CONTENTS

Privilege Correction of facts from previous debate. Mr. Chabot — 2525

Routine proceedings

Credit Unions Act (Bill 82). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2526

Oral Questions

ICBC strike effect on issue of driver's licences and permits. Mr. Fraser — 2526

Appointment of B.C. Hydro head. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2527

Closing of roads to Can-Cel operations. Mr. Wallace — 2527

Sahara Development home grants. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2528

Government leasing of office space. Mr. Chabot — 2528

Ottawa share of oil taxes. Mr. Gibson — 2528

Details of highway mileage. Hon. Mr. Lea answers — 2529

Student jobs in Mines department. Hon. Mr. Nimsick answers — 2529

Eligibility for renter's grant. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2529

Annual meeting of B.C. Association of Strata Corporations. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers — 2529

Changes in renter's grant legislation. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2529

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2529

Motions On the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Chabot — 2530

Subamendment to the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Gibson — 2535

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2535

Point of order Possible conflict between motion 16 and standing order 45A. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2536

Routine proceedings

Motions On the amendment to motion 16. Mr. Gibson — 2540

Division on the amendment to motion 16 — 2541

On motion 16 as amended. Mr. Phillips — 2541

Amendment to motion 16 as amended. Mr. Gibson — 2544

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2545

Point of order Possible anticipation of later motion. Mr. D.A. Anderson— 2545

Routine proceedings

Motions On the amendment to motion 16 as amended. Mr. Gibson — 2547

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 2547

On motion 16 as amended. Mr. Dent — 2547

Amendment to motion 16 as amended Mr. L.A. Williams — 2549

Point of order Clarification of intent of motion 16. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2550

Routine proceedings

Motions On motion 16 as amended. Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2552

Motion 15. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2553

Appendix — 2555

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I have the pleasure to introduce to the House, first, Mr. Warren Allmand, Solicitor-General of Canada, great and good friend — or target — of Dr. Morton Shulman. (Laughter.)

May I next introduce the other representatives of the provinces attending the corrections conference? M. Robert Norman, le Sous-Ministre de Justice de la belle province. Le grand Jerome a été très occupé.

Mr. Bud Boyce is the Minister of Corrective and Rehabilitative Services of Manitoba, and Howard Pawley is Attorney-General of Manitoba. The Hon. Roy Farran is the Solicitor-General of the Province of Alberta, and the Hon. Paul Creaghan is Minister of Justice of the Province of New Brunswick. We haven't had so many Conservatives in the House for years. We also have Alan Sullivan, Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, and Alec Hickman, Minister of Justice of Newfoundland.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Who are you?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Attending the corrections conference are three prominent members of staff from the corrections department — another one attached to Mr. Allmand's department — and they are the three people with whom I was in jail. They've all gone on to successful careers — Mr. Pascal O'Toole, Mr. Lloyd Pisappio and Mr. John Braithwaite — and myself. It shows what rehabilitation can do, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we would like to welcome the distinguished guests who are on the floor of our House this afternoon and say that we welcome you to the Province of British Columbia.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was a little lethargic in not turning on the sunshine and warm weather that we like to brag about in British Columbia, but that's his problem. You take it up with him — knowing the Hon. Attorney-General, he'll try to do something about it tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like also to welcome the Hon. Ministers, and say that you must, after all, believe in capital punishment if you're staying on the floor here. (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Yesterday while speaking I had an exchange with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), and there appears some erroneous information in Hansard, page 476-4-MS. I was speaking about my participation in the standing orders and private bills committee. The Member for Shuswap said: "You were only there one day." The Member for Columbia River said: "That's a bunch of nonsense." The Member for Shuswap said: "That's the truth."

Mr. Speaker, I have searched the records in Hansard as to the number of meetings, and the attendance as well, I find that this committee had six meetings. During those six meetings there was an absence of the Attorney-General for three meetings, an absence of the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) for three meetings, an absence of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) for two meetings, and the Member for Columbia River was absent for two meetings and the Member for Shuswap was absent for one meeting.

I just want to....

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to the Hon. Member....

MR. CHABOT: Before you interrupt, Mr. Speaker, I'm just on the verge of closing.

MR. SPEAKER: I shouldn't interrupt that.

MR. CHABOT: I just want to correct this record so that this erroneous information won't go out in the countryside of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that in future, matters of that sort are points of order that should be raised at the time and corrected at the time, not the following day.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On that same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't on the committee. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Do we correct this tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann.)

MR. SPEAKER: I see.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't aware that acknowledgements and welcoming to the House had concluded. I would like to draw to the attention of the Members today the visit of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Soicher and their son from Montreal. This is their first visit to British Columbia.

[ Page 2526 ]

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting somewhere in the gallery is the person who keeps the Brown house ticking over while I'm sitting here doing the business on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard. She has often wondered just exactly what happens in this House, so I invited her to come over and see what's going on. I would appreciate it if the House would join me in welcoming Mrs. Ursula Reudiger.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd also like to welcome, from my own constituency, 52 people who live in the New Vista Society dwellings in Burnaby-Edmonds who are here.

Introduction of bills.

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 82, Credit Unions Act, 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 EFFECT ON ISSUE

OF DRIVERS' LICENCES AND PERMITS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. What arrangements have been made to issue drivers' licences to people who need them for the first time?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No arrangements have been made to issue drivers' licences for the first time. No arrangements can be made because of the strike situation now in place by the workers for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can these people, then, drive without a licence and be assured they will not be prosecuted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. No one can drive without a valid driver's licence without being prosecuted.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that no mobile homes can be towed because they cannot get temporary permits, what is the Minister going to do to accommodate the people who are in dire need of housing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take that question as notice.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister on the same subject — the ICBC difficulties of the moment.

I would cite for the Minister order-in-council 3831, November 22, 1973, which is the regulation governing the automobile insurance operation. Page 659 of The British Columbia Gazette for 1973 also makes reference there to the definition of an insured driver — that is "one who holds a subsisting driver's certificate." Would the Minister indicate to the House, Mr. Speaker, if it is correct that persons who do not have valid driver's certificates — not licences but certificates — are in fact uninsured by ICBC during this strike situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I have already clarified that particular point. There is no problem related thereto.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister tells us one thing but the statutes, as I understand them....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the Minister could indicate if the statute has been altered. Has a regulation been issued since the beginning of this week to cover this contingency?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest to the Member that he read the legislation covering the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the Automobile Insurance Act, and all of the regulations. You will find that there is room in there to do what is being done.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My supplemental is addressed to the Minister. Just a few seconds ago he informed the House that you could not get a driver's licence for 16-year-olds. I would like to make sure that he is sure of his statement, because five minutes before coming into the House I phoned the motor vehicle branch and they assured me that a 16-year-old or anyone from out of province could come into the motor vehicle branch, could write the test, could take the road test, could get a learner's permit, can get a driver's licence, and the branch merely cannot give them a certificate. They can get the licence and they can get the test. I wouldn't like the public to be misled by what the Minister has just said.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A learner cannot...

MR. MORRISON: Yes, he can.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...get a driver's licence that is acceptable in any way, shape or form, for the

[ Page 2527 ]

very simple reason that while it is possible to renew a driver's licence, because that is not related to a document that requires action by ICBC, the initial driver's licence does require a document related to ICBC.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I think we should clarify that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a time for argument.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have already clarified it, but I will check again just to be sure.

MR. MORRISON: I think there is a considerable difference between a licence and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. I won't check. I won't check. How do you like that?

MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, could I join in welcoming these distinguished legal gentlemen here today? We haven't had so much legal talent in this House for a long time. I assure the Hon. Solicitor-General that if he stays around long enough, our own little step will be taken to abolish capital punishment when we wipe out the guillotine rule on debate 45A.

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. HYDRO HEAD

My question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I would like to ask the Minister in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro: have any discussions been held recently with a view to selecting a successor to the head of B. C. Hydro, Dr. Cass-Beggs?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): With respect to the directors, no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I did not specify specifically a meeting of directors. Could he then specify at what meeting the discussions did take place for a replacement for Dr. Cass-Beggs?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I have no comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is clear there were such discussions. May I ask the Minister a supplementary? Was one of the points of difference between the government and Dr. Cass-Beggs the question of re-opening the Columbia River treaty and Dr. Cass-Beggs' opposition to re-opening the Columbia River treaty?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: That's absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I won't make a political speech but I will welcome our friends from the other provinces. Regarding the Conservatives in our midst, you are most welcome. It is only a matter of time before we have a few more over here permanently.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you didn't want to make a political speech.

MR. WALLACE: I sure didn't want to make a political speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

CLOSING OF ROADS

TO CAN-CEL OPERATIONS

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. With regard to the notification by the Nishga tribal council to the Minister that roads to Can-Cel operations will be closed starting June 1, could I ask the Minister how many loggers are likely to become unemployed as a consequence? Of that total, how many are native Indian people?

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I don't have specific figures, Mr. Speaker. A fair number of the Nishga people have worked for Canadian Cellulose, however.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister if he has set up any arrangements to meet with the Nishga council prior to the meeting which has already been announced by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for June 26 and 27?

HON. R. A, WILLIAMS: It's currently a matter between Canadian Cellulose and the Indian people in that region, Mr. Speaker. As the Member is aware, the Hon. Minister of Human Resources is responsible for these other matters.

MR. WALLACE: A final quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister then taking a hands-off attitude? Is there not the thought that perhaps, since this negotiation meeting has been set up for as soon as June 26, we could ask the Nishga to reconsider the decision to close the road pending the outcoming of the meeting on the 26?

[ Page 2528 ]

HON. R. A. WILLIAMS: I regard it, Mr. Speaker, as a matter for direct action between the officers of Canadian Cellulose and those people.

SAHARA DEVELOPMENT HOME GRANTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Housing. His department has had under consideration for over two weeks the matter of certain judgments taken under the home acquisition grant Act by people who had been involved in the project known as Sahara Development. I wonder if the Minister could advise what result that examination has produced.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Member, I have just today signed a letter to yourself which indicates that the work is still proceeding. There is one person working on it full time. I cannot hurry it along at the risk of his work being incomplete, so I am looking for something very soon. I have hoped by this time to have had his report.

GOVERNMENT LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the Minister confirm that in January this year his department leased for five years office space located at 59 West Pender Street, Vancouver?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I'll take that previous question as notice; I've noted the details.

The day last week when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was in, he asked about property rented in Vancouver. He asked if I would confirm that the government purchased last November a seven-storey building located in the 600 block Bute Street in Vancouver. We didn't buy a building listed as such. We did acquire, for the Vancouver Community College, a property at 1190 Melville Street, and this was turned over to the Vancouver Community College for their use and renovation. I understand they have been doing that since.

MR, CHABOT: Supplementary question. The annual rental on this space at 59 West Pender Street is $45,000 per year, triple net. In view of the fact that this space has stood vacant for almost six months, can the Minister give the House a reason for the apparent waste of more than $20,000 in rent for unused space?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's obvious that your supplementary should patiently wait in the sideline until you get the answer to your first question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As many of the other questions that have been asked by our friends across the way....

MR. FRASER: They haven't been answered.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: They have all been answered, and this one will be answered directly, as all the others have. But it's impossible to take an address like that.... We'll probably find out it's another Kentucky Fried. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Shocking waste of taxpayers' money.

OTTAWA SHARE OF OIL TAXES

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Premier. When the Premier came back from one of the federal-provincial conferences on natural gas, one of the great victories he brought back was that our government was going to pay Ottawa directly for the deemed profit taxes by the oil companies so they couldn't launder and shrink them. Now I'd ask the Premier, in view of a statement by the head of the B.C. Petroleum Corp. reported in this morning's Province that a bill is to be submitted to the Legislature that will enable the corporations to reimburse producers for extra taxes demanded in this way by Ottawa, is this a major change in government policy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, not at all. We're still negotiating with Ottawa as to the method of payment. We still believe in the principle that the oil companies should not be allowed to launder and shrink their money as they are in other provinces. We'd like to see the people get a fair shake here, and we're negotiating with Ottawa as to how the payments are to be made.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier if payments have been made to Ottawa, then, without legislative authorization?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No payments have been made yet. It shows that the oil companies haven't earned the amount of money to have payments — on the basis of their arguments.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, but....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got to give a full answer, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wish one would take his seat.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The deal that we offered Ottawa would have given them 33 per cent of the increase in the oil price. The deal accepted by Ottawa

[ Page 2529 ]

is 25 per cent. We have not paid anything yet. That's the federal Liberals for you; they shrink the money themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the question.

