxation should allow a reasonable return to the investor and a reasonable return in taxation revenue to the Crown.

The reason for this motion is an attempt to take this very complicated and controversial issue out of the strictly political arena and set up a royal commission of independent, knowledgeable people in the industry to review mining taxation legislation of the past, according to which this government claims that the citizens of British Columbia were ripped off. I won't even choose to pass judgment one way or the other on that. But this is a claim frequently made: in earlier days the mining companies got away with murder.

At the present time we know the immediate impact of Bill 31 and other mining legislation which this government has introduced, so that is the past and the present. Any objective citizen of this province looking at the scene today, I think, could readily come to the conclusion that while all may not have been well in recent years inasmuch as government did not derive a fair share of the revenue for the benefit of all the people, we now know one thing for sure: the money isn't even there any more, and the share the government is getting, whatever share it is, is a share of a much reduced total sum of money.

I forget the figure quoted, but the Premier did state in his budget speech an amount that had been expected to be derived in royalties. But in the next fiscal year we can expect only $9 million in royalties from the mining industry in the current fiscal year. Surely, in the face of these very obvious consequences of the legislation, we shouldn't be too stubborn to recognize that maybe the time has arrived to take a serious, independent look at the mining industry and the whole question of the manner in which it is being taxed. In this Legislature we cannot compel or perhaps even persuade the federal government to change its particular position in disallowing royalties as an income-tax deductible expense. But I do think it isn't just a question of one or another level of government trying to prove how tough it can be if the consequence is disaster to the mining industry and a continuing loss of revenue to the province because of the taxation policies.

So, Mr. Speaker, since we've already had long and bitter debates on the mining industry, I don't propose to talk at any great length. But I do think that an overwhelming and very obvious fact emerges — that as long as the taxation applied to the mining industry is used as an ideological weapon to further the dogma of this particular government rather than looking at the cold, hard economic facts of the situation, then it would be a tragedy for British Columbia.

It would seem to me, from the complexity of the picture, and if one has taken the trouble to read Eric Kierans' lengthy review of mining in Canada and the degree and manner in which it should be taxed, one can only come to the conclusion that it is, indeed, a complicated problem, But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that no new mines are being developed, the source of revenue is continually decreasing and we have unemployment in what, until recently at least, was our second most important industry in B.C.

I suggest that rather than just blundering on, as I said a moment ago, depending upon party ideology to determine how the industry should be treated, it would seem only to make sense, since so much is at stake in terms of people's employment and in terms of revenues available for the vastly increased social services which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) said the other day we couldn't afford.... We couldn't afford intermediate care because of the excessively high cost.

One thing is quite certain: if we continue because of bad legislation to derive a constantly decreasing amount of revenue from the mining industry, then it is certain that we won't be able to afford the expansion of some of the social services which all of us in this House, at least, state we are in favour of in all the debates, particularly in relation to education, health and human resources.

If, perhaps, any Member of the government side wishes to make some comments in this debate, probably they could mention to what degree they

[ Page 2497 ]

accept the argument that, regardless of the method of taxing the mining industry, it is to everybody's disadvantage if the net sum of revenue to be derived from the industry is to be decreasing to the amount revealed by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in his budget this year.

I suppose we will be told in this debate, "Oh, it's just a matter of deteriorating world prices for copper," and so on and so forth. But I think we would be again simply trying to bolster the political position of this government by making that statement. I've taken the trouble to talk to various people in the mining industry and asked them quite clearly: now tell me to what degree the real problems in the mining industry are due to taxation measures and what are due to world prices? There's no doubt in the minds of people in the mining industry that as long as this government persists with Bill 31, there is no hope that the mining industry can recover.

For these various reasons, which have all been put forward before, I realize, in previous debates, I do feel that an independent review by experts to try to be of some assistance to both senior levels of government, let alone as a way of resuscitating the mining industry, a royal commission, makes a great deal of sense. I move motion 6.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

I thank the Member for his very conservative and careful statement, but under Speakers' Decisions, volume 3, page 64: "The House has no power to issue any royal commission." Therefore I would ask you....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Where did you get that note? Did the Speaker send you that note?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Speaker sent me no notes, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not true. That's absolutely untrue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I resent that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would think so.

Under volume 3, page 64: "The House has no power to issue a royal commission." Therefore I ask you to rule this motion out of order.

MR. CHABOT: While you're looking up your decision, Mr. Speaker, maybe I could speak on the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm quite sure I recall that decision, because I've used it once in the House already...

MR. CHABOT: You were just looking at it.

MR. SPEAKER: ...during the last three years.

MR. CHABOT: You were just looking at it, in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm trying to find it. Wrong volume.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that volume 3?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Volume 3, page 64.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications is in error. I've found it in volume 2, Speakers' Decisions, and it's on page 64. Your note, whatever it is, is obviously wrong.

Page 64, it says as follows:

"Mr. Speaker Keen: I think the point of order is well taken. I find, on reference to section 4 of the Public Inquiries Act, that it is provided that royal commissions are to be issued under the Great Seal by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where the subject of the inquiry is not regulated by a special law. I know of no special law to the contrary. The motion is further out of order inasmuch as it assumes to dictate the frame and scope of the royal commission asked for."

So on both counts the Hon. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Keen, ruled the motion out of order, which was to consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into and investigate the report upon certain matters regarding the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co. That was on March 1, 1920, the Journals of the House, at page 74.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. The ruling, then, of Mr. Speaker Keen, I take it, was essentially that this infringed upon a Crown prerogative.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: I take it that it's not simply because of the Act itself, because a resolution of the Legislature could override any Act of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: No, a resolution could not overrule the prerogative of the Crown unless the Crown consented to have a prerogative removed.

[ Page 2498 ]

Therefore it follows that it can only be on the initiative of the Crown that a royal commission could be appointed since it is a prerogative of the Crown under law.

MR. GIBSON: In other words, it rests on the argument of Crown prerogative rather than on the statute referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): In motion 7, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the government consider acquiring the E&N Railway, putting it under public ownership and operating it as a transit service which will benefit the people of Vancouver Island. In addition, I am asking that the government consider extending that railway from Courtenay through to Campbell River. (See appendix.)

What I'm actually asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the government undertake a study because there is federal jurisdiction over railways in this country and there will be legal work required in order to determine how best the provincial government can acquire the E&N.

I would like to give just a bit of history to what is involved here in the E&N Railway in order to make my point as to why the government should put this railway under public ownership. First of all, this whole railway came about really as a residue from the original CPR plan to build the railway down Bute Inlet, across Seymour Narrows and from there down to Esquimalt. The B.C. government was quite unhappy with the fact that the CPR determined to end its railway on the mainland and not continue from Nanaimo at least down to Esquimalt.

As a result, they raised some ruckus with the federal government. In 1875 John A. Macdonald agreed that the federal government would make a contribution of $750,000 to anyone who would undertake to build the railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo. Robert Dunsmuir, of coal fame, accepted the deal. In 1883 he and some of his associates built the railway down 82 miles from Nanaimo to Esquimalt.

He and his associates put up $2.25 million in order to build that railway. What did they get for it? They got from the federal government a grant of $750,000 and they got that land grant that is such a famous thing — 20 miles on either side of the rail line from Esquimalt right up to a point midway between Courtenay and Seymour Narrows. Mr. Speaker, that is one-quarter of the total area of Vancouver Island that was given to them.

This included all the timber on that land, and also included the mineral rights, excluding gold. They also got all the materials they would need for the construction of that railway duty free. Not only that, they didn't even have to pay any taxes.

The railway was completed in 1887. In 1905 the CPR decided to purchase that railway. They didn't pay very much money for it — $1.25 million, which included the railway, the land grant, the timber and the minerals. The CPR then extended the railway from Nanaimo into Port Alberni in 1911 and in 1916 the railway was extended through to Courtenay.

That was quite a handsome grant that was first of all given to Mr. Dunsmuir and then handed over to the CPR for $1.25 million. Some of the people in the Province of British Columbia said: "Hey, let's have a second look at this. What have we done?" In 1946 Chief Justice Sloan ruled that the CPR, "shall no longer be immune from land taxes." He cites at that time the kind of dollar gains that the CPR had already made from the land and the timber on that land grant.

By 1944, the sale of timber lands had brought the CPR $14.80 million and they paid only $1.25 million for the railway, the lands, the timber and the minerals all put together. That was six times the contractor's original investment. They still retained timber acreages worth about $12 million. Chief Justice Sloan said that it was not unjust to tax future timberland sales, considering that the total timberland sales equal $25 million that had already come in and that the wealth from the minerals on non-timberland was not even counted. The CPR appealed. They appealed to the British privy council but lost that appeal. As a result, after 1947 all future timber and land sales were to be taxed at 25 per cent.

So what happened? The federal government gave up $750,000 and, in addition, the provincial government, in order to get that $750,000 grant to Mr. Dunsmuir to complete the railway, had given up 3.5 million acres in the Peace River to the federal government. This is what B.C. gave up so that they could get this $750,000 grant.

Mr. Speaker, the CPR and that whole land grant, the whole construction of the railway, was a giveaway. A giveaway. I think it is time that we in British Columbia acquired that railway and operated it to provide a decent passenger service on the island. The E&N does not wish to continue its passenger service. They say it is losing money, although the figures are now not really clear because they are hidden in other figures, including freight rates.

In 1968 they appealed to the Canadian Transport Commission to disband the passenger service. They were not granted that right in 1968, but a few things came to light at the time about the operation of the E&N Railway. First of all, it was generally agreed that the passenger service was going in the wrong direction. It should not go from Esquimalt or Victoria every day up to Courtenay and then return

[ Page 2499 ]

in the evening, but should rather start from Courtenay in the morning to give people up there an opportunity to come to the big city to do their shopping and then return in the evening. I compliment E&N at this time, though, for having changed that schedule. They have met that request of the public at least.

But what did we find in 1968 when they were applying to have their passenger service discontinued? Do you know what they were spending to promote the passenger service? Do you know how much they wanted people to use the E&N Dayliner? They spent $150 in the whole, entire year for promotion — $150. I assume that that is what it cost to print the schedules that they needed, but they didn't even provide a connection with their own CPR ferry boat.

MR. ROLSTON: Is that free enterprise?

MS. SANFORD: If people travelled on the CPR ferry coming across from Vancouver to Nanaimo, they could not even find out when the train ran. There was absolutely no attempt to have any co-ordination there. They didn't bother to serve any food or drink on the passenger lines. The waiting rooms up and down the island were being closed, one station after another. The ones that were still there were in a sad state of disrepair in many cases. At that time they were ordered by the Canadian Transport Commission to upgrade the railway, to clean up their stations and to attempt to provide a better service to the people. Not only that, but the rates are pretty high on the line.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go. We don't want to do away with passenger service on trains or buses at a time when we are all trying to get away from the private automobile, when we find the cost of fuel going up at such a rate, when we recognize that there is an end in sight to fuel supplies on this globe. We must begin to think about travelling together on buses and on trains.

