[ Page 2839 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

    Effect of welfare policies. Mr. Levi — 2839

    Supervision of cars on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2840

    Trade with South Africa. Ms. Brown — 2840

    Funding of Olympic torch-carrying ceremonies. Mr. Barnes — 2841

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second reading.

Mr. King — 2842

On the amendment to defer second reading for six months.

Mrs. Dailly — 2845

Mr. Lea — 2847

Mr.Cocke — 2852

Ms. Sanford — 2854

Mr. Barber — 2856

Mr. Lockstead — 2858

Mr. Wallace — 2858

Mr. Barnes — 2859

Ms. Brown — 2862

Mr. Lea — 2866

Points of order.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2866

Mr. Lea — 2866

Mr. Barrett — 2867

Mr. King — 2867

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2867

Mr. Barrett — 2868

Ms. Sanford — 2869

Mr. Barrett — 2870

Ms. Sanford — 2870

Mr. Barrett — 2871

Mr. Lea — 2871

Mr. Gibson — 2872

Mr. Lauk — 2872

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House and have the House make welcome Mr. H.W. Galbraith from Vernon.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us today is Mr. Dave Storrie from Campbell River in the constituency of Comox. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Oral questions.

EFFECT OF WELFARE POLICIES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. At the end of May I asked him about the death of an 81-year-old blind man in an elevator shaft and the policy of the department respecting funding of a programme. I asked him again during the estimates, and he said he was going to look into it.

Last week the coroner in Victoria, Mr. St. Jorre, ordered an inquest into the death of a woman who committed suicide allegedly as a result of being afraid that her welfare would be taken away from her. I informed the minister last week, when I saw him on Friday, that I was going to ask this question: is the minister prepared to report to the House on what he feels the effect of some of his policies are having on people, particularly in relation to the two incidents that I've described?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): The question is: what effect is our policy having on people? Well, I assume that by and....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question as I understand it...and I'll attempt to reply. From the people I speak to throughout the community and in other parts of British Columbia, I find that our policy is being extremely well received and that the effect throughout the department appears to be favourable too, in that certainly the supervisors, the regional directors, the field people have received these policies well. They advise me that they are in effect already showing very beneficial results.

Unfortunately, however, statements do get into the press. We are aware of some, which I've previously mentioned, and the one which has now been referred to by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and which are not only erroneous and very misleading, but damaging to the people who are mentioned in these articles, and certainly the one that's referred to by the hon. member about someone apparently, so the item says, having committed suicide because of welfare policies.

I think these statements are also very unfortunate for the relations and the people who are left behind. In this particular instance these relations have made it known to me that they feel terrible about these erroneous statements, these allegations and suggestions made in the press. I, too, am very sorry that they are being followed through in this manner in the House here today because it only brings it to the fore again.

There was no relation, no connection at all from the people that I've had advice from between the incident and any policy that might have been adopted by the department.

MR. LEVI: I presume, Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us that he's investigated both cases and that's how he comes to that assumption. If he has done that, is he prepared to table with the House the report on those two investigations? It's fairly clear that the people in this province are scared to death of your welfare policies and it's led directly to the death of two people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a very irresponsible charge to suggest that the death of two people has been caused by any particular policy from my department. I will not only....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will submit the report which was given me and which clearly denies any of the charges or suggestions being made by the hon. member. I think perhaps the hon. member also, tomorrow after he's had time to think about the ridiculous charges he's made, should explain and apologize for such an irresponsible statement.

MR. LEVI: A further supplemental. The minister indicates he is prepared to file with the House one report. Is he prepared to file a second report on the case of Mrs. Eastman in the Victoria area?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

[ Page 2840 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I would table the reports, and certainly I will table the reports. The reports are complete and they will certainly provide all of the information I think the hon. member is requesting.

Again, I feel it very unfortunate that these names are brought forth in the House, in fairness to the relations and the friends and people left behind. I would ask the hon. member to give this very considerable thought in the future, because this is the third time that it's happened.

MR. LEVI: There is nothing improper, Mr. Speaker, in referring to people's names when it's a matter of public record, and the minister should understand that — nothing improper whatsoever.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that wasn't a question.

SUPERVISION OF CARS ON FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney-General, who has been at meetings, I gather, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport and Communications, in view of the fact that a motor vehicle with a man inside fell off the B.C. ferry in Active Pass on Saturday, if the minister has ordered any specific inquiry to determine if there is any lack of safety in the supervision of vehicles on the car deck while ferries are en route between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, an inquiry is being conducted. I might, however, add for the hon. member's information that the automobile in question was one of the last to board the ferry and apparently was driven off the ferry in reverse at high speed.

MR. WALLACE: I don't wish to go into the specifics of that one incident, but with the recent reduction in the number of crew members on the ferries can the minister tell the House, again with particular reference to the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen route, by how many the number of crew employed exceeds the minimum permitted by the regulations of the Canada Shipping Act?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the present number is in line with the numbers permitted under the Canada Shipping Act. International convention, however, for similar protected waters applies also to the Washington state ferries, and there the manning number is 14 and not 31, as in our case.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand the minister to say that, in fact, we now have the minimum number permitted by the Canada Shipping Act? If this is the case — and I take it to be the case from his answer — what preparations does the ferry system have in the event of sudden illness or other such reason on the part of a crew member not appearing on duty? Would the ship in fact be sailing in contravention of the Canada Shipping Act and with increased risk to passengers?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in no case has a vessel sailed with less than the minimum required number, nor is it likely to.

As I said previously, the numbers required under the Canada Shipping Act are the numbers really required for high-seas operation. We're looking into the numbers required for inland waters operations.

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier.

In view of the recent resolution just passed by the United Nations condemning the actions of South Africa in the recent violence against unarmed students in that country, would you tell me, Mr. Premier, what your government's policy is in continuing trade in South African wines in this province?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia believes that international relations are the responsibilities of the federal government. We will not use our own provincial policies, whether with Chile or with Russia or with China or with South Africa, as an international weapon. What we have done is present a policy in the LCB that is not political in nature; it's by demand of the customers in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the federal government permits provincial governments to take some kind of moral responsibility for their actions. The previous provincial government took the moral responsibility of acceding to the wishes of the black South Africans who said: "Would you please not trade with this country?" Your government, Mr. Premier, reversed that decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Would you please answer my previous question? In view of the United Nations

[ Page 2841 ]

resolution, what do you and what does your government intend to do in terms of your moral responsibility?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether I was being lectured by the member, but I want to say that the government does not politically influence this government. In the government liquor stores the right to purchase is a decision that's made by the citizens of B.C. The government allows people to make a free choice in this province, and that's the only type of government we'll be part of.

MS. BROWN: Final supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier explain to us why his government is taking away from the people of this province the right to know what the government is doing through introduction of Bill 59, which will allow him to carry on business in private?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Yet he tells us that he's allowing free government in this province.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I point out to the hon. members that discussion on Bill 59 is a matter of discussion in second reading before the House and, as such, is out of order in question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

FUNDING OF OLYMPIC
TORCH-CARRYING CEREMONIES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I should perhaps be making a supplementary because that's a pretty serious matter that the Premier has evaded, but I want to ask him another question in the interest of sport.