DETAILS OF HIGHWAY MILEAGE

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Answering the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the answer is 3,558 miles of road through some of the most precipitous territory in this province. I really believe that if this Member has integrity, if he's going to level with the people of this House, the Members of this House, and the people of this province, he will tell the House right now: what is the question? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to answer that question?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, I'll take the answer as notice. (Laughter.)

STUDENT JOBS IN MINES DEPARTMENT

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): I believe it was the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who asked me a question in regard to student employment in my department between 1974 and 1975. In 1974 there were 52 jobs. In 1975 there were 20.

ELIGIBILITY FOR RENTER'S GRANT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that under the renter's resource grant tenants are entitled to apply for a renter's grant after June 1, 1974, and if this entitlement still exists in law, can the Minister please assure the House that the applications by persons who are eligible but have not received a grant in the last 12 months will indeed by honoured?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, they'll be honoured.

In fact, senior citizens will, in effect, be getting a double grant for this year. The other, of course, will be pending the changes promised in the budget to the other renters.

ANNUAL MEETING OF

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF STRATA CORPORATIONS

While I am on my feet I might answer the question brought up by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I am advised that the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations has a membership of 200; 63 members attended the annual meeting which was held at the B.C. Institute of Technology on September 14, 1974.

CHANGES IN RENTER'S GRANT

LEGISLATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In light of the Minister's reply to the first question, could I ask him why letters are going out refusing to pay the renter's grant on the grounds that there may be legislative changes in the future, despite the fact that at the present time there is legislation which entitles these people to the grant? May I ask him whether his department has adopted the policy of simply not honouring legislation when they have suspicion that it might be changed sometime in the future?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the change is certainly going to be to the benefit of the renters who need this type of assistance. Of course, I know there has been no effort spared by some Members of the opposition to create anarchy and to delay the business of the House, but we are quite concerned and we are taking this remedy of delivering this for the senior citizens of this province. Not only will they be getting this year's renter's grant but they will also be getting double for this year.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF THE Attorney-GENERAL

On vote 21: corrective 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

[ Page 2530 ]

NAYS — 13

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

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 it be recorded in the Journals for posterity.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it being private Members' day and the government always observing private Members' day to the fullest extent, I would like the House to move to motions and adjourned debates on motions, and I would ask consent of the House to proceed to the adjourned debate on motion 16.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on motion 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure to take my place in this House and debate the amendment to the motion which is before us at this time. What we are debating in fact is the closure patch up motion and amendment brought on and caused by an arrogant government, led by an iron-fisted Premier of this province, a man who not too many weeks ago suggested that he would never deviate from the arbitrary standing order that was introduced last session limiting the right of people in this Legislature to question the government on the expenditures of tax dollars — a right that has been historical in this House and a right that is historical in most democratic parliaments. Yet we saw the attempt on the part of that government, and the people of British Columbia should recognize what that government was attempting to do when it arbitrarily set up the maximum of 135 hours for the scrutiny of the expenditures of over $3.2 billion.

We warned the government last year when they brought in these dictatorial standing orders that took away from the Members the right to question the expenditures of tax dollars, but the government would not heed the advice from the opposition regarding this new dictatorial standing order restricting the right to question the expenditures.

Now, with the government's indication of acceptance of the amendment to the motion, we see that the Premier has finally taken the step backwards into restoring a little bit of democracy back into this Legislature.

We saw the route march that took place not only in the committee but in the statements from the Premier. The farce of an estimates schedule was set up by the government on April 15 restricting the rights of Members of this House to question Ministers — some as little as two and a half hours — denying the right to properly scrutinize the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. Over $2 billion were being denied the right by that government over there...

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a third billion.

MR. CHABOT: ...the right on behalf of the people of this province to examine the expenditures of two and one-third billion dollars. The greatest increase in the source of revenue in the budget this year is from personal income tax from the back pockets of the taxpayers of this province. And the government's not going to allow us to fully scrutinize this increased ravaging of the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of this province.

Yes, three and a half hours here on the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) $716 million. That's all that government was prepared to give us to question the expenditures of tax dollars.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It was your own doing.

MR. CHABOT: It was a farce! Now the Member for Shuswap says that it was our own doing. Well, he was in the committee, and if he doesn't know what was going on, well, it's not my fault.

I listened very attentively when the Premier spoke yesterday, when he talked about the fragile system in which we live. Oh, it's a fragile democracy in which we live, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was telling us. But the Premier wasn't telling us, Mr. Speaker, that he disrupted that fragile system of democracy we were accustomed to in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. CHABOT: He is the problem, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. CHABOT: He caused the problem by his

[ Page 2531 ]

dictatorial actions of limitation on the right of debate in this House. And then he comes in, in his calm, rational, social worker approach, trying to smooth the waters. "Oh, fellows, we'll give you a little bit of democracy back. But we must be rational about all this." He's trying to kid the people of this province that it wasn't his doing — the establishment of the arbitrary 135-hour limit on debate of estimates. He caused the problem. Now he's trying to show this government as a rational government.

The Premier talked about correspondence that he's receiving in his office. He says the bulk of the correspondence says: "A plague on both your houses." I'd like to challenge that statement from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, because I suggest that the bulk of the correspondence he was receiving was a plague on his house.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: That's what it was, a plague on his house for his undemocratic actions, irresponsible actions in the introduction of the standing order regarding debate.

If the Premier feels that the correspondence said, "A plague on both your houses," I'm sure he'd have no hesitation in wanting to table the correspondence so that the Members as well could look at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHABOT: We never received any correspondence saying plague on us for fighting for democracy in this House. I'm sure the Premier received a lot of correspondence telling him that his actions were irresponsible in not allowing the right of people to examine, to scrutinize the expenditures of tax dollars.

I'll tell you, it's not only the correspondence that the Premier has been receiving. I suggest that there has been a bit of a rebellion in his party as well that forced him to bring back a little bit of democracy in this Legislature.

Now the leader of the Liberal Party, who's absent at the moment....

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): What's left of it!

MR. CHABOT: Yes, what's left of it. He wrote a letter to the Premier regarding the motion and the amendments which we're presently debating, and he said: "I propose that the hours from 10 to 12 every day, Monday to Thursday inclusive, be devoted to Committee of the Whole House for the examination of estimates in the traditional manner." Well, he has me slightly confused because I've always believed that the estimates have been debated in Committee of Supply, not in Committee of the Whole House. And the fact that he says "examine" rather than the amendment which we're debating which gives us the right to debate....

Now no one's yet clearly pointed out to me what is meant by the right to examine in Committee of the Whole House.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: But it's amended, yes. And thank God for that! It's amended to put it back where it rightfully belongs: in Committee of Supply, with the right of Members to debate — for a limited period of time, for two hours a day, between the hours of 10 and 12 on a daily basis. That gives us the ability to question government expenditures for eight hours a week.

Now if one was to take a hypothetical figure and look at the number of hours required for completion of the examination of the estimates, and if the hypothetical figure is 80 hours, it appears that unless we lift rule 45A, this parliament will be sitting two hours a day until some time in August. So I feel certain the government will go all the way, and I urge the government to go all the way to remove 45A so we can have unimpeded discussions and unimpeded debate and questions and answers from the government regarding the expenditure of these tax dollars.

Oh, I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, talking about the right to debate and talking about the Committee of Supply when I was in the committee, the standing orders and private bills committee which the Member suggested I had not attended, but the record clearly shows that my attendance was substantially better than many of the Members on the other side of the House.

But I remember the regimentation and how they hammered those standing orders through against the objections of the Members of the opposition. I remember that very clearly. I remember the laughter that came up from those Members in that committee when I said that with the implementation of these new standing orders a little bit of democracy had died in British Columbia. They laughed! Now they are seeing the error of being tied to a harsh party line in these committees.

When they vote on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, they will be repudiating the undemocratic action they took in that committee, repudiating the undemocratic action they have taken in this House as well — and thank God for that.

But I suggest that to make this amendment to the motion really functional, there is an urgent need to reconstitute the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills so that we can again examine, again have the opportunity of restoring free

[ Page 2532 ]

speech in this assembly. I want to urge the government to reconstitute that, to remove these obnoxious standing orders that impede free speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt, but I point out that you must stick to the amendment which deals with only two propositions in the amendment — changes in wording.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And there is already on the order paper motion 18 which deals with the subject you are now trying to debate.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there was a fair amount of latitude allowed yesterday in the debate here on the question of the amendment to the motion. And I'm talking about the right of debate; I'm talking about the Committee of Supply. I'm suggesting that the committee be reconstituted so that we can look at the matter of Committee of Supply and the right of free debate in Committee of Supply. I want to make sure this House once again becomes civilized, once again becomes democratic and once again has responsible rules.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers of this province demand that that action be taken.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when speaking in this House, I think the Premier tried to bring some calm to this House, and calm to the Province of British Columbia in political terms.

MR. CHABOT: He caused the problem.

HON. MR. LEA: Now I think if we could have ended the debate on that note, I think the Members in this Legislature and the people of British Columbia would have been better off for it. But what has happened since then is more political rhetoric from the official opposition.

So I think what we have to do is re-examine what has taken place in this House over the past month or two.

When those new rules were brought into this House, yes, the Members of the opposition did say what the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is saying today. He said that it won't work. We on this side of the House were crazy enough to think that it would work because we thought we were dealing with a responsible official opposition.

Wherever there are time limitations, as there are in other Houses, if the time is used wisely then there is ample opportunity for Ministers' estimates to be scrutinized and debated. But it became very obvious to me, and I think to a great many other people, that the official opposition decided at the outset that they would handle their part in the estimates frivolously, that they would handle them frivolously so that they could come to the point where we did come in this House, into chaos — chaos brought about by the official opposition.

Now they can bite their tongues because I would like to talk about that amendment. Did you see the expressions on their faces when we accepted it? Oh, they didn't think we had an open government. We accepted that amendment. Then they thought: "Now what can we do? Gee, we're going to have to go back and talk about estimates, which we don't want to do. All we want to do is make political points in this province." That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker.

Now there isn't the issue any more — the issue they brought about by handling the estimates frivolously in this House, wasting the House's time, wasting the taxpayers' money — the taxpayers whom they are so fond of saying that they support. That's what they were doing.

Now we have said: "Okay, if the official opposition cannot act in a responsible manner, of course that rule won't work." We're going to have to take a look at those rules because of an irresponsible opposition.

I believe that the people in this province have suffered because of what has gone on in this House, brought about by that official opposition. I believe the Premier is right, Mr. Speaker. I believe the people in this province are saying: "You know, there's a political hassle going on in the House, I don't think we like the Conservatives, the independents, the Liberals, the Social Credit or the NDP." I believe that it is dangerous to our system to have the people out there thinking in those terms, and I believe they are. I think it's going to get to the point where they don't vote for the party or the candidate they like the best, but they are going to end up voting for the one they can't stand the least, that's all. That's what's going to happen.

MR. McCLELLAND: What a stupid statement!

HON. MR. LEA: And I'll say that the official opposition has brought politics in this province to an all-time low level because what they are doing is ruining the faith people have in politicians if it can be ruined any more. They had Watergate in the United States, and what that official opposition is trying to do through their handling of the estimates in this House is to give us a scandal in this province that will make the people in this province not respect Canadian and British Columbian politicians. And they don't care; all they care about is trying to get back into power because they are just so upset. You know, they think the people of the province made a mistake.

[ Page 2533 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They have already done that.