I recognize the difficulty here as far as the federal government jurisdiction is concerned, but I would like to see this study carried out, and call upon the government to do so. With that, I move to adjourn debate on this particular motion.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), unfortunately, is not here and he would like to speak on this motion. I wonder if I might have leave just to leave it on the paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I move:

"That this House do protest to the United States government through the Canadian government the current building of the massive Trident missile base at Bangor, Washington, on moral, ecological and territorial grounds;

"And that this House send an informed delegate to the Conference for a Nuclear-Free Pacific in Suva, Fiji, from April 1 to 6, 1976, and that we support the conference;

"And that the British Columbia government fund a study of industry and research in British Columbia to determine whether, or to what extent, there is involvement with United States strategic operations;

"And that this House give moral support to groups protesting the Trident base in Washington and the Russian equivalent."

Speaking to the first part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a lot of publicity now. Gradually the media has really picked it up and even on the national news there has been recognition that the fear about Trident — first of all, morally, is that it is really immoral. With respect, MLAs on all sides of this House have told me that they appreciate that morally it's very questionable that we as Canadians allow without any protest both the environmental damage and also the escalation of the arms race.

Now you get into technical stuff here, but basically the problem is that the Americans have probably — if you take the missile size, the number of missiles, the number of re-entry vessels, the size of the missiles — nearly five and a half times the capacity of the next nation, which is Russia, and this is pretty well documented in all kinds of journals.This is without talking about the Trident. With the Trident that gap of probably five times, of course, leaps to an immense gap that would be a decade ahead of the next country, which we assume to be the Soviet Union.

Morally, I think it's quite redundant. In a time of recession it's unnecessary extravagance to allow any escalation beyond what now has been simply a deterrent kind of defensive position between the western and the eastern or the American and the Soviet military operations. Morally, it's just very, very wrong.

Canada is very, very close to the United States, and the Straits of Juan de Fuca are where the world's largest submarines will be operating. Certainly we should protest to Mr. Allan J. MacEachen, Secretary of State for External Affairs — and hopefully he would take this to the American people, if not to the United Nations — that this is very tragic and very unnecessary and very dangerous.

[ Page 2500 ]

I think all the legislators and the people in the gallery realize the two big things that are especially frightening are that the Americans claim, and I am sure it can be proven, that they now have the capacity to send a rocket out 6,000 miles. They are the only people who have the capacity to have the MIRV, or the multiple warhead, which can literally knock off a huge area. One rocket, I am sure, could knock off the whole bottom end of Vancouver Island. That leaves out any possibility of a defence or of the opposition or the enemy still having some striking capacity back from hard silos in mountainsides.

The second big fear which I think British Columbians have realized through our publicity efforts is that the Americans have a sonar detection capacity. With high-altitude airplanes they are virtually able to detect submarines in any ocean. So therefore they are a decade ahead of the next country, which we assume to be Russia.

You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that if somebody in your neighbourhood has a great clout that you don't have, that does put you in a very precarious and worrisome position. It's because of that, of course, that if there were a nuclear attack with the situation as it is now with the Russian subs and the American subs, it would be logical that the Russians or some other country would try to knock out this capacity which is a decade ahead.

That capacity's nerve centre — only its nerve centre — is at Bangor. Of course, the first sub will come in 1978 and two subs a year will come until you get eventually 10 subs. It's reasonable that many of these subs will be working out in the oceans all over the place, and it would be very hard to locate them. But it is also true that some subs and certainly the real mechanism and servicing depot 60 miles from this Legislature would logically be the place to hit. That, of course, would ecologically and environmentally wipe us right out.

So Canadians, and I think the legislators of British Columbia, provincially and federally, must protest to our federal government. Some of us have written letters. We still await replies, incidentally, from the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, but we have had replies from Mr. Wenman and Mr. Patterson. I have been on television with Mr. McKinnon. There really is a tragedy here and we protest.

I also, of course, in speaking to the second part of the motion, thank the Premier who did grant $1,000 as a matching grant to send another delegate....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: No, another person to the Suva conference in Fiji. So that's happened, and we are happy about that.

Legislators and people in the gallery, I'm sure, realize the desire that there be a nuclear-free Pacific. Of course, Trident will certainly threaten that possibility, but, as you know, the southern part of the Pacific is nuclear-free now. It is my hope that all of the Pacific be a nuclear-free zone and that we promote that and that we be an example to the other parts of the world.

Thirdly, it's in the motion, of course, that a study be done of industry and research in B.C. We're not placing any blame here. We're not saying that any particular institution or company is doing strategic work for the U.S. military, but there's a possibility; and we're simply asking that a study be done.

I think we should look to see that our own house in British Columbia is in order. Are there any possible connections? British Columbia has an international recognition with the Greenpeace organization in a peaceful, environmental way, and I would like to think that we gain a recognition and a reputation here for the work we have done in looking at our own house, that we be an example of a very affluent, of a "have" part of the world that is not complicit in this arms race.

Incidentally, if it's useful, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House, when I'm talking about the fact that in 1966 in the United States 8.5 per cent of the GNP was spent on military and on arms. In 1970, 9.6 per cent of gross national product, or $75 billion, was spent. But in 1973, Mr. Speaker, that race has gone to 10.5 per cent of the GNP of the United States, or $88 billion has gone into the military. And, of course, the vast amount of that $88 billion in 1973 is in land and sea-based missiles and other systems.

That system, I am appealing to the House, is becoming an aggressive system — not a defence system but an aggressive, first-strike system. It's a system by which — if you use the jargon — America has a distinct "counter-force advantage" which will increase enormously after the present U.S. missile system is improved and the Trident is added, a system which right now, of course, includes the Polaris, the Poseidon, the Titan. Now they're working on the Minuteman 2 and the Minuteman 3, and eventually Lockheed in California will, by 1978, if everything goes right, have the Trident. It's a massive system, a system by which, Mr. Speaker, you realize, one sub could knock out virtually every city on this continent.

So there doesn't seem any argument with that. But my point in raising this — and the discussion, I think, started in this House several months ago and it's been carried now throughout the whole continent — is that it really is crucial that we send a message to the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen and that he will take the message to the Americans that we are protesting on moral, ecological and territorial grounds this massive first-strike capacity down at Bangor.

Finally, of course, this House would certainly

[ Page 2501 ]

support and encourage any groups that are working to protest this base and any further, I think unnecessary, escalation. I think there is great, increasing support all across the country, There is, for instance, in Victoria a survival group, which is having a meeting tonight at 7:30 in Victoria. Also there's a group, the Pacific Life Community, in Vancouver with headquarters at Chalmers United Church on 12th Avenue.

I think groups all across the country are supporting this and I'm glad to have a chance to raise it. I will be raising it later in further debates.

At this time, I move adjournment of this debate until another time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're preventing anyone else from speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you mean until the next sitting of the House? Order, please! Does the Hon. Member mean the next sitting of the House?

MR. ROLSTON: The next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I call motion 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 10. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey is not here.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'm sure that the Hon. Member for....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll ask for leave. Shall leave be granted?

MR. SMITH: Leave that it stand on the order paper?

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by unanimous consent we may also have motion 2 stand. It was dropped at the very beginning; but perhaps by unanimous consent that also could be left to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you moving that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I would so move.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether we should back up. We can't reverse the order in that fashion, so I am advised. But in future I hope that Members will make that request, because I have no option but to drop it from the order paper, unless it's by unanimous consent.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a parallel motion to a motion in Washington state. For the edification of the House, I'll read it fairly quickly.

The motion is:

"That a special committee of this House be appointed to recommend co-ordinated legislative action by both the Washington state Legislature and the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to promote a cooperative response to increasingly complex mutual concerns, such committee to be appointed by Mr. Speaker and to be composed of six Members from the government party and four Members from the opposition parties, such committee to be empowered to sit during adjournment and between sessions of this House and to report its findings and recommendations to the next session of the Legislature;

"And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the State of Washington."

Mr. Speaker, I checked this motion with the Clerks and they assured me that it is in order. Indeed, they helped me rewrite it. It is very similar to a motion put forward by the Washington state Legislature which, if I can find it here, I will also give you some indication of.

Yes, here we have, courtesy of Senator Barney Goltz of the Washington State Senate, a copy of Senate concurrent resolution 101, sponsored by Senators Mardesek, Clark, Goltz and Sanderson, of the State of Washington, 44th regular session, and prefiled with the Secretary of the Senate on January 6, 1975, for introduction on January 13. I will read it in a moment.

I will just point out that this Senate concurrent resolution received virtually unanimous support down in Washington state. I believe the vote was something like 44 to 1 in favour of it. Apparently it is to come up on the committee agenda very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very appropriate for me at this stage to read the American, the United States, Washington state concurrent resolution which matches the one that I have on the order paper today. It has a little more preamble, so perhaps it will give a better indication to the House of these two motions, one in Washington state and one of mine here, which I am raising today, and how they mesh together. This is the Senate concurrent resolution 101 — which reads:

"Whereas Washington and British Columbia lawmakers participated in a Canadian and American symposium about mutual problems

[ Page 2502 ]

in September of 1974;

"And whereas the symposium demonstrated the desire of the law makers to appreciate each others problems through increased understanding of their respective historical differences, social and cultural characteristics, natural resources and governmental structures;

"And whereas many of the topics of discussion, including fisheries, oil spills, depletion of natural resources, land use and energy needs, transcend the 49th parallel;

"And whereas it has become evident that the solution to these problems can best be approached through a spirit of cooperation and informed appreciation of both countries' viewpoints;

"And whereas this symposium was not only a first step towards establishing continuous communication about problems, large and small, immediate and long-range;

"And whereas to maintain a constructive dialogue with our friendly neighbours to the north, we must establish a formal mechanism for communication between our governments;

"Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring, that the joint committee on Washington-British Columbia cooperation be established to recommend co-ordinated legislative action by both the Washington state Legislature and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia to promote cooperative response to increasingly complex mutual concerns;

"And be it further resolved that the President of the Senate shall appoint five Senate Members, three for the majority party and two from the minority party, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint five House Members, three from the majority party and two from the minority party, to serve as the joint committee of Washington–British Columbia governmental cooperation;

"And be it further resolved that the committee may promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of its duties;

"And be it further resolved that the committee shall report its findings and recommendations to the 45th session of the Washington state Legislature;

"And be it further resolved that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to the Hon. David G. Barrett, Premier of British Columbia, courteously requesting reciprocal action by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the wording of the senate concurrent resolution which is matched very closely by one in the Washington state House.

We have not received any reciprocal action, which was requested, by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia, despite numerous statements about the need for joint cooperation, so I thought it appropriate to put on the order paper the motion that you see before you.

The motion, Mr. Speaker, would be to have, on a regular basis, the type of discussions which, as you know well, we enjoyed in Bellingham last September, and in addition, some of the discussions that took place here in Victoria during the visit of Governor Dan Evans, and which I believe took place in January of 1973 when the Premier of the province visited Olympia at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to clarify one thing concerning your resolution.

Would the Hon. Member advise what the sitting between sessions means in regard to the question of expense? If there are no funds involved, then of course it would be quite in order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention expenses to be met by the government or by the Crown. The Members, undoubtedly, in view of the importance of this, would be happy to meet the expenses out of their own pockets from sessional indemnity.

