[ Page 2787 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Government Reorganization Act (Bill S9) Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 2787

Mr. Cocke — 2788

Mr. Gibson — 2791

Mr. Bennett — 2793

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 2794

Mr. Lauk — 2795

Mr. Wallace — 2797

Mr. Macdonald — 2798

Mr. Levi — 2799

Mr. Lea — 2801

Mr. Nicolson — 2807

Mrs. Wallace — 2811

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are students from many parts of the world. They are here studying English and business administration at Camosun College. I ask the members to join me in welcoming them to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 59.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59, the Government Reorganization Act, is a continuing process that was undertaken by the previous government and other governments prior to that to bring some organization and some modernization to the business of government. Every government in history, I think, addresses itself to just that.

The principles of this bill, Mr. Speaker, are twofold. Section 1 would enact changes in the Constitution Act to facilitate future changes in the organization of government. The remainder of this bill is intended to amend various departmental statutes to make necessary adjustments resulting from the new list of ministerial portfolios. Those portfolios were assigned under section 10 of the Constitution Act.

From time to time, Mr. Speaker, it becomes desirable to transfer functions, powers and duties from one department of government to another. Those transfers may be designed to take advantage of new technology or to utilize machinery already available in one department for the administration of an area of endeavour in yet another department. They will frequently move personnel engaged in a particular field to join another department that has commenced operations in a new area of government activity. There are also examples where departmental revision must follow a shift in portfolios.

When a new area of government activity is undertaken it is, of course, necessary to authorize a department to engage the services of public servants in that area. That means an amendment to the departmental powers and duties or the setting up of an entirely new department.

At present, Mr. Speaker, any of these transfers or other moves require new legislation. The reorganization cannot be properly authorized until a bill can be passed by this House, and one must be passed to deal with each and every change.

The thrust of the bill then, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill is always supplementary to other legislation that is essential to effect a functional change itself. The bill does not change the function. It is purely technical in making departmental changes consequent upon the functional changes.

The bill that is now before you, Mr. Speaker, would obviate the necessity for passing those supplementary measures. Section 1 would empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to bring about any of those departmental changes by order. If the provisions in section 1 of this bill were now part of the Constitution Act, the remainder of the sections 2 to 9 inclusive, would be completely unnecessary. They are here to authorize the type of departmental change that I have mentioned. Each of them is made necessary because of the changes made in ministerial portfolios in December of last year.

Section 1, Mr. Speaker, contains as well other proposals, as sections 12B and 12C. They are each supplemental to the provisions for departmental changes and would provide for consequential transfers of individual money votes and for delegation of transferred powers and duties. The proposed section 12D would enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make orders specifying which ministers of the Crown should sign agreements that are authorized by statute to be entered into.

Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of the bill to the House there have been press reports that are attributable to a member of this House. I believe it was the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who doesn't happen to be in his seat at the present time. He has said in his press quotes that this bill will "for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary system, wipe out the Legislature's power on portfolio changes." If that is true, and if those remarks are attributable — I have no doubt that if they are not he will correct the press, Mr. Speaker — he is patently incorrect.

The NDP government, of which he was a member, in 1973 introduced the amendment to the Constitution Act, which gave that power to the cabinet. The Legislature's power on portfolio changes was taken away at that time by the previous NDP government.

I also would like to address my remarks to yet another remark that was made, I believe, by that same member regarding the transfer of powers and duties. This is really a very necessary part of this Act if we are going to make effective any transfer of responsibilities under the sections that we are discussing, 12B. It will be a full statutory authority for the concurrent transfer of the appropriate votes from one minister and department to the other.

Mr. Speaker, again referring to the press reports — I know we're going to have an opportunity to discuss

[ Page 2788 ]

The proposed section 12B expressly says just the opposite. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council, when there is a transfer function may order

"the money authorized by the Legislature" — I emphasize that — "to be paid and applied for the purpose of those powers, duties and functions and remaining unexpended...[funds] be expended by and through the other official, department, or ministry to which those powers, duties and functions are transferred, and thereupon that money may be expended for those powers, duties and functions...."

Mr. Speaker, before you in principle, then, is a bill that will allow government to function more efficiently and to allow the flexibility without taking any power away from this Legislature which is all powerful over matters of money and policy. Because when it comes to legislation and money matters, this Legislature is all powerful and always will be as long as we are government. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, may I first say, welcome to the republic of B.C.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Here we go again.

MR. COCKE: "Here we go again," says the member for Delta. Sit in your place, Mr. Member, and maybe you'll learn something about the republic of B.C.

What we're looking to now is an Act that I believe distorts the intentions of the previous government, yet the minister, in moving second reading, indicated that this is an ongoing reorganization programme, a technical bill she calls it. Mr. Speaker, technical, technocratic, of Technocracy Inc., it doesn't really matter much; I see us heading toward legislative genocide.

This bill is benign, according to the Provincial Secretary. She read section 12B....

AN HON. MEMBER: Does it eliminate the secret police force?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of that, but she read section 12B, all except the last part of section 12B. She didn't read "...and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Did she leave that out?

AN HON. MEMBER: The half-truth comes out.

MR. COCKE: She left that out, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, I worry about this bill. I probably worry about this bill more because it gives further power to members, to ministers, like the minister we were dealing with until suddenly we changed course. Suddenly this House, once a committee, became a House again. We were informed this morning that we would go on with bills. Good idea — we weren't through with the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland). His vote was still up, but the Minister of Mines, who will be vested with further authority, who by this bill will be vested with awesome powers...

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweeping!

MR. COCKE: ...sweeping powers, powers that provide for further secret, behind the cabinet room, behind the cabinet doors, cloak-and-dagger kind of work that does provide for legislative genocide.

The Legislature in this province, and in any other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, must be all-powerful. The only check and balance we have in our system is the Legislature at this time assembled.

Mr. Speaker, this bill takes away the traditional authority of the Legislature to review actions of the executive council, cabinet. It gives that cabinet full authority to restructure departments or ministries; it gives them the power, as I said before, to move the estimates, transfer the estimates from one department to another maybe two or three times in a year, or eliminate a ministry.

Mr. Speaker, this is power to the cabinet. But the thing that worries me most is that in our kind of system, it is power to one person — power to the Premier. That's what this bill says, power to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, who appoints every member of the cabinet, with or without consultation? On whose decision rests their tenure? Tsar-potential of the province — all-powerful. There is enough power vested now in the premiership, or the prime ministership, without vesting further power.

I could say shades of the U.S., but in the U.S. at least the Senate has the right to advise and consent. Who has the right to advise and consent here under

[ Page 2789 ]

MR. GIBSON: The senate has the right to create new departments, and take them away.

MR. COCKE: That's right; the senate also has the right to create new departments and take them away, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano so ably points out.

MR. GIBSON: Dictators.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what can they do with this power? Plenty. They can abolish the Energy Commission or any Crown corporation, homeowners grant — anything they wish.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): And secretly establish the secret police.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if it were only a republic, but a republic has its checks and balances to which our British parliamentary system doesn't lend itself. We should be either one way or the other; and I'm worried about a bill with this kind of power in the Premier of the province.

Through the Premier there is power to ministers who can't even conclude their estimates, power to ministers who tend to be a little arrogant at times, power to ministers who say words like "I don't choose" or "I didn't choose to answer that question." Mr. Speaker, haven't they enough now? Do we have to continue to increase this power, this authority?

Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) who was quoted so candidly and ably by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), made some remarks about this bill. I am pleased that he did make some remarks, because many remarks have to be made. It's more than just a technical bill; it's a bill that provides further power by order-in-council. When we were government, the hue and cry of the old Socred opposition in those days was "government by order-in-council." Now, Mr. Speaker, I accuse the coalition of really doing it as fast and as sweepingly and ruthlessly as they possibly can.

I believe that we have to think in terms of the record. We are setting up reorganization. We are setting up different organizations. We are setting up a situation where the government is able to do the very things they said they didn't believe in. They said that they didn't believe in deficit financing. You weren't here, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, but that's what they said during the budget debate. They didn't believe in deficit financing; yet they went ahead and produced a public works, capital-hiding organization, and produced many ways of going into deficit financing,

Mr. Speaker, how can we trust a government that says one thing out of one side of its mouth...

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): And does the other thing through the top of its head.

MR. COCKE: ...and does the other thing with the other part of its mouth not knowing what it's doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speaking through your hat....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, mixing metaphors is my preoccupation.

I would suggest that with this kind of bill even the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who takes most of his orders from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), is going to be invested with more authority than he should have. Would this bill be appropriate to give more authority for massive witch-hunts in the public service?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, having said that about a government which is so critical of one or two executive assistants who happened to be party-oriented in the old days, we now have a real army of them — so many that they trip over one another around this building. But besides that what do we have? We have the old cronies' side coming back — the old boys' school. I don't recognize the tie.

Mr. Speaker, they're coming in droves. From New Brunswick — over the mountains and over the prairies — comes Williston.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please relate his remarks to the bill?

MR. COCKE: I am relating my remarks to the reorganization of government. Mr. Speaker, I know that you, sitting there in authority over this House, recognize every word I say as being less than an exaggeration actually. I am really speaking euphemistically today, trying to control the urge to really speak out and say how dangerous this authority is.

I wonder whether another old crony had a hand in it: Dan Campbell. You never see him around the halls very much unless you're downstairs, but he's around. We feel his fine touch on so much of what's been going on.

Interjection.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You took a bath in Coquitlam.

[ Page 2790 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about the Leader of the Opposition taking a bath in Coquitlam. Never in the history of this country has a member, as a candidate, got 71 per cent of the vote! That happened to that government. Do you know why, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker? They don't trust this government, Mr. Speaker, and they've got good reason not to trust this government, bringing out bills like Bill 59.

The first page of Bill 59 scares the pants off you if you're a thinking person. Don't go beyond the first page.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting today. The front benchers are here. Yes, they're here talking, but where were they yesterday when their colleague was in trouble all afternoon?

MR. BARRETT: Pushing him down the tube.