HON. MR. LEA: That's what they think — it's a mistake if they aren't in power. So I would say that on this amendment that the only thing that has really happened is that we have a very surprised official opposition. They didn't want this government to accept that amendment; now they are going to figure out how they can vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: But I don't see how they can. They're stuck with their own mess, and that's the way it should be.

MR. G. F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Minister of Highways was imputing motives to this side of the House which he has no need to do to explain the actions of anyone on this side of the House in opposing the closure situation we have seen here this spring. There is nothing wrong at any time in taking the strongest action one can to defend the rights of the Legislature. I suggest to that Minister of Highways that that is what we have been doing.

MR. CHABOT: Right on!

MR. GIBSON: The Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace), speaking to this House on this question yesterday, said that this was an issue on which we should seek compromise. I respect the Conservative leader, but, with deep respect to him, I say that this is not an issue for compromise. This is an issue for doing the right thing. If someone comes along and says: "I have for you two propositions. One proposition will take away half of your rights and the other will take away a quarter of your rights. Shall we compromise at three-eighths?" That is what the government is asking this House to do.

The Premier, in his well-put talk yesterday afternoon said a number of things that I have to take issue with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take a look at Ottawa.

MR. A. V. FRASER (Cariboo): We're in British Columbia, never mind Ottawa. Let them run what they want.

MR. GIBSON: He suggested, in effect, that because the people in the rest of the province....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: He suggested that because people in the province, outside of this chamber, might not understand the chapter and verse of what we are talking about — although I think he underrates the public a bit in that regard — that, in effect, because it's not a public issue it's not important. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it's tremendously important; it's like the rules of a courtroom. I am not a lawyer, but I know enough of the rules of court to know that they are more important than any given case. If in a court, counsel were to be denied, for example, the right to cross-examine witnesses — which is very similar to what we attempted to do with Ministers on estimates — then that is far more important than any given Minister or any given estimate or any given government. And no government has the right to make that kind of change. The Premier went on to suggest that there had been sins in the past. He went through the history of all-night sittings. He said: "Would this House like to go back to those days?" I suggest to him that the sins of the past do not justify the sins of today or the sins of the future.

He spoke of the fragile system we live under and the need for respect for the rules of this House. I am as one with him on that, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest to him the fundamental proposal that the whole question of the rule of law presupposes the consent of the governed. The consent of the governed — in this case of the unanimous opposition of this House — was not obtained in the bringing in of these particular rules we are debating today. Unless there is governance by consent, then the rule of law cannot be expected to easily obtain.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this particular amendment and amended resolution, if it is amended, that we are debating today is one which will not effect the changes that speakers on the government and the opposition side of the House have said that they hoped it would do. Yesterday, just before the close of debate, I raised a point of order for Your Honour's consideration, which you looked at briefly and had a few things to say about and, I think, didn't come to any final conclusions. I have since then had a chance to study further the exact language of this motion as amended and as it applies to rule 45A.

I think there is no question but that the main motion — the motion as not amended — would have been in order. I strongly disagree with it, but that's not the question at the moment. It would have been in order; I believe that.

The motion as it would be amended relates not to the Committee of the Whole House but to the Committee of Supply. That would mean, Mr. Speaker, that each morning, were this resolution passed, we would go into Committee of Supply at 10 a.m. The Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would call Committee of Supply. The Chairman

[ Page 2534 ]

would be compelled to turn to page 18 of our standing orders and commence at once to put votes with no debate, amendment or reduction of any kind. I suggest, Your Honour, that that rule — that iniquitous rule — must be followed by the Chairman unless he is otherwise explicitly authorized. I suggest that the language of this amendment does not so do.

The second part of the amendment would have changed the word "examine" to the word "debate." It may be that the mover of the amendment felt that this would guarantee debate and would override standing order 45A. I submit that it would not and that it is necessary, in order to make this motion effective, for this House to include specific language overriding standing order 45A which I will propose before I sit down.

I would go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think if we try and suggest to ourselves that this motion would eliminate closure on the consideration of estimates, we would be deceived. I point out to you, Sir, that this resolution, if approved — and even if standing order 45 were suspended for the purpose of the morning session — would permit only an additional eight hours per week of estimates debate.

Let us say that this House in the ordinary course of its legislative considerations — its other business — perhaps has before it another three weeks. I pick the figure out of the air. Some may argue two; some may argue five. It doesn't matter; take any number of weeks around that quantity. Three weeks at eight hours a week is 24 hours' or so worth of estimates consideration — an extension, Mr. Speaker, of less than one-fifth of the time originally allotted to the consideration of estimates. During that original 135 hours we passed less than one-third of the total estimate allocation. I don't suggest we need three times as much time to conclude that discussion but I do suggest that 24 hours is certainly not enough.

Therefore, what happens if this amended resolution were to become the law of this House? You will note that the last clause of the resolution suggests: "...this order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the date for its next sitting unless otherwise ordered." That admits of two kinds of changes and two possibilities for the invocation of closure.

First of all, the government may any day it so chooses otherwise order and thereby suspend the protective effect of this resolution — any day.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Every day.

MR. GIBSON: Every day, if it wishes, as the Hon. Member for Saanich points out.

The other point is that it is effective....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about the language of the main motion now, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), not the amendment. The other point is that it's effective only so long as the House has fixed the date of its next sitting. When the House decides that it's time to adjourn for the summer and does not fix a date for the next sitting but rather leaves it to the call of the Speaker in consultation with the government, again the protective effect, such as it is, of this resolution would disappear.

That day the House would again go back into regular Committee of Supply in the afternoon. Closure, the guillotine, would fall again; votes would be put again, one after another, without any possibility of debate, which is the very thing that we have been fighting against.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that eight hours a week for, say, the next three weeks, is in no way going to avoid that problem. The government is fooling itself and this House is fooling itself if it thinks that this represents the solution to the problem. It does not. The solution to this problem is to allow this small, 55-seat House, supposedly full of full-time MLAs, to sit here and debate and question the $3.2 billion expenditure estimates of this government for so long as is required to get the kind of answers the opposition and other Members of this House feel they may need. That is what is required.

I might say in passing, and I will elaborate this more fully when we come to debate the main motion, if we do, that this situation makes no redress of the fact that we have already had to pass certain votes under the closure rule with no possibility of discussion. I refer to the vote of the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). We were given two-and-a-half hours to debate the estimates of that gentleman, who is responsible for some of the most important administrative questions of the government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: One of the Hon. Members down there in the NDP backbench says: "Whose fault was that?"

MR. D. A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Ernie Hall's.

MR. GIBSON: It was the fault of the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), your Minister — that is whose fault it was, Mr. Member. That is who it was that brought in that allocation that said two and a half hours for the Attorney-General, and I think it was three and a half hours for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and so on and so on and so on.

Interjections.

[ Page 2535 ]

MR. GIBSON: Seven hundred million dollars in three and a half hours. That's right, Mr. Member. That's whose fault it was, Mr. Member. You stand up and make your own speech and try to wriggle out of that one.

Mr. Speaker, this makes no provision for getting those votes back and getting the chance to properly debate them which we have never had. It is unacceptable for that reason, if for no other. But its gravest defect, with respect to you, Sir, and whatever further ruling and consideration you might wish to make, is, I suggest, that it does not get around the problem that rule 45A takes effect immediately the morning session starts or the afternoon session, because it is nowhere otherwise ruled out by this motion. Unless it is explicitly ruled out, the plain language of the standing orders must apply, iniquitous as they are.

Secondly, even if that problem were surmounted for the two hours each morning, it is not going to provide us with enough time to properly discuss the estimates of this government by the time the session ends. We will again be back into closure.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move a subamendment to this motion, of which I have a copy here, substantially in the following words:

That this House should strike the words "from this order" through to "otherwise ordered" of motion 16 and substitute the following words: "until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of, without invocation of rule 45A."

That is an attempt to clarify and, I hope, to put into better language — and probably better language still can be found — what I think to be the wish of most of the Members on the opposition side and what I hope to be the wish of the government in its apparently conciliatory frame of mind yesterday. I would be glad to send a copy over to the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) if he so wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member's amendment would be out of order at this time for a variety of reasons — first, because we are considering an amendment to an amendment.

MR. GIBSON: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it says to strike the words in the original motion, does it not? Isn't that what you mean?

MR. GIBSON: No, it is to strike the words in the amended motion. If you will note, it says at the top: "Subamendment to motion 16."

MR. SPEAKER: This is the motion of the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) that you are proposing to amend...

MR. GIBSON: That's right, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: ...by striking the words "this order".... There are no words to that effect in this particular amendment, so you are really dealing with an amendment to the main motion.

MR. GIBSON: I would have considered it as an amendment to the amendment which was given, but perhaps you might....

MR. SPEAKER: There are several grounds why this would be out of order at this time. First, it is considered out of order to make an amendment when there is on the order paper.... It would be anticipation to propose that there's an amendment on this motion when it's on the order paper in a separate form. Secondly, it would be incongruous at this time to try to put it in and have the House consider it when, in effect, it would be altering the amendment which is presently being debated.

Now I'll read the present amendment before the House, which proposes that the main motion, 16, be amended by deleting in the first line the words "a Committee of the Whole House" and substituting therefore "the Committee of Supply," and to further amend by deleting the word "examine" in the third line and substituting therefore the word "debate."

The House must deal with that amendment, either approve it or defeat it, and, indeed, I may have to put the questions separately because each of these contains a separate proposition. Then, before dealing with your amendment, which would purport, really, to alter the substance of the original motion by deleting the words that are in the original motion: "this order to be effective so long as the House has fixed a day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered".... Now you see you have definitely moved into the main motion, and you're purporting to amend that. Therefore it is out of order at this time to propose that while we have the present amendment before the House. To give you the authority on that, may I cite Beauchesne at page 173....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, just before that, could I ask if leave might be given to change the wording somewhat in a way that might make it acceptable by adding before it the words "and to further amend by" — in other words, more or less a continuation of the current amendment we have. And I would suggest, Your Honour, that that might well be considered in order up until the time Your Honour makes a decision as to whether it must be severed or not.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a reference in.... Oh, yes, I had it marked here before because this problem

[ Page 2536 ]

has arisen before.

At page 172 of Beauchesne it says: "It is out of order to move, as an amendment to another question, a motion standing on the order paper as a notice of motion."

Therefore, it would be anticipating the decision of the House on something that's been ordered for consideration, and that is one ground. Even though you may cure it with the other, we are still faced with that problem. It seems to me that you have the opportunity to move that once the House has dealt with this amendment, and then we're back on the main motion. I would suggest that even then it would be out of order. But once the House has dealt with the main motion, then we come to notice of motion 17, which proposes precisely what you're suggesting: that this House suspend the provisions of standing order 45A, Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session. Surely that is what is the intent of your amendment.

MR. GIBSON: No, Mr. Speaker. The intent of my amendment is that this resolution which we are currently debating can be made operational by exempting this resolution from the effect of standing order 45. I argue that without that exemption this motion is of no effect even if it were passed, because the rules for the Chairman in Committee of Supply are quite clear, and this motion does not waive those rules. I would suggest, Your Honour, that they cannot be waived without explicit reference to them. To argue otherwise would be to say we can't change the rules of this House even if everyone agrees.

MR. SPEAKER: I would also cite for you, on page 169 of Beauchesne, on the question of amendments:

"Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment, but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment. If it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the Member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment."

That is somewhat in line with what I've already suggested, that the time is not now. You will have the opportunity to speak again on the main motion, since you're speaking on the amendment, and you can then propose an amendment on which you can speak, I would presume, providing we don't run into that other rule about anticipation.

MR. GIBSON: Right. There might, indeed, be some merit in that, Mr. Speaker. It will give the government a little chance to consider this if they wish to consider it. I will be glad to move that at what you indicate would be the appropriate time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order. On a question of anticipation, I believe that the motion itself, as has been explained by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), would indeed be very difficult — in fact, impossible — to operate unless we concurrently suspended the operations of rule 45A. It's not a question of waiting until some subsequent time when a separate matter is taken up, as you have indicated, even though it happens on the order paper that there are two motions.