I consulted with the Clerks many weeks ago, when I introduced this, and they helped me work out the wording. This would be entirely within order because there is no requirement for expenditure in this motion. As I see it, we would simply appoint these people. You, Mr. Speaker, would of course be charged with that onerous and heavy responsibility of choosing worthy people to sit on this committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I have your interpretation that if they came dunning me for money, I can refuse them under this resolution.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, I am absolutely certain that you would refuse them.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Therefore, as I am absolutely certain they wouldn't get paid by dunning you, I am sure this motion is in order. It is not a charge upon the Crown, but because of the importance of this matter, no doubt we should pass this motion and allow Members, both government and opposition, to sit, take part, and later on, as undoubtedly it will be shown to be of immense public benefit, maybe the government might decide in some other motion to defray expenses or to have

[ Page 2503 ]

expenses defrayed in the future. But at the present time this motion is entirely in order from an opposition Member, as far as I can tell.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a number of the subjects that might be discussed by such a committee. First of all, we have had a discussion by the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), who has left the room after adjourning that motion of his which he said was so good and then prevented anybody else from talking about it — such discussion, for example, as the Trident base. If the American government is to establish a nuclear submarine and missile base in the State of Washington, it is a subject of grave concern to British Columbians. If the Strait of Juan de Fuca is to be used for vessels which may prove to be hazardous in themselves, let alone in times of war, it is an area of grave concern to the people of British Columbia. But we have statements by the Hon. Member for Dewdney, who adjourns debate and then rushes off and doesn't allow anybody else to talk about it, no opportunity for any questioning of the technical information that he brought forward, no opportunity for Members to register their opinion on the motion or indeed on the establishment....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am talking on my own motion. This committee, if we had such a committee, would be precisely the type of vehicle where you could indeed work out some form of joint approach to a problem of that nature. The Member talked, for example, of wiring or writing to Allan MacEachen, the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada. It's an excellent suggestion; I urge it upon those who are concerned about the problem. But in addition would it not be beneficial, Mr. Speaker, if Americans living down there who were concerned had the opportunity of discussing it with Canadian or British Columbian legislators who similarly are concerned about the prospects of that missile site and submarine base being established?

I would like to suggest a second area. We have considerable concern about Americans buying up Gulf Islands land — and not just Gulf Islands land. They in their turn are extremely concerned that the Snohomish-Skagit County area and parts of that border American area are being bought up by Canadians. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that 40 per cent of all the land transactions in that area are now between Americans and Canadians? Canadians are buying up that little area just south of the border at a fantastic rate. Prices, of course, are lower than they happen to be in Canada, for reasons I won't go into but the government knows well. Whatcom County is having its land purchased at a phenomenal rate by Canadians who are purchasing agricultural land. This is creating environmental problems. The Premier mentioned at one stage the problem of Roberts Bank, where a consortium with some Canadian principals apparently wished to set up a major development to avoid the restrictions of the Land Act and to avoid restrictions which British Columbia would place on that development were it on the northern side of the Point Roberts boundary, the 49th parallel.

What better area for discussion of such a problem than this joint committee that I mentioned? This committee could then promote, to quote the wording of my resolution, "a cooperative response to increasingly complex mutual concerns" and recommend co-ordinated legislative action. Surely, if we have a problem, Mr. Speaker, of people flitting across the border to take advantage of one set of laws which happen to suit them somewhat better than the ones on the other side, be it north-south or south-north, we could use this committee which the Washington state Senate and House feel would be useful. Surely we should use it too.

Mr. Speaker, a third subject which would be a most important area of concern would be, of course, the subject of tanker traffic in our straits. I don't want to go into earlier debates so unfortunately cut off by the Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) on the refinery in Surrey, but there is no question that you cannot consider the traffic to the Canadian refineries, the refineries in Burrard Inlet, the refineries on the American side, which are the four largest — Shell, Arco, Mobil, and Texaco — in the Bellingham-Anacortes area. You cannot really consider these in isolation; nor can you consider the Cherry Point proposal in isolation. We now have a fairly effective co-ordination at the Department of Transport and U.S. Coast Guard level, concerning the exchange of information and the traffic control patterns used by shipping, but there are other problems within the provincial competence which could benefit by such a committee.

I'd just like to say a word or two about that problem of Cherry Point. Washington state has had since 1971 a sevenfold increase of the amount of oil transported by sea in the Strait of Juan de Fuca–Puget Sound area. Now within the next three to eight years the increase will be more than 24 times the 1971 level, We're not talking about incremental minor increases; we're talking of increases of major proportions, major quantum leaps. In spite of the efforts made to reduce oil spill risks, the number of oil spills will undoubtedly increase, and we're going to find that a catastrophic spill will shortly be on our hands.

The oil spill contingency force of Washington state, which is essentially units of the Washington state National Guard, trained under a programme developed by the Department of Ecology of Washington state, has an annual budget of $1 million

[ Page 2504 ]

— an in-readiness budget of $1 million. The Province of British Columbia, as far as I know, has virtually nothing. I know of no money put aside — nothing approaching $1 million — and yet this is the provincial and state level. Surely, if we have a $1 million annual amount and a $3.2 million startup on the American side to create the Washington National Guard into an effective anti-pollution force, we should discuss with our American legislator counterparts the opportunity of having those guardsmen come across the border — in a friendly manner, of course — in case of any spills. We have a manpower pool there, we have a major budget, and we have nothing on this side that's at all comparable. Yet we have no mechanism for working out some sort of reciprocal arrangement with them to take advantage of the work being done in Washington state, and, most unhappily, not being done in the Province of British Columbia. There is a contingency fund of $26.5 million in Washington state for this particular problem. I just feel that in this area alone this committee could devote many, many hours of very useful discussion.

So that's a third area which I think we could definitely discuss. The proposal becomes most timely because of the intervention of Attorney-General Alex Macdonald and James Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., at a meeting in Washington, D.C., back in August, 1974, where they were, indeed, quoted as having suggested swaps of Alaskan oil, which would come into the Canadian market. We still have absolutely no information regarding the oil supplies for the proposed British Columbia government refinery. If there was any truth at all to those stories that came out of Washington in mid-August of last year that Rhodes and Macdonald are out to get Alaskan oil for that British Columbia refinery, we think a committee could well look into that and do a good job trying to work out some sort of co-ordinated approach.

That headline of The Vancouver Sun back on August 14 by Frank Rutter of the Sun's Washington bureau was "B.C. Capitulates on Alaskan Oil Tankers." We haven't heard very much about it since except one denial by the Attorney-General, until, of course, it got revived when the government failed to get Alberta commitments — as yet has failed to get Alberta commitments — for its proposed refinery. If it is to come true — a very unfortunate thing, in my mind — surely a committee of the nature I've suggested would be extremely helpful.

The mutual areas of concern we have with Washington state were talked about at some length on three, separate occasions: once on the Premier's visit to Olympia; once during Dan Evans' visit to this city and, indeed, his address to this Legislature; and then finally back in September of last year at Bellingham. But since then absolutely nothing has happened that any Member that I know about or any Member that I've discussed this with knows about in terms of having a permanent mechanism set up for committee discussion of problems of a joint nature. Nothing has happened at all.

We wonder whether, indeed, the Premier has simply lost interest in that particular area of concern now that he realizes that this committee would obviously discuss energy as well; it would discuss peak power and things of that nature. Why is it that he has backed off so far from his original concept of having continuing discussions with the American state to our south? I'm surprised that he has not followed up. I'm extremely surprised that it's necessary for an opposition Member to raise a resolution of this nature when the Premier himself, in this resolution from Washington state, has been asked, apparently, for reciprocal action.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government seems to have dropped its plans for reciprocal action with Washington state for a joint committee, we're quite willing to push it. This motion is an attempt to do just that.

I can see no reason whatsoever for the motion to be turned down. Mr. Speaker, instead of adjourning debate, I will move the previous question.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding of the rule that the Hon. Member cannot move the previous question when he has completed his own remarks, because that would cut off the House from debating the question. Furthermore, it would be sort of a hit-and-run tactic, if employed by Members, to make their speech and then move the question now be put without allowing the House to debate it.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore the rule is.... May I point the rule out to the Hon. Member first? The rule is that another Member must move the previous question, not the Member who has been speaking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Up to now this afternoon we have allowed the mover of the motion, namely the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) on a number of occasions, and also the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), to move adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: That's quite a different matter. That means that you will have the opportunity, presumably, to debate the question when it is again called by order of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your presumptions are very different from mine as to what may happen in the future.

[ Page 2505 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not making predictions; I'm only telling you the rule. The rule is that where a motion for adjournment is in order — and it is — the matter can come up again for debate by other Members. But if you put the previous question, then you've automatically prevented anyone else from expressing their opinion on the motion that you have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Sir. No, Mr. Speaker, that is where I would beg most courteously to differ with you. If you move the previous question and it is rejected, a second motion could be made to adjourn. A motion to move the previous question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that if you hadn't spoken, it would be in order. I'll check with the authorities on that. That is my interpretation of the rule, because for that very reason....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but what I find curious, Mr. Speaker, in terms of consistency, is how one can delay a vote, put the thing on the shelf back on the order paper again, yet you cannot move that the question now be put. The fact is that if anyone wishes to speak on this — if other Members wish to speak — they can reject the motion that the question now be put. Then later on it can be adjourned in the normal fashion. But I see a government Minister looking as though he fully intends to adjourn debate on this most worthwhile motion — perhaps I'll be mistaken on that. I understand that a motion be put the previous question was always in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Only by a person who hasn't spoken on the debate.

HON. MR. LEA: Because it is an important motion, I would like to leave it on the floor. So I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 12, moved by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, in view of the unavoidable absence this afternoon of the Member for North Okanagan, I would ask leave of the House to permit this motion to remain on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett).

MR. CURTIS: North Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it motion 12 we're talking about?

MR, CURTIS: Yes, motion 12.

MR. SPEAKER: It says "Mr. Bennett" here in motion 12.

MR. CURTIS: Mrs. Jordan.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: The Queen's Printer and you perhaps....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to have a chat with the Queen's Printer or somebody.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry! I've got the wrong page. It's my fault and nobody else's. (Laughter.) May I sincerely and abjectly apologize to the Queen's Printer if he's within hearing range?

MR. CURTIS: He's on his way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh! Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 13, moved by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this motion is asking: "That this Legislature to convey to the Government of Canada its wish to have the categorization of Rosie Douglas as a risk to Canadian national security withdrawn and the deportation order against him lifted."

I'm not quite sure whether there is actually any point in debating this motion now because since the time that it was placed on the paper, Rosie Douglas had his hearing and the immigration board refused to withdraw the deportation order.

In any event, I would like to give some background information about this young man who came from the West Indies 12 years ago to attend university in Canada. In 1969 he participated in a sit-in at Sir George Williams University which was staged to protest racial discrimination at that institution. As a result of that sit-in, which included 97 students, a number of them were charged. Five actually went to jail, Rosie Douglas being one of the five.