He's indicated to the province that he will be participating in the torch-carrying ceremonies from Ottawa to Montreal and that B.C. Industries, along with the provincial government, will be handling the cost of some $300,000 for some 24 athletes and himself. I'd like to ask the Premier, in view of the fact that the Community Recreational Facilities Fund is now depleted and other means are required in the province of British Columbia, what percentage of...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: ...the $300,000, Mr. Premier, the people of British Columbia will be paying in that total amount to carry on that torch-carrying ceremony.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I might explain to the member that a request from the committee was before the government when the new government took over for B.C., as all other provinces, to participate in some part of the Olympics. There was a committee set up, the decision was made and finally accepted that B.C.'s contribution, rather than going into a lot of hospitality that surrounds the Olympics, would be in the traditional flame ceremony, and we would provide young athletes from B.C. to carry it. I think the symbolism of the flame ceremony is one of the most important parts of the Olympics, and what the government has done is accede to this request. The Provincial Secretary's estimates will be up and you can get the exact amount, if you wish it. If not, I'll take that part of your question as notice and bring the answer to the House.

MR. BARNES: Could I ask the Premier if he could also indicate to the House why he felt that he himself would like to run the first one kilometre? Assuming that he had no politics in mind and didn't want to use the public's funds to get himself a little exposure, then perhaps he could have found a 25th athlete from British Columbia — perhaps myself, as a member of the opposition. I would have done it for free, and maybe I would have paid my own way.

Interjections.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You couldn't make it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to tell the member for Vancouver Centre that I am doing it for free and I am doing it at the request of the committee, who made the request to myself as Premier, and as...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...we respond to requests to represent the province at various functions around the province. I certainly feel it's the government's duty, and myself on behalf of the government, to recognize reasonable requests. It was upon the request of that committee that we are representing the province. I'm sure if they had wanted the member for Vancouver Centre, they would have asked him.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 2842 ]

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I want to join my colleagues on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, in stating my great alarm about the bill which is before us at the moment, Bill 59, the Government Reorganization Act. I've looked at the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I've been appalled by the powers which the government is taking unto itself, without respect to coming before the Legislature for full debate, for full scrutiny and for full public understanding of precisely what it is that the government is seeking to do in this bill.

I'm particularly alarmed, Mr. Speaker, by the authority of a government which is moving more and more toward the American style of republicanism, where the Premier apparently conceives of himself as the president. Perhaps one day some of his cabinet people are going to have to point out to him that the emperor has no clothes. We find that he's moving in the direction of feeling that he should have full powers without any public scrutiny, and we remember the story of the emperor without his clothes and it having to be brought brutally to his attention that he was left naked in terms of responsibility, in terms of obligations to those people whom he represented.

This Bill 59 is a similar statute. It's a statute, Mr. Speaker, that appalls me, because that group over there, when they were in opposition and during the election campaign, put forward the proposition that they were the defenders of freedom in this province, that they stood for freedom. I think we all remember the emblems of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, that free bird flying overhead. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia today do not appreciate what that seagull is dropping on them.

I have great concern with this government that said they would be accountable, that they would protect the freedom of each and every citizen in this province, that they would have the gall to come before this Legislature and say they're going to pass one broad, sweeping Act that will allow them....

Interjections.

MR. KING: I think the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has something in his eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's an Act that will allow them with one fell swoop of Jonathan Livingstone to seize unto themselves powers allowing the Premier, the crown prince or the boy friends to manipulate moneys that are voted by this Legislature for specific purposes. This is the arena where priorities are set and the allocation of the public's funds, it's the arena where priorities are set....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You were the best leader of them all.

MR. KING: The Minister of Health is sulking over there. He was one of the ones who ran into that powerful money machine from the Okanagan and he's been worrying about leadership ever since.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flattery will get you nowhere.

MR. KING: He thought he could take on that powerful money machine from the Okanagan, and ever since he butted his nose up against that, he's been obsessed with leadership. I want to tell him that leadership on this side of the House is in great shape — great shape; no problems. It's over there that the infighting is going on.

I want to say that maybe that's another reason that the Premier of this coalition government is bringing in a bill to seize more individual personal power for himself, because he's become a bit paranoid about all the people nipping at his heels. He sees power brokers all around him — people who would divest themselves and divorce themselves from party allegiance of long standing, people who would coalesce into some kind of coalition of convenience for the sole purpose of obtaining power at any cost. I think the Premier is a bit paranoid — that's why we see bills of this nature before the House. The Premier is going to become Mr. President, and then maybe some of executive council will be chosen from the non-elected, rather than the ranks of the elected.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have travelled around British Columbia for the last number of months. And particularly since this bill was introduced into the Legislature, I have encountered a tremendous reaction from people in the public service in this province. I have found people in the field in virtually every department expressing real concern, real terror in fact, regarding the implications of this bill. We find people in the Minister of Environment's branch who are tremendously concerned when they see that by this one statute authority and moneys can be voted for the protection of the environment. Arbitrarily, without respect to the Legislature, without respect to the public for any debated dialogue, the Premier of this province will be able to, in an autocratic manner, transfer the moneys that were allocated for environmental protection and

[ Page 2843 ]

emasculate the staffing requirements of that department which is charged with the responsibility of regulating mining corporations so that streams and lakes are not polluted with tailings, be able to emasculate the function of the game biologists and the fisheries biologists, who are the custodians over preservation of that tremendously important area of our life, by simply transferring funds or transferring staff to some other department.

It means, Mr. Speaker, in reality that this government can place their priorities in a closed-door fashion without the benefit of public debate, without coming before the electorate in this House and stating openly what their priorities are. It means that they can simply pay lip service to the Department of Environment, but by cabinet decree, indeed by decree of the Premier, completely emasculate the effectiveness and the whole priority the Legislature placed on that particular department, and that particular function. I say this is dangerous.

I want to tell you that there are shock waves going through the public service of the British Columbia government at this moment — absolute shock waves from one end of the province to the other, because, believe me, each and every government employee who is dedicated to his function, whether it be protection of the environment, whether it be protecting the safety of workers in the Department of Labour, recognizes that despite the legislation which is on the books, despite the statutes which require protection in these areas, executive council authority can now override that statute. By simple manipulation of the budget voted, their ability to comply with the statutory law can be completely torpedoed, completely down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that happen in British Columbia before. In essence, the old Social Credit government passed statutes, regulatory statutes, pertaining to pollution, pertaining to safe conditions in factories and plants in this province, and set up a condition whereby the law was flaunted. The law was flaunted because the Premier of that day refused to a supply adequate funds to the departments to engage the staff necessary to enforce and police the law.

We're moving again, I suggest, to a day where that kind of thing will be possible, only it's a bit more insidious this time, Mr. Speaker. It means that this government hasn't got the courage to come before the House and say: "Look. We are changing priorities. We are going to place less priority on the g environmental protection of this province than we are on economic development" — if that indeed is the priority. There will be no obligation upon them any longer to come before the House and openly debate and establish the priorities through debate and public understanding in this chamber. They will have the right to tamper with the priorities that have been set by this Legislature and by statute in an insidious way behind closed doors through an autocratic, arbitrary imposition — a decree of the Premier. Perhaps the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is correct; perhaps we should be calling him Mr. President rather than the Premier of the province, because that's the kind of system we're moving to.

I wonder if the real motivation of the government in bringing in this bill with such extreme autocratic powers is their fear of the ELUC. Is it the fear of the Land Commission that was set up to preserve farmland in British Columbia against the tentacles of the speculators who became rich and fat through no productive contribution to our society other than the purchase of land while they sat back and allowed it to increase in value, largely as the result of public expenditure, to capitalize on the results and to drive the cost of homes and land up in this province? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that's the real goal of this government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Tell us about Bob Williams.