In actual fact, the motion we are currently discussing, motion 16, simply could not operate effectively, no matter how we put it in force or voted on it, unless within that motion we excluded a rule of the House which would otherwise make this motion a nullity or an absurdity.

So referring you not to Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker, but to our own primary authority of May, on page 381, on the relevancy of amendments, I think you would have to agree, if you examine the bottom of page 381, that this would be a relevant amendment, and the later motion really does not affect the fact that the Hon. Member has proposed an amendment which deals directly with this particular motion 16, and which, unless it is considered, would probably make motion 16, regardless of whether it is passed or not, irrelevant in any event.

So I would urge Your Honour to consider, when you are taking this matter under advisement, as you promised us you will, page 381, 382, 383 and 384 of May, where the questions of amendments are dealt with, and where I think you will see that a later motion in no way can prevent a valid amendment to the motion on the order paper and under discussion at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out on your point of order that it cannot be concluded, first, what will happen to motion 17 when we come to it, and it is obviously ordered for today.

Secondly, I point out.... If the House wishes to take some action on that, it has the opportunity afforded to it to take that action that would, in effect, dispense with standing order 45A if the House chose to adopt that motion, which is already there and which we are anticipating. You are anticipating that difficulty before the House has dealt with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Secondly, I point out that standing order 45A(3) reads: "At the conclusion of the 45 sittings...contemplated under this standing order...." — that is a specific group of sittings that are contemplated — questions will be put without amendment — or debate. Therefore it identifies the sittings to which that standing order refers.

The motion before us deals with an entirely

[ Page 2537 ]

different set of sittings, in the mornings as specifically pointed out, between 10 and 12 o'clock. The proposal of the amendment before us deals with Committee of Supply as a change instead of Committee of the Whole House, and to debate, which would be, in effect, contrary to standing order 45A, which says without debate — "not being subject to amendment or debate." Therefore it follows that it is clearly singled out as a different meeting of the Committee of Supply in which different rules, apparently, would apply. They can't be mixed up together by reason of the wording of this proposal of motion 16 and the amendment made by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the two questions you raised: one is anticipating, and the second is the 45 sittings.

The question of anticipation, I think, should be looked at a little more generously than perhaps you have done so. You have stated that it would be anticipating a future motion if we amended this one. I would suggest to you that it would be anticipating a future motion if we failed to amend this one to make it, in itself, intelligible and workable. If we pretended that because of some future motion on the order paper we would be unable to use this particular motion, it would indeed be anticipating....

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is anticipating trouble which may not exist...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I trust that I am.

MR. SPEAKER: ...if you are incorrect. These are entirely separate matters, the two propositions set out to the House, the one contained in standing order 45A and the other contained in the proposal for a sessional order which is now being debated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the second....

MR. SPEAKER: Between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock. It surely cannot have any application to the ordinary sittings contemplated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the second point I would like to comment on.

On the first point, Mr. Speaker, I accept your correction. Perhaps we are anticipating a motion and we should not do so; therefore we should simply consider what amendment will make this particular motion intelligible. I certainly accept your correction there. We won't make any further reference to any later motions.

But the second point of the 45 sittings: as rule 45A states at the present time, it is at the conclusion of 45 sittings that rule 45A(3), on page 18 — I specify on page 18 because we happen to have three rule 45(3)s, and a very badly worded rule — says that we would have to proceed to a vote.

Now you are quite correct, Sir, in indicating that we are talking about a separate meeting of the committee in the mornings. Whether we talk about a separate meeting of the committee in the morning or not, it doesn't alter the fact that the 45 sittings contemplated in rule 45 have indeed come to an end, terminated, and these other sittings have no bearing on whether or not those 45 are....

MR. SPEAKER: And the proposal before the House is to proceed on a sessional order that would make it possible to have meetings of the Committee of Supply in the mornings between specific times and to debate certain votes before that committee. Therefore, in effect, it seems to be supplanting to some extent the operation of the other standing order. I doesn't mean that there is any incongruity, providing that you identify in your mind which sittings you are talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's the end of 45 sittings.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on the particular and new point of order, that somehow it is possible to compartmentalize Committee of Supply and have a Committee of Supply to which rule 45 does apply and a Committee of Supply to which is doesn't apply, I would ask Your Honour to cast your mind back to the day when the 45 sittings ran out. One of the questions before the House at that time, on which you ruled, Sir, was: when is "forthwith"? And "forthwith" was found to be an elastic word....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and I'll tell you why. Parliament cannot so tie its hands, or the Speaker should not try to construe the rules so as to tie the hands of the House so inexorably that it is unable to do other business when it wishes to do it.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore when it is to embark on the course, it should proceed with it. But if it wishes to rise, it should have the right to rise simply because it would be, really, incredible that the House could find itself going on day and night without even breaking for dinner.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am prepared to accept the rule, if you wish, for the moment that "forthwith" is when you say it is. But that isn't what I was discussing.

What I was saying is that that obviously casts forward in time the application of rule 45A. Rule

[ Page 2538 ]

45A clearly does not depend only on the first 45 sittings of the Committee of Supply, or the first 135 hours, whichever is the later. Rule 45A continues in effect until it is exhausted, and continues to apply to every meeting of the Committee of Supply unless otherwise ordered. It is not, respectfully, I believe, otherwise ordered in the terms of the resolution that we are debating. Therefore I am saying that the resolution is not effective unless the amendment that I have proposed is somehow put in there, or something is put in to achieve that same purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: May I answer the part about pointing out that the inclusion of the word "debate" proposed in this amendment makes it clear that the purpose of the committee meeting in the morning is for an entirely different purpose than it would normally in the normal sittings. Debate must imply that there is a motion before the Committee of the Whole House in Supply, that there is some resolution to be made of the debate, with the motion relating to a particular vote in Supply being debated and concluded with a resolution, and reporting back to the House the result of that debate.

Now I must infer that from the terms and the working of this amendment, I can't see anything else but that that was the intention, unless somebody can draw another conclusion from the use of the word "debate" because, as you know, it is a rule of this House that there cannot be a debate without there being a peg upon which to hang it, other than points of order.

MR. GIBSON: But it would....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just saying that if any Members have a point to contribute, they make them to the House at this moment because I have to consider every submission on this.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest — and I thought I had dealt with this in my initial remarks — that the inclusion of the word "debate" adds nothing new because surely that is what all of the estimates have been about; we've been debating the estimates all along. The whole purpose of the Committee of Supply is to debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I have had to take it that when the proposal is made by the Hon. Member for the opposition to put in the word "debate," he meant to change the word "examine," and the word "examine" does not have the significance that the word "debate" does, presumably, because debate means that there is a resolution before the House or the Committee of the Whole House, the Committee of Supply, and that there is debate on that resolution. The resolution must deal with the vote that is presented for consideration by the Committee of Supply, and the only things that are referred to the Committee of Supply are those estimates and the votes that have not net been dealt with.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On that point of order, Mr. Speaker — and I am pleased that we are not going to have any inexorable tying of hands because I wouldn't want that to occur — I agree wholeheartedly with what you have just said as to the meaning of debate. It makes it quite clear that this amendment proposed by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), once passed, means that the Committee of Supply, between the hours of 10 and 12 on the four stated days, will function as Committee of Supply has always functioned.

But, Mr. Speaker, unless you are prepared to accept, as a further part of the amendment, the suggestion put forward by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), you are not going to avoid the consequences of rule 45A as they presently are on our standing orders.

Now I appreciate what you have said about the words "at the conclusion of the 45 sittings or the conclusion of the 135 hours contemplated". I suggest to you, Sir, that the word "contemplated" refers to the 135 hours and not to the 45 sittings. "The 45 sittings" is very specific in subsection 1 of the limitation on Committee of Supply. "The 135 hours" is only allowed to come into play upon certain circumstances.

It is, therefore, quite clear why subsection 3 was so carefully worded. It says: "At the conclusion of the 45 sittings, or at the conclusion of the 135 hours contemplated...." — the 135 hours can only come up for contemplation as the case may be. To suggest that the 45 sittings was somehow or other contemplated as being so-called normal sittings, I have to suggest to Your Honour that that interpretation cannot be placed by you.

MR. SPEAKER: On due reflection I agree with you that you are probably correct on that, as I see it.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Because on one occasion Your Honour was obliged to recess the House rather than go into a second sitting on the same night. That became one complete sitting on that day rather than two; we had to take account of that.

So it is 45 regular sittings of the House, however they may be. Under the rules of the House, the House can provide that it will sit at 10 o'clock the next morning or at any time of the day, as may be the case. We could have gone into three sittings a day or four sittings day.

[ Page 2539 ]

So the 45 sittings is an absolute figure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we leave this a motion with the amendment presently before the House, if we go into Committee of Supply, which will function as Committee of Supply always has in the past, in the hours 10 to 12, rule 45A is still in force.

There can be no debate or no amendment. As a consequence~, the very amendment that we are discussing is in direct conflict with the standing orders of this House. Therefore, until we can somehow or other suspend or deal with these matters without the invocation of 45A, we have a conflict which is not capable of resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: May I also point out that on proper notice — and this has been done on proper notice with the main motion — under the rules, amendments to the main motion can be made on the floor, as has been done. The effect of the motion proposed to the House is to adopt an alteration in the standing orders, and to do it by, in effect, another sessional order, which would then supersede the existing standing orders insofar as supersession is the result.

In other words, so far as that supervening effect of the sessional order bears upon any standing order, it to that point, or that amount, supersedes the significance of that standing order.

Let me point out where it supersedes. Standing order 45A(3) says: "...such questions not being subject to amendment or debate." To that extent the Committee of Supply has been altered under this proposed sessional order to permit debate.

I have already suggested that it would be implicit in the word "debate" that there is some resolution before the Committee of Supply. We know there are resolutions before the Committee of Supply to be put to the Committee of Supply. Therefore that is what is being debated. When they have been debated then they will be resolved, because that also is the duty of the Committee of Supply.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, do I understand your judgment to be this: this particular motion, with its amendment, if adopted by the House would result in the establishment of a Committee of Supply sitting between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12? Effectively, as the word "debate" is included, 45A is implicitly suspended during those hours.

MR. SPEAKER: Insofar as it in any way contradicts this sessional order you are proposing to adopt, yes.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Then when the hour of 12 o'clock comes, if the committee is still sitting, the suspension of 45A is lifted and 45A again becomes imposed.

MR. SPEAKER: It could take effect again in the afternoon in another sitting, providing the House doesn't order the committee to rise and report progress without putting any further questions in the afternoon.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Right. So if we have from 10 to 12, we have that 45A does not apply and if we sit as Committee of Supply again in the afternoon, it does apply.

MR. SPEAKER: Simply because of the first precedent sessional order which said: "The Committee of Supply shall take precedence over all other business until completed."

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: I see. Mr. Speaker, that being your ruling, I think there is a better understanding. I would like to engage in the debate some other time, because I think there are some matters which arise out of that.

MR. SPEAKER: May I also point out that the rule regarding anticipating another motion on the order paper still would appear to be involved.

The House will have to consider that part of it if the House adopts this particular amendment and this particular motion. Presumably they still have to come to the notice of motion 17.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me if in fact this resolution would overrule standing order 45 in some particulars, then in fact we are anticipating motion 17 to that extent. In other words, the anticipation to a certain extent is inherent within the four corners of the resolution we are debating.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but this is what can only be a partial suspension by the proposal to debate. It does not completely change the import of standing order 45A, as you will note, where it deals with other matters — amendments, for example. I have already suggested that you still have the right in this committee in the morning, if the word "debate" means what I suggest it means, to move the reduction of the vote, or vote against the resolution, or vote for the resolution, which you always have.

MR. GIBSON: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. The only point I am trying to make is that there is a partial anticipation in the motion we are discussing and that my amendment as well dealt with a partial anticipation.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think you are probably

[ Page 2540 ]

correct on that too.

MR. GIBSON: Therefore, I would hope that you wouldn't rule it entirely out of order at this time because I may wish to bring it back later. If there are no further points of order right now, I will just conclude my remarks...