[ Page 2506 ]

While his hearing was still in process, and before a decision was handed down, a deportation order was issued against him. He served his two years, was released and once again he was categorized as a national risk, or branded a national risk by the immigration department. Due to efforts by Tommy Douglas, the federal Member, myself and a number of other people, he was allowed to have another hearing. As I reported to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, the result of this hearing has just come down and it was disallowed.

There are 100,000 black people living in Toronto, and Rosie Douglas is one of them. Those people have a lot of respect for the contributions which this young man has made to this country, and which he is continuing to make. He is being deported to return to Dominica, the place of his birth.

I want to tell you about a bill which was introduced in November, 1974, in Dominica, which is referred to as the Prohibited and Unlawful Societies Association. Section 9 of that bill reads: "No proceedings, either criminal or civil, shall be brought or maintained against any person who kills or injures any member of an association or society designated unlawful who should be found at any time of day or night inside a dwelling house."

It was because of the introduction of this bill and the country to which he is now being deported that we appealed to the federal government on compassionate grounds to allow this young man who has indicated that he has served his term and is willing and able to make a valuable contribution to this country. It is very unusual for Canadian people to deliberately condemn anyone to death. It's not been part of our history, certainly not until now. I am sure even the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) will agree with that.

Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, his hearing was disallowed. This is why, Mr. Speaker, even though, as I said, it's probably too late, I would like this House to convey our feelings anyway. The New Democratic Party of British Columbia has already done so. But I would like this House to convey to the federal government that, certainly, at this time compassion would be in order for this young man.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Do I understand that this is an exceptional case? The Member has informed us that this man is in danger of death, and yet the motion that might have some bearing on this matter is adjourned, and on an unlimited basis. I just wish to get up....

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order here.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, the compassion displayed by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is quite surprising. On the basis of that, I would be quite willing to withdraw my request to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The order has already been made by the House and it would have to be discharged. Shall leave be granted to discharge the order for adjournment?

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose on this because we had been informed, in what I took to be a sincere statement by the Hon. Member (Ms. Brown), that we might be, in Canada, deliberately sending such a person, Rosie Douglas, to his death. She then made some reference to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), the purport of which I didn't catch.

Apparently she takes this matter as a matter of extreme seriousness. I would like, before we vote on this, information from her as to the background of the appeal and why it was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, it is Canadian practice not to send anyone to certain death under the prohibited and unlawful persons Act, I believe she mentioned, of Dominica or any other country. Clearly there is some problem here in that the Member who raised this issue has claimed that the immigration authorities would be deliberately sending this person to his death if he was returned to Dominica. I would like to know what other possibilities there are. As she knows better than I, there are a large number of Caribbean countries. I understand that many of them, have already declared Rosie Douglas persona non grata in terms of even visiting. I understand that the so-called "million-dollar computer party" of Sir George Williams in which I understand Rosie Douglas took part, which led to the original trouble, is in no way the only reason for the deportation order or the rejection of the appeal, which I believe was this year. Mr. Rosie Douglas has been declared a risk to Canadian national security.

HON. MR. LEA: No reason.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is fine to say, "no reason," as the Hon. the Minister of Highways says. He may be quite right, But simply no information is presented to this House so that we can form a judgment, an intelligent judgment, on whether or not he should or should not have the support of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia.

It is just not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for a Member to get up and declare that someone is about

[ Page 2507 ]

to be virtually legally done to death by an act of the immigration appeal board, or illegally done to death by an act of the immigration appeal board, and then to leave it the way it was left. There were reasons given for Rosie Douglas's deportation in the first instance. Yes, there were.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Look, I can get the material on this if you like. But surely, when you are asking the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia to interfere in the jurisdiction of another Canadian government, when you are asking that the civil servants involved, the people involved, who have given the closest possible scrutiny to this, are acting upon no reason whatsoever, as the Minister of Highways has just done, surely we are not being given any more than a very minor and one-sided glimpse of the case of Rosie Douglas.

I would ask the Member once more to take her place in debate. It will not close this debate off. Specify what the reasons are, what the background of this matter is, so that the House at least has adequate information to vote yes or no on the motion. If she wishes to adjourn it, and the government can give some guarantee as to when it will come back in terms of the next few days or next few weeks, fine. Perhaps the Minister of Highways could give such an assurance when he takes his place that next week at this time we will be able to return to the discussion of this particular motion.

But I find it the height of irresponsibility, particularly in the Member who is seeking the leadership of the New Democratic Party nationally, to make claims like this about civil servants of the Government of Canada — the immigration appeal board — to make claims like this about the future outcome of the Rosie Douglas case, and then to give us no facts whatsoever on which to base our decision, We are going to have to have information. We are going to have to have something more than unsupported assertions. We are going to have to have something more than allegations about the attitudes of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), which were highly uncalled for as well as being quite inhumane in their intention. We want some facts on this case. Then the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia can no doubt give some reasonable consideration to the request, which I originally took from the Member to be a serious request. If it is just a question of adjournment the way she indicated, she is just playing with us.

HON. MR. LEA: In view of the fact that some Members don't feel they have enough information to vote one way or another, I think we should have this debate. I can assure you that it will come on the floor of the House again next week.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, there is more information.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members on a point of order...?

HON. MR. LEA: Or possibly, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would like to close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just going to point out that the point of order is this: if the Hon. Member who presented the resolution speaks now, that closes the debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order. Is there any way for the Member to make available to us information which she failed to give in her opening statement?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister was suggesting, based on the appeal of the Member, was that rather than have the Member close the debate, she adjourn the debate and let the Member circulate the material....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's what he was suggesting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But, unfortunately, Mr. Premier, what you perhaps didn't notice from your seat was that the Member was rising in her place to close the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all, because you rejected his proposal.

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if the House is agreeable, let us ask the Member to adjourn it and ask the Member sponsoring it to circulate the information, and we will call the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that someone who has not spoken yet would have to adjourn the debate, and that's the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who was on his feet a minute ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I would agree entirely to what the Premier said. If he had only noticed or listened to what you yourself had mentioned, the caution you yourself gave from the chair about the Member standing up again in closing the debate, he would have avoided this hassle we are having now.

[ Page 2508 ]

HON. MR. LEA: It would be impossible for the Member to close debate when I was on my feet and had been recognized by you.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 14 from the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I move: "that the report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice, presented to the Legislature on April 10, 1975, be adopted."

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not in the House today, as he is attending a conference, I believe, in Montreal, and in view of the fact that I know he would like to both listen and participate in the debate on this motion, I would move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Do we have to wait for Ministers before a committee's report is accepted?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the reason for a Member moving the adjournment of debate is one that need be canvassed because we don't debate adjournment motions. Therefore the reasons for it really are not important. The question is whether the House agrees whether that motion should be adjourned, and that is the question I have to put.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), I ask leave of the House to have motion 15 stay on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 16, and I would like to move this on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I think the motion is self-explanatory. I call the motion. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the motion could be sent up? Some Member should sign it. Is it signed?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Of course, she's going to have the Minister of Highways sign it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've noticed the same thing happening on both sides of the House, and I think the Hon. Members should cooperate.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to this motion, the intent is to extend the hours of the Legislature by two hours each day on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so that we sit from 10 in the morning until 12 noon to discuss or examine estimates in a Committee of the Whole House.

I think that before the debate is concluded in this particular motion, we should have some indication from the Speaker or from his office as to how the rules of procedure will be handled in a Committee of the Whole House — whether, in fact, we will be able to move motions in that Committee of the Whole House and fully and effectively debate the estimates.

I think we would like to know, for instance, how the government intends to put the motions on the remaining votes before that Committee of the Whole House, whether the committee, in fact, will return to debate, at least before the Committee of the Whole House, on the motions and votes that were passed without debate, including a number in the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich's) estimates and a number in the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) estimates which have been passed at previous sittings of the Legislature, under protest from the official opposition, but passed without debate.

Will those be brought back before this supposed Committee of the Whole House? Will we be entitled to debate them then? Will, in fact, the Committee of the Whole House have any useful purpose if the whole procedure of examination of a Minister and his estimates is to debate properly the votes under his jurisdiction, to make the Minister in each and every department accountable to this Legislative Assembly, to not only have the opportunity to probe and discuss but also have an opportunity, if it was the desire of any Member of this House, to move the traditional motion of non-confidence in that Minister by reduction of his salary, or by the reduction of any other vote if it was the pleasure of any Member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that during the course of this debate today some direction will be given to this House as to how we would proceed in Committee of the Whole House and as to the rules that would

[ Page 2509 ]

apply in such a committee. Is it the decision of the government that we will sit around in a Committee of the Whole House and have a nice, friendly little discussion with whatever Minister happens to be available for that particular two-hour occasion, and at the end of that time call all of the votes in that Minister's department at the 2 o'clock afternoon session, without debate and without comment and without amendment? Is that the intent of the Committee of the Whole House?

If so, I say that we object most strenuously to that type of a procedure because we believe that the people of British Columbia who elected us and sent us to this Legislative Assembly should have the right to be heard on the supply estimates through the elected Members of this Legislative Assembly, and that their rights should never be impeded by a closure motion such as we have on the books.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd also like to pose another question, and that is that if it is proper to accept this type of a motion, is it not also proper, Mr. Speaker, to accept a motion which would have merely suspended rule 45A and allowed a full and complete debate of the estimates on the floor of this House, as it should be, in Committee of Supply? Certainly, if we accept such a motion, then I would say that we are transgressing to a certain extent the rules of the House, or at least we're bending them to accommodate a situation which the government find themselves embarrassed by. That is that they have not allowed full debate on estimates and now they would like to find an escape clause of some sort — an escape clause provided to them by this motion.

Would it not have been far simpler, Mr. Speaker, to have the full debate before the Members during the regular sittings of this House? I suggest that it would have been more proper. I further suggest that if we look at the order paper as it is before us today, there's nothing to prevent us from having that full debate. And we would have had full debate for a number of days past if it were not for rule 45A, and progressed along the way in passing the estimates in the proper manner. We would have had that debate — at least part of it. But it's foolish, and I think it's an insult to the Members of this House, to suggest that we should adopt such a motion when you look at the order paper as it is before us.

How much time do we really have to look forward to in the debate on the bills that are on the order paper? A number of them have already passed committee stage and third reading. How many more government bills will be put before this House? I don't know and I presume you don't know, Mr. Speaker. If there is no more legislation than we presently have before us, then it is truly an abuse of the Members of this House to suggest that they sit an extra two hours a day to accommodate a situation which the government should have foreseen several weeks at least or a month a half to two months ago. It's an abuse of the Members of this House to make that suggestion.

We saw last night, at the convenience of the government, an adjournment at 6 o'clock. No one suggested to the official opposition that we would — not be sitting again at 8.30. But as an accommodation to the government Members, because they obviously wanted to have a bit of a party, we didn't return to the House. Laugh if you like, Mr. Premier. You know that the hours between 6 and 8:30 would have accommodated the Members for whatever purpose they might have, including watching the hockey game — yes, including watching the hockey game. But let me say this. We could have easily returned to this House at 8:30 last night if the government was as interested as they say they are in the regular hours of debate in this Legislative Assembly.