MR. KING: Well, why don't you tell us about the telegram that the Premier read that was stolen? Why don't you tell us about that? If you're looking for things to dig into, tell us about that.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has come out with racist remarks this morning. He can't seem to stay down when he gets knocked down, Mr. Speaker. I wish he'd try to control himself. He'll have his opportunity if he wishes to rise in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid of these powers. I'm trying to find the motivation for them. The Premier is virtually setting up an oligarchy in British Columbia, a totalitarian form of government where public debate in this Legislature is rendered meaningless. What's really happening is that after we debate, after we constitute departments of government, after we vote a budget for the functioning of that department, the Premier — Mr. President indeed — can come along and completely eliminate that department and can transfer the budget of that department for any other purpose at his whim. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a complete negation of the concept of freedom which those people tried to kid the people of this province that they stood for. It's a complete denial of the basic fundamental principles of parliament. It's a move towards an oligarchy — a totalitarian form of government — which should not be tolerated, which should not be countenanced either by this House or the people of British Columbia.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that despite the interjections and the catcalls, despite punitive efforts of the government to punish the opposition by depriving them of the opportunity to even have lunch — by keeping them all hours of the day — we are not going to be silenced on an issue of this importance.

[ Page 2844 ]

We demand full debate, and we certainly are here to ensure that a bill of this kind is brought fully to the attention of the people of British Columbia so they understand it, so they know what the issues are, so they know the deceptiveness of this government which said they stood for freedom and, once having seized power with their overwhelming coalition, are prepared to thumb their nose even at the parliament of this province. That's what the issue is; that's what's happening. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the backbenchers in that government should think very seriously about this bill.

I want to tell you that we would have had a horse of a different colour were it the NDP bringing in a bill like this! Remember those favourite phrases that used to be shouted across the floor, Mr. Speaker? I think you do, because I think there was a familiar voice in the opposition at that time. Talk about "broad, sweeping, awesome powers"! My gosh, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in no statute that the New Democratic Party government introduced in this House was there a suggestion in any way that the parliament of this province should be bypassed, that it should be overridden, that indeed it should be treated with contempt. Because I submit that it is contempt when this Legislature deals with a matter such as constituting a department of government, voting a budget, voting salary for staff, only to give to the Premier of this province the right to completely override all of those things which the Legislature itself has done. I say this is shocking and shameless and I'm amazed that a government that used to stand for free enterprise....

The old Social Credit government used to stand for freedom but this new coalition for power poses a threat to the freedom and rights of every citizen of this province, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that we're going to be here a long, long time convincing them that they're going to have to take a second look at this very, very serious and very devastating bill.

The proposition has been put forward earlier by a number of speakers and I think the point was made well. We are chipping away at and eroding the basic principles of the British parliamentary system. Certainly I'm no expert on the British parliamentary system, but I think most Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, have great admiration for one John Diefenbaker, an MP of long tenure, the former Prime Minister of this nation, and whether one agrees with his politics or not, I think even his opponents have a grudging admiration for his tenacity in protecting and defending and standing up for all of the basic tenets of the British parliamentary system. He is prepared to use parliament as a forum to reveal various methods that the federal government has chosen to chip away at and erode the rights and the privileges of parliament. I respect that gentleman, and I think all of us should pay a bit more attention to him in terms of taking parliament seriously. I want to say that anyone who takes this parliament seriously could in no way support an insidious bill of the flavour of the one that is before us at the moment.

My colleagues have said that the current coalition, which is not a Social Credit government any more.... It's not a people-based government; it's a coalition of slick, downtown businessmen with no grass-roots base in the province like the former Social Credit government used to have, and my colleagues have said it's moving inexorably to a more republican, more U.S.-oriented type of governmental structure.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Not the U.S.

MR. KING: I think that's true, Mr. Speaker. I have....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Follow the great root bear.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the tour guides going around the marble halls downstairs.

My goodness, I think someone has brought me some sustenance. It's too late now and, besides, I don't think Mr. Speaker would allow me to indulge in the House, but I appreciate the Minister of Consumer Services' (Hon. Mr. Mair) gesture in any event. I imagine it came from him. If that minister could only understand that his department, the Department of Consumer Services, does not imply his own ingestion of food in this province but his protection of all of the citizens who consume, if he could only understand that, we'd have a stronger government in this province and the people would have protection.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I love "Oh Henrys" but I'll have it later.

I was listening to one of the beautiful young ladies take a group of tourists around the marble halls downstairs the other day. And would you believe that their running commentary has changed somewhat? Now they spend time going around glorifying and sanctifying the role of ministers in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. KING: We're witnessing a situation where even the tourists through the parliament buildings of our province.... Buildings that belong to every citizen in this province are being turned into a political game for the aggrandizement of the government.

"There's Mr. Premier's office." I expect one day to see, Mr. Speaker, the sign "President" on that office,

[ Page 2845 ]

and I expect to hear the tour guides intoning, "Curtsy, you're at the doors of the oval room," or some such thing as that. My goodness, I think that things are coming to a sorry state in this office. I expect further to see some stuffed replicas of old politicians mounted over in the museum to the everlasting glory and aggrandizement of this coalition government.

My goodness, talk about prostituting the powers and the authority of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker! We're witnessing the greatest debacle and the greatest travesty of the people's rights and interest in this province that I have ever seen and that history has ever witnessed. They're capable of anything.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes down to having people worship at the door of the Premier's chamber, no wonder we find that he's bringing in statutes to take unto himself powers that not even the president of the United States has. They do have checks and balances within their system which require them to come before congress for final approval — with veto power! There is absolutely no right of veto in this statute, Mr. Speaker. It is arbitrary, high-handed and authoritarian — and this is a government that said they cared about freedom and stood for freedom!

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else I can say about the bill. I'm lost for words. I'm stuck for words because I never expected that a group over there who said they were free enterprisers, kidded the business people and kidded the citizens of this province that they cared about freedom and rode on the back of Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, a free-flying bird with dirty habits.... (Laughter.) I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, with an emblem such as that, which certainly inferred freedom and respect for individual rights, I never expected that they would bring in a document like this.

I want to say how inconsistent it is. The government raised such a shout on every occasion when a statute was brought forth by the former government. They tried to make a freedom issue out of every work, out of every authority of the government. Yet nothing ever introduced was as far-reaching, as arbitrary, as contemptuous of parliament as this statute is today. Where are those freedom fighters?

I want to say to the press that they did an effective job, too, of raising questions in the public mind regarding the Land Commission Act and the public disclosures Act and things of that nature which sought to protect the public against abuse by legislators. They were somehow made a freedom issue. The press worked hand-in-glove with the opposition of that day to raise bannered headlines and to raise the interest and the awareness of the citizens of this province. Yet I find a bill of this nature containing the most unbelievable powers not only in terms of overriding the rights of parliament but precisely in terms of overriding the rights of individual property holders, too, and I find the press and the media not silent but certainly not at the pitch which was witnessed when our legislation was before the House and questions of this nature arose in that day.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Maybe they don't agree with you.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to move that the motion that is before the House be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefore the words "six months hence." I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is an amendment that would delete the word "now" and substitute therefore the words "six months hence." I believe the amendment to the motion is in order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the whole bill, Hon. Member, would be read six months hence a second time. I think the amendment is in order and debate would now be in order on the reasons to defer the reading of the bill for six months — either that or, if there's no debate, the the motion will take place.