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, would you proceed? Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: ...and say that until some kind of an amendment of this kind is accepted, that does restrain the operation of rule 45A and eliminate closure....

MR. SPEAKER: May I first say that the Hon. Member did sit down, not on a point of order, as I thought, but having concluded his remarks, saying that he was reserving the amendment until later. Did he mean then to conclude his remarks at that time?

MR. GIBSON: At that point the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) whispered to me that he had a point of order and he stood up on a point of order at that time.

HON. MR. COCKE: You sat down.

MR. GIBSON: ...but it is not a matter of consequence in any event because....

MR. SPEAKER: I think I should ask leave of the House under the circumstances. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. GIBSON: I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, and I have no intent of abusing the privilege. I meant merely to finish the sentence and say that without a full and complete suspension of the closure provision and some kind of guarantee that we will have more than just eight hours a week and then at the end of the session that is dead, I have to vote against this amendment at the moment.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, what we have really witnessed this afternoon, what we so often witness in this House, is the carrying on of a superficial debate around the real issue. It is saddening because that is the way the 135 hours was used up, precisely in the same way.

You know, yesterday the government, with every bit of goodwill it could muster, having being treated to virtual anarchy in this House, in view of all of the other jurisdictions around us that have given us a great deal of precedents, accepted an opposition amendment which was an amendment that did not certainly meet in every way with our thrust. Our thrust has been to bring order out of the chaos in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ho!

HON. MR. COCKE: We saw that last session of the Legislature treated to filibuster after filibuster. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) talked about the fact that the government has been harsh, the government has taken autocratic power and that kind of thing.

MR. FRASER: Well, they have.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yet, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it is the very opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha!

HON. MR. COCKE: It is the very first time the House has ever known free speech with the ability to question Ministers every day....

MR. FRASER: Garbage! Garbage!

HON. MR. COCKE: And, Mr. Speaker, despite all this, we felt: let's get on with this whole question. That is why we supported the opposition's amendments to that resolution. Did they put it in good faith?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Let's get on with it.

HON. MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker, we would like very much....

Oh, yes, let's get on with it, that Member says, that Member for South Peace River who can speak for hours and hours and say nothing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's get on with the amendment.

HON. MR. COCKE: We would just like to suggest that this Legislature has rules. Those rules have been abused. We hope that the rights of the Legislature won't continue to be abused. We hope that when the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) talks about the rules of the courtroom not to be broken, he'll think about that in terms of the rules of this House, whether he likes them or does not like them. Does the rule of law only apply, Mr. Speaker, when it's a rule that you enjoy? Or should a rule of law apply across the board? Mr. Speaker, that's what

[ Page 2541 ]

we're talking about here.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a great deal of patience, and I hope that the opposition will show just a little bit of credibility on this issue. And maybe we can get to the issue as quickly as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House I submit in two motions, actually, because you may have different views on each part of it.

The first question before the House is to amend motion 16 by deleting in the first line the words: "a Committee of the Whole House" and substituting therefore the words, "the Committee of Supply."

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 38

NAYS — 1

MR. SPEAKER: The second question on the amendment is that motion 16 be amended by deleting the word "examine" in the third line and substituting therefore the word "debate."

Amendment approved.

On motion 16 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say at this time that we....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Point of order. That Member has already spoken on the main motion. This is the main motion now.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I moved the amendment and he spoke after....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'd check that out.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a note that the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) spoke on the amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want another 40 minutes, go ahead.

MR. PHILLIPS: The time limit is 30, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that the official opposition are pleased that the government did accept the amendment, and just point out that the stand of the official opposition has never changed from the very beginning. We recognized the error of the government's ways, and I'm glad to see that they recognized the error of their ways and have accepted our amendment. I'm pleased with them, and I hope that the same conciliatory mood will prevail when we move on to motion 17 and motion 18, which are still standing on the motion paper, it being private Members' day, so that we will not only be faced with getting back 25 per cent democracy but that the Premier in his conciliatory mood will allow us to have a committee and allow us to re-examine the rules of the Legislature.

I might add, while we're at it, since the government is in such a conciliatory mood, that they might withdraw Bill 61, the Emergency Programme Act, so that we won't have that hanging over our heads. I'm sure that the Premier, after attending the convention last week and being given certain guidelines to follow by the convention, will allow us to carry on, as soon as this motion is passed, to debate motion 17 and motion 18, standing in the name of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) on the order paper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on debate on this particular motion.

I have been in the House quite a number of years. My colleague who sits on my right (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has been here even longer. Together I think we have about 49 years' service in this House, but in the course of those years I don't recollect a situation that has developed in this House similar to the one that we have just been through these last few weeks.

I regret what has happened these last few weeks very much. I've listened very closely to the debate. I've listened to the accusations that have been hurled about closure, refusal to allow discussion or examination of estimates, and all of the other phraseology. I have listened to the uproar that has been created in this House. Certainly in the past there have been occasions when there has been uproar, but never as a deliberate attempt of any group in this House. Any time there was uproar in this House in the past it was because of a specific situation that developed around a particular debate on a particular

[ Page 2542 ]

occasion. Never has there been any sustained attempt to create in this House in those years the kind of situation that we have been facing in this House in the last few weeks.

I became really disturbed. People have attitudes, people have things they believe in, and I think people should fight for what they believe in. Mind you, I think there has to be some valid justification for that belief, and I think there must be at least a modicum of truth attached to the accusations related to that situation and that statement of principle.

I was very disturbed when I read in the paper the other day that a Member of the official opposition, speaking in my constituency, indicated to that group.... The press report indicated that he spoke with apparent delight of the present chaos in the House. "'It was bedlam,' he said, laughing." He spoke with apparent enjoyment of the chaos.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it was in quotes. I don't know. Maybe the papers are wrong, but it said, and this is in quotes, "the stagnation of debate."

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay. I hope it is wrong. This is why I was so disturbed when I read it. I hope it is wrong.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, anyway I'm just quoting you. It's in quotes. It's not a paraphrase. However, when I hear these statements made that, "no chance to examine the debates, no chance to examine estimates, no chance to question the Minister....

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the Blues of one sitting of this House during the discussion of estimates. There were 47 sittings taken up — that's 47 times that amount of foolscap — that occupies a stack of paper almost three feet high of talk in this House about debates, about estimates, about individual examination. So there it was. It was three feet high. Then people say that there was no opportunity to question Ministers.

Now they muffed the opportunity or they didn't know how to utilize it, but I've examined that three-foot stack and there are very few questions. There are repetitive speeches, which was how we got into that position of the fact that it would take a stack of foolscap three feet high.

MR. PHILLIPS: How long did we have on your estimates?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is why I get disturbed when I hear the accusations that we have not been allowed and this House has not been allowed to examine the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: How long did we have on your estimates?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm telling you exactly what happened. There it is — page after page after page. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have never....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have never seen such a situation which obviously was deliberately created. I certainly....

MR. PHILLIPS: You're embarrassing the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member for South Peace River please be silent?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member be silent?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has been out of order on a number of occasions. Yet he was permitted to make his speech and he made his speech. He can't make a second one from his seat.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I was proud of the Premier yesterday. With an effort to try and make our system work he outlined an attitude towards our parliamentary system. He has, I think, implemented a promise that I made to the people of this province in the last election that we would make our system work. I sat through that 20 years, as many others did, when it wasn't being allowed to work, when we couldn't get caught up with the changes that were required in our parliamentary system.

We didn't have the Blues; we didn't have a Hansard. Mr. Speaker, for any group or any person to accuse this government of trying to take away the rights of any opposition or the rights of this House...the record proves completely opposite. I went through 20 years where we had no Hansard, where any time you got up and reminded a Minister of what he had said, he would say: "I didn't say that." Under the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if a Minister or another Member stands up and says, "I didn't say that," under the rules of this House you must accept that. I always accepted that

[ Page 2543 ]

statement from any Member.

We find that we've been through a period where Members of this House are not prepared to accept the rules with the result that we were into that situation. While we've had our fights over the years, we finished up recognizing the fact that this must be a House of rules. If any one group sets out to defy these rules, they're on the way to destroying this House.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I admired the Premier for what he did yesterday. He fulfilled a promise we made that we would make this system work. We've started up that road with Hansard, with the oral question period, with a rational.... The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)...I remember a few weeks ago we were discussing this different kind of House we had. I recollect that he said to me: "This is much more civilized in the way of hours than what we had previously." Much more civilized than we had previously. The all-night sittings....

I remember that at 4 o'clock in the morning the Minister of Mines' estimates were called in Supply — at 4 o'clock in the morning! That wasn't an isolated occasion. We tried to bring some rationality and some civilization into this House. There may be people here who, because of lack of experience, are not prepared to live with a civilized Legislative Assembly. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier and this government are determined to make this a civilized House. I admire the Premier for taking this rational, reasonable position, because he, as I am, is determined to make this House work.

I support this amendment. It's an indication of faith in democracy, faith in the system by this Premier and this government. I'm proud of the Premier, I'm proud of this government and I'm beginning to be a little bit proud of this House again. I'm beginning to get some of that pride I had in this House returned to me again. With the unanimous passage of this motion and the determination of every Member, perhaps we can make it the civilized House I have always dreamed it could be.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications just told us that what was happening earlier on in this session was that the opposition — the collective opposition, I assume he means — was on its way to destroying the House. He was talking about respect for the rules. I respect what he said, because with his introduction he indicated how long he has been in this House; I know that to be a fact. So in no way trying to be disagreeable, I just want to suggest to him that it is at least possible that what the opposition was trying to do was to save some of the rights and privileges of this House and not trying to destroy them.

Both the Minister of Transport and Communications and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) had great talks about respect for the rules.

Mr. Speaker, we do have respect for the rules, I hope. But in this case, with this rule — the closure rule — I ask you who made the rule?

MR. FRASER: Right on.

MR. GIBSON: The government made the rule.

MR. FRASER: That's right; you don't want to forget that.

MR. GIBSON: In most of the legislatures of this country and in the democratic world, it is accepted that the rule of the majority prevails in matters of legislation and things like that.

It is equally accepted that in the more fundamental questions of procedure the changes in rules are made by the careful process of negotiation and gradual agreement between the government and the opposition. That was not the case with respect to this closure rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hammered through!

MR. GIBSON: It was hammered through over the unanimous opposition of this side of the House...

MR. PHILLIPS: Snuck in on the last day.

MR. GIBSON: ...brought in on the last day of the last session as a fait accompli.

MR. PHILLIPS: Snuck in in the dark of the night.

MR. GIBSON: So I would suggest to that Hon. Minister that what the government overlooked in this case was the fundamental precept that the rule of law works best with the consent of the governed. The government did not go out of its way to get the consent of the governed. It overrode the objections.

The Premier in his speech to us yesterday explained some of the history of that. He suggested that there had been a generation's gap in this House where the give and take of negotiation between government and opposition on rules hadn't happened. I was not in the House during that period, Mr. Speaker, but I say that that is all the more reason why this existing government and the Premier who was in the House at that time should be exceptionally sensitive about the way the changes of this kind are brought in.

The Minister who just spoke referred to the rights of the opposition that have been brought into this House by his government. I congratulate him for those: the Hansard, the question period and other things. But what is the fundamental right of Members of this House? It has been the right to debate, to search, examine, ask questions until satisfaction was

[ Page 2544 ]

achieved or until exhaustion set in, one or the other. But there was no let or hindrance put on that right to debate.

I will agree that in chambers such as the 260-some-odd seats in Ottawa, and the 600-and-some-odd seats in the United Kingdom, it is necessary to have time limits on debates. There are five times as many Members in Ottawa and a budget 10 times as large. But here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where we sit less than six months of the year, there is another six months of the year available to consider any questions and estimates that aren't considered in the first six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier says we are full-time MLAs.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says we are full-time MLAs. There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, to curtail that freedom of speech in any way in the British Columbia Legislature. While the Hon. Members of the government opposite are throwing around precedents, they might recall that the Manitoba government, a New Democratic Party government, eliminated all restrictions on debate. I don't hear that precedent being cited.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution we have before us now is not a guarantee of the time that is required. What it is is an agreement by the government that as long as this House sits for other reasons unrelated to estimates, as long as it sits for other business, we will be given eight hours a week to debate estimates. That is all it means — eight hours a week. Recall that we got through a third of the estimates in 135 hours, and we are being given eight hours a week.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are lots of weeks.