Why didn't we come back? Apparently we didn't return because it accommodated the Members of government to entertain the so-called leadership candidates in the federal election race for the leadership of the NDP party. Not so? Well, then, I presume that somebody else will get up and say so, because there was no suggestion to any Member of the opposition that last night's session would be called off — none at all. The government Whip didn't inform us of any such suggestion. We fully expected, when the House adjourned at 6, that we would be back here at 8:30. Instead of that, your House Leader decided to call off last night's sitting merely to accommodate the wishes of the government Members — not to accommodate anyone else or the public in this House, but merely to accommodate the whim of the government Members who wanted a night off for their own good reasons, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Broadbent.

MR. SMITH: Probably the name was Broadbent.

We feel that whatever this motion will accomplish would be better accomplished in Committee of Supply before all of the Members of this Legislature, in the regular sessions, as we have proceeded up to this point, and extra sessions, if they are required, if it looks as if the debate is extending. Certainly you could get unanimous agreement for that.

All that is required is for the government to accept a motion for the suspension of rule 45A for the remainder of this session of the Legislature to put the whole matter back before a full committee of this House and let that committee investigate the problem. They know it's a problem, they know it's an abuse of the Members, and they know that 135 hours

[ Page 2510 ]

will not work. Put it back and let them make a report back to the Legislative Assembly for the next session of the Legislature.

I think that's the proper way to approach this matter — not by circumventing the whole idea of debate on the floor of this House and coming up now with a new procedure which is a Committee of the Whole House and substituting it for the proper work of this Legislative Assembly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Skeena.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member's still on his feet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought he had taken his seat.

MR. SMITH: I can get back on my feet later, if you like — nothing to prevent me from speaking more than once.

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. You had taken your seat. The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) got up and I recognized the Member for Skeena.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, before I take my seat, would the Speaker assure me that I have the right to participate again in this debate before it is closed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules of the House are that you speak once — 30 minutes.

MR. SMITH: Well, in that case, I'll resume my place in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you sat down.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I did not sit down!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Member had taken his seat. There's no question about that. I recognized the Member for Skeena. I would ask the Member for Skeena to take his seat now, and I'm going to ask the House if they're going to give....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let us resolve this impasse by asking the Member to ask leave of the House to be recognized again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, okay. I was in the process of doing just that. I was just asking the Member for Skeena to take his seat. He had been properly recognized, but I'll ask the Member for North Peace River if he wants to ask the House for leave to continue.

MR. SMITH: Apparently we have a difference of opinion as to whether I sat down or not. I want that clearly on the record because I did not sit down, but in order to overcome the impasse, I ask leave of the House to continue.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you standing up or sitting down?

MR. SMITH: Well, would the Speaker like me to stand up on top of my chair or on top of the desk so that he can see me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm sure I can recognize the difference, and I did earlier.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Now you can make the point you forgot to make.

MR. SMITH: Oh, there's a number.

Since it was obvious....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you're on the same timing that you started with.

MR. SMITH: Well, I don't intend to take up the entire afternoon on this point, but I do have a couple of more points to make.

I think it's been obvious to all the Members of this House, including the government, that the limitation on debate of estimates in a province that's expanded its budget by $1 billion in one year is completely unrealistic. We know that other jurisdictions who have used this procedure in the past have removed it. They find it unworkable.

There's also a matter to consider, and that is the fact that not only have we increased the size of the budget to be voted on by $1 billion in one year but we also have to take into consideration the fact that the size of the cabinet has been increased substantially over a few years ago. There are more departmental estimates to debate now. Each Minister is responsible for his own estimates. We have more Ministerial portfolios before us than ever before.

[ Page 2511 ]

We should also take into consideration the fact that in the last two years the government of this province has moved into the financial field of endeavour in forestry, in ICBC, and in many other areas where we now have Crown corporations operating on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

We also have Ministers of government responsible as directors. The only opportunity that we really have to question those Ministers about not only their own department but the departments of government which do not come before the House — that is, the Crown corporations — is while their estimates are on the floor of the House. It has generally been agreed, not only during this administration but past administrations, that debate on the responsibilities of the Minister not only covered his department but also his position if he was responsible for one of the Crown corporations. It's been an accepted practice for many years.

Therefore, we feel that the 135 hours was completely unrealistic. We do not disagree with the suggestion and the idea that the limitation of debate should be 30 minutes for each one participating at any one time. That effectively gives everyone the opportunity to make their point, and they can, of course, engage in debate later on. We do feel that in the Committee of Supply there has been an attempt, whether by design or otherwise, to frustrate the legitimate aims of the opposition in questioning Ministers by bringing an estimate on the floor of the House for two and a half or three hours and then pulling it out and going the next day to another Minister. It's completely unrealistic, particularly when you consider that it's very possible in that short space of time for the government Members to break up the sequence of questions that may be asked by the opposition of one of the Ministers. In other words, when the heat gets too hot, take it off the Minister by interjecting debate and not allowing a full debate to take place.

It's the responsibility of the Minister to justify not only the expense of his department but to justify to the satisfaction of the Members of this House his operation and his stewardship in relation to the estimates of the department. It is therefore my feeling, and the feeling of the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, that the motion that we are debating — motion 16 on the order paper — does not meet the requirements of the elected Members of this House. I therefore move an amendment to the motion by deleting in the first line the words, "a Committee of Supply," and to further amend by deleting the word "examine" in the third line and substituting therefore the word "debate." By moving those amendments, the motion would then read:

"That the committee shall sit as a Committee of Supply from the hour of 10 a.m. until 12 noon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to debate any estimates now referred to the Committee of Supply and not previously agreed to in that committee, this order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered."

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order. If there are no speakers on the floor, I'll put the vote. I recognize the Member for South Peace River — on the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker — on the amendment. I rise in my place to support the amendment and to give some of the saner heads in the Legislature the chance to save a little face.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: If the Premier wants to listen to the saner heads in his cabinet, I'm sure that he will direct the benches of the government to accept this amendment, for the time being. I'm also sure that as soon as this amendment is accepted, the next motion on the order paper — no, motion 18 — will also....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, motion 18 will be accepted to allow a select standing committee to undertake immediately discussion of recommendations for rule changes so that the next time the Legislature sits to debate the estimates of the House, we will be allowed to debate and allowed to fulfil our obligations to the voting public and the taxpayers of British Columbia whose rights we are here to protect and whose rights have been taken away by the unilateral decisions of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) when the rules were changed last June.

I remember well, Mr. Speaker, when those rules were changed. They were snuck in on the last day of the sitting of the House, the last day of the session. They were snuck in so that the people of British Columbia wouldn't realize that they were being closed out. It's not the opposition that's being closed out; it is the taxpayers of British Columbia who are being closed out. The results of this closure have made a complete sham of parliament in British Columbia. A complete sham, Mr. Speaker, of parliament in British Columbia — this unilateral decision by the Provincial Secretary and the Premier who couldn't stand the pressure of the weak cabinet Ministers...

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your head under the

[ Page 2512 ]

desk.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...who wouldn't allow his weak-kneed cabinet Ministers to stand up to the scrutiny of the opposition; an opposition, they used to say, that was ineffectual; an opposition, they used to say, that didn't do their homework...

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...an opposition that the Premier dismissed as nothing. Yet when the pressure was on in that spring session last year and when the opposition zeroed in.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, I remember well the Premier and his unilateral decision....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, loony-lateral is probably more completely descriptive — a loony-lateral decision is probably more descriptive. I remember, and you remember well, when he tried to force us into subjection: Friday afternoon, Friday evening, Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon....

AN HON. MEMBER: No lunch.

MR. PHILLIPS: No time out for lunch. Unilateral decision.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the spitfire. Oh, listen to the spitfire over there. Spitting venom! Oh, listen to her.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Like a hawk, she is — ready to strike like a hawk, a yellow hawk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you confine your remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just draw that unruly Member to order, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly confine my remarks to the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Confine your remarks to the amendment. You're the only Member who has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: I can't stand that hawk hovering above me ready to strike. It bothers me. It makes me deviate from....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you completed your remarks on the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I haven't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue with your remarks on the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you trying to shove me? Aren't you allowed a certain amount of time in between sentences?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got no judgment at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is on the floor. It's clear.

MR. PHILLIPS: I remember well, Mr. Speaker, when that government, with their crushing majority tried to beat us into subjection, beat us into subjection, Oh, they thought they could kill our will. I remember it well. They tried to starve us to death. They tried to overwork us. They tried to have legislation by starvation. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I do remember that well.

But, I'll tell you, democracy will always survive. The harder they tried to beat us into subjection, the harder we fought, because that is the will of a democracy. The will of a democracy! When no one bothers us and things go along, we are always at peace. But confront us, Mr. Speaker, with a challenge and we will fight till the last ounce of blood is in us and the last ounce of breath is in our lungs, and that's what happened.

What has happened is that the whole democratic system in British Columbia has fallen apart, and we witnessed it here during this spring session. It isn't as though we didn't warn the Premier and the Provincial Secretary what would happen. I think now they realize the error of their ways, because the people out there are not buying this closure. They don't buy being closed out. They don't buy having their tax dollars spent without proper scrutiny. They don't buy having their estimates, their taxpayer dollars, spent in this Legislature at the rate of $6,500 a second. They don't buy the Members of this Legislature having only seven minutes per cabinet Minister, if everybody wanted to speak, to check into the items like $92 stacking chairs for the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young). They don't buy that. We need time because, as has been stated here before, the complete direction in which this province was heading has been completely turned around.

Not only do we need more time to debate the tremendous and fantastic amounts of money that the government is spending on behalf of the tax dollars, we need time to devote to scrutinizing those cabinet Ministers who have entered into practically every avenue of private and business life in British

[ Page 2513 ]

Columbia. That's why we need more time.

We need more time to check into some of the near scandals we have had in this Legislature. I refer to the chicken-and-egg war. I refer to Can-Cel. I refer to Dunhill. Yes, and I can refer to the direction the mining industry is taking. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we need more time.

We need more time to find out what the Minister of Finance is doing when he's going to borrow money in overseas markets. We need more time because we have witnessed in this Legislature, during the past few months, a direct and calculated ploy on behalf of the cabinet Ministers and on behalf of the Minister of Finance to filibuster their own estimates. We witnessed it during the Minister of Finance's estimates where the Minister took the opportunity to play cheap political politics in this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, while the Premier is laughing, the taxpayers of British Columbia are not laughing. They are not laughing.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

We have witnessed this: the government, in bringing in this motion to limit debate to 135 hours, could have at least cooperated and tried to make it work, but they took the entirely opposite attitude and they deliberately tried to use up the allotted amount of time by filibustering their own estimates, by allowing their own Members to use up time in this Legislature so that we would have less time....

AN HON. MEMBER: By ordering them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, ordering, yes, probably ordering their own Members....

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Don't they have a right to speak?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you calm that Member? I'm afraid she is going to have a heart attack, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think everybody had better take care of their own hearts, and you speak to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Oh! facetious remarks from the Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! he's a facetious Speaker with facetious remarks.