On the amendment.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, we have not moved this amendment in a frivolous manner. I am particularly referring to the word "frivolous" because I was watching a bit on the television where the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is in charge of putting this bill through the House, announced that we were going to be having early morning sittings because of the frivolous manner in which the opposition was handling the debate.

Now I may not have quoted the Provincial Secretary correctly, but I wish to point out that she made those comments following our first debate on the bill which she is in charge of. The very fact that the Provincial Secretary would use the word "frivolous" in reference to a debate by the opposition on one of the most serious bills which has come before this House simply points out that the Provincial Secretary, who is in charge of this bill, does not realize the full import of such a bill, or she does realize it, and her government realizes it, and they are intending to carry on in what they have already shown to be a very dictatorial manner of running this province.

This is what we find rather astonishing, that a

[ Page 2846 ]

government would bring in a bill, particularly one section of that bill — I know we are not to discuss it section by section — but the issue and the very heart of this whole debate is giving the government the right to create new departments at will, and disband, and, of course, transfer money, transfer deputies, transfer civil servants at will.

What is at stake here — speaking to the amendment, the seriousness of it and why we are asking for it to be hoisted, this whole bill — is the whole British parliamentary system which has already been well canvassed by other members. Any opposition which would not stand up and defend the rights of our parliamentary system is not defending the rights of the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. The two go together. That is why we have debated this bill in second reading considerably and why we are now moving to hoist the bill because of the seriousness and the import of such legislation, and the erosion that such legislation will have on our parliamentary system.

In speaking of the parliamentary system, the Mother of Parliaments does not have similar legislation. In checking back and reading some of the methods which are used by the British prime ministers, I am well aware that one of the Labour prime ministers did create ministers without going first to the House of Commons, or the Parliament, and to the House of Lords. However, the difference here is that the statutes were there which required him to get final assent from the House of Commons. In the meantime, the ministers which he appointed were not given any salary, none at all. They were appointed in their positions but they did not receive any salary as ministers for those positions until it was ratified by the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, what we do not understand is what this government is afraid of. The point here....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: When the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) stops talking across the floor, maybe I could continue.

MR. KING: He's got a large voice...

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has the floor.

MR. KING: ...and he has a large mouth.

MRS. DAILLY: The whole point here is that this government...we don't understand what they are afraid of. They have a majority. Why are they therefore afraid to continue with the rights for the establishment of these departments in the statutes? They can come forward to this House — they know they have their backbenchers, as we've seen, under complete control as far as voting goes, so there's no problem in knowing they will get passage of these departments.

We have heard no logical argument. We are waiting with great interest for the Provincial Secretary's closing of the debate so she can explain to us why such legislation is necessary.

Another point which concerns us is that in the creation of new departments without having to come before the Legislature, there is a danger that the creation of a new department can become simply a focal point in the government's shop window. In other words, a government might just be reacting to some particular crisis at the time or reacting to some populace demand within the province for a certain department. If this goes through, this bill, it means that this government would be in a position to simply react to a particular group in the province which manages to create enough pressure, and also the government felt it would perhaps get them off a particular crisis or problem which they were facing at that time. The Legislature has no part, no part at all, in saying whether these departments are necessary and for the betterment of the people of British Columbia. After all, this happens to be one of our major roles as members in the opposition — to have an opportunity to talk about the organization of the whole provincial government.

We accept the fact that it's the final decision of the Premier whom he selects for his cabinet. It is up to the cabinet, basically to bring in their decisions on what departments are needed. We don't deny that opportunity to any government.

What we do say must be denied is the right of that cabinet to go ahead in their own cabinet meetings and make these major decisions which are going to affect the whole province without any recourse to this Legislature. Therefore we will find ourselves in the invidious position, Mr. Speaker — following, hopefully not, the passage of this legislation — of returning to find ourselves involved in estimates of departments which perhaps, if they had been discussed openly here in the Legislature, it would have been decided, hopefully, with a government which would listen, that those departments were not necessary, or that the opposition had some major points to make on the basic reorganization approved by the government — or at least brought forward.

We know that this government said they were going to come in on a businesslike, efficient way to run this province. If this is considered businesslike and efficient, to ram this kind of reorganization through the session here and then leave this government with these rights, I'm afraid that the cost of being businesslike and efficient is very, very high for the people of the province to pay, because their basic parliamentary rights, Mr. Speaker, are being trampled upon.

[ Page 2847 ]

This is something that no opposition can sit quietly by and tolerate. That's why I was frankly shocked to hear the Provincial Secretary, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, refer to this particular debate as being frivolous. We do not consider this a frivolous debate. The very fact that the Provincial Secretary thinks it is shows an obvious lack of understanding of the whole British parliamentary system and a lack of understanding of what the role of the opposition should be in any Legislature.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

It is a very high-handed, arrogant approach to government. It's the kind of approach which no opposition should sit silently by and go through without debate. We very much resent the implication that we are being called back for morning sessions because we are dragging out what is considered to be a frivolous debate. We have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of dragging on a debate in a frivolous manner. We are simply here, as I'm trying to do this afternoon, to make points as clearly, I hope, and concisely as we can without too great, lengthy speeches. We are deeply, deeply concerned with the import of this legislation.

As you look through the whole basis of the parliamentary system, you can go right back, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did very well this morning, talking about back in the days of King James I. We can go right back to the Succession to the Crown Act which was first passed. After it was passed, and the Act of settlement...even after those Acts were passed, which tried to limit the control of the Crown, it was even decided then that there was not enough limitation on cabinets and prime ministers under the British system at that time to make sure that the executive power did not override the legislative power, which, of course, does lead you towards a more presidential system than the system under which we are operating.

It's very, very important that the British were able to face up to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that political reality took charge, in their minds, and which it must in this House. They made the decision that the legislative and the executive powers must always be firmly united, and most certainly the executive powers cannot take precedence over the powers of the duly elected representatives of this assembly.

That is why we are here and why I'm standing here in opposition to this bill, and why I'm pleased to support the motion to hoist the bill. I do hope that the Provincial Secretary and the government that she represents will listen carefully to our concerns, and that the government will seriously consider hoisting this bill, giving it some thought as to the serious import and erosion on our democratic and parliamentary procedures in this province. My sincere request to the government is that they do support this amendment to hoist. Thank you very much.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, when North America and the world first learned of the Watergate scandal, the one thing that was said in Canada was thank God that sort of thing cannot happen here because of the difference in our systems. There are checks and balances in the British parliamentary system that make it more difficult for the kind of situation to arise that brought about Watergate and brought about shame not only on the president's office but on the whole country of the United States. If that ever happens again there will only be nine provinces that will be able to say that.

If this bill passes, only the citizens in nine provinces can say thank God we have a different kind of system than the United States. If the Americans want that system, fine and well, but I don't believe the people in Canada want a republican system to operate within this province. As I mentioned previously in the House, at least in the republican system in the United States over a period of some 200 years they have built checks and balances into their system that safeguard them from the powers of the executive.

What we're being asked to do here is to vote for a bill which gives us the worst of the American system and none of the good of the American system. That's what we're being asked to vote on.