MR. GIBSON: We've got lots of weeks, says the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. How many? Could I have your guarantee, sir, that we have as many weeks as it needs to finish the estimates? That is the guarantee that is not there, Mr. Speaker. That guarantee is not there, Mr. Minister. What has not been given? That is what has been given, eight hours a week. What has not been given is protection from closure. That is the fundamental battle that has not been won. That is the fundamental freedom that has been taken away from the opposition. Eight hours a week for a few weeks, as the government night decide, is not going to compensate for the restriction of the right of debate in this Legislature unnecessarily by a closure rule that still remains on the books under the terms of this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to go home on a holiday or something?

AN HON. MEMBER: You tired or something?

MR. GIBSON: Since this resolution at the moment does not provide that fundamental protection, Mr. Speaker, I will seek again....

AN HON. MEMBER: At $50,000 a year and you want to go home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: ...to move an amendment that I hope will give the House the protection it needs from the closure provision under the terms of this resolution without, I hope — and I have tried to word it that way — trying to ask the government to back down, without asking them to take their 45A off the books or anything like that, but simply to give us closure protection — you might call it anti-closure protection — during the debate on the estimates for the rest of this session as contemplated by motion 16.

I therefore move an amendment to motion 16 which I hope Your Honour might find in order now dealing with the question of anticipation as I suggested. I think this argument, perhaps, found favour with you that the motion, as it is currently written, does, indeed, purport to some extent modify rule 45A.

I would suggest that my motion does not extend that modification but rather clarifies and does not, thereby, anticipate resolution 17.

Therefore, I move again that the words "from this order" through "otherwise ordered" should be stricken out to be replaced by, "until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without invocation of rule 45A." I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it's the same amendment and there is still the question I must consider of there being anticipation of notice of motion 17 which is to the same effect — that is, that the House suspend the provision of standing order 45A, Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session.

The other thing is that the words that you propose to strike out are the following: "This order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting unless otherwise ordered," and to replace it with the words: "Until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without invocation of rule 45A."

I would suggest that the first part of the proposition you propose would be in order, just to delete. But I still must maintain, I think, the rule that if the purport of your amendment is to anticipate the notice of motion 17, then we would have to await that stage, debate it and, if it were passed, it would have the effect that you desire in this amendment. I

[ Page 2545 ]

can't see how I can overcome that anticipation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, your ruling, if I understood it correctly, was that the word "debate" in the amended motion we are now dealing with overrode the provisions of standing rule 45A.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: The intent of my motion is to suggest the way in which, and a time framework in which, that overriding shall take place. In other words, not simply as long as a day for the next sitting of the House has been fixed, which Your Honour has already indicated is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt to ask this question? I am trying to get the intent of your amendment. If your purpose is to say that during the mornings, between 10 and 12, that rule 45A is not going to be invoked — if that is what you meant, during that period, because this motion deals strictly with that time, between 10 and 12 — if that was the purpose of your amendment I can't help but say I have already indicated that during those times rule 45A would not be invocable, if that's a word — cannot be invoked.

MR. GIBSON: No, Sir, that is not the intent of my amendment. The intent of my amendment was to provide that the protection afforded by this resolution should not terminate at the time when the House has no longer fixed a date for its next sitting because that says that at that time the closure rule then comes into effect so that we can get all the estimates passed.

What this motion says, or what this motion asks the House to say, is that debate under this system will be continued until all the estimates have been passed. In other words, it clarifies the timing. It makes it clear that this order must remain in effect until all the estimates are disposed of under the terms of this order. Do I make myself clear?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but I am afraid the result...if you read it — and let me read it to you and the House as it would be if this amendment were put and adopted. It would read that: "The House 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."

That means all the estimates have been referred. Then to go on until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without invocation of rule 45A.

Now I presume from the wording of that that you are placing a limitation or, actually, I suppose, a qualification upon the sittings of the Committee of Supply in the morning because it doesn't say anything about the regular sittings contemplated in the standing order 45A. It refers only to the time that the House will sit as Committee of Supply in the mornings, and estimates now referred to them may be debated in that time.

Further to that you are saying: "until the estimates shall be regularly disposed of without invocation of rule 45A." I say that I suggest it would be redundant to raise the question of rule 45A in the context of the morning sittings. But if you are purporting to say that there shall be no invocation of rule 45A for the afternoon sittings, which must be called under the priority motion in the afternoons, then you haven't made it clear by this and you are infringing upon a motion which is presently before the House for consideration in notice of motion 17. Therefore it would be out of order if you went as far as you've gone here by mentioning "without invocation of rule 45A."

MR. GIBSON: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm not purporting to infringe on rule 45A except insofar as is follows: the effect of this as I read it, were the House to pass it, would be to insist that all estimates would have to be considered at the morning sitting until all estimates were disposed of. It does not deal with the afternoon sitting except to say that estimates will not be passed in the afternoon sitting under the authority of rule 45A. In other words, if the government means what it says about giving us the right to debate these estimates in the morning sitting, this guarantees us that right.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think in interpreting the wording — not of your amendment but the words you propose to strike out — the words you propose to strike out say: "this order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting." In other words, as long as the House is operating, surely. Because the House, if it doesn't fix a date for its next sitting, means that it's not operating at all. And the words "unless otherwise ordered," are usually put in all sessional orders, although that, again, is not a matter for me to comment on. I can't see that the thing is in order because, no matter what you say, it still anticipates notice of motion 17, and we can't transgress on that according to the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on 17. Surely, we are dealing here with a most important motion, amended, I think, by the official opposition in a manner which they find satisfactory. This happens to be an extremely important motion. To suggest that we should somehow pass what has to be a critical motion which

[ Page 2546 ]

would make major changes to the way this House operates and which takes care of a festering problem that we've had for 11 months, actually, but in particular for the last month, and then to suggest somehow that you're going to leave it incomplete, you're going to leave it with a major flaw within it simply because under the rule of anticipation another motion later on deals with some aspect of the problem dealt with by motion 16, is, I think, an extension of the rule against anticipation to an unfortunate length.

Surely we should deal within this motion with all problems that occur in relation to extending hours. Surely within this motion we should anticipate potential problems in the future and attempt to deal with them. Then if some other motion later comes up — then some other motion later comes up. But surely the rule against anticipation should not be employed, as it might be interpreted as being done, to somehow prevent us from completing this particular motion 16 which obviously is going to be critical to the proper functioning of this legislature for the remainder of this session. Surely we cannot leave this thing half done, or three-quarters done. Surely we cannot leave portions of it untouched, ignored, because later on down on the list of motions there happens to be another one which deals with some aspect.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might call upon the mover of the subsequent motion, without violating the rule on anticipation, to have his view. Surely, all these things must be dealt with together because, if in a later motion there are amendments made, or indeed the motion itself is accepted, we may find that we have two motions in conflict, and somehow because we have been interpreting strictly the rule against anticipation we have allowed that situation to develop. Surely good sense requires that we deal with all aspects of this particular problem at the present time and not lead ourselves into a trap whereby at some future date we could put forward conflicting motions.

I think, in addition, Mr. Speaker, you should weigh most carefully the precedent that is being established at the present time. If any Member can, by putting a motion on the order paper, prevent full examination of some other matter of major importance to the government and opposition, if that is the case, then we are running into some very tricky business indeed and I suspect your ruling in future years will be one that will trouble many subsequent Speakers.

The fact is that the rule against anticipation, which is a good rule, should be used with restraint and discretion so that it does not prevent a proper examination of the existing motion, which occurred prior and is before this House at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of the amendment that is proposed is to expand the generality of the rule that has been adopted as amended, to in effect delete the operation of another standing order.

I would point out another feature to this, and that is that almost next to this particular motion that we are considering and have amended is a motion dealing with the subject that the Hon. Member now wants to put into this and embody in the existing motion before the House, knowing that it is already ordered on the order paper for immediate consideration following this motion. It appears almost as if it was a case of lifting somebody else's motion from the order paper and incorporating it into a motion before the House. Perhaps that may explain why it is generally frowned upon in the rules to anticipate a motion on the order paper which may relate somewhat to the same subject. It is obvious this relates towards the same subject but, as I said, it expands the amendment to the rules proposed in this sessional order, which is motion 16 as amended. It expands it. To do that seems to me, with respect, to be contrary to the rules on such amendments.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, I have listened carefully to the debate of both the Members of the Liberal Party in opposition and to your remarks concerning this particular motion. I would not be adverse to withdrawing or asking leave to withdraw motion 17 standing under my name in the order paper, provided I felt that it would accomplish something of a tangible nature with respect to a debate in the House. But as I understand and read motion 16 as it is before the House now, we have amended it to sit as Committee of Supply for two additional hours of the day on specific days — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday — at which time the rule, standing order 45, will not come into effect. So we are sitting as we ordinarily would in afternoon or evening sessions whenever Committee of Supply is called and have the same privileges of debate, the same privileges to move motions, to move a reduction in a Minister's salary, or whatever other rules would have ordinarily applied in Committee of Supply.

I hesitate to ask leave to withdraw my motion....

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with the Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: I feel that it is quite specific in No. 16 that we are only dealing with the hours of 10 a.m. to 12 noon on specific days.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you that it is redundant.

MR. SMITH: It would seem to me that it is and I submit further that frankly we anticipated the problems that might be involved in the sittings of the

[ Page 2547 ]

House from this point forward and that is why motion 17 and motion 18 now stand under my name in the order paper. The only thing that we do not have is any assurance from the Hon. House Leader or the government that they intend at any time during this session to call those motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, this is private Members' day and I think I should remind the Hon. Members of a quotation on this so that that will not become an issue in this consideration. If you look at the procedure of the House of Commons in Redlich, page 33, third volume, it says:

"At the sittings assigned to private Members, the end of the routine business is followed by notices of motion instead of by orders of the day. The notices of motion are substantive business for private Members' sittings. Not until they are disposed of does the time come for dealing with the orders of the day."

I put that to you now so that you will understand that this is private Members' day.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification. I would say that if I interpret that in the way I believe you do, we can anticipate, at least for the remainder of the session, that we would be debating motions standing on the order paper in the names of private Members or others.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless the House adopts some other priority or precedence matter that would shunt aside private Members' day, which for 20 years seems to have been the practice.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Not now, I hope.

MR. SMITH: If I am correct, as motion 16 stands before us, we are really dealing specifically with an additional session each day from the hour of 10 a.m. to 12 noon, and that something that would occur in the afternoon or the evening sessions covered by motion 17 or 18 would have to be dealt with as a separate motion. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: I think I must agree on that. I think that the import of what the Hon. Member is doing is invading the sittings of the Committee of Supply in the morning with something that we have already, I hope, agreed on — the redundancy of standing order 45A(3) in those morning sittings. If it's redundant, then you are trying to expand that amendment, which you are not permitted to do.

In any event, you would still be offending against the rule of anticipation, which says that notice of the motion is next practically on the order paper for the House to consider. Therefore I must agree with the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and rule the amendment out of order at this time. The Member is always entitled to speak on the question when we come to the effect of standing order 45A.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the latitude you have given in the discussion of this point of order, which, I think, is an important one. I have no intention of prolonging that any longer, you having given your ruling. I would simply respectfully appeal that ruling to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Now you've broken it. That's the first time I've had one of those for two years. I don't know whether to collapse or walk out. I can't get my thumb on the bell.

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

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 3

MR. SPEAKER: Now is there any further debate?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a most important debate that we are having this afternoon, and I would just like to say a few words on this motion.