Ordering their own Members to use up time during the debate to give us not the full 135 hours, but to give us less time — this is exactly what happened.

Now the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, that we witnessed in this Legislature....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better believe we witnessed it! It was a calculated ploy on behalf of the government to use up those hours that were needed by the opposition. So not only did we have the closure of the time limit of 135 hours but we had closure on closure where the cabinet Ministers were using up the time, playing cheap political politics, not giving the answers to questions asked by the opposition, wandering all over the place, trying to protect their own policies but not answering the estimates, not answering the questions that were put specifically to the cabinet Ministers during those estimates — all calculated as more closure.

Then we had that instance of the unilateral decision of the Premier of British Columbia telling the opposition whose estimates they shall discuss and how many hours each estimate shall be discussed.

Now, as I say, Mr. Speaker, had the government really wanted to make this work and had they really wanted to have some of that openness that they promised so freely.... That openness was the only credibility voice that the government had because they certainly have no ability to run the government. They have no business sense, but they did promise openness. Instead of that we had closure; we had limit on debates; we had the cabinet Ministers filibustering their own estimates; and we had the back bench specifically using up time.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Specifically, yes. And you were one of the worst of them.

We had questions being asked in the Legislature by the back bench. I believe we warned the government, when they brought in this closure bill, that they could do this and that they probably would do this. They would have their own back bench using up the time of the House so that the opposition parties would have still less time.

But what really bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a calculated ploy, calculated and determined on the part of the Premier of this province to close out full debate, full scrutiny on the estimates which are really the guts of the Legislature. That's what it's all about.

I remember the promises well. He promised to respect the rights of the opposition parties, to respect and protect the democratic system, to have openness

[ Page 2514 ]

in government. Oh, Mr. Speaker, what idle promises from a flippant man!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the adjective "flippant." I think it is personal.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I will as usual abide by your request and withdraw it unequivocally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we make the distinction between a flippant remark and a flippant person. I think there is a slight distinction to be made that is in keeping with parliamentary rules and traditions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enlarge on that point. Nothing offends the Premier at the present date. He's got such a thick skin that even being called a liar doesn't offend him, so he is the one who has had to develop this because he has to live by his own rules.

What I want to say again in closing, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a dedicated move after all of these solemn promises. I remember in the first session of the Legislature all of these idle promises by the Premier. I wonder whom he thought he was trying to fool. He has fooled nobody now, and the taxpayers of British Columbia realize and full well know that the Premier has lost that credibility which was his only promise when he became Premier of this province — the promise of being credible, of openness in government. That was the only promise he had. Now that is all gone.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will at least offer the government a chance to save a little face. I hope that the Premier will listen to some of the saner heads in this government, in his cabinet, who have told him of the error of his ways, who have told him.... For instance, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) I am sure has advised the Premier that he is wrong, that he has made a mistake and that he should backtrack.

The Premier could have walked into this Legislature after he got back from his trip to New York and said: "Members of this Legislature, I have made a mistake. We are going to allow for a change of rules." He could have withdrawn rule 45A. He would have saved face and he might have restored this Legislature to a sane parliament. He could have done it very easily. What did he do? He stood in this House and he said the 135 hours will stay. He said it time and time again.

Well, today we are offering the Premier of this province the opportunity to save a little face and to be open and to allow free debate once again in this Legislature. That is the purpose of the amendment. I certainly hope the Premier, as I say, will listen to some of the saner Members of his cabinet and allow this amendment to stand.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. The impasse that we have reached in this House is basically because there has not been, in the opposition's view, adequate time to question Ministers and consider estimates. The government had fair warning of the problems they would face.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is not here today, but, as seems to be his habit, he introduced legislation which led to problems for other Ministers. Last June 20, the last day of the sitting last year, as was pointed out, the debate took place on these rules and the Provincial Secretary stated that we were going to get them whether we liked them or not. We could lump it. He even went on to give as some of the reasons for these rule changes statements on radio stations CJOR and CKLG. He made it clear — let me give you the direct reference. That was three paragraphs, before the session ended last June, on page 434 of Hansard. He was told at that time:

If you don't get general agreement on rule changes, rule changes won't work. If you put in rules which the opposition cannot accept, you obviously will have the opposition not accepting those rules.

I said that on June 20 of last year; events have proved me right. I recommended at that time that there be a delay:

to give the opportunity, perhaps, of working something out between the parties or party leaders or party Whips or whatever it might be, which is generally acceptable, and certainly more acceptable than this bit of dictatorial legislation.

That, of course, was rule 45, the 135-hour, 45-sitting rule which, combined with the 30-minute rule, has brought this Legislature's examination of estimates to total disrepute.

The parallels were given to us last year. They have been yakked about again from our left here, from the rump group of the NDP about the Quebec House and the federal House, but in both those jurisdictions there are safety valves. I don't want to go into the technicalities of it, but they do have committee systems which allow a safety valve which makes the working of a time limitation realistic. The Provincial Secretary, in his typical, heavy-handed, thick way, simply refused to consider this last June.

There are safety valves; there are opportunities for Members who feel they have points they wish to pursue to do so. To suggest that we simply adopted something that was the common rule in other legislatures was a bit of sophistry which was quite

[ Page 2515 ]

unworthy of the Members putting it forward.

The government had, prior to rule 45, every opportunity under rule 46 to terminate debate on any matter where it felt that the debate was an abuse of the House or an abuse of the British parliamentary tradition. It had clear power. It has both hands, if you like, to strangle debate under rule 46. To bring in rule 45A in addition was just an absurd piece of redundancy, and the problems that were referred to back on June 20 have come very much to light, and the predictions made at that time have come true.

Back on April 16 I wrote to the Premier in response to a statement he made in the House. The letter I wrote to him reads — and I'll read a part of it:

"I write to you in response to your statement yesterday that you would welcome proposals for improving the system of discussing estimates in the Legislature."

That's back on April 16.

"It is now clear that the provision of the 135-hour rule for consideration of estimates is an unfair and impractical limitation."

The last month has proved that doubly true.

"Experience thus far this session has demonstrated that the new rule, combined with the 30-minute rule, does not provide for proper scrutiny of government spending. The proposal put forward by your Whip yesterday to consider each Minister's estimates in rotation for one sitting clearly does not solve the problem. It prevents any effective examination of a Minister's activities and allows the government an unparalleled opportunity to avoid detailed scrutiny of controversial Ministers and programmes."

That is precisely what took place in the month from April 16 to date.

I go on to refer to Ontario, I refer to Saskatchewan, and I refer to Quebec. I talk about the possibility of a 190-hour total along the lines of the Quebec system. I then suggest, and, as this is the last few paragraphs of the letter, I'll quote it again:

" If the government refuses absolutely to reconsider the unilaterally imposed 135-hour limit, then the only other viable alternative is for some system of reference to committee along the lines established in Quebec. This, of course, would require a substantial increase in legislative costs since it would impose a greater burden on Hansard, and Clerks and other servants of the House.

"We have talked this over with officers of the House and it is clear that it would be difficult, probably impossible, to work out any such committee system to apply this year. As a result, I would appeal to you to recognize the damage you are doing to the democratic process by the 135-hour limit and its attendant scheduling proposal.

"These rules and proposals should be suspended for the remainder of the session."

Now that was the letter at that time, and I received a cursory, four-sentence reply from the government House Leader, Mrs. Dailly, which I could not believe to be a serious response from the government in response to a serious examination in my correspondence of the problems we were then facing.

I refer to you the statements I made, Mr. Speaker, with you in the chair, on April 21, when I pointed out....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will read her letter if you wish, Mr. Member, because it's so absurdly short that it's....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The letter from the Minister which the Member would like me to read is this:

"This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter re time limits on estimates.

"It is the government's opinion that as this is the first session in which the present time limits have been used, we do not believe the present limits have been given a fair test."

Well, Mr. Member, they were never put in as a test, and certainly we've had every opportunity to look at them in the last month.

"I wish to point out that any suggestion from the opposition parties, on reasonable notice, as to which department they wish to have called, and in what order, will be satisfactory to the government, and I understand the party Whips will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the matter."

That was the sum total of the reply to a serious suggestion of mine for alteration of our rules back in mid-April. I questioned that on April 21. I questioned it on the 22nd. I discussed it with you, Mr. Speaker. You remember I asked you to take it under advisement yourself, because I could see no other way for us having an opportunity to have this matter properly raised.

Later on, on May 15, I wrote again to the Premier in which I stated:

"Events of the few days have confirmed that the fears about the unworkability of standing order 45, which I expressed to you on June 20 of last year, have been fully realized."

And, indeed, Mr. Speaker, they have.

"I regret that the government did not see fit

[ Page 2516 ]

to accept the proposals put forward in my letter of April 18 of this year concerning the difficulties we would face following the termination of the 135-hour debate on estimates. However, it is clear that the Legislature and the whole system of parliamentary democracy in British Columbia is being brought into dispute by current events."

Let me depart from the text, Mr. Speaker, by saying the events of last week confirmed it 100 per cent.

"This is a matter of great distress to me. I would like to propose a compromise which I believe could satisfy the various parties in the Legislature, and at the same time extricate us from the present impasse.

"I then propose that the hours of 10 to 12 every day, Monday to Thursday, be devoted to Committee of the Whole House for the examination of estimates in the traditional manner, examination which would continue until the estimates are dealt with and voted upon as has been the case in the past. The normal hours of legislative sitting would then be available in the usual way."

Mr. Speaker, I will cease quoting from that letter, but it's perfectly clear that if the government wants extra time to consider legislation, if the House wants to consider questions or motions or private Members' business, or any other matter, they have full opportunity to do so in the normal course of events after 2 o'clock Monday through Thursday and in the normal course of events on Friday.

The proposal I made is that we sit an extra two hours a day in the morning four days a week so that we could continue to question Ministers. That is the way this matter should be handled.

We are now again hooked up on a matter almost of semantics, namely the distinction between a Committee of Supply and a Committee of the Whole House. I don't propose that we should devote enormous amounts of time to that particular distinction. I think the 135-hour rule for consideration of estimates has already been abandoned by the government when it put forward this motion. It is clear that 135 hours was inadequate to question Ministers and examine estimates. They now have accepted that; they now realize the damage that could be done. Therefore what we are essentially dealing with is the detail of how we get around the problem of allowing face-saving on the government side and face-saving elsewhere as well.

It's no good pointing the finger of blame to one group or another. The fault lay not with what took place in the last month; the fault lay on June 20 of last year when we put in unworkable rules, which we did. The government put in unworkable rules over the opposition of every Member on this side of the House. Therefore it's clear that we have to somehow or another revert to a system which allows the traditional questioning of Ministers. It's not possible to set up a whole system of subcommittees — it just isn't possible for this year.

Therefore, we have the proposal I made to the Premier, incorporated by the Hon. Eileen Dailly on page 4 of the orders of the day of the 21st, today, which is the motion. The amendment is a minor one. The amendment simply means this in practice: instead of questioning Ministers, instead of going into the line-by-line on estimates and then, when the Chairman no longer sees anyone standing on that particular Minister's estimates, switching to the next Minister without a vote, the amendment means that when he sees everybody seated and nobody standing up to question, he will then place the vote and then proceed to the next Minister on the list. That is the total of the distinction brought forward by this amendment.