MR. COCKE: That's right. He was all by himself, but the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) was here — the only one loyal enough to stick with him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that produces an even greater emphasis on secret government. Mr. Speaker, why do we need secret government in this province? Isn't it secret enough now?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You've got no guts!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: You don't answer any questions. You conceal yourself from every damn thing. No guts.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the hon members on all sides of the House please extend the courtesy of the House to the hon. member for New Westminster, who has the floor at this particular time. I'm sure that all members will have an opportunity to participate in debate on this bill when they are recognized in their place. At this particular time, it's the hon. member for New Westminster who has the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, why did I suggest that I'm concerned about secret government? Well, I'll tell you one of the reasons. Just days after the new government was appointed, what was one of the first announcements? The first impression that one got when one read the newspapers was of an importation of shredders.

MR. BARRETT: The first time in the history of B.C.

MR. COCKE: The first time. Shredders right there in the old cabinet room.

MR. GIBSON: They should have put this bill through it.

MR. COCKE: That's right! This would have been a good one for the shredders. I wonder if we could take up a collection of this bill and move it into the cabinet room for shredding.

Mr. Speaker, why else do I suspect that they want secret government? They've even got secret telephones — hot lines!

Mr. Speaker, it is a secret government. Mr. Speaker, Bill 59, benignly entitled Government Reorganization Act, is nothing more than an Act endowing this government with further powers that this Legislature should, in its conscience, disapprove, Mr. Whip (Mr. Mussallem) — particularly you. You must know by now, having dealt with the government as you have to, that it's dangerous to vest this kind of power and authority in one man, because really, when you think of it — and you may some day have touch with this, Mr. Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) — when he has the full power and authority to appoint his colleagues into the cabinet, that virtually gives him full power and authority.

So, Mr. Speaker, we must have a Legislature that's a check, that's a balance on that kind of authority vested in one person. I can understand why that one person wants all this power. He's a businessman, he says. Businessmen like to do things immediately and in the way they have planned in the back of their minds, without any encumbrance, without having to go through any of the normal kinds of checks that one would expect in government. So, Mr. Speaker, it is secret government.

Mr. Speaker, think in terms of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Waterland), who has been excused for a rest today, giving him the authority to do the kind of bill drafting, the kind of work that he's been doing with his confederates, with his friends, and being able to get away with it scot-free.

Mr. Speaker, I fear one-man rule. I fear this kind of bill that will certainly bring us to a position where the Legislature is divested of some of its authority. The Legislature, Mr. Speaker, is the only way that we can keep this from being a closed door, secret, all powerful government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill is further evidence of political cowardice. Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2791 ]

MR. LAUK: Behind closed doors.

MR. COCKE: That's right — behind those closed doors and beside the shredder. We have to insist, as an opposition, that the First Minister of this province...

MR. LAUK: Arrogance!

MR. COCKE: ...expose himself to the Legislature of this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other aspects of this bill. I'm concerned about the merging of Travel Industry and Recreation and Conservation, but I'm going to leave that to others who have a better handle on the consequences of this. I would only say this: those whom I have talked to in recreation and conservation are highly concerned about the desirability of merging those two ministries.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill for reorganization. I suspect that once the members of the back bench have read the bill, they're going to become quite worried. That's the government back bench. They're going to become quite worried because they're going to say to themselves: "What am I doing in the Legislature? What is the purpose of my being here?"

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We're all wondering that.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the member for Oak Bay, we'll wonder more and more as the days go by and as further bills of this magnitude come down the pike. I suggest that this does take us down the road toward the republic system. I suggest that this does provide that government with sweeping powers, and, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the Provincial Secretary will take another look at this bill — review it. Maybe she didn't quite know what she was doing.

MR. LAUK: She hasn't read the bill.

MR. COCKE: Or was it not written by the Provincial Secretary or her department? Was it written in the Premier's office?

MR. LAUK: Dan Campbell.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill's bill.

MR. COCKE: Bill's bill. It was written in the Premier's office, some people suspect. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill be withdrawn, that this bill be cleaned up, so we can do a job of reorganization of government in this province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I've studied this bill, particularly the first part of it which is the truly objectionable part — the part that gives the executive branch the right to change the government structure in any way they wish. It's so bad and it takes so importantly away from the powers of this Legislature that I think you ought to declare this bill out of order. It's perhaps not technically out of order, though I wish you'd examine that, but it's certainly morally out of order, just as this whole government is morally out of order, in my opinion, when it tries to take away from the one check and balance in democracy — the power to examine and inquire into very important government actions.

Mr. Speaker, you're sitting there on the throne — the Speaker's throne — and that's the symbol of the power and authority of this House. A few more bills like this and you might as well be sitting on a bean bag if that is truly to reflect your authority. It's a government that is morally out of order. Who's the Provincial Secretary trying to kid when she talks about the Legislature having authority to run everything? The government runs everything around here, Mr. Speaker. They run everything from the most important things to the most trivial — like the hours of sitting of this House. We don't even have the right to govern that kind of thing. The government is completely in charge. They're in charge in the government and they're in charge in the Legislature, and the one power that we have had is to ask questions on all important things that the government does, because they have to bring legislation before this House. They won't have to bring legislation before this House any more to establish departments and disestablish departments, and take tremendously important actions. This is a bill of a government that's afraid of this Legislature.

I look around at some of the ministers and their performance in this House and I'd call it the Turkey Protection Act.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The TPA.

MR. GIBSON: The Legislature has got to have the right to question acts of executive importance. It has always had the right to control at least the structure of the government, if not what they do from day to day, and this takes that away.

[ Page 2792 ]

MR. LAUK: Turkey McGeer.

MR. GIBSON: They're worse than the last government, Mr. Speaker, and God knows I criticized the last government, but when they set up a new department — the Department of Consumer Services — they had the guts to bring a bill into this House and say: "Should we do this or not?" Then people had a chance to stand up and give their comments, as they should have. What did the new government do when they came in?

MR. BARRETT: This is the secrecy Act.

MR. GIBSON: They set up something called the Department of Environment. They didn't have any authority for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARRETT: That was an order-in-council, that's all.

MR. GIBSON: That was an order-in-council job, and I don't think it was a legal job, Mr. Speaker. I think part of the reason for this bill is to finally make that legal. But I'll tell you, they didn't want to debate on that Department of Environment bill. That would have been embarrassing; and I tell you, it would be, with the environmental policies of that government.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Small wonder they want the power to do things like this. But asking us to legitimize something like that in a retroactive sense is really going a little bit too far. The Minister of Environment, in my opinion, has been acting illegally in every act that he took as Minister of Lands, because it says very clearly in the Act under which he's operating that that action shall be taken by the Minister of Lands and Forests, who doesn't exist any more. Instead there is somebody called the Minister of Environment. But he doesn't exist either. He's an unperson.

MR. BARRETT: What does law mean to them — just pass an order-in-council!

MR. GIBSON: The Leader of the Opposition says, "What does law mean to them — just pass an order-in-council." I fear that may be right, but that's not what law means to the people of British Columbia. That is the principle of this bill.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), in her opening remarks, said the latter sections of this bill, sections 2 through 9, wouldn't be required if the first section had been in effect, and she said that proudly.

What greater evidence of the inequity of this bill could there be, Mr. Speaker, than the fact that she claims the first section will take away from this House the right to ever debate the kind of things that are made in the last section? It's just absolutely, transparently condemned out of her own words, and she should vote against the bill after having said that.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I just want to leave the government with one thought. I remember the time in this Legislature, a year ago, when the man who is now Premier was storming around this province saying "not a dime without debate." Remember that? Not a dime without debate. Then they said they were going to change that. Of course, there's a resolution on the order paper to change that that hasn't been called yet.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Just a minute. It's going to be different, Mr. former Premier. I've got a better line than that.

The Premier said not a dime without debate but now he's going to give us departments without debate.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: That's very, very wrong, and the department, as we all know, is a little bit more than a dime. A department is millions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have the right to establish them and disestablish them and to move the funds around. Just in case there was any doubt that what they were doing was illegal, as in my opinion it certainly was in the Department of Environment, we are asked to vote here for a phrase that says those funds that are moved around "shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." Shame! That is asking this Legislature to authorize things in advance, down the road, that we can't possibly contemplate at this time, and it's denying us our right to comment on it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is absolutely shocking legislation, and when I said it was out of order — let me cite you this from May. He's talking about contempt in general, and, God knows, this government has shown enough contempt to this House:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the

[ Page 2793 ]

discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt, even though there is no precedent for the offence."

There's not much precedence for this offence.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. Nowhere else in the Commonwealth.

MR. GIBSON: Nowhere else in the Commonwealth that I know of. One of the hon. members speaking before referred to the United States and said this was moving towards a separation of powers, but even in the United States Congress has the right to establish and disestablish the executive department. Here where we theoretically have so much greater control over the Legislature they're attempting to take that away.

MR. LEA: We don't have the committee system they have.

MR. GIBSON: We don't have the committee system they have in the United States either. We have a committee system that is treated with contempt in this Legislature — without its own staff, without its own independence and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, we were sent here as MLAs to properly audit and question and cajole and attempt to improve in every way the actions of the government in the province of British Columbia. In order to do that we must have the opportunity to do that, and if the actions of the Government of the Province of British Columbia, including those of such importance as the structural executive departments, are to be taken behind closed doors, where this House cannot be represented and the people cannot be represented in public, I say it is shocking and shameful and I very strongly oppose this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, in looking at this bill, that the government had hoped that perhaps I wouldn't be back by the time this was debated. Well, I'm glad that it didn't pass. Because I can't help, without some irony, recalling some of the atmosphere that existed in this province with statements made around such things as the Government Reorganization Act by the very group that begged for power, that now has the power, on the basis of fighting for freedom.

You remember, Mr. Speaker, how they claimed to be the great freedom fighters in British Columbia? Let's deal with, first of all, the title, Government Reorganization Act. It would make George Orwell proud. The Government Reorganization Act.

The rights of parliament cannot possibly be handled through the Government Reorganization Act. For those of you who have memories of the past, can you imagine how the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) would be speaking against this bill if it had been brought in by the NDP?

AN HON. MEMBER: Borderline Social Credit.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll come to that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He'd have written a book!

MR. BARRETT: Can you imagine the passion with which his thumbs would have looped the small pocket in his vest that was pink in those days and now has become blue? Can you imagine the eloquence, the passion, the heat, the condemnation of socialism and socialists taking awesome, sweeping powers? In his case, Mr. Speaker, on occasion he may even make coherent statements in one sentence.

But imagine the vehemence, Mr. Speaker, if the person who was opposing this bill was the present Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — those passionate 14-hour James Joyce insults of rambling non-thoughts that would have spewed forth in opposing this kind of awesome, sweeping, jackboot, dictatorial powers by the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: A stream of unconsciousness.

MR. BARRETT: The stream of unconsciousness that comes even when he's conscious, Mr. Member, that used to come forward in hours of boring, hysterical attacks on the government, with the same...repetitively sweeping powers by the socialite.

Not once has any government anywhere in the British Commonwealth — socialist, private enterprise or coalition — ever presented such legislation with such sweeping power as this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Power hungry!

MR. BARRETT: And why? Why do you have to suspect — as the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) does — that they are for political purposes as well as for legal purposes? Let us deal with the political purposes.

This government is incompetent, Mr. Speaker. It is frankly incompetent. It does not have the skill, the ability or the determination or, frankly, the commitment to come to this House. With every single one of its actions it is saying: "We will now shuffle the cards behind the green door of the executive room."

[ Page 2794 ]

MR. LAUK: Shame! Dictators!

MR. BARRETT: This is the same group that represents the people of this province, and, as the sponsor of this bill, has been running around the province saying that the socialists were creating a secret police force.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies!

MR. BARRETT: Statements on hotlines saying the Attorney-General was collecting weapons for distribution.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Search me!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: With the thickness of his glasses I wouldn't let him near the ammunition, let alone a pistol! (Laughter.)

But it was the same Provincial Secretary who ran around, on a hysterical kick, to every little chamber of commerce and any little street-corner group that would listen to her, saying that a secret service and a secret police force was being built. Not only was that untrue, but there was no legislative authority for that to be done. But now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time we will have the legislative authority to set up a secret police department if the government so desires. Not possible before, but what the Provincial Secretary, as a candidate, said was happening — and that was untrue — now is a possibility that could happen, if the government so desires, under section 12A — organization of executive government.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, why the government cabinet benches aren't full on this important debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're hiding!

MR. BARRETT: This is an important debate that says those very benches will have the authority to take away decision from this whole chamber. And while they want to justify that decision, they are not even here to listen to the debate, for the last time, on their authority.

MR. GIBSON: They're out there planning how to use it right now.

MR. BARRETT: I think they are afraid to come into this House. I think they are afraid to listen to the debate on this bill. I think it's shocking that on a matter like this they are not here. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 27

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave to continue in this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I would explain to the members of the House, if they're not aware of the fact, that when a motion to adjourn the debate is moved by an hon. member and that motion is lost, that in itself concludes that member's right to further debate on the motion, except by leave.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT:...before you put the vote you gave an explanation, and I am entitled to give an explanation as well.

I have never heard a Speaker give an explanation before on asking for leave. If you're doing it for the benefit of the new members, then I'm entitled to give an explanation, too. The explanation is simply this,

[ Page 2795 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: ...that it is traditional to give one adjournment on a bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Now I ask you to put the leave on that basis. It is traditional to give one adjournment on a bill.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question was put for leave and it was clearly a matter that there were some "noes" heard.

MR. BARRETT: I did not hear a "no."

MR. SPEAKER: I did, Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, then I want a division.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no division on a request for leave.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a "no."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I did.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to clarify the situation for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, I will then place the question again.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Stifling debate!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You're walking around on your hind legs in the manor house.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: When Mr. Speaker was kind enough to put to the House, "Shall leave be granted to let the Leader of the Opposition continue his speech?" when in all tradition and convention in this House one adjournment on a bill is usually granted by the government, who was the member who led the "noes?"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: It was the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Will you return to the principle of the bill, please?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier is trying to couch himself, surround himself, with protection because he's afraid. He stifled debate, he muzzles the opposition....

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): I said "no," Gary.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you'll say "no." You're a sycophant and you know it.

Interjections.

MR. 'LAUK: I have something to say about this bill and I have to say it to the press: the assumptions that are being made by this government are no surprise. Their attempt to avoid legislative review and ratification is no surprise. What I do find surprising is the ho-hum attitude of the media to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

MR. LAUK: I can remember, and I can understand it, but let me cast your mind back to what was mentioned before by some of the members previously speaking on this bill about the press and media reaction to legislation brought in by the NDP administration — very, very mild legislation never taking away the power of review and ratification of the Legislature.

My opening statement on this bill when it was tabled in the House was on page 19 of The Province. I didn't see it in the Sun and I didn't hear it....

AN HON. MEMBER: Awww!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member now return to the principle of the bill?

MR. LAUK: I ask you to attack this bill if you believe that it's antidemocratic, and it is. Don't use my name; don't even use the NDP.

[ Page 2796 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member speak to the bill and address the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, yes.

I would say the press shouldn't even use the names. Don't give us any credit — we don't want any credit — but for God's sake attack the bill!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Order? What order for heaven's sake? Who was that?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Don't destroy my train of thought.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: This bill makes 80 per cent of the work of the Legislature irrelevant. It really does.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: What do we have over there? We have the Provincial Secretary fronting for the Premier, the Marie Antoinette of the cabinet fronting for Louis XIV, the sun king, a man who's afraid, a man who, whenever he sees the slightest bit of heat, backs off. He pulls the estimates for the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I'm glad to see the Minister of Mines is in his seat, because we expected he went through one of those shredders the cabinet got.

Here's a government of secrecy behind closed doors, There is an expression in the tradition of British democracy. It's called the Star Chamber, where judgments were made by the Queen's cabinet in secret, execution warrants were issued — Star Chamber proceedings. Should the Premier be afraid? I think he should be afraid. The actions of him and the minister for whom he is responsible have been abominable. I expect that they will go to India and ask Indira Gandhi for a copy of the bill that suspends elections. I expect that someday from this government.

This is a Premier who wants a one-man dictatorship — an order-in-council government over this province — because he is afraid. He has taken on no apparent responsibility. He has given away Finance. He is not responsible for Hydro. He is not going to answer questions on this. Every time in question period he says: "It's that minister's responsibility. It's this minister's responsibility." One day as a joke he said it was Jimmy Gorst's responsibility. He is afraid, Mr. Speaker. He is afraid to answer questions; he has no self-confidence. He is surrounding himself with power and protection.

In history the most dangerous, ruthless dictators in this world were people, men, who were afraid, men who were insecure, to surround themselves with this kind of power and protection.

MS. BROWN: Papa Doc!

MR. LAUK: It's political cowardice, Mr. Speaker — absolute and clear political cowardice — not to allow the traditional authority of this Legislature to review the actions of government.

Interjections.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: What kind of a dictator are we creating in the Premier, Mr. Speaker? He is afraid of other things. He is afraid not only because of the inept actions of himself and his government. He is accident-prone. Last year he fell off a bull. During the....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He fell off the sidewalk....

MR. LAUK: I do a one-man act here. (Laughter.)

During the election campaign he fell off the curb running to the telephone. A Page told me the other day he didn't fall off a horse but they gave him "Old Poke." He got his fingers caught in a briefcase and now I hear he is carrying the torch for the Olympics. Well, that's in keeping. It's a very disaster-prone Olympics. I expect that the Premier will never make the half a kilometre or whatever it is.

MR. LEA: He's going to run from here to Vancouver.

MR. LAUK: Yes, the sun king has arrived, Mr. Speaker — a man who is inept, inarticulate and afraid. He brings forward a bill to protect himself. His actions today are...when you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. He pulls the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) back. He wasn't here to defend him. He didn't say one word in his defence, not one word.

He talks about one of our members who was absent for a couple of days. The Premier is almost never in this House. He has a contempt for this House, a disrespect for its members. He wishes that the Legislature would go away. It's a nuisance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now to the principle of the bill.

MR. LAUK: It's a nuisance.

MS. BROWN: That is the principle.

[ Page 2797 ]

MR. LAUK: This bill eliminates the Legislature. That's why I said he wishes the Legislature to go away.

I do think that this bill should be withdrawn. It's an awful bill. It's a bill that only Marie Antoinette and Louis XIV can bring in.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. Papa Doc.

MR. LAUK: I understand that they had a little assistance from Genghis Khan...

MS. BROWN: Idi Amin.

MR. LAUK: ...to help them draft the bill. The system of responsible government in Canada is a hallowed tradition, one of which Canadians are justly proud. An Act which encroaches, diminishes and brings into contempt the Legislature should be voted against and repelled by every member on all sides of the House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the saddest part for me in this debate is that there has been too many jokes, too many humorous remarks, too much flippancy in this debate. This particular bill demonstrates perhaps more incredibly than other bills from this government that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This was a government whose election platform was based on such words as "open government." They claimed to be freedom fighters.

I have an article in The Province of November 20 of last year during the election campaign. The short s clip reads: "Bennett was given a standing ovation when he said, 'We will give you accountability in government.'" I suppose that is a little bit not unlike Ron Ziegler's statement on some of Nixon's comments that "that is no longer operative." These were the high-sounding principles and ideals that the party put forward in the election campaign. But there have been some very strange pieces of legislation before this House which completely contradict the basic thrusts of this government's election platform.

There can be few bills that are more important when the content is the basic structure of government and the power of cabinet to change that structure. I think it is particularly significant that the purpose of the bill is to prevent the House from debating basic and fundamental changes in the structure of government in this province.

The Provincial Secretary is quoted in the Victoria Times of June 9, and it's really a very surprising and blunt and unmistakable revelation of the true purpose of the bill. She is reported as stating that "transfers of power in government currently require legislation, adding that cabinet would be empowered to make the changes rather than continue the practice of passing individual bills for individual changes." If you extend that line of reasoning it shouldn't be too long before there will be other bills before this House of a kind of an umbrella nature where the cabinet could very readily be given power to avoid this inconvenience of passing individual bills for individual changes.

I thought the whole purpose of government was progressive, democratic change. The only difference between political parties, in essence, is the rate at which parties are willing to go ahead with change. This very light-hearted approach to the essence of the democratic system — that in some cases there should just be power in one bill to give the cabinet the right and the authority to make individual changes — is really a very frightening power.

I find it particularly incredible to sit here and debate a bill presented by this party which, on this side of the House, took on a holy crusade when the Land Commission Act was brought in by the NDP government based on their supposedly fundamental concern that freedoms of one kind or another were being taken away from the individual through the power not even of elected officials. Already we've had the other bill, the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, which in fact allocates more power than ever was incorporated in the land Act. Now, as No. 3 in the trio, we find the bill which can in very quick and simple order within cabinet change the very structure of government.

Even more important, of course, is the contradiction of one of the fundamentals of our democratic system, which is that all matters affecting the public purse should be subject to the debate and scrutiny and criticism of the elected members of the Legislature so that at least the taxpayers can be aware of what the issues are and can be given a chance to be informed and make their own choice as to whether the government or the opposition is correct. Yet here we have an increasing centralization of power and delegation of authority which seems to me to be a complete and total contradiction of the direction that this party was dedicated to when it sought the mandate from the voters.

Section 12B, which the Provincial Secretary quoted when she introduced second reading, certainly takes away this power of scrutiny on financial matters. It states quite clearly that certain sums of money which have been passed by the Legislature for certain purposes can be re-allocated as the cabinet "considers appropriate." That was a phrase, I think, that the Provincial Secretary left out when she read the section, and she certainly left out the last part which states: "and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied."

Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think government really should realize, whether it was intentional or whether the bill is excessive to what

[ Page 2798 ]

I would hope that at least this government might try to learn from the NDP mistakes and from some of its own mistakes. When the NDP government brought in a bill which, on reconsideration, was quite obviously out of place in a democratic society — I'm talking about the Emergency Measures Act — there was public concern about the kind of definition of emergency and the authority that might be used by an individual or a group. The NDP government of that day withdrew the Emergency Measures Act — or at least let it die on the order paper.

When I read the Provincial Secretary's statement that the cabinet would be empowered to make changes rather than continue the practice of passing individual bills for individual changes, it could only leave us with one conclusion — that they want the power to be not only centralized in great detail in the cabinet, but for very substantial changes to the structure of government to be made even without giving the opposition parties an opportunity to debate these proposed changes.

So I would hope that, even at this late date, the government would learn from the past and, as the former government did when it made a serious mistake in the excessive delegation of authority through the Emergency Measures Act, that this government would now decide not to proceed with this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in this little bill we see some phrases that are positively frightening from the standpoint of the rule of law. We see, for example, one section that asserts right out, plain and bold, that notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do certain things. Now that is abominable legislation, because it is saying, in effect, that the cabinet can ignore statutes passed by this Legislature — can repeal, in effect, statutes passed by this Legislature or amend those statutes. I can't think of any parallel to that kind of language in any statute that's been introduced in this House — or, as a matter of fact, in any other House.

I picked up a book by Lord Justice Ewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, written in 1919, called The New Despotism. The book goes through the extent to which the powers of parliament had been whittled away by the right of the cabinet to pass orders-in-council and make the regulations. The Lord Chief Justice of England gave out some rather scary examples of the extent to which the rule of law and the power of an elected parliament had been abridged in Great Britain at that time — and has been since that time. But nowhere in this book, in which the chief justice eloquently speaks up for the rule of law and democratic liberties, is there any quotation approaching the words in section 12A which say that the cabinet can repeal laws passed by the Legislature and ignore and flout those laws by an order-in-council.

You undermine the judiciary as well as the rights of parliament, because if you pass an Act of the Legislature such as, for example, the Department of Public Works Act, and it comes before a judge for judicial review, and a lawyer comes into that court and he files an order-in-council passed by the cabinet, and the lawyer explains to the judge that the cabinet has become more powerful that the Legislature and that he must ignore the plain wordings of the laws of the province and observe the order-in-council, that is what we mean by despotism. That is what is meant by "despotism" in the book that I referred to — only it had not begun to reach this kind of a tidemark.

Lord Chief Justice Ewart says "arbitrary power is certain in the long run to become despotism, and there is danger if the so-called method of administrative law, which is essentially lawlessness, is greatly extended, with the loss of those hardly won liberties which it has taken centuries to establish. One of the marks of despotism, as all history shows, is that it is unteachable. Its intrinsic nature, it would seem, is such that it must always, sooner or later, express itself in ways which are not only indefensible, but also quite manifestly indefensible. The fact is not, perhaps, to be regretted. If it were otherwise, despotism might have more dupes and a longer run. As it is, it exhibits itself sooner or later in a fashion which has the effect of exciting public observation, so that despotism is checked for a time, and has to start again.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, the opposition are protesting this kind of bill and this kind of language in a statute of the province, which is a disgrace to this province, which makes the Emergency Measures Act introduced by the last government, but not proceeded with, but which was intended to deal with a situation of grave disorder or grave threat to life and health — very limited in its application — but this statute makes that one pale into insignificance. In the powers that it confers upon the executive arm of government, it allows votes that have been passed in committee by the Legislature to be jostled around by the cabinet. So if we pass a measure for pollution control, the cabinet can ignore the vote and money and the message which has been passed in Committee

[ Page 2799 ]

But the most invidious, dangerous and unprecedented language is still contained in section 12A — and I see that the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, made reference to a previous amendment to the Constitution Act. There was no such language in there saying that notwithstanding an Act of the Legislature the cabinet can do this and that, and certainly we would never have permitted such language to creep into the statutes. If it was done at any time in the history of the province of British Columbia, I am sure it was done inadvertently by some over-zealous person drafting legislation. But I cannot think of this kind of an example. I say that it is unprecedented.

Whether it is unprecedented or not, the idea that the cabinet can annul, repeal, amend, cancel, change Acts of the Legislature of the province of British Columbia reduces this Legislature to a subordinate status in comparison to the executive arm of government and is the beginning and a good long step on the road to despotism.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that concerns me about the debate so far is that there appears to be very little interest on the part of the government in what it's doing here. There are very few people here who seem to be concerned that what we have is the introduction of a war-measures-type piece of legislation, which is a very serious piece of legislation. I don't know. I would have expected from the Provincial Secretary that we would have had from her a much more intelligent and reasoned argument for the introduction of this bill than she gave.

We're talking about the delegation of legislative powers. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about this Legislature handing over to the cabinet its complete authority. Now there is a principle in the system that we operate under in Canada that there is a delegation of powers by the Legislature to the cabinet, but that is within the legislation that is passed. When the Legislature is not meeting, there is some power for the government to act.

I'd like to quote from Professor Norman Ward's comments in Democratic Government in Canada, which is MacGregor Dawson's book. It's an update of the book. He says:

"The cabinet also exercises a direct legislative authority by its ability, acting as the Governor-General-in-Council..."

He's referring here to the House of Commons.

"...to enact orders-in-council. The great bulk of these are not legislative in character, but they deal with executive function, appointments, contracts, et cetera. During the Second World War not more than 5 per cent of such orders were considered to be legislative matters."

He goes on to say:

"The great merit of orders-in-council, which will number a thousand a year, is the comparative ease of their passage and the resulting flexibility which they give to a statute and to other orders passed under its provisions.

"An excessive use of orders-in-council constitutes a very serious disregard of the position and value of parliament. Their moderate use is, on the whole, beneficial and forms a necessary aid to the work of modern government. They permit parliament to enact a statute embodying the general principle while adaption of government actions in changing circumstances can be effected by them."

He says that a good example of their use is the War Measures Act of 1970.

Well, let's talk about the War Measures Act which came into operation during the Second World War, because this is the most extreme use of the delegation of subsidiary legislative power, and this was furnished during and after the Second World War. The War Measures Act gave authority to the Governor-General-in-Council to take such orders, and I want to quote now from MacGreggor Dawson himself, who is making reference to the War Measures Act:

"The War Measures Act gave authority to the Governor-General-in-Council to take such orders and regulations as it may deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada so long as the war emergency should continue."

A grant of power so sweeping that it conveyed to the Governor-General-in-Council most of the enormous wartime emergency powers made available to the Dominion parliament under the peace, order and good government. But what you had to have there was an exceptional emergency, and we have no such exceptional emergency.

When the War Measures Act was introduced in 1970, or the Public Order Act, the other piece of legislation, because of the hysteria, the near-fascist hysteria which existed in this country at that time, everybody, except the members of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons, voted for the imposition of that legislation.

But it's interesting that since that time many members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, including the former leader of the Conservative Party...has said publicly that he regrets the position he took at that time. He regrets it, and many people have regretted it. But right here in this province we had a similar kind of hysteria at that time. We had the former Attorney-General passing an order-in-council saying that any teacher who supported the kinds of

[ Page 2800 ]

things that were going on in Quebec at that time would have no right to teach in this province. That was an order-in-council. That was not a bill that was brought into this House for debate; it was an order-in-council that was passed by cabinet. Why? Because of the hysteria and because it was the popular thing to do.

MR. LEA: They took advantage of it.

MR. LEVI: During that time, in 1971 — you know we had Hansard then, albeit it wasn't indexed — the Leader of the Opposition — the present Leader of the Opposition, as he was then — made a comment in a speech he made on January 25, 1971. I'd like to quote from it. He said that another comment he wanted to talk about, during a tour he made of the province, was:

...the great debate in Canada about the War Measures Act and the Temporary Measures Act which the Creditistes and the New Democrats voted against in the federal House.

I'm sorry, the Creditistes did vote against it.

There was an emotional outburst by the Attorney General of this province that brought forward an order in-council and the order-in-council declared that, as a public policy, no person teaching or instructing our youth in educational institutions receiving government support shall continue in the employment of the educational institution....

You know, that kind of thing can go on again, because the kind of thinking in this bill is that parliament is not that important. What I find is that if this bill passes, next year when we go into the estimates, we will debate the estimates of the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport and Communications; then in the middle of the year we'll find that they've changed their minds — the Minister of Health has become a backbencher and they don't need that Health department — because that's the kind of power that's vested in this bill.

What I don't quite understand — and we've heard nothing from the minister who introduced the bill — is why they need it. Why do they need such a bill with all its implications of the worst features of totalitarianism? You know, this is the kind of legislation that exists in Russia. It exists in Russia because they have people who are called commissars, and who run things.

They talk about delegating in this bill to commissioners and to officials. At the same time, that same government has brought in a piece of legislation which is an ombudsman bill, and that's going to give the people of this province some opportunity to get protection from administrative decisions. Yet here we have a bill which is enlarging the powers of officials to make administrative decisions as well as, of course, the powers of the government. So they fail to make the argument in this — first of all, in telling us why they need it. It really, Mr. Speaker, has all the aspects of a fascist government that wants to run everything — wants to make the decisions — but they haven't explained to us why they want to do it.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I don't think that Genghis Khan had anything to do with this bill; I think nobody remembers him. But I might talk about people like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler because that's sure what it sounds like to me. That's more recent in our memories. We know about the kinds of powers that were taken away from parliaments by those two groups, and this is what's happening here. They're taking away powers from parliament, vesting it in themselves and then they're going to tell us — because they haven't really told us yet — why it's so good for the province to have such a bill.

At least what we must have from this bill, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt at hoisting it in order that we can get out there to the public and tell them what it's all about, because it's no good us passing a bill in this House and then suddenly the public is going to wake up outside there. We don't want to go through this whole list of confessionals by leaders of political parties and members of the Legislature in this province, like we've had over the past four or five years since the War Measures Act of 1970 where people have regretted the kind of actions they have taken. It's far better for us to be able to go around and to explain to the public exactly what is implicit in this bill. What is implicit in this bill? What is implicit is absolute control.

Mr. Speaker, in committee, if we get to that stage, we're going to have to have the minister tell us what she sees as the principles of the delegation of power, because it's going to be a long time passing if we can't get some explanations from her about exactly what she has in mind when she talks about in the bill "may establish, vary, or disestablish a department or a ministry."

There has been a phrase used during the Watergate trials when they discussed what was going on in places like Chile and Nicaragua — a phrase called "destabilization." That's a euphemism for doing some underground work to overthrow a democratically elected government. Well, this is what we have here. This bill is an attempt to destabilize the democratic process in British Columbia in the guise of some superbusiness government saying, implying, that it's much more efficient for us to go this route. It may be much more efficient; it may aid us to have the trains run on time, but it doesn't do anything at all for democracy — nothing at all.

Mr. Speaker, because you are the Speaker of the House, and the Deputy Speaker when the Speaker is

[ Page 2801 ]

not here, you do represent for us — that Chair represents for us — the whole issue of the democratic and constitutionality of the operation we have in British Columbia. This is our Act, the Constitution Act. It created this parliament. It created the whole process we operate under. That we have to have more people, particularly from the government side, telling us what it is they are doing to the constitution and to the whole process of democracy in British Columbia...because we have not had that — we have not had that at all.

There is an attempt to destabilize the process of democracy in British Columbia. It is being done and it is being aided and abetted, unfortunately, by the lack of understanding by the people who write the basic editorials in our newspapers.

I am amazed that in this kind of a bill which has been introduced where there has been very little discussion in public and where there is suggestion.... I can recall of only one major piece of coverage where it talks about dangers seen in a bill. But that is in contradistinction to the bill that was introduced last year and then was withdrawn because of the tremendous flak that was brought about by the press. Nobody seems to be interested in doing this. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the media are not prepared to do it, then the members of this House are going to have to do it.

We are going to have to go around this province, and we are going to have to remind the members of this House.... We are going to have to remind the mover and the seconder of the throne speech, who talked in their speeches about freedom — "be careful out there; there are forces that are likely to endanger there." And we had misquote from Stevenson. But there are some real dangers, and they are not out there; they are over there in that government. They are the people who are threatening freedom.

But we're not going to get any of the freedom fighters getting up and arguing in a rational way for this bill. So far we haven't heard from any of them. But I would like to invite, through you, Mr. Speaker, the mover and the seconder of the debate on the throne speech to get up and expand on their views that freedom is in danger in this province, because they were talking about a different kind of thing there.

Well, here we have it. It's out front; it's in a bill. All of the freedoms, the basic freedoms in the democratic system in this province, are bring threatened. There is no good Act to destabilize democracy in this province.

Who is going to speak out over there? Who is going to speak out? I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that they will go back to their ridings and they can say: "We not only have a businesslike government that can make things happen — they are bottom-line boys — but we are going to make the trains run on time. We are going to create the kind of things we need when we need them, and we don't have to go through that rather boring process of going into the Legislature and asking for permission." That's the way those neophytes are going to put this. They see this as an attempt to streamline government. It is an attempt to streamline it in such a way that there won't be any government in terms of the legislative process. What we will have is the complete dictatorship through the cabinet.

So let's not fool ourselves, Mr. Speaker. What it appears to be to a lot of people who have read the bill, who have not spoken out on it, is that it is a somewhat innocuous attempt to make the system work better; it is in fact not that at all. It is not that at all. This is the way dictatorships always have moved — taking away the power from the legislative bodies, taking it into the government, taking it for themselves.

Somebody over here mentioned Papa Doc Duvalier. Yes, he operated that way: he operated in exactly that way — removed the powers of the Legislature. Adolf Hitler did it that way; he took away the powers of the Legislature. That's the way you erode the democratic system. But nobody wants to speak out on that side. If they don't speak out, then presumably they are in favour of the destabilization of the democratic process in this province. If that is the case, then they should have at least the intestinal fortitude to get up and say that they are in favour of it, because they are not in favour of the democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that later on we will look seriously at a motion to hoist this bill — at least to hoist it for six months — in order that everybody in this House can go back to their ridings and talk about what's in this bill, what's going on in Victoria. What is that cabinet trying to do to the people of British Columbia? They are trying to destabilize the democratic process in this province. And the people have to be told — not in an atmosphere of hysteria, because there is no atmosphere of hysteria. But we need the time to do this.

If they are that confident, that government, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is correct, then they owe it to themselves, and to the people, to go around and to talk about it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, during the recent election in Britain, one of the candidates seeking office said that if the British parliamentary system became a system that wouldn't deliver to the people who hold economic power in the world and in the Commonwealth, then they would destroy that system.

This bill is part of that, because this bill should not be called the Government Reorganization Act; it should be called the "Parliament Reorganization

[ Page 2802 ]

Act, " because that's exactly what it is.

Let's review some of the history of that party that that government represents. Have you heard the expression, "democracy is cumbersome and the most efficient way of running things is a friendly dictator"?

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

MR. LEA: We've all heard that, and probably to a certain degree we agree with that; it is efficient to run a government through dictatorship. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said: "It will make the trains run on time, but what happens to democracy?"

What we are doing is dealing with a group of people who have decided that no longer does the parliamentary system work for them in a manner that they would like to see it work, so they have set out to change the system — not to work within the system to bring about changes that they may feel are needed within the province, but to change the system.

Let's take a look, as I said, at some of the history. Immediately after they came into office, one of the first announcements of this new government was that there would be a state of the province address by the new Premier, the first time that we had heard that phrase in Canada or in the Commonwealth. We've heard of state of the union addresses by Presidents of the United States, and we know what that means. We know that they have a republic system down there that is somewhat different from the British parliamentary system under which we operate. But we know also in that American system that there are checks and balances through their committee system and through their legislative process that they have developed over 200 years. So there is a system of democracy in the United States, not like ours, but nevertheless, a system of democracy that has been designed by the American people to serve them, and I would suggest it has served them, in most instances, well.

What we are seeing here is an endeavour on the part of the Social Credit coalition to bring in a partial system of the republic system — in other words, to transfer more power to the executive council and take away from the legislative process. But what they are not going to tell the people of this province is that in the United States, where that kind of system is in existence, they have a very powerful committee system that is set up as a check to hold balance, to ensure that democracy will be upheld.

What we are seeing here is an executive council that is grasping more power unto themselves but not allowing for that check and balance. In the States, of course, a Governor or a President appoints his cabinet not from within the circle of elected representatives, but from without. That is allowed in our system but is very seldom done because we feel traditionally, within this system, that the executive council should be accountable to the people through the Legislature and that they should be exposed to the probing and the questions of an opposition. That is the basis of our system. It's the root basis of our system. This piece of legislation will destroy it.

We cannot look at a government and say: "If they have this power, they may or may not use it." That is not the safeguard. The safeguard is that the law will not allow a government to use a practice that takes away from democracy. It's not whether they will or whether they won't handle the power that they are taking unto themselves in a nefarious way, but whether or not that power exists for them to use. That is the real question around this bill.

We see a group of people, as the member for Vancouver Centre has said, who are really afraid. They are a frightened group because any group that is split the way they are split, on philosophy, on ideology, has to be a frightened group. There is no cohesiveness. There isn't anything to hold them together except that thirst and lust for power.

MR. LAUK: Greed and power!

MR. LEA: It seems strange to me that we get people from that other side, Mr. Speaker, who stand up and talk about principle. Let's examine the kind of group that is asking for the power which this bill will allow them to have. Only last year we had members from the cabinet who were sitting over here in opposition in different parties. We had the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) begging David Anderson to come out from the east and take over the leadership of the Liberal Party. When he arrived here, those two members of this House met behind the back of their leader and stabbed him in the back.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please relate this to the principle of the bill?

MR. LEA: I'm relating it because we're talking about the kind of people who are asking for the power that this bill will allow them to have, Mr. Speaker.

Stabbed him in the back, met behind his back after they had asked him to come out here. The only person in that group who had the intestinal fortitude to follow his conviction is the now leader of the Liberal Party.

That's the kind of group we have over there. The now Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), what did he do? Because he saw power in the offing he deserted the party that he had joined. We have, Mr. Speaker, a group of people who will

[ Page 2803 ]

MR. LAUK: Murder, rape and arson!

MR. LEA: We can only suspect that this kind of legislation that they're asking us to vote in favour of is the kind of power that they've been after, the kind of power that they need to keep the power that they received, but they're not asking only to keep the power that they asked for and that they were given assent to on December 11 in the last provincial election. They're asking for even more power.

This bill would allow the executive council never to come into this House ever again. That's what it would allow. Whether they would take that power and use it in that manner is not the point. But the people of this province should be concerned that the executive council of this province, if they so desire, have the power never to walk through those revolving doors again and come in front of the opposition and ask for permission to do anything. Never again will they have to do that. This legislation would allow them never again to come into this Legislature with a budget. I'm not saying that they would do that....

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You're exaggerating!

MR. LEA: I am not exaggerating a bit and you know it! Don't you talk to me about principle. You're one of the people who sold out a long time ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: You're one of the people. Anything for power!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member would please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he's one of the people who sold out a long time ago. You know something? Others in your ball league at least have the decency to be a bit embarrassed, but not that member, not that minister, not him. He's actually proud of the fact that he stabbed his leader in the back after asking him to come out from Ottawa and accept that role. He's actually proud of it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: When you get a person who is proud of that lack of principle, what in God's name would he do with this kind of power? "Let them walk" is his kind of philosophy, because he understands naught about anything that ordinary people have to worry about in this province. Because he's never been in the position of having to accept the role of a person who is going to be dominated by the economic powers in the community. He represents those economic powers.

It's not good enough for those kind of people to ask for these powers. And you know something else, Mr. Speaker? It's not good enough for any kind of person to ask for these kind of powers. I can remember sitting on the government benches being totally frustrated along with my colleagues because we couldn't do the kind of thing that we wanted to do without going through the lengthy process of coming into this Legislature. I say thank goodness that we had those kinds of frustrations. If a government doesn't have to go through the frustrations of coming in here in open debate and justifying the kind of directions that they want to go, then we no longer have democracy. We no longer have it.

Those, Mr. Speaker, in the back bench who have confidence that the ministers of the government representing the same party as those back benchers, if you have full confidence that that government will not abuse the power that this Legislature is going to give them because of your majority, that still isn't reason enough to vote for this legislation.

Let me put it another way. Let me suggest to you that if at the next election our party became government again, would you want to see our party with the kind of power that that bill will allow a government?

Oh, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) looked up on that one. You wouldn't like to see it, would you?

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad), would you like to see this group with that kind of power that this bill will allow?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please address the Chair, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I am, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government Whip, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), has been around in these legislative chambers longer than I. Would you like to see the New Democratic Party with the kind of powers that this bill will allow? Mr. Speaker, who, in all rational thought, would like to see any government with the kind of power that this bill will allow, bypassing the legislative process?

We could have sat here, Mr. Speaker, on this piece of legislation and said: "There is a bill that gives government dictatorial powers and bypasses the legislative process. Let's say very little about it, because next time we may be government and we could use those kinds of powers. We could use those kinds of powers to do the kind of things that we

[ Page 2804 ]

But no, even though it might be nice or expedient for a government to have those powers, it is wrong. It's wrong and we have to speak up now. We never will want the powers that that government is taking upon itself for ourselves. We have to make that very clear to these people in this province. It is wrong, wrong, wrong because it bypasses the very system that we were founded on — the British parliamentary system — and going back beyond that, the very basis of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the government backbenchers should really think twice on this one. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) chastised the press for not being concerned about this bill. I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the reason they are not. You don't get too excited when you see a government doing the kinds of things that you expected them to do. As a matter of fact, a kind of despondency can set in, and you only await your opportunity to chuck them out. So why get that excited when they are doing exactly the same kinds of things that you expect from them? Arrogance, trying to grasp for themselves totalitarian powers — that is what they are doing. I don't blame the press, because I believe that they are despondent from the kind of actions that they have seen not only the government take, but government backbenchers, and the kind of questions they have asked in public accounts, the kind of lack of conscience when it comes to people and social services....

HON. MR. McGEER: They've gone home. Look at the gallery. They've deserted you.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education says that the gallery has deserted us. I have suggested that they have deserted this chamber. They have deserted this chamber because they are not surprised by any Act this government brings into this Legislature. They are disappointed but not surprised. They know that they have a government back bench who will support any action that government takes, whether it's right or it's wrong.

If a government backbencher disagrees with the government, what does he do? Does he stand in his place in this House and speak against it? The most he will do is absent himself when the vote is taken. That's the most.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education may have some conscience after all. Personally, I doubt it. There is one member of this House...no matter what he says to me, no matter what he accuses me of doing, it doesn't bother me because I really have to consider the source from where that remark comes: a man who in my opinion sold out and in order to sell out stabbed a confident, a leader, in the back on his climb to power....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member — to the principle of the bill, please.

MR. LEA: As I have said before with other legislation, Mr. Speaker, it's very hard to speak to a principle of a bill when it lacks principle. It's very hard.

We have another piece of legislation in this House that lacks principle because it flies in defiance of the very things that our society has stood for for generations and centuries. It flies in defiance. When I look across at the faces of some of the government backbenchers who at this moment are smiling, I would suspect that they are feeling just a little sorry for me because they feel I have no understanding. They feel that it's all right to give their masters this kind of power. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, they feel that way because all their lives they have admired, to a great extent, authority of any kind. They're the kind of people who in their very being are frightened little people who admire authority because they always admire that which frightens them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the principle, please, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: It's one of the ironies of their kind of thinking.

MR. BARRETT: "It took me two weeks to train my dog."

MR. LEA: Yes, I think that this piece of legislation is epitomized by the remark that was made by the Premier in an offhand way in this House — that it would only take him two weeks to train his dog. He was referring to the opposition. I'm going to tell you that you are not going to train this opposition in two weeks, three weeks, four weeks or ever, and you are not going to train the people of this province to give up their rights! That's what this bill stands for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. You will assist the House greatly in order if you obtain to the principle of the bill. I am sure that you will assist us.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, when you're talking about something that takes away the very being of a system that we have grown to respect and love, then I would say that the greatest latitude should be given to

[ Page 2805 ]

members of this House because this bill is a very dangerous bill. If you look at the players in this drama, and you look across and you see the kind of people — and you have to talk about the kind of people who are asking for this kind of power — you see, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), who was a cabinet minister in Ottawa when the War Measures Act was passed. He was there and voted for that then, and he is here to vote for this now, because the same kind of people, and oftentimes the same players, travel back and forth through our society playing their role of destruction and trying to destroy a system that no longer serves their masters and themselves, and that is the real danger.

Mr. Speaker, I think you could forgive the back bench, because I don't truly believe they understand this piece of legislation. I don't think they do, but the members of cabinet, I would say, for the most part — especially the turncoats — understand this legislation only too perfectly. Now that they have power they are going to do anything to maintain that power. They believe that power is delightful and absolute power is absolutely delightful, and they're not about to give it up at any time, for any reason.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in this House two ministers who, under any other government, would have resigned or been forced to resign by opinion. We have seen that action not taken. We saw that only recently. So we have to not only be suspect of the very people who are asking for this kind of power, but we have to be suspect that this kind of legislation is never on the books for any group of people, no matter who they individually or as a group or what party they represent.

What kind of people? I'm going to finish, Mr. Speaker, to show you the kind of mind that does exist on those back benches. It would be considered humorous but I don't think it is, because what you have to do is consider the kind of mind that would put out this kind of information, and he is going to vote for the principle of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before you embark on this, this does relate to the principle of the bill?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you can't discuss a bill without talking about the attitudes of the people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is aware that backbenchers were not responsible for this bill and its sponsorship....

MR. LEA: Backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, are going to be responsible for what happens.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Therefore it would be beyond the scope, would it not, to bring in an opinion of a backbencher in the principle of the bill?

MR. LEA: I think it would be most fitting that the opinion of backbenchers be heard in this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you an excerpt from a business card. It reads:

"Used cars, land, whisky, manure, nails, fly swatters, racing forms, stump blasting, bongos, love beads, wars fought, revolutions started, assassinations plotted, governments run, uprisings quelled, stud service, tigers tamed, bars emptied, computers verified, orgies organized, presidents impeached."

What kind of a person would put out that kind of business card?

MR. LAUK: Nobody serious.

MR. LEA: Even if it was put out as a joke, it would take a certain kind of mind to come up with that kind of joke. I'll be very interested to see whether the author of this card votes for this legislation. Yes, I'll be very interested to see whether he name of this card votes for this legislation.

The name on the card, by the way, is Lyle Kahl.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: That's the kind of mind. I'm not saying that this card was put out in a serious way; what I'm asking you to consider is the kind of mind that would come up with that kind of humour. "Wars fought, revolutions started, assassinations plotted...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, the Chair has given the courtesy without knowing the contents of the material you have just presented, but, with great respect, it is out of order. Please proceed.

MR. LEA: I don't know why it's out of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not relevant to the principle of the bill.

MR. LEA: I think it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Therefore it is out of order.

MR. LEA: I'll accept your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

[ Page 2806 ]

MR. LAUK: He said he was going to start a revolution. That's relevant.

MR. LEA: I said it before and I think it's worth repeating every time this coalition brings in a piece of legislation that goes against the grain of anyone who considers democracy: No Liberal government would have brought this legislation into this House. No Conservative government would have brought this legislation into this House. No Social Credit government would have brought this legislation into this House. Only a coalition of extremists who seek their own personal power base could have brought this legislation into this House, and they now want to remove the power from the Legislature to behind closed doors, called the Executive Chamber in this province.

That is what they are trying to do so that they can, by undercover methods behind closed doors, in the dead of night, make decisions that are going to affect the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They meet in broad daylight.

MR. LEA: That is what they're going to do. I don't believe they've got the guts to make those decisions in that executive chamber even in broad daylight, Mr. Member. They only have the guts to do things under the power of night, because they represent the dark powers in this province, and in this world. Only dark powers could have brought in this kind of legislation that takes away from democracy.

The member for Burrard said only Stalin or Hitler would approve. I disagree, because we're going to find out within the next short while how many people in this chamber would vote for the kind of legislation that Hitler would approve and that Stalin would approve.

I truly, Mr. Speaker, ask that back bench to consider this bill, and I ask those backbenchers to read it, to read it carefully and see whether you would vote for this bill if our party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party had brought it into this chamber. I say you would not vote for it. You'd be standing in your place saying that we should not have that kind of power. We go even further and say no party, no group of people should have this kind of s power. Absolutely nobody.

Mr. Speaker, when we consider that the sponsor of this bill, the Hon. Provincial Secretary, went throughout this province, not telling the truth about the past government in terms of setting up a secret police force — and now that's fact. That's fact in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Is the member imputing any improper motive to any other member of this House?

MR. LEA: No, I am not. What I am saying is that the member went around this province, before she was a member, the minister, saying that our government when we were in power were setting up a secret police force. Under the Attorney-General's estimates we asked him if he had found any grain of truth in the charges that she was making in 1973, and he said he had not. I leave it to the people of this province to judge whether she was telling the truth or not telling the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I just remind you that with an accusation such as you have just made, it makes no difference whether the member against whom you make this accusation was a member at the time or whether she's a member now. The accusation, if it pertains to someone who is presently a member, must be withdrawn. I think that in the interests of good conduct in the House the member would....

MR. LEA: I withdraw it, I withdraw it. I will say that I would like to run through again what happened, so that we can clearly understand and people can make up their minds.

In 1973 the Provincial Secretary, as the leader of the Social Credit Party, went throughout this province saying that the New Democratic Party, when we were government, were putting together an arsenal of ammunition and guns for the purpose of forming a secret police to take away the powers of the people in his province.

MR. BARRETT: That was her statement over and over again.

MR. LEA: She made it; it's on record. When the Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was going through his estimates in this House, the opposition queried him for quite some time, asking him if he found any evidence that the former government had been building an arsenal of ammunition and guns and whether there was anything that he could find that would suggest that his party, when in government, had been setting up a secret police force. His answer was no.

MR. BARRETT: No guns. No cops. Just fiction.

MR. LEA: So what we have to say at this time is that the kind of rumour-mongering that was going on then by the hon. Provincial Secretary...is the same person who is asking this Legislature, under her jurisdiction, to take democracy away from the province of British Columbia. The same person, Mr. Speaker, is sponsoring that legislation. And I know

[ Page 2807 ]

That is why we have to oppose this bill, because if this bill passes it may be our last opportunity within this forum to express our views, because this legislation does allow for the affairs of government to go ahead without coming to this Legislature. It allows, Mr. Speaker, that even the budget itself and the estimates of minister could never, if the government so desired, come back on the floor of this Legislature for discussion.

That's what this bill will allow. It's not the point of whether or not they will do it, but no government should have within its jurisdiction the power to bypass this Legislature if it so desires.

What I have tried to point out is that some of the people who sit on government benches, in my opinion, are the kind of people who will use that kind of power, because they have demonstrated in the past that for their own personal ambitions they will act in an unsavoury way by stabbing colleagues in the back, and a number of other things that I have pointed out.

So I suggest that we have a twofold concern: No. 1, that any government be given the powers that this bill calls for, regardless of party; the other point is that this group who is asking for this power has already demonstrated that they will misuse power once it is in their hands.

So I would ask any thinking person in this Legislature — and I would hope that we are all that. We may not agree with the end result of our thinking process. All I am asking is that every member in this House examine in great detail the kind of power that, if this legislation is passed, will be given to the executive branch of government — to examine that and to see whether or not you want any executive council to have those kind of powers.

Mr. Speaker, the electorate is fickle. They could just vote the New Democratic Party in again the next time. Would you really want us to have the kind of powers that you are going to give to your cabinet in your own party?

Would you want us to have those powers? Examine it in that light if no other and make your decision. Because the day that this legislation passes, if government uses their crushing majority to put it through this Legislature, will be a day that will be long remembered in the history of this province as the beginning of a new direction of government, one of a republican system without the checks and balances that the people of the United States have put into their system for the republican system. They are asking for total power within the executive without the advantage of a check-and-balance situation.

All members, regardless of party...because I believe that every legislator in this House, with the exception of a few in cabinet, really want the best for this province. Regardless of what party we represent and those areas we may disagree on, I think we do. We may disagree with each other on the method of achieving greatness and goodness for this province, but I think we all want it.

If this bill goes through this House and you vote for it, your grandchildren will be looking at the record of the voting in this House and condemning you. Because history, I believe, will prove that what we are saying today in this House will come to pass. Because when government has at their disposal the kind of power that this bill will allow them to have, at some point some government will use that power. History tells us that; even if not that government, history tells us that it will be used.

It's a hackneyed expression, but it's true: if we don't learn from history, we live to repeat the mistakes that our forefathers made. We live to repeat it. When your grandchildren look at you and say, "Grandfather" — or grandmother — "why did you vote for that legislation?", if you can't today think of what you are going to tell them, then I suggest don't vote for it. Because it isn't worth keeping that group in power to sell out your conscience.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. L. NICOLSON: (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to oppose this bill. I think that the words of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) should have some effect on any thinking person.

You know, it was an innovation of this parliament here in British Columbia that there was some familiarization for new members of the Legislature conducted by your office, Mr. Speaker. New members were brought here in order to try to impress upon them the rules and procedures of the House. I don't think it could be possible that the importance, though, of the Legislature, the power of the Legislature and the powers granted by the Legislature when enacting legislation such as this, could have been fully understood or fully appreciated. Indeed, it might be impossible before one actually sits in this House to appreciate the very delicate system that is the British parliamentary system.

We are here today asking not just to nibble away at the foundation of British parliamentary democracy, but to certainly kick out one of the supportive members in the support structure that balances this very delicate and fragile system, one which I believe is the best developed to date, one which was slowly developed from a system which, back in the Middle Ages, was a system whereby the titled persons and the gifted and the landed and the gentry persons sought protection from the excessive use of power by the kind. It has been modified now to be an access to fair play by all persons.

You know, in Britain itself it wasn't until the First

[ Page 2808 ]

So we have a group that has already shown no sense of responsibility in bringing about massive increases in taxation and imposts upon the ordinary people of this province, seeking to take unto themselves further excessive powers, seeking, under a section of this Act, to be able to establish, vary, disestablish a department or ministry by an Act of the cabinet.

When we brought in a Department of Housing, the powers granted to the Department of Housing and the Minister of Housing were clearly defined in the Act. They were debated in this Legislature. There was debate as to whether or not the powers granted included the right to expropriate. We made it very clear that there was no right to expropriate land from people simply because the provincial government felt that there might be a better way of housing people in a certain area. Neighbourhoods were held sanctified and sacred in terms of the aims and objectives of this department. We could not go in and expropriate and bulldoze neighbourhoods in order to build some new public housing development which we might have thought would have been in the better interests of people. We didn't take that power. There was discussion in this Legislature as to whether or not the powers were granted.

When we brought in the Consumer Protection Act the powers of the minister were debated in this House. It was not established, varied or disestablished by an act of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and indeed even the things which could be decided and could not be decided by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council were defined and set out by the terms of those departmental Acts.

And the same thing with the Department of Transport and Communications, when we felt that it should be done.

What did this government do already? Already they've broken the law in so many different ways, but one of which was the manner in which they set up the Department of Environment. I think that the Legislature should demand that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) at least return to the Crown that amount of money which is the differential between a minister without portfolio and a minister with full portfolio, because there is no portfolio of Minister of Environment. It doesn't exist in law.

This is a coverup. It's a way of trying to give some kind of decency to something which was done indecently. This Act is seeking to be able to determine the department or ministry that will exercise any of the duties or functions under an enactment. What does that mean? It means open up the statutes.

Something else that should have been discussed during that familiarization exercise which you innovated, Mr. Speaker, is some of the powers that are contained in statutes, but contained for specific purposes. But now you can randomly open up.... Ministers can now say: "Well, I wonder what power I should take unto myself. I think I'll take this one — to flood and overflow land, purchase or otherwise acquire, accumulate and store water, to raise or lower the level of rivers, lakes, streams and other bodies of water, and to purchase and otherwise acquire water records and water privileges."

Perhaps the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) wants to start some kind of an industry, wants to see some of his friends establish some kind of an industry, and maybe there will be private water licences held by people for residential purposes or agricultural purposes. Maybe he'll decide to acquire those water rights, not under any Act that was granted to him, not under any power that he's supposed to have, but one that was intended for the very specific purpose of generating power.

Perhaps the Provincial Secretary herself, who is also the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, might decide to do something that a great number of people might think very worthwhile, to perhaps increase waterfowl habitat, to create a new marshland where farms formerly existed. Perhaps she would take this power to flood and overflow land unto herself in order to enhance the waterfowl-rearing qualities of something that might be used as farmland or something which someone might own as wild land.

So transferring duties and functions from one department or ministry to another or to determine and change the name of a department or ministry — when we look at some of the specific things that also might be done under this Act:

"Where, in respect of a Government building, highway, or public work, it is necessary to take down or remove a wall, fence, or boundary-mark of an owner or occupier of adjoining land, or to construct a canal, ditch, drain, or earthwork, the Minister may do such work as may be necessary."

That's intended for a very specific ministry, but perhaps it will be taken unto anyone.

These are the types of things that we're voting for here today. You know that there was a bill which we brought in and which was withdrawn after some debate — the Emergency Measures Act, which was an

[ Page 2809 ]

At the very least, the government should leave this Act over this summer. It isn't needed. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is an illegal appointment. I suppose if he's continued in that position since last December, if he were to continue in it until next fall, next November, December, I don't think it will be any more serious for the length of time once the act has been done.

Maybe some of the members might look at some of the powers contained in that Act, powers that allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

"to make such orders respecting the environment or land use as he may consider necessary, advisable and may make such orders under this Act, notwithstanding any other Act or regulation, and no minister, department or government, or agent of the Crown specified, shall exercise any power granted under any other Act or regulation in accordance with the order."

That sweeping power was passed in 1971. Is this to be part of the shopping list of the cabinet in terms of the powers that they might wish to have transferred to them — and for what purposes?

Would the Minister of Human Resources, perhaps, to solve a constituency problem of Bridgeview, in his riding, want to take upon himself the powers to flood people out, to get rid of those people down in Bridgeview, who I'm sure he considered a nuisance when he had the capacity as a mayor? Maybe now, in the capacity of a minister, he can take this power to flood those people out of there once and for all, so they won't demand adequate sewer protection, sewer works, roads and safety standards in terms of open ditches in that residential area which they have there.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health, we offered them a programme of up to $2.5 million. We were going to go ahead with works. We did the studies. The studies are there and the methods of dealing with that are technologically possible. They're affordable, but what did they do? They upped the ante. They wanted to serve the industrial users as well. Well, I would say that that would be a misuse of funds. But to serve the people of that area, the residents of that area, it was certainly well worth a $2.5 million programme which our government was able to go ahead with. I'll certainly travel down through that area, which is a health hazard, with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) any day, any day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the hon. member please now relate his remarks to the bill which is before the House?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit with respect that almost any comment under this bill would be in order, because this bill is granting powers to do almost anything. It certainly opens up the four statute books to almost any minister. It's a shopping-list-of-powers bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm only suggesting to the hon. member that to keep within the rules of the House you must relate your remarks to the bill that's before us.

MR. NICOLSON: I have been attempting to do that, because I suggested that even something as bizarre as a Minister of Human Resources saying that he needs the powers to flood land could be granted under this bill.

It's a bizarre bill, Mr. Speaker, shepherded into this House by a bizarre minister of a bizarre cabinet. I guess the only hope of the people of British Columbia is that enough of the back bench will see fit to ask that this bill at least be held over until they have a chance to reread it in view of the fact of how they would treat this bill if it were an NDP government asking for these powers of reorganization, manipulation and confiscation. That's what they have to view. How would they feel if they were in these benches and it was an NDP government that was putting forth such a bill? They cannot view it in any other way; that is the parliamentary system. Powers cannot be granted...in view of who they think is going to be able to wield those powers. It has to be viewed in light of the fact that we have several different political parties, several different political philosophies in this province and in this country.

How would they view that if a Liberal cabinet was asking for these powers? How would they feel about this if, say, the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Trudeau) had suddenly decided to come here, because he does have some family ties in British Columbia, and get into the more exciting life of provincial politics? What if it were a Liberal government which, for some reason or other, came to power about 1980? Would they like that person and a cabinet perhaps picked by him to have these powers?

Would they like these powers to be in the hands of Robert Bourassa, the Prime Minister of Quebec? Should this go ahead, should this type of thing be allowed in another province, how would they view it

[ Page 2810 ]

These powers are powers to set up a commissar system within British Columbia wherein these powers can be switched back and forth, and you should read some of the powers which have been granted for very specific purposes under certain ministries. I suppose that the powers could be switched back and forth — that one week the Minister of Housing could use powers that have been given to the Minister of Highways to appropriate land and expropriate land under very antiquated expropriation laws. He could do that. He could return the powers to the Minister of Highways who will then become the Minister of Public Works. Then, at some other time, they could be given to the Minister of Lands and Forests and there could be a swapping; the Minister of Lands and Forests might have some powers. The mind boggles at what could happen under this Act.

I don't say this lightly. That's what's contained in here. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) continues to interject and try to intimidate the opposition. You know, he should get up and stand in his place and say that these are good powers, whether it be a Social Credit government or whether it be an NDP government...

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Sit down. I'll get up.

MR. NICOLSON: ...that he believes that these powers would be well handled no matter which of the political parties sitting in this House, or outside of this House — parties which have no representation in this House but seem to spring up at election time — happened to be in power. I wonder if he would be candid enough to get up and say that. If he were to get up and say that, I don't believe that it could be quite truthful.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He's picking on me, but he doesn't give me a chance to get up.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think that even if one believed that if such powers were handled judiciously, that they would be justified. We couldn't expect them to be handled judiciously among a cabinet in which there is a cancer spreading. It started in the second seat from the end from the back bench, and now it has spread — that cancer has spread to the contiguous cell — to where they have gotten up in this House and have said that one thing has not happened; they have denied something and then under pressure and under incontrovertible evidence they have changed that, but never having admitted or apologized for misleading hon. members of this House. That cancer is spreading cell by cell, seat by seat in those cabinet benches. It started down at that end and it's spreading. If ever there was any need not to increase powers of cabinet but to curtail them, it has to be found at a time in which we have a coalition of opportunists who have taken upon themselves this power.

There is a polarity in this province, and maybe it is a healthy polarity and the people will be given another chance and this group will be judged upon how they abuse this power and how it is used in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi)...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's gone home.

MR. NICOLSON: ...referred to the War Measures Act. That's the kind of thing which we are discussing here — the powers contained in such Acts to be shifted around among cabinet. Instead of having to shuffle cabinets, you could just shuffle responsibilities around. If you have a weak minister you could shuffle all of his responsibilities off to some other minister. You wouldn't even have to go through the humiliating experience of even having to shuffle cabinet or get rid of somebody who's become a liability — you just temporarily emasculate that portfolio.

We've seen that there's a growing mistrust of this cabinet among the people of the province — statements made one day have proven false the second day. It's an accidental disease of a group that is so propelled in their thirst to grab not only the power which they've been granted by the people of the province, but to take on even more. It's a group that ironically campaigned on a theme that they were going to remove excessive powers of cabinet, that they were going to bring in some enlightened legislation. But what they've done is brought in a little bit of a smokescreen in terms of a couple of good bills which on their own would serve to bring a little bit of sunshine in, but behind that smokescreen they are seeking to widen in an ever-expanding frontier the power of cabinet and the distance between the people and the cabinet.

Today I was listening to a hotline show and some of the powers which have been taken by the Minister of Human Resources in terms of changing regulations and frustrating persons in terms of getting their just due — the people who have lived in this province, the pioneers of this province. He's made Mincome more inaccessible. We've also made travel more inaccessible — parts of this province more inaccessible — by Acts, and now we're trying to make government itself inaccessible.

This Act is the inaccessibility Act. This Act is the insular cabinet Act. Pretty soon this cabinet will probably build itself an underground bunker, and

[ Page 2811 ]

These people have tried to kill the messenger. When we bring to the attention of this Legislature an indiscretion by a cabinet minister, a member of the opposition gets thrown out of the House. If we continue on this road we won't even just be getting thrown out of this House, but stronger measures will be taken. Once you start down this road the logical end of this road is a totalitarian system, and it makes no difference whether it's a totalitarian of the right or the left, whether it be communism or fascism.

This is a step in the direction of a totalitarian government. I cannot accept this bill, and I urge the backbenchers to look at this bill in that view, and I urge them....

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep going. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: What do you think, Bob, shall I keep going?

But I urge them to look at this bill from that point of view. Do you want to extend these powers, not just to yourselves, not just to your little champions up there in the cabinet benches, but do you want to extend these powers to any parliamentarian that may win office in this area, in this province?

This is a dangerous step. You went around the province talking about freedom. You had the seagulls on your little button, and you had that symbol of freedom. You set up the Unity offices all over the province and that was the theme. But now that its gotten beyond sloganeering, now that you're down to the crunch, now that you have the power to curtail freedom or to curtail excessive government powers, what are you going to chose? Are you going to vote for this bill and vote to curtail freedom or are you — or are they, Mr. Speaker, going to vote, because I know you won't vote except in the case of a tie — will you vote...?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Would you vote to extend excessive cabinet powers and to remove powers from the public scrutiny of the Legislature? That's what you'll be voting on here. Either you vote for this bill and vote to curtail freedom, and you shoot down your little seagulls all over this province, or you vote for this bill and you raise the spectre of a totalitarian state, which is its logical conclusion.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, you know, perhaps this bill should come as no surprise to me, but it does come as a surprise. I had hoped for better things from this new government. If it had been the old Social Credit government that we had for 20 years, I wouldn't have been so surprised. It's the kind of legislation I would have expected that government to introduce. We went through 20 years of steam-roller government, Mr. Speaker. We went through 20 years of one-man government....

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we have one-boy government.

MRS. WALLACE: We went through 20 years in order-in-council government. We went through a period where we saw the former Social Credit Party campaigning on a platform that was opposed to the takeover of the B.C. Electric, and then we saw that government when they were elected take over the B.C. Electric.

We saw that for 20 years, Mr. Speaker, and I would not have been surprised had that government brought in this kind of legislation, but I am surprised to see this government do it. I had hoped for better things from this government, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped for a new approach. But it's the same old approach, Mr. Speaker, the same old approach and the same kind of legislation. They are no different. It's the same gang, the same attitude.

They are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to tell the people anything. They went out and made promises and then they came back to this House — and what happened? It was a complete disregard for those promises, Mr. Speaker, a complete reversal of those promises. I came into this House, Mr. Speaker, believing in the democratic system of government....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): You got quite a shock.

MRS. WALLACE: The second member for Vancouver Centre says: "You got quite a shock." It was a shock to find a government that paid no attention to the expressed will of the people of this province, people who tried to tell them that they could not afford the kind of ICBC premiums that they were facing, that they could not afford increased ferry rates. People tried to tell them; they paid no attention. The opposition has tried to tell them; they refused to listen, Mr. Speaker, and now they are proposing to erode the very right of the opposition to tell them.

MR. BARNES: They feel they are the chosen ones.

[ Page 2812 ]

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, Mr. Speaker. They feel they are the chosen ones.

This is a dictatorial government and it's dedicated to the protection of the corporate section of society at the expense of the average people. They have proved that, Mr. Speaker, in the bills they have brought before this House. That is the direction they are taking. They have proved that, Mr. Speaker, and I would beg to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.