The motion is clearly one of seeking to bring the kind of compromise that has glorified parliament and been a credit to democratic countries down through the centuries. I would like to make a couple of points in regard to some comments that have been made in regard to this whole debate and this whole issue of the changing of rules.

First of all, there was an article which appeared in the Vancouver Province on Thursday, May 15, quoting the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in this way. He said:

" 'They" — meaning the government, I

[ Page 2548 ]

presume — "are taking away the traditional rights of parliament which are the modern equivalent of what people once went to battle for,' Bennett said. He cited the Magna Carta and Oliver Cromwell in calling for unlimited debate on the estimates, and suggested any thought of time shortage could be accommodated by the legislators working full time."

He refers to Oliver Cromwell. That is true what he said, that Oliver Cromwell was one of those who resisted the power of the king of that day. The outcome, of course, ultimately was the death of the king and the supremacy of the successive parliament in that issue, as was in a more lesser way the Magna Carta. On that point he is correct as well.

As a student of history, and as a former social studies teacher who taught these things on many, many occasions, I was naturally taken by this point.

There is something that is not said here, and I think that is important. It is that Oliver Cromwell was not only on the side of justice opposing oppression on the issue of the power of the king, but having succeeded in putting down the power of the king, he then became himself an oppressor. One might question what his motives were in the whole exercise in resisting the power of the king.

It is clear that moderation did not triumph in that conflict between Cromwell and his allies and the monarchy of that day.

Similarly, there's another period in history — there's an analogy — and that is with Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte was also on the side of justice against the power of the king of that day in France, Louis XVI. For a period of time he was on the side of justice. However, things broke down. Disorder resulted after the power of the king had been broken, and Napoleon Bonaparte became himself an oppressor, a dictator. He took power unto himself and became a dictator, and in many ways was a worse oppressor than the one he had put down.

Then in this century we have the case of Joseph Stalin, who was, again, on the side of those people who were fighting the oppression of the king of that day, Tsar Nicholas, and again moderation was defeated, common sense was defeated, and a new oppressor arose in that situation.

We are not fighting here. There is no oppression on the side of the government in this case. There is no oppression of parliament by an outsider, by a dictator. This is the will of the parliament, of the people. Therefore it is the very will and power of the people that is involved through their elected representatives in the normal democratic process. There is no oppressor to begin with, and parliament — and we are not speaking of the government when we are speaking of parliament — has many people in its numbers who have a very excellent record of fighting oppression, Nazi oppression, during the Second World War. I just want to mention a few.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L. A. Williams) served in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Second World War with distinction and fought the Nazis. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) served in the Canadian army in the Second World War with distinction. The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) had part of his left breast shot off by a Nazi bullet in the Second World War, fighting for freedom against Nazi oppression. The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) was in a situation in which he was in an enemy action with a Nazi U-boat. What was he doing there? He was risking his life, fighting for democracy, for the rights of parliament, for the rights of the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. DENT: And one further: The Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) served six years in one of the finest regiments of Canada, the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, in which also the former Attorney-General, Mr. Robert Bonner also served as an officer. Both of these men served their country with distinction, fighting the Nazis, fighting against oppression.

How on earth can any Hon. Member here charge other Hon. Members, who have served their country with distinction, with oppression? It's nonsense. It is not an issue. I would like to just conclude by quoting Lord Balfour in the debates of 1902, January 30. Lord Balfour, a Member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, 1902, January 30, in a debate on rule changes in the British parliament...and I just want to read one line from his remarks. Lord Balfour, Member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the Mother of Parliaments, was debating a rule change similar to the one we have been facing recently, and these are his words:

"The truth is that with the changing circumstances of the House, in itself revolutionary, our rules, which were originally framed, as it were, to promote a fertilizing and irrigating flow of eloquence, are now, it appears, required to dam up its vast and destructive floods, and to keep them within reasonable limits."

Those are the words of Lord Balfour.

I would suggest to you that parliament, in its wisdom, is seeking to reform itself in order that all Hon. Members will be accorded their rights to speak, will be accorded the kind of freedoms that men on both sides of this Legislature fought for in the Second World War. I might add, in closing that I, too, served in the Second World War, even though I was

[ Page 2549 ]

underage, and I'm proud of that record, and I resent anyone suggesting that we on this side of the House are not interested in fighting for freedom and fighting for the right of free speech.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with what the Member for Skeena has just said. I was a little concerned for a moment. I thought perhaps he was suggesting that the House Leader was either Cromwell or Napoleon or Stalin, but I'm glad he cleared up that problem. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Strachan.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, the House Leader. That's right.

There have been a number of occasions, as you well know, over the past several years when this House, on matters of its own procedures, has come to a crisis. Like most illnesses that plague human beings, once the crisis is passed there is not only relief from the disease but for all who are involved there is tremendous relief. Any of the Members here who are fathers and mothers know what it's like when a child goes through the crisis of a raging fever and then, when it finally breaks, the tremendous relief there is not only for the child but also for everybody involved. I think that we are passing through a similar situation. It has taken a few more days than it has on previous occasions but I think this motion, as it is presently amended, will most likely have that same effect. I compliment the government for bringing this motion forward in an attempt at a compromise. I don't think it matters whose victory it is; it is the House's victory, really. I also compliment the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) for bringing forward his amendment, because it has made that motion even more meaningful to everyone who is here.

I just want to make a further suggestion to the government which I think is not going to affect rule 45A and the control that the government needs to have over the House and the committee, and I hope it will be considered seriously in the way in which it is given. We have now arrived at the situation, Mr. Speaker, based upon your judgment, that on the four mornings of the week when we will sit from 10 until 12 the operation of the Committee of Supply will go on as if 45A never existed. I think that everybody on all sides of the House must welcome that opportunity. However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are unduly limiting ourselves in this respect.

As I said a few moments ago, I think with this crisis passed that there will be some general relief. It seems to me that occasions may arise when it will be quite obvious to Members of the House that two hours a day for four days is just not sufficient. There may be good reason why the government should be able to utilize other sittings on those days for that same purpose. The motion, as presently amended, still includes the words "unless otherwise ordered," and still gives the government the right to exercise control responsibly, as we all hope the government will act. Since we are making only a sessional order I don't see the wisdom now of saying that there is something special about two hours on Tuesday morning which does not apply to three hours on Tuesday afternoon if the circumstances require it — the same on Wednesday and the same on Thursday. I am prepared to say to the government that Friday is your day if there's a particular problem.

Therefore, without saying anything more on this matter, and, as I say, based upon the feeling that I get and I've had this feeling before when these crises have arisen in this House — I think that we are going to embark upon a period of real relief — I would like to move an amendment to motion 16 as it's presently amended by deleting the words: "from the hour of 10 a.m. until 12 noon" and substituting: "at its duly ordered sittings." The consequence of this amendment, if accepted, would be that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the House, at its duly ordered sittings, could sit as Committee of Supply and deal with the business of that committee in the way in which the motion contemplates, but still leaving that the sessional order is effective only so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting, and still leaving the words: "unless otherwise ordered."

I think that gives to the government and to the opposition the most satisfactory solution without the government abdicating the authority which the government, with its majority in the House, must always have. I think if it is done in this way it will afford us a greater opportunity to get on with the business which we must consider by way of the precedence motion as well as the other business of the House. I can contemplate, with the order paper as it presently stands, that the government might be confronted with a situation where indeed it would be desirable to continue with Committee of Supply being debated in the normal way because there might not be sufficient other business on the order paper to use up the available hours. I think we shouldn't in any way delay the deliberations of the House upon any of the matters which are properly before us.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know you can hear what the Hon. Premier is saying. The reason I specifically wanted to add, "at its duly ordered sittings" is because it always remains within the authority of this House to call the House together at 10 a.m. on the motion of the House Leader. We have had that before, Mr. Premier. If it helps the Premier

[ Page 2550 ]

in any particular way, I am prepared to say that to get on with the business of this particular session I am prepared to sit at 10 o'clock in the morning, three sittings a day if need be. I would be prepared to add those words if it would make it clearer.

But I think that the authority exists in the House to order its sittings at 10 a.m. I for one would not hesitate to add those words, if in so doing it would make it perfectly clear that the government, by calling sittings at 10 a.m., was not using some extraordinary power. But I think the government has that authority, and I don't propose to say anything more.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, I would say that the government is prepared to accept the intent of the amendment, not in this exact wording, but what the Member is suggesting — that beyond sitting between 10 and 12 you are also suggesting that, unless otherwise ordered, it be further amended to include "at its duly ordered sittings." I don't think it is necessary, Mr. Member, to include that. I will say to you in this House, and I give you my word as the leader of the government, that we will consider your suggestion and implement it — that along with 10 to 12 we will implement "at other sittings as well" in the context of this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: How can we?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It can be done because the words "as otherwise ordered," as the Member said in his opening remarks in giving his suggestions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's correct. "As otherwise ordered, " yes.

Well, look, the Member's intention is clear and I am responding to his intention — "as otherwise ordered." It can be simply done. The House has to go into committee in the afternoon in any event, so what the Member is suggesting is that when the House goes into committee, he wants the extension of this time, if the House feels it necessary, beyond the 10 to 12. I am saying to the Member that I give him my word as I stand here that that will be done. We don't need an amendment. I accept the sincerity with which it is offered.

I am suggesting that as the House proceeds and its business is done, the words "as otherwise ordered" will be interpreted, as the Member suggests, to include other hours for those sittings of estimates. That is possible because we must go into committee at 2:30 as order of precedence in any event. I am suggesting then, that taking your suggestion that beyond the two hours the "as otherwise ordered" includes, and the intent is to include, what you are suggesting, Mr. Member, because I think your suggestion is sincerely given. I think we should sincerely respond to it.

Based on that, I would ask that you withdraw the amendment, and we will follow that in terms of the words: "as otherwise ordered".

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I guess I can't debate the same matter again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You can debate the point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By leave, by leave.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask you for clarification. You have already clarified what the effect of the word "debate" is as it effects the 10 to 12 period. May I inquire whether the motion as it is presently amended by the words "unless otherwise ordered" provides the scope under this amendment for the House, when the committee rises at 12 o'clock, to go into committee and then to continue with debate in the afternoon with these words as they presently appear?

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid they don't. I have been looking at it with that in mind. It would have to be by leave of the House. The reason I say that is that if you read the proposed order, it would read: "This order to be effective so long as the House has fixed the day for its next sitting, unless otherwise ordered." It doesn't seem to refer in that phrase to the times of sitting in the afternoon or at any other time of the day. I would suggest that some thought should be given to that question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order, if the method to achieve what the Member is suggesting is by unanimous leave of the House, I state here that we would give such leave as attached to the words "as otherwise ordered."

MR. McCLELLAND: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you advise us whether or not with leave of the House, if we go into debate in Committee of Supply at 2:30, we would be offending rule 45A?

MR. SPEAKER: Not with leave you wouldn't. Standing orders can be suspended with leave at any time. The only other thing that gives me some concern is that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member appears to be in order, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't we suspend the rules?

[ Page 2551 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that what the Member wants beyond the 10 to 12, as I understand his remarks, is on interpretation of "as otherwise ordered."

His response to this is to say — I am perhaps guessing here — that perhaps if we've gone through the other order paper, then we are confined to 10 to 12, I agree with you; I think that would be handicapping us. Certainly that is not the intent of the compromise. I am suggesting that we are prepared to ask leave that the rule be suspended beyond that time if necessary, as you request, to give the additional time. I think that's an additional part of the compromise that's certainly welcome.

MR. CURTIS: Would that request have to come every day?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think so. Not when there's other work on the order paper — not necessarily. I'm suggesting, if you remember the content of my speech yesterday, that instead of us negotiating here on the floor of the House, perhaps the Whips can come to some agreement. If the Whips come to that agreement, I don't see any problem in not getting leave of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you suspend the rules for the duration of the session?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because we're on to this method already.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the same point of order, I think that if I can gather the consensus of opinion, we're all trying to reach the same conclusions. I respectfully submit to the Premier that the acceptance of motion 17 and the passing of it for the suspension of standing order 45A for the remainder of this session would accomplish exactly what we're trying to do without anyone having to ask unanimous leave beyond today.