As the motion originally reads, there would be two hours of time in which there could be questioning of Ministers and examination of estimates. Then you would proceed without a vote to the next Minister. The votes would come later in the day when we went into the Committee of Supply, presumably for one, two or three minutes, however long it took to place the votes because no discussion would take place at that time. But the amendment put forward simply means that in actual fact, the business of the committee would be dealt with more expeditiously because, when the Chairman doesn't see anybody standing, he will then place the vote instead of backing up the votes till later in the day.

Therefore the amendment strikes me as being a minor, acceptable amendment to the principle of a motion which would get us out of the impasse that we are currently in.

I, Mr. Speaker, hope that it will be accepted; I hope the motion, then, as amended will be accepted because it is a matter of regret to you and every Member of the House and every Member who ever watches these proceedings when there is not proper examination of estimates, when the House business grinds to a halt because of an obdurate government that refuses to recognize rules that last June were inapplicable and which have been proven since then to be inapplicable.

I only wish, as a final point, that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) who got us into this mess in the first instance, were here tonight. He's the guy who seems to get Ministers into innumerable problems, and he happily leaves or disappears when these problems happen to arrive. He's the man who quite failed to get us onto daylight saving without to-ing and fro-ing and backing and filling last year. His administrative competence and his mulish stubbornness have been an impediment to the proper working of this House ever since he and I have been in it at the same time. I think that perhaps he should

[ Page 2517 ]

be here to realize how stupid was his speech last year on June 20, how wrong it was, how much damage it has done, and how soon it should be withdrawn.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone in public life, and certainly in this Legislature, would seek to in any way demean the importance of scrutinizing government spending. When we talk on this particular point and go back as far as the Magna Carta and all the other milestones in which people and their rulers have argued, one of the main themes that is stressed at all times is the responsibility which government must show in allowing the opposition to examine government spending. I don't think anybody in this House really challenges that, and I, in that respect, would have to disagree with the official opposition that this is a specific, calculated ploy to prevent debate.

However, I've lived in this House under two systems, and neither of them is satisfactory. The first system was the system where there were no holds barred at all. There was no 11 o'clock adjournment, there were no real ground rules and the kind of performances that sometimes went on in this House did none of us any credit and certainly drew very little respect by the people who sent us here, the voters of British Columbia. So, again, it's all very well for the official opposition to start screaming and shouting about the present unsatisfactory system — which it is — but don't let anyone ever forget how very unsatisfactory the system was before this government.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Balderdash! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Really, all I was.... The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, before everyone became exercised was the fact that just because the present system is not working gives no good reason to go back and dream about the past as though the past was a satisfactory system. With the greatest of respect to the Liberal leader who talked about invoking rule 46, I happen to have very painful memories of invoking rule 46 one long, tedious night in this House a few years ago when we were achieving absolutely nothing and making complete fools of ourselves by a long, useless, haranguing, tedious debate which was going nowhere.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's what it's for.

MR. WALLACE: If that is the purpose of this Legislature, well, I suppose that the attitude of no limitation at all is the one we will follow. But certainly if we're trying to take some reasonably mature and constructive approach to the functioning of this House, regardless of who is government, I suggest that we should look at the fact that neither of the two systems has worked in a satisfactory way in the past several years, certainly in the last five or six years.

So it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to look for some kind of compromise between the two systems I've mentioned. Certainly the motion which was brought forward was an attempt to reach such a compromise. After all, it was always my impression that the art of politics was very much the art of compromise. Well, then, of course, when one takes extreme positions and digs in one's heels on two sides of a question and both sides refuse to budge, that may be very good for the adrenalin that it generates, but I still wonder to what degree it contributes anything to sane and rational government in this province. But then, of course, when one tries to take an objective or logical position in this House, the criticism you can expect is that one is not being a vigorous and aggressive Member of the opposition.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, in discussing this issue, while it's not customary for Members of this Legislature hardly ever to make favourable comments about the Fourth Estate, I think it would be reasonable to consider some of the comments that have been emanating not from one or two or three members of the Fourth Estate but from just about anybody who has written anything about the present shambles in this House.

The theme that I read and the theme that I get from people as I talk to them in the community is that really we all look pretty sick as supposedly responsible legislators in the manner in which all of us, myself included — yes, myself included — have tackled the problem that has arisen by a unilateral change of the rules.

Certainly the members of the press and the media, regardless of whether 135 hours was too little or too much, seem to be in reasonable unity in deciding that we in the opposition haven't exactly justified our argument that the hours were too short by the quality of our efforts in debate. Why, Mr. Speaker, some of them have even said that my speeches have been pretty thin — and I accept that criticism. The fact is that we've had the pendulum swing from one position to another and, really, if the way in which this House is functioning — and that surely should be the goal of all of us: to try and establish efficient functioning of this House and rational and effective scrutiny of the estimates — is not working and that is

[ Page 2518 ]

not being done, by whatever system, then surely there is some reason to agree among all of us to take another took.

In my view, this is what the compromise motion is suggesting. Again, regardless of the technical details of order of procedure, I would certainly agree with the sentiment behind the other motion which the spokesman for the official opposition mentioned; namely, that there is some need, on a long-term basis, to review the situation and try to determine how a more effective compromise on the long-term basis can be reached. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what the precise details of that compromise could be. But I don't think it is being accurate, and it's being rather simplistic, just to say that because this government attempt to modify the rules and make them more effective has failed, we should just simply let the pendulum swing all the way back and decide that we will go back to the system we had before.

On that point, I would certainly appreciate some comment from the official opposition as to whether that is their position, because in listening to the speeches.... I would like to know, in other words, shall we abandon the 11 o'clock adjournment and sit into the...?

MR. GIBSON: Of course not.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano says: "Of course not." How do you know? The Socreds haven't told you, and you weren't here when we went through the sittings until 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: His father was.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe so. But I think in trying to get some realistic and likely solution to this problem, we should all be very clear as to what we think the ultimate solution should be over and beyond this temporary or this amended motion which we are debating right now. It is indeed a compromise but, on the other hand, if it is simply to deal with the current session and things are left hanging in the air as to what the long-term solution might be, then I don't think we have accomplished very much; which, in turn, just further gives the people of British Columbia the clear impression that they are not sure what kind of circus this is, but they don't see any real sign that we are working out a rational and reasonable and sensible compromise to the impasse which has been reached.

I would like to know, particularly from the official opposition, whether it would be their wish to go back to the old rules so that at least we know where we stand...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: ...or will we continue with some of the existing rules, such as the 11 o'clock adjournment, and we sit in this House through July, August, September, October, or as long as is considered necessary by the opposition to go on discussing issues?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: These are some of the questions that I think deserve answers. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the content of the amendment offered by the official opposition. I just feel that in the long run the real judge of our system, and the people who will really finally determine whether we were wasting time and money by endless debate on procedure when in point of fact they think we should be doing something more productive, will be the voters of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is a debate that the House has an intense interest in. Surely the public is totally confused by now as to what the ruckus is all about. Our interpretation of what has gone on is accepted by those people who support the NDP, and the official opposition's interpretation is accepted by those who support Social Credit. The Liberals' interpretation is accepted by those who support the Liberal Party, as depleted as that may be.

The independents' interpretation is accepted by those who support the independents. The Conservative interpretation is supported by other Conservatives in the province.

Then there is the mass of the public out there wondering what all this fuss is all about. I suppose, when we have this kind of speech, it is a great opportunity for us to score point-by-point heavy penalties, draw blood, and exchange opinions and probably heat ourselves up into situations of feeling bitterness, hate and hostility — and still the general public is trying to figure out what is going on.

I'm not going to thrash too much old straw. I know that when you go back into history the groans start immediately, but without a history there is no conditioning factor for the action taking place today or tomorrow. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked about our history. No one denies that. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) knows too what it was like then. There was unhappiness in all quarters of the House. All quarters of the House felt that it was time for rule change. We were never promised one. We were never given the opportunity to express an opinion about it. We were just told: "That's the way it's gonna be." We used to get the kind of mocking bird response of: "Talk all you want." We

[ Page 2519 ]

know what that meant. That meant, in one case, sitting until 7 o'clock in the morning on a very important piece of legislation.

The House did then try to come to some accommodation on rules. Obviously, it wasn't successful. The official opposition stormed out last year saying never would they accept the new rules. It was great for everyone to sort of do their political chicken dance, which is necessary for all of us, considering the system we live in. No one objects to that except when the system itself gets a little bit threatened. I'll have something to say about that in a few minutes.

We have a very fragile system but I don't know of one better. Really, when it comes down to it, if anybody wants to destroy the system, then just destroy the rules that are agreed upon by any chamber. That of course can be the case. Charges have flown back and forth. The government's been called a dictator and charged with closure. I in turn have called the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) an anarchist. One young man stopped me in the hallway and criticized me for giving the anarchists a bad name. But be that as it may, that is the kind of charge and countercharge that went back.

Then as the debate went along we looked for some accommodating room because, as the Member for Oak Bay says, eventually politicians find the accommodating compromise. While we were doing that, charges were flying, statements were being made, and further confusion was added to the public. Even some members of the press gallery got confused, and you know how hard it is to confuse them because, Mr. Speaker, they are great students of research and they are the most skillful people of all in interpreting the rules to the general public. They above all are familiar with section 3, section 46, section 12, subsection (3) of any item A(2)(b). They spend their whole weekends familiarizing themselves with the rules of the House so that they can give the interpretation of the meaning to the vast number of people who spend all their lives waiting to hear about the rules of this place. (Laughter.)

But in consequence, while we know the rules are important to us and what they mean to us, it is simply the matter of living by rule that we hope people in a democratic society will accept. When rule breaks down here and rule begins to disappear in terms of us coming to some order within our structure, then cynicism sets in. That's not good for the opposition, that's not good the for government, and it sure isn't good for the system we live under. Tempers fray; arguments are weak or strong; but the system has to survive because I know of no other system that allows a free society, free speech and free choice of whom to be governed by.

I suppose charges of anarchy and dictatorship are valid or invalid depending on the point of view that brought about that particular charge. I suppose it may serve a particular purpose for me to say "anarchists" and a particular purpose for the official opposition for them to say "dictator," but I don't think my statements or the official opposition's statements enhance the system. The system, Mr. Speaker, has got to outlive all of us.

It is not a casual thing to just throw away and say that freedom has ended or been destroyed because of a section in the bill. The rules of this House later as the House grows and matures with its own experience. We don't have a very mature Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't. I'm not saying that it is anybody's fault. I'm saying it is a historical fact. There was an absence of a generation of growth in this House that other jurisdictions had in Canada. There was a time-gap in generous, understanding change; so when the change eventually came, it was far more traumatic than in other Legislatures where time, experience and maturity allows the kind of negotiation that must go on between the official opposition and the government.