I would like just — not to project into committee stage, Mr. Speaker — to briefly read from one section of this Act, and not all of the section itself. It says:

"....and thereupon that money may be expended for those powers, duties and functions, and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, what this bill is saying is to transfer the power that has traditionally been the power of this Legislature — and they're so cheeky that they actually put it in the Act and say once this passes through the Legislature...and we can do it, because we have the....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Section 12B.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the one who is cheeky.

MR. LEA: Cheeky — don't talk to me about cheek. Wait until you take your place in this debate and defend this clause. Don't sit there and talk. Stand up, every one of you, and defend this bill — because it is not defendable.

[ Page 2848 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: The only way you can defend this bill is to take cheap shots from a sitting position instead of standing in your place in this debate and defending this kind of dictatorial legislation. Stand up. You will get around to it.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I'm not playing games.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If you were a Liberal you'd be opposed to this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the hall, in the corridor on Friday when we left, the Provincial Secretary was being interviewed by the press. That is when she made the statement that the opposition is acting "frivolous" with this piece of legislation. She went on to say — now this is an important part — that the actions her government had taken in adjusting the departments after assuming office had been illegal. She said it in the corridor. She said her government had acted in an illegal manner and that this piece of legislation was going to make okay those illegal acts that her government had taken by order-in-council up until now. That's what she said. But she justified it by saying: "Well, so we acted illegally. So did the NDP when they were in government. So it's all right for us to act illegally if they acted illegally."

When she was asked to prove that, she said: "I have it right here in this little group of papers, an order-in-council which will prove to you that the NDP acted the same way we did." I said: "Why don't you show it to them?" She said: "Well, I haven't got it here. It's in my office." As I understand it they were scouting around this morning trying to find those pieces of paper to make her words true. I was there Friday, Mr. Speaker, and I already have them. So if you need them I'll send them over after I use them.

What the Provincial Secretary said in the hall was that they had acted illegally, not only with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) but with her own portfolio. Now they were taking action to make them legal, but it was okay because the previous government had acted illegally also. She's on record as saying that. Now even if she were correct that we had acted illegally when we were government, does she honestly believe that that gives them the right to act illegally?

I remember when there was some question as to the legality of the Minister of Environment and the Provincial Secretary in her other hat as Minister of Recreation and Tourism. What did the cabinet say at that time? They said: "Oh, of course not. We've checked it out with the best legal counsel we can find in and out of government and it's perfectly legal. So we're okay." That's what they said. You can check back in the press statement of that day, not that long ago, about five months ago, five or six months ago, and find that they said everything they were doing was legal.

Now we have the Provincial Secretary on Friday last in the corridor saying: "Oh, I'm sorry, what we did was illegal, but this will make it legal and it will never be illegal in the future."

Now that line, that an order-in-council may be passed to make things legal at any time they want...and it says when they do pass that order-in-council that it "shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." In other words, they're asking, Mr. Speaker, to pass decisions in cabinet and that those decisions by law have the sanctity of being passed in this House. That's what they're asking for. How can government supporters in this House back that kind of legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're bored.

MR. LEA: How can they do that? They're taking away your rights too, Mr. Member, and taking it upon themselves.

Now let's take a look at what the Provincial Secretary said was illegal that we did when we were the government. She was referring to the appointment of Robert Strachan on May 25, 1973, by order-in-council. Mr. Strachan, as we all know, was sworn in on May 18. He had previously been Highways minister. At that time on May 18 I was appointed Highways minister.

Mr. Strachan's appointment was rescinded by the Lieutenant-Governor, and he was appointed the Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications. What the Provincial Secretary failed to mention to the press, and I have the order-in-council here, by the way — it was order-in-council 1742, approved and ordered May 25, 1973 — and it says:

"At the executive council chamber of Victoria, present...."

and it names cabinet ministers who were present,

"To His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the undersigned has the honour to recommend: that order-in-council 3391, approved the 21st day of September, 1972, and order-in-council 3392, approved the 21st day of September, 1972, be rescinded, and to further

[ Page 2849 ]

recommend, pursuant to the Constitution Act, the following persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor as members of the executive council to be designated as follows...."

starting with the name Dave Barrett.

Then we get down to Robert Martin Strachan, appointed Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications. Now we all know that at that time there was a department called the Department of Commercial Transport and it was perfectly in order, under the Constitution Act, for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a minister to take up that portfolio. The Act that we took as a cabinet on May 25, 1973, not only was morally correct but also was legally correct.

To show further proof that when this party was government we went by the word of the law, what did we do? When we appointed two new ministers to take up two new portfolios — the Minister of Housing, (Mr. Nicolson) as he eventually became, and the Minister of Consumer Services (Ms. Young), as she eventually became — we did not make those people ministers — full ministers — until after they had come to this Legislature and had their Acts approved in the fall session of 1973. Then on November 8, only after those two ministers without portfolio had brought their Act into this House and had it approved by this Legislature, were those people appointed full ministers — the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Consumer Services.

Another order-in-council, dated July 13, 1973, rescinded the designation of Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications for Robert Strachan, and the same order-in-council recommended, under the Constitution Act that the Hon. Robert Strachan be designated as Minister of Transport and Communications. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, every act that was taken by the former government surrounding these questions of constitution was followed out pursuant to the Constitution Act, was in order and was lawful. Now we could go on a witch hunt, on a harangue, and say: "Well, possibly the present Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is illegally constituted. We could also mention the Provincial Secretary herself when referring to her other portfolio, that of Recreation and Tourism. We could say that that is illegal, but I think we would be clutching at straws in reality, because the new government took present departments and present branches and transferred those duties and jurisdictions to the Minister of Environment and to the Minister of Recreation and Tourism.

I suppose, if you wanted to be very technical, we could say, "yes, the act that they took was illegal," but I don't think it was immoral. I think they probably took the proper course, and I don't think anyone would question the fact that they had done that. But that isn't what they're asking for in this Act. They're not asking to make those acts legal. That is nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the real intent of this Act — to get away from this Legislature, to make decisions behind closed doors, because we have a Premier who has not got the guts to come in here.

When he was running for election, he said: "We want to make it more businesslike, run it like a group of businessmen. Well, I've got news for the Premier: that isn't how parliament should be run. That is how corporations can run, because they are private, but the government of this province has to run under the terms of its own constitution and also under the tradition of the British parliamentary system, and that is what they are attempting to escape from with this Act.

Have you ever heard, Mr. Speaker, of any government within the British parliamentary system — or I would probably venture a guess and say on any other democratic form of government, but I know that within the British Commonwealth this kind of Act has never hit the floor — where you go and take powers from the legislature to set up departments, to change votes in midstride? That's what section 12B of this Act says. Under transferred powers and duties, it says that the cabinet, behind closed doors, can take action b y order-in-council, and those orders-in-council will be "deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied".

Then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, once the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in other words, cabinet — has those powers, what role do we play? What role do the legislators play in this province unless that legislator happens to be in the cabinet? What role?

I would like some member of government or some backbencher belonging to the government party to stand in his or her place and tell me what role is left for the legislator who is not a government member. If they can go behind closed doors in cabinet and pass legislation and say that that legislation "be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied," then what is our role?

Every spring we can get up and say, "Naughty, naughty!" after the act. Is that our role, to say: "Naughty, naughty! You shouldn't have done that," or, "Good boys! Good girls! You made a nice move there. I'm glad you came here and told us about it."? Because we know that with a majority they are going to retroactively pass anything they want — make it okay retroactively. But that isn't what this system is all about, surely.

I believe there are members on the other side who are agreeing with every word I say but have been....

[ Page 2850 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no....

MR. LEA: Oh, you're not.... I'm sure they don't consult you, Omineca; I'm sure they don't consult you. You ran for the resource board up there and didn't make it. You're still peeved about that; that's your problem. Have you given up being mayor yet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, perhaps you could address the motion, please, and the Chair.

MR. LEA: So what are we going to do, Mr. Speaker? We know from the attitude that has been displayed by the government backbenchers that this piece of legislation is going to pass. We know that that group of people during the last election when they were out beating the campaign trail were talking about individual initiative and the rights of the individual and how the individual should not take second place to government.

A certain amount of people in this province believed them. But now we see those freedom fighters sitting in the back benches of government, Mr. Speaker, and every time they are asked to "baaaaa" like a sheep they jump up or sit down or pound their desks and do everything they are told.

Where are those individual freedom fighters today? Have they turned into the sheep to be led around by the nose? I would say so.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking those government backbenchers to support this legislation, because we know that in their own sheeplike way they will support to a man and woman this piece of legislation which takes powers from the Legislature and gives them to the cabinet. In other words, the Legislature has been transferred from this chamber to the cabinet chamber.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know it's correct.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I know it's correct. If it is not correct, Mr. Speaker, let them get up and explain 12B if you've read the legislation, which I doubt maybe you have even read.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: No? Explain then. So what recourse do we in opposition have? What recourse prior to the next election do the people of this province have if they don't like this piece of legislation? I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should seriously consider putting this piece of legislation to one of the greatest tests that we can put it to. When this piece of legislation is passed — I don't say if passed; it's going to be passed by this group over there — then we have to get some decision as to its constitutional legality from a higher order than this province.

I think that this piece of legislation is so serious that this must stand the test of the constitutional courts of this country, because I believe that it cannot pass that test. That should be our final recourse in a legal way through the courts.

I believe that the people will turn this piece of legislation aside at the next provincial election, but I don't think this province should suffer the black eye that we are going to suffer in the eyes of every other country within the Commonwealth — any other country that practises their constitution in the British parliamentary tradition. We are going to, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, look like backwoods fools for passing this kind of legislation.

For years the politics in this province have been laughed at. I remember when they first started the First Ministers' Conferences. We used to be laughed at in this province because of the conduct of our first minister; we used to be laughed at. You know, I sometimes think it would be better to be hated than to be laughed at. Why would Ottawa take us seriously in our requests with that senior government when we were actually being laughed at because of the juvenile way in which we handled ourselves at the provincial-federal level?

Now we are going to be laughed at again and, I hope, pitied by some, because this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is probably the most serious piece of legislation that has ever come into this House, because always before, any action of government such as is asked for in this bill, always before, under the previous coalition, under the former Social Credit government, under anybody, any government in the history of this province, no one has ever asked for the kind of powers that are being asked for in this piece of legislation.

I said it the other day, but I think we should say it every opportunity we get, every opportunity, so that people know the kind of government with which they deal. No Liberal Party would have brought this in. No government made up of Liberal members would have brought it in. No Conservative government would have brought this legislation in and no Social Credit government would have brought this in.

Only the extremists, only extremists of left or right, would have brought this kind of dictatorial piece of legislation into this House. No sane, rational, moderate government would ever presume to take the rights of parliament into the cabinet room and then sit over there and scoff and laugh and hurl insults at the opposition for having the audacity and the cheek to even raise the question. "Be good little boys and girls. Sit down. We have a majority and if you protest

[ Page 2851 ]

this heinous act, if you protest it, then the Provincial Secretary and House Leader will skip out into the hall and say we're acting frivolously."

Then, to top it all off, the government says: "You will sit morning, noon and night as opposition, because we're so interested and concerned that we take powers that have hitherto been in the hands of the people into our cabinet chamber that we can't even wait for proper debate in the regular time allotted under the rules of this House. We are going to sit the opposition morning, noon and night, and through exhaustion we're going to have our way and our will and bring the Legislature into the cabinet."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if I can just interrupt you for a moment to remind you that we are discussing a motion to substitute the words "six months hence" and that's the motion we're discussing on Bill 59.... Could you kindly keep your remarks to that subject?

MR. LEA: Yes. I'd like to know what you thought was out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Okay, thank you. You were just reminding me those are the rules, is that it? You didn't think I was out of order? But thank you.

MR. BARRETT: They may be changed by order-in-council.

MR. LEA: Yes, even the rules. So, Mr. Speaker, you know, this is probably the most frustrating time for opposition because on the weekend, on Friday, I talked with members of the media and told members of the media my concern about this legislation, Certain of those media people said: "How can you tell people that they should be frightened when their freedoms are being eroded?" When the Social Credit were in opposition, they didn't frighten them that way. They said: "Your land is going to be taken by the government, your wedding ring, all your personal property can be taken by the government because they are a dictatorial government out willing to take over everything in the name of the Kremlin. Be frightened out there."

So I was told by people in the media that you can frighten people by saying "look, the government's going to take away your property," because you're dealing with a very real thing that people have and they can see it every day. But when freedoms are eroded, it's not quite so simple a message to get across.

How do you tell people who have probably never concerned themself one day, for the most part, with the jurisdictional differences between cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the Legislature? How many people in the province have concerned themselves whether the rule that they're working under was embodied in the legislation itself or by a regulation applied to the legislation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the legislation had passed the Legislature?

How many people know those fine distinctions of power that keep us free in a democratic society? Most suppose that the rules would keep us democratic and free and so knowing, that most people take freedom for granted, have probably never taken a very good, close look at the method that our freedom hangs together by. So they're gambling; the government is gambling that they can get this piece of legislation through, eroding the very foundation of our freedoms, the British parliamentary system. They're gambling that they can get it through and take those powers to themselves and that the people won't know really what happened to them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of the attitude of Canadians after Watergate, the smugness with which we Canadians sat back and said: "It cannot happen here, because we don't have the American system," I believe that same sense of smugness will rise to the surface again, but not in smugness — in outright indignation that any government would presume to have the authority of the people to take away the very powers that give people freedom and change the system from one of British parliamentary freedom to the republican kind of freedom... I don't think people will stand for it.

So I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party, even though we know this legislation will pass this House because of the sheep at that end of the room...because they're sheep without the guts of their convictions, because they will vote anyway cabinet tells them to vote. Don't shake your head, George — you'll vote any way at all. I say to you that this party in opposition — and I am sure the Liberal and Conservative parties and every free-thinking person in this community — is going to go out in the province and tell them of the kind of freedoms that this government is taking away. If it takes four years, if it takes eight years, if it takes 12 years, we're going to be sure and be out there telling the people what kind of government they have — not a Social Credit government, not a Liberal government, not a Conservative government, but a coalition government made up of opportunists and people who have no philosophic or ideological base to hold them together except that they want to be in power to help the friends that put them there.

That's what this bill is all about: a Premier who hasn't got the guts to come in this House and ask the Legislature for the changes he wants; a Premier who is afraid; a Premier who wants to make decisions by closed doors; a Premier who I don't think wanted the

[ Page 2852 ]

job in the first place, except that his dad told him to go out and take it. That's what it was all about. Would he be Premier today if his name was Smith or Jones? There were good people in the Social Credit Party who ran against the Bennett name in that convention, who didn't stand a chance....

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the amendment, please.

MR. LEA: We're talking about why this bill should be hoisted for six months. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about the kind of man who's the instrument behind this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I just interrupt you long enough to remind you that the scope of debate under the amendment is narrower than it is on the main motion. We cannot allow as wide-ranging a debate on the amendment. This is according to the practices. So therefore I am just warning the member to try to maintain a line of thought that would be more closely related to the amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, that is fine, because I was almost finished anyway. I'm going to conclude with the same thing that I opened up with.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Omineca (Mr. Kempf), would you open those ears for a change, instead of your mouth, and listen? Here is what this government is going to do to you, through you, Mr. Speaker. This government is going to do things in cabinet. They have a section in here that says whatever they do shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied. Whatever they do in the cabinet room under this piece of legislation they can say is deemed to have been passed by the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, they grin. They sit over there, yawn and grin and act like sheep.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New, Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the bill by now would have been withdrawn and would have been looked at again under the perspective that has been discussed for the last couple of days in the House. I had hoped that the minister would have stood in her place and announced that the bill would be restudied. It is with a good deal of sorrow, Mr. Speaker, that obviously the advice that is being offered is being overlooked entirely.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wants very much to do the job that she was commissioned to do by the Premier, and put a bill before this House that we've discussed, I think, in great detail, that has placed far too much power in the hands of the first minister of our province.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the hoist, we have listened for so long to that group not only in government but prior, when they were in opposition, talking about the sun shining in, talking in terms of open government as opposed to secrecy. I say, Mr. Speaker, where is their confidence right now? If the bill is great and acceptable out there, if it's as benign as the Provincial Secretary would like us to believe, then what have they got to fear? Why don't they hoist it for six months and let the people in this province discuss the bill and its ramifications? It's benign; it's not all that important.

If that's truly the case, I suggest that they will agree to hoist the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise they show a tremendous lack of confidence that they really have a solid argument. Now I could agree that they should lack confidence at this point. This bill has been debated in this House for a great number of hours. The bill has been used as a tool to thrash the opposition and to buffet us around. They bring us in early and work us late. We can do that, Mr. Speaker, don't ever think that any government is going to push this opposition around.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: We will continue to debate bills or estimates as long as those bills and estimates are before us.

The one thing that I would like to draw to your attention with respect to this question is, where is their confidence? We hear all the freedom fighters across the floor remarking from their chairs, but not one of those mikes has gone up since this bill has been before this House for debate. Not one mike has gone up! I believe there must be some fundamental reason for the fact of one mike not going up or a number of mikes not going up. The reason is that they are ashamed....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier's put a can on them.

MR. COCKE: They are either ashamed of this bill or they have no arguments in its favour.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He has trained them.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trained his dogs.

MR. COCKE: They've been an outspoken government back-bench group of supporters, and, of course, government members, cabinet ministers, have

[ Page 2853 ]

been supporting one another for the last two or three months in this House. All of a sudden they're dumbstruck. All of a sudden that whole government and its support has become numb. Why over this bill?

That is one of the reasons why we are asking that the bill be withdrawn. We're asking that the bill be hoisted for six months so it can be studied. Mr. Speaker, six months is during the life of this session. As it's going now, we might still be sitting each day six months from now. But be that as it may, it's certainly within the life of this session unless the session is going to prorogue. I doubt that very much. I imagine it will adjourn some time during the summer — late summer or early fall.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that they have shown their lack of confidence. They have shown that there is no great pride in Bill 59 across the floor of this House. I suggest that we're denying members' rights and members' opportunities to really debate all of the questions that should be debated. If passing this bill means that to me, then I suggest that it should be studied and should be hoisted. It should be put before the public. Give them an opportunity to react.

I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), that people don't really recognize sometimes when freedoms are encroached upon. They don't really recognize what their members are doing here in this House, particularly those on the opposition benches. Let's give everyone an opportunity here to think it over. Let's let it out there in the sunshine. Let's give people the right to give us their opinions.

This Bill 59 was put forward not long ago. Like most of the legislation in this session, it came late. We are oftentimes asked: "How come the opposition doesn't roll over and play dead on some of this work?" Mr. Speaker, it's been coming so late. The session started late and it was very late when the major legislation came forward. So there's no chance here. There's no chance here for real public discussion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, et cetera, if the member can't be heard, there's no reason why that member can't stand up after I have spoken and speak right there into the microphone. There's a large speaker above us that will make him heard by the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the amendment and speaking on that amendment. I hope that the back bench, although I haven't got too much confidence in them any more.... I've watched their way of doing business recently. They are the most well-trained group that I've ever seen. You know, we heard the Premier say some time ago that "it takes me two weeks to train my dog." It didn't take him long to train his back bench. It's taking him a little longer to try to train the opposition, even by his punishing methods from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to contrast what I'm talking about in terms of what I'm talking about in open government. For the first time in our history we saw travelling committees, we saw people moving around this province between 1972 and 1975, asking people's input.

I'm asking that this bill be given that kind of input — people's input. Let the bill be shown around the countryside before it's passed upon. Why are we in such a hurry? Mr. Speaker, if we are in such a hurry to pass a bill the government wants so badly that they're prepared to do two things — one, punish the opposition in order to get their bill through as quickly as they can; and the second thing, hide it from the people by trying to get it through that quickly — then I suggest that we all have good reason to put forward the arguments we have been putting forward the last few days.

Hoist the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do as Speaker is listen to our arguments and then look over at the government side and kind of give them a little bit of a nod indicating that you agree. I'm sure if you weren't in the chair you'd be the first standing up in this House right now speaking on behalf of this amendment.

MR. KING: Give them the nod, Harvey.

MR. COCKE: I know it. I know, just as I'm standing here, that one of the reasons that you are in the chair is that you want to see to it that this debate is conducted in a House that is abiding by the rules. Mr. Speaker, we also know how fair-minded you are. I would hope that in some way you could get the message across to that hard-hearted group that forms the government in this province.

Seriously, let's go for a hoist. Let's go for a six-month hoist. I'm speaking, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Provincial Secretary: what have you got to lose? What have you got to lose by putting a six-month hoist on this bill? It really isn't that much of a problem. We'll be back here in this House to further debate the bill. Meanwhile we will have had an opportunity to put it to our constituents, each and every one of us. Let's hear from the public on a change of our basic constitution in this province, a change, Mr. Speaker, that has far-reaching results, in our view. Now if this isn't the case, then we can come back and debate this bill in relative peace, instead of in the climate we are debating it in now, a climate that's been developed and been inflamed by virtue of the government's insistence on pushing it through, driving it through.

Mr. Speaker, when we got word that we were

[ Page 2854 ]

going to be sitting this morning — the final word on Friday that we were sitting on Monday morning, were sitting on Monday night, sitting on Wednesday night, sitting every morning...a day that starts at 9 or 9:30 in the morning and ends at 11 at night doesn't provide this province with the kind of legislation or the kind of debate that should be provided. It's unfair to the province. People don't debate properly under those circumstances.

In any event, it shows me that there's something more to it, and I'm worried. Mr. Speaker, I therefore support the hoist put forward by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King).

MS. SANFORD: I agree with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan that it is very important that this bill be removed at this time from this Legislature, and I agree with the member for New Westminster that we should take six months in order to travel the province. Let's hear from the people of the province about the provisions of this particular piece of legislation.

I've been trying to figure out why the government would want to introduce legislation which does away with the very basis on which our parliamentary system is based. Why? Is the Premier, now in his position as leader of the government, so enamoured with the job that he thinks he can become a president, or assume the role of a president? That's been mentioned by many people in this Legislature.

MR. KING: Little Lord Fauntleroy.

MS. SANFORD: Does he feel that he can become a dictator in this province just because he got elected in 1975? Or could it be, Mr. Speaker, that he is so afraid to have the moves of this government analysed and discussed in this Legislature by its members that he wants to carry on behind the closed doors of cabinet?

I've been wondering about these two possibilities. Could it be that he considers himself a dictator, or that he was just afraid to come to this House? I concluded, Mr. Speaker, that it's a combination of the two. He wants to carry on the steamrollering tactics he has used on the people of the province now on the members in opposition by calling us to session at 10 in the morning, making us sit all hours of the day in an attempt to get this legislation through.

That government has shown very little concern for the people of the province. They have been using steamroller tactics, with no regard to what effects their actions have on the people of this province or on the small businesses of this province. They introduced measures such as doubling of the ferry rates, Mr. Speaker, without even taking the time to conduct one impact study on the effects of that measure by any department. They just went ahead and did it with no concern whatsoever for the fact that the people in the areas of the province affected by those increases are now suffering. Small businesses in those areas are suffering. They're steamrollering. Even in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, one of the small businesses there, a small hotel, is flying its flag at half mast because of the actions of this government in terms of doubling the ferry rates and practically wiping out the tourist trade this summer.

This bill is an example of that kind of approach. Now they want to bring in, through this bill, Mr. Speaker, the same kind of attacks on the people and small businesses in this province, without even discussing it in this House. That's what this bill is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we're on the amendment and not the bill. If the line of reasoning that you're following should more aptly be used in a debate on second reading, then perhaps you should retain it until then.

MS. SANFORD: All right. In getting back to the reason for hoisting — and I thought I had outlined that pretty clearly in the first place — by hoisting for six months we would be able to go to the people to find out what they feel about legislation of this type, and at the same time find out what they feel about the lack of concern that this government is showing toward them and the hardships that they are being put to because of the actions of this government.

This bill, as has been pointed out by many speakers in the House, violates the very foundations on which our system is based. The foundations, Mr. Speaker, go way, way back to the Magna Carta. Because this bill violates the provisions of that original charter, it should be hoisted at this time and be reconsidered by the government.

I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the Magna Carta, Mr. Speaker. The provisions of the Magna Carta itself originally were concerned with restricting the absolute powers of the monarch at that time. In addition to that, it was concerned about taxation — the way in which levies were placed on the people at that time — and it was also concerned with the administration of laws.

This bill, Bill 59, if it's allowed to go through at this time, violates the basic provisions of that Magna Carta. There are 65 chapters in all in that particular charter. I'm not going to go through all of the chapters, but I would like to relate, Mr. Speaker, how some of those provisions relate to this bill and to the reason that we want to have it hoisted at this time and considered six months hence.

I hope that the back bench is listening to this, because if they haven't recognized yet the seriousness of the implications of this bill, then perhaps if it's related to the early foundations on which our

[ Page 2855 ]

parliamentary system is based, they may reconsider and vote along with us to hoist this bill for a period of six months.

Chapter 12 of the Magna Carta says that levies shall not be collected except by the consent of the General Council of the nation. That General Council, Mr. Speaker, to the backbenchers who are not paying attention at the moment, is the forerunner of our modern parliament. Way back at that time they were concerned that taxes and matters that concerned money levies should be dealt with within the parliament itself, the forerunner of our parliament. Now that's very important. That provision is being directly violated by this Bill 59. Therefore it should be removed now and discussed six months from now.

Now the old feudal barons who were involved in drawing up the Magna Carta, they were not dreamers, they were not blind; they understood the realities of power and that they wanted to have some controls placed on that power. They took the precautions of putting into the wording of the Magna Carta provisions so that the kind of the time could not just simply wave around a charter and say: "Look, I'm following it." They had set up a council of barons which were watchdogs over the king at that time, and they also made sure that any money matters were discussed within the legislature — the forerunner of our present Legislature. It wasn't called the legislature at that time.

They didn't want a charter to which the king could just pay lip service; they wanted to make sure that the monarch was prevented from railroading and from running roughshod over the people of the time. The barons very wisely said at that time — and that's in this provision, this chapter 12 — very wisely said that "the king must come before us each and every time that he wants to make any changes in this charter and whenever he wants to make any changes which apply specifically to the existing provisions."

For that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, we should support this amendment, because it violates those very basic provisions.

Chapter 14 is another example which I would like to impress upon the members of the Legislature, to point out how important this particular Bill 59 is in terms of what it'll do to the people of the province, and in terms of getting it listed at this time for further discussion.

Each and every time the king wanted to raise money from the public he had to call the precursor of our parliament to tell them what, why, when and exactly how he proposed to make each levy.

Chapter 14 was very specific on this procedure. It was there, it was written, and now we're trying to change that by shuffling back and forth between departments after they've been discussed here in the Legislature.

One of the points of the Magna Carta which I think applies most specifically to this particular piece of legislation and to the reason for having it delayed for a period of six months is that the promises which were made by the Crown were not open to interpretation or could not be misrepresented to the people. This is it, Mr. Speaker, this is the important point which relates so directly to this bill.

For instance, chapter 24 said that the knights must not be compelled to give money instead of promising castle guard. In those days the knights had to undertake some castle guard duties, or in lieu of that they could pay money so that the Crown could hire someone to undertake this castle guard duty. Do you know that they could not be levied that amount of money — in other words, those taxes to pay for this — without their specific consent?

Here we are asking that this Legislature approve the right of that government to transfer this money back and forth to allow ministers to move civil servants around. That's very similar to what the demands of the knights were at that time. Mr. Speaker, we cannot proceed with this bill at this time. It must be hoisted.

The other thing about this is that a cabinet operates behind closed doors. The press is not there. We in this Legislature as members of the opposition bring to the attention of the public through our speeches here and through the press, the media, what is happening, what the governments are up to.

When decisions can be made after this bill is passed, behind closed doors, we no longer have any semblance of open government. It will cease to exist, Mr. Speaker, because all of these decisions will be made behind closed doors.

There is a basic tenet here which applies way back to the Magna Carta in terms of what this government is trying to do. We must not allow these basic freedoms to be trampled. That's what's going to happen if this government proceeds with this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the press supports this bill. I know that they would be concerned about what goes on with any government behind closed doors. They want to know when departments are set up or when departments are done away with, or when departments are shifted around when funds are moved back and forth and when public officials are moved around. They want to know.

They want it discussed here on the floor of the House. They want legislation introduced so that they can read it and report on it to the public. They don't want to have it all happen behind that green door in the cabinet. I'm sure that the press, were they here voting on this particular bill, would agree with us that this bill should be hoisted. I hope some of those backbenchers will soon recognize the importance of hoisting this for a period of six months so it can have further discussion.

[ Page 2856 ]

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): They all shook their heads.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that you...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: ...would support this bill either. I don't think so.

I speak in support of the hoist and feel that all of the members of this House should join us in seeking to have the government remove this bill for a period of six months so we can have proper discussion on it.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I must admit I'd prefer to