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

MR. SMITH: Whenever you go into Committee of Supply, morning or afternoon, we'd be completely within the rules of our House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that I would also be guilty of anticipating the interpretation of that since it hasn't arisen in regard to the meaning of "unless otherwise ordered."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, given that there is this rule against anticipation of discussion of a motion which comes up about six motions down, namely motion 17, perhaps we cannot discuss that at this time. But we on our part accept the statement of the Premier, speaking on behalf of all Members of his party, with thanks. We feel that this is a constructive approach. The whole question of motion 16, its preceding discussions, and its subsequent discussions in getting on the order paper, was essentially to arrive at a compromise in terms of technicalities, which did not result in a compromise on principle. This point, I think, has been most ably made by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

We now have a compromise in terms of technicalities which appears to be acceptable to all sides. We have the statement of the Hon. Premier, which we thank him for and accept, that if there is any further discussion past the hour of 12 o'clock, the effect of rule 45 by unanimous consent will be set aside. If any Member of the official opposition, of course, wishes to enforce rule 45, clearly the Premier cannot speak for them. Clearly the Premier cannot speak for any Member of our party, the Tories or the independents. But as the concern over rule 45 has been the use of it by the government, I feel the Premier has made a very conciliatory gesture in the light of the steady compromise on points of detail which have been made. We accept that.

I trust that he will keep in check the Minister of defence and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and others because they have made statements today which I found a little disturbing. I trust that Members of his party will take seriously the importance of, if we get on to Committee of Supply after 12 o'clock, having rule 45 ignored.

I, as the original proposer of compromise in this area in terms of a method of getting us out of the impasse of some weeks' duration, would like to thank the Premier for this further statement today — this further gesture — which I believe meets the objections of the opposition with respect to rule 45A.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the same point of order, the interpretation as I have it on the point of order in terms of the words "as otherwise ordered" does give the House no leeway, according to the Speaker. That appears to be his ruling. However the Speaker has....

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member for a moment to explain? There is another alternative that I had not explained and that is that when the committee meets in the morning between 10 and 12, the question is asked: "When shall the committee meet again?" It is then the time at which the House can dispose of when it meets again. By leave the rule regarding meeting in the afternoon could be waived,

[ Page 2552 ]

because there will no doubt be occasions when government business would take precedence in other fields besides Committee of Supply. There are bills before the House and other matters. I cannot see the House tying its hands so completely again that it would not be able to operate with different choices in the afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting in the point of order raised by, first of all, the Member in interpreting his amendment and in response to it, as I see it, we would interpret "as otherwise ordered" to be by leave to use other times for committee. What I am suggesting to facilitate that is that the Whips get together and come to an agreement. Whatever agreement the Whips come to is one that brings its attention to the House and the government will give leave to that agreement by the Whips without in any way impeding the intent of the House and the conciliation of putting up the extra two hours.

Now if that's the interpretation that the Liberal leader has, as I think he has, and as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has, what we have is a situation that says the House can sit between 10 and 12, consider and debate and vote in Committee of Supply, and unless otherwise ordered, by leave allows us to go to Committee of Supply in other hours. And those other hours, as I see it, and the government would agree to, is on the basis of the Whips coming to some agreement on a schedule — either day by day or hour by hour, if it gets that narrow. But certainly the whip system, traditionally, can then function. I can't speak for the Whips, but I'm suggesting that with that leeway and in the knowledge of the direction of the House, they can come to some accommodation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't find the Whips.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we'll get them there. But the problem as I .... No, I don't want to talk about Whip's problems; I'm sure they'll be able to resolve that.

What I am saying is the intent of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is acceptable to the government if the words "as otherwise ordered" mean, to ask leave to accommodate any arrangement for other hours as agreed to by the Whips and is acceptable to the government. And I hope that having said that, we don't break down here in a procedural wrangle over what I think we can accommodate through the Whips.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw his amendment on those terms?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, having received the assurance from the Hon. Premier as to the way in which the government will approach this matter of leave, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave granted.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I haven't said anything on this motion up until this point, but I gradually see daylight, and order coming out of chaos. The chaos didn't only start last week, but started about 25 years ago — that I can remember.

I'm very pleased that this is coming to some sort of a common agreement. It puts me in mind of the old story about the physician, the architect and the politician who were discussing who had the longest career. The physician said that his was because he was made out of Adam's rib, and that was a physician's problem. The architect said that order was created out of chaos, and that was an architect's problem. The politician said: "Well, who do you think created the chaos?" So that's what happened in this case.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I think there was a sincere attempt last year to try to bring order out of the chaotic condition that had happened for many years, when we stayed all night. I was one who fought most bitterly against late night sittings and legislation by exhaustion.

MR. FRASER: You caused the all-night sittings.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm sure that the people throughout the province were very concerned about that situation. Last year when they changed the rules, some people thought that it was going to solve the problem. It hasn't, and it'll never solve the problem unless you get cooperation between both sides of the House. You've got to have that cooperation before you can change these kinds of rules.

I'm sure that what has happened today and what has happened in the last few weeks has been of benefit, I hope, to the future democracy in the Province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are now considering the main motion as amended.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. I've found the whole exercise very difficult because I think all the people in this House are really aiming at the same goal which is, really, freedom of speech within some rational rules to accomplish that goal. I think someone else said this the other day, but I do wish we had television in this house to let the people of the province who pay for

[ Page 2553 ]

this function see that we've spent almost two whole days literally going round in circles. The compromise which we seem to be close to achieving is — and I say this with disrespect to no one in this House — in effect doing everything short of dispelling 45A which was the cause of the whole problem.

The cause of the problem existed prior to the introduction of 45A.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to restrain themselves.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to sound a note of compromise and agreement which might wind up this debate to all intents and purposes. The Premier's latest explanation to this House, as I understand it, overcomes the legitimate fear that the business of the House might come to an end in terms of debating bills and other matters, and automatically terminate....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, excuse me, Mr. Premier, I'm just explaining the fear that I understand has been expressed, that termination of debate on bills might still leave the opposition wishing to continue debate on estimates. As I understand it, if that is the case, the Premier has given his agreement that the government position would be to accept a motion by leave of the opposition to continue at other times, other than 10 to 12, to continue debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. WALLACE: And on that basis....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. WALLACE: On that basis, without anybody trying to be clever or "I told you so" or to make political yards, it seems to me that we've reached reasonable compromise, and if we really all believe that we want to get on with the real business, that really we've canvassed the situation in great detail.

We have reached a compromise, and I think that while a lot of the comments this afternoon, if anything in my view, just serve to stir up the whole controversy and rehash some old material, I really don't think that's the point we've now reached in this debate.

I hope that having reached what seems to be a compromise where, as the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A., Anderson) put it very well, no one has lost principle but everybody has bent a little bit to try and bring about continuing discussion on estimates, we can now, in fact, get on with that very business.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wish to make one point, and I'm very happy too that we have reached the compromise that we have reached, and that the government has decided to take the steps that it will and has promised to take.

I would appeal to the Premier just to take one more step, and just assure everybody in this House of where we can go in full and open debate, and withdraw rule 45 for the remainder of this session — rule 45A. It would be so simple, because obviously that's the intent of the Premier anyway.

Motion 16 approved unanimously.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask consent of the House to move now to motion 15, which should have been discussed yesterday, and was passed over by error.

Motion 15: "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." I would move this motion, if I am given consent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would move this motion on behalf of the Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary). As you will notice in your estimates, there is allowance for this position and with the working of committees and the extra work of the Clerk, this is a very necessary addition officially to the Clerk's staff. I would ask support of the House in this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any debate?

MR. SMITH: Just a few short remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I shan't be long, except to acknowledge on behalf of the official opposition the tremendous work Evelyn Miller has done on behalf of all of the Members of this House and this assembly. She's been a tremendous individual and a very gracious lady to deal with, particularly when she has to deal with people from all walks of life and from all different areas of the province, and when they have their bad days as well as their good days.

She's always been able to maintain a bright and cheery countenance. She is one of the people we look forward to talking with whenever we have the opportunity. It gives me great pleasure to see the recognition that is paramount and certainly included in this particular motion.

[ Page 2554 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to second those kind words about Mrs. Miller, who has been to all of us a most helpful, quite regardless of party.

HON. MR. BARRETT: She should be chief Clerk. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has indicated he's going to amend this motion to give her some other position, but in view of the embarrassment caused some other person on the floor of this House, I won't discuss that at this time until the motion comes before us.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we should spend one quick moment to point out that the British Columbia Legislature has had a number of firsts in the area of women's rights. The first woman to become a cabinet Member in the British Empire was Mary Ellen Smith, more than half a century ago. I think we should all take a certain amount of pride in that.

The first woman to become a Speaker of a legislative assembly in the British Empire was Nancy Hodges who later became a senator, which was again a first. I do not believe the appointment of Mrs. Miller to this position would be a first in terms of Canadian jurisdiction or Commonwealth jurisdiction, but at least it is a continuation of a tradition of which I think we should be proud.

Both of us in this party would like to welcome this appointment and to wish her well in this new appointment.

The only reservation I have, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps she is too nice a person to be subjected to the floor of this House, which is not really a ladylike or a gentlemanly place on so many occasions, but I will put that reservation aside.

MR. WALLACE: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to add my appreciation to Mrs. Evelyn Miller for the service that she gives to the House and to the Members of the House.

The other day in the House the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was not eager to be addressed as the lady Minister. I don't know if I am just so old-fashioned that the meaning of the word "lady" has changed, but in my old-fashioned concept of the English language, if there is one person who sums up all that we mean by being a "lady" in my opinion, it would have to be Mrs. Evelyn Miller. Her decorum and her patience when we sometimes descend in a cloud as MLAs all eager to scrutinize some document, her patience and willingness to almost be buffeted physically at times by us as well as by the Members of the Fourth Estate I think speaks highly for her appreciation of the responsibility of the job that she has been carrying out.

I think it is also excellent, as the Liberal leader has said, that we are involving more and more women in the functioning of the provincial government in one role or another. It happens that even my secretary commented today that I am less of a chauvinist than I was a year or two ago. I notice the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) agrees with that verdict that I heard for the first time today.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, it really is a credit to this House that we have people of the calibre and the dedication of Mrs. Evelyn Miller. I feel very pleased, in fact delighted, that she is being given this added responsibility. It is also a delight to hear other opposition spokesmen share this sentiment that we are indeed fortunate to have someone of this outstanding disposition and personality to serve us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just want the House to know that I congratulate Mrs. Miller for her courage in taking on this job. She has my continuing condolences. (Laughter.)

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is anybody who has been in this House any length of time who doesn't appreciate the very great assistance that Mrs. Miller has been to all Members at all times. I can only trust that the calm efficiency which she has brought to the office of the Clerk will have its effects upon the fulfilment of her duties in committee or wherever else this very laudable appointment will take her.

Motion approved unanimously.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the House under standing orders now move to public bills in the hands of private Members, second reading of Bill 37.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Standing orders allow it. They are not next. Bill 37. Public bills in the hands of private Members.

I notice the Member who introduced this bill is not present.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. I notice the Member is not present. I would suggest that in view of that and as the next bill is also that Member's and in view of the amicable mood in which we now all happen to be and because of an event in which we all have a great interest is about to take place that may upset some of us and make others of us happy, I move the House at its rising stand adjourned until 8:30 this evening.

[ Page 2555 ]

Hon. Mr. Nimsick files answers to question 150. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.

APPENDIX

150 Mr. Phillips asked the Hon. the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. Does the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources rent any space on Second Avenue in Smithers?
2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what date was the space first rented?
3. From whom are the premises rented?
4. What is the size of the space rented?
5. What is the yearly rent per square foot?

The Hon. L. T. Nimsick replied as follows:

1. "Yes, Lease 804 (Public Works).
2. "June 1, 1974.
3. "Moncalm Acceptance Ltd., Box 2290, Smithers.
4. "2,250 square feet.
5. "Rent is $700 per month."