We still don't have good communication in this House. The Whip system isn't functioning adequately. I have tried on occasion to call the leaders to my office and they've come, and I welcome that. I've shared the Throne speech, shared the budget speech. It comes as a great surprise to parliamentarians — not the people outside, because this little finesse really isn't a matter of great importance to them — but it comes as a matter of great surprise that prior to our election in 1972, the official Leader of the Opposition was not frequently called down to the Premier's office. These matters were not frequently discussed with the House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

It was total war for 20 years in this province. Now whether it was us or someone else, we had to change.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know there are groans, Mr. Member. I don't ask you to accept what I have to say. That would be, perhaps, too non-politic from your point of view. But I am saying very frequently and honestly what I feel about our system and the problems we face.

When the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) sent the letter, it was a good letter. It was an attempt at a rational, reasonable compromise over an impasse caused by the decision, rightly or wrongly — only time will judge that — of the official opposition to refuse to cooperate with a rule.

That is a course that people take throughout the course of history. If in a matter of great principle, a

[ Page 2520 ]

matter of great conscience, trade unionists refuse to accept the law, there is a consequence for that. If businessmen refuse to accept the law, there is a consequence for that. And if parliamentarians refuse to accept their law, there is a consequence for that too. But in our case the consequence is public judgment.

The worst decision or worst public judgment in my opinion that can befall us is the kind of mail that I have been getting that says, in effect: "A plague on both your houses." I would feel a lot better if the mail said that the government is stubborn and obstinate and stupid and should back off; or the opposition is stubborn and obstinate and stupid and should back off.

That's not the kind of mail I am getting, Mr. Speaker. I'm getting mail that says: "A plague on both your houses." And that is bad. In effect, I think that is telling us we had better come to some kind of compromise.

So when the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) agreed to some form of compromise, and we had an absolute statement from the official opposition, we felt the best course was to follow through on the compromise and hope for the best, hope that some reason, some sanity would come back on the problem created here in the House, in response essentially to the historical problems.

We had no idea that the official opposition was willing to be part of changing our system a bit until we had the amendment. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, that I congratulate the official opposition for the amendment, because it is one that we must all accept. We must all accept it because it is an amendment that means that all of us have been able to narrow down the extravagant statements that we have all made, the extravagant positions that we have all taken, to come down to some system where we can function for the rest of this session.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are people who will rush out and say that the government has won a victory. There is no doubt there are people who will rush out and say that the opposition has won a victory. The independents aren't here to share in the victory. The Liberals will say it is their victory and the Tories will say: "It is our victory." I say it is a victory for common sense that proves again that the system works.

I have no objection to the amendment. It adds to the initial input of the leader of the Liberal Party, the additional input of the Conservative Party, the acceptance and direction and advice of the Whip of our own group. So here we are, after all those days, all those words, all that heat. We've got a solution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you want to go out. Already it has started. You admit you are wrong, Mr. Member. I admit you are wrong. You admit I am wrong. Then we'll go back to the chicken dance that is necessary for us in terms of politics. But in terms of the system, the compromise has come. It is good, and we accept it as a way to move on to more maturity in this House.

We will need some leadership from the Clerks and the Speaker; we will need some understanding by the Whips as to exactly how the mechanics of this are going to work. But we're all agreed on some form of coming together, which means there is some chance of having some success.

Mr. Speaker, I don't regret the great explosions we've had. The people of the province will judge who was right in their explosion and who was wrong in their explosion. But in the general sense, we have come together with this, and I say the government is prepared to accept it. Let's pass it, and let's get on with the work that the people of the province put us here to do. So Mr. Speaker, I say to the House: let's pass the amendment, let's try and make it work and let's all grow a little bit — including me. Let's all grow a little bit from here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am really rising on a point of order or a point of clarification because I am a little puzzled as to how the amendment, were it accepted, and then the main motion moved as amended and accepted, would work in the context of rule 45 A(3) at page 18.

Mr. Speaker, that standing order is very clear. It is not permissive; it suggests that the Chairman "shall forthwith put all questions" and so on. Whereas, the motion as amended would suggest that the Committee of Supply would continue to sit and would continue to debate without such questions being put. So I would ask Your Honour if, before we vote or before we conclude debate on this, you might explain to the House which of these two motions would be superior.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I'll give a brief summary of that in a second.

As I view the amendment and the motion, it would in effect set up a Committee of Supply in the mornings from 10 till 12. That committee would not only be permitted and empowered implicitly by this resolution to debate, but also to adopt the resolutions before it and to reduce the votes or to negative the votes that may be presented to the committee in the morning. They would be voted on there in the morning as they come up — as they are called.

In the afternoons, I hesitate to speculate on what happens then, but I take the position that the normal

[ Page 2521 ]

sittings of the Committee of Supply in the afternoons, which had priority under the precedence motion that was passed at the time that we directed the Committee of Supply.... The precedence motion requires that it still be called in the afternoon at the regular sitting, but there is no reason the House cannot have that committee rise at that time and carry on other business. We would, in effect, not be impairing either standing order 45 A(3) as it stands; it would be merely, in effect, suspended by the operation of a superseding motion adopted by this House that would deal with morning sittings of the Committee of Supply. That's as I see it at the moment unless somebody presents a better view of it.

MR. GIBSON: I would inquire of Your Honour, then — and I appreciate that these are hypothetical questions but they are not unlikely questions — if Committee of Supply were called in the afternoon and not moved to be risen immediately, would standing order 45 govern the operation of that committee at that time rather than the resolution...?

MR. SPEAKER: I would say so because the motion before us exclusively deals with the morning. Consequently, whatever happened in the afternoon, by reason of the priority motion — it now exists as a sessional order — which would still require the committee to sit at every sitting of the House, because it states in that priority motion that the Committee of Supply shall have precedence over all other business in the normal sittings of the House until the Committee of Supply is concluded and reported back to the House.

MR. GIBSON: If that is, indeed, the case, Mr. Speaker, I will be wanting to move a subamendment to this amendment. What I am concerned about — and perhaps this is the hope of the government — is that rule 45 A should no longer hinder consideration of estimates in this House for the duration of the session.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that if the matter arises, it would be possible to do something about the question in the afternoon sitting of the House in regard to rule 45 A at that time by agreement of the House that it be superseded insofar as the afternoon sitting is concerned. It would also be possible in the afternoon sitting to actually pass votes at that time with the wish of the House. But I take it that the will of the House proposed in this would be to debate, pass estimates in the morning, and not do it in the afternoon. This is the way it sounds from the speeches to this moment.

MR. CHABOT: On the amendment to the motion, I am glad that at last the Premier has come to his senses regarding the acceptance of this amendment to the motion, that he has retreated from his arbitrary position regarding the discussion of estimates in this Legislature, retreated to the degree that at least we have two hours in the morning of unimpeded opportunity to question Ministers regarding the estimates.

MR. GIBSON: Unless otherwise ordered. It is not guaranteed.

MR. CHABOT: Well, it is guaranteed for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

MR. GIBSON: Unless otherwise ordered.

MR. CHABOT: No, I don't think the government have any devious ideas in the accepting of this amendment to the motion or in the original presentation of the motion. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate all my colleagues in the official opposition for having fought this government so vigorously, so forcefully, to bring sanity and the right of the taxpayers of this province to scrutinize the expenditures of tax dollars, even though it is only within the confines of two hours in the morning four days a week. The Premier has retreated. He has retreated. It's a very serious retreat for a man who not too long ago said there shall be no changes! He said 135 hours and that's all — no more! The Premier has retreated. It is a victory not only on behalf of the official opposition; it is a victory for the taxpayers of this province as well.

Now we've got a little bit of daylight back into this Legislature and a little bit of sanity as well, I think it is incumbent upon the government to take into consideration the removal of standing order 45 A, suspending it for the duration of this session,

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: You've gone halfway — why don't you retreat all the way?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do the right thing.

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you retreat all the way and bring back some semblance of democracy in this House? Then after free speech....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind....

MR. CHABOT: Free debate shouldn't be repugnant, I'm sure.

[ Page 2522 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: You wouldn't find it that way, would you?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member halt in mid-flight for a minute? May I point out to him that there is another motion on the order paper and he should not debate it in advance of it being called.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no, I certainly wouldn't debate any other motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I gathered you were. You were talking about rule 45 A.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes. That's the one for the suspension. But what I mean is I think we should in fact, in combination with this amendment to the motion, one which moves from Committee of the whole House to Committee of Supply and deleting the words "examine to debate".... We've gone a long way. But I think we should in all fairness also remove the closure of 45 A which we are facing right now.

Not only that, one other further recommendation regarding the amendment to the motion, Mr. Speaker. I think the government has finally come to its senses and realizes that there is a need for the re-examination of that 135-hour limitation which they rammed down our throats last year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hear, hear! Dictatorial!

MR. CHABOT: I sat on that committee and I saw how those motions and resolutions....

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You were only there one day.

MR. CHABOT: That's a bunch of nonsense!

MR. LEWIS: That's the truth!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I was there frequently. (Laughter.) If I missed one meeting, that's all I missed of all the meetings that were held. Now we are getting the lies from those who don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you look at the record. You look at the record and see if I missed any of those meetings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I do think it is not relevant to this debate.

MR. CHABOT: I thought it so important that I had to be there. I don't want any interjections put into my talk that I wasn't ever at a meeting. I was always at those meetings. You check those records, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is necessary that we reconstitute this committee so that the committee can come up with some rational standing orders that will give the right of the people of this province to examine the expenditures....

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I would ask that the Member adjourn the debate.

Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 2523 ]

APPENDIX

4 Mr. McClelland to move—

That all environmental, engineering, site location, feasibility, marketing, and social impact studies relating to a proposed petrochemical complex in British Columbia be tabled in this House forthwith.

5 Mr. Gardom to move—

That this Legislature urge the Provincial Government to recognize the increasing financial burden on municipal treasuries by indexing per capita grants to annual gross Provincial revenues.

7 Ms. Sanford to move—

That this Government consider undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of placing the E & N Railway under public ownership and of extending it to Campbell River.

8 Mr. Skelly to move—

That this Legislature convey to the Government of Canada its objection in the strongest possible terms to the policy of selling CANDU nuclear reactors to countries which have not ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, and which have not agreed to strict safeguards against nonpeaceful use of nuclear materials and technology.

10 Mr. McGeer to move—

That the Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs investigate budgeted expenditures, over expenditures, and proposed over expenditures in the Department of Human Resources and that the Committee be empowered to engage external auditors to gather data on spending practices in the Department.

12 Mrs. Jordan to move—

That this House is of the opinion that the views of the Canada Law Reform Commission with respect to the sharing of assets accumulated by the partners in a broken marriage be endorsed by this Legislature.

13 Ms. Brown to move—

That this Legislature convey to the Government of Canada its wish to have the categorization of Rosie Douglas, as a risk to Canadian national security, withdrawn and the deportation order against him lifted.

15 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move—

Be it Resolved, That Evelyn Mary Miller, presently secretary to the Clerk of the House, be appointed Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees to the Legislative Assembly, effective immediately.

16 The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly to move—

That the House shall sit as a Committee of the Whole House from the hour of 10 a.m. until 12 noon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday to examine any Estimates now referred to the Committee of Supply and not previously agreed to in that Committee; this Order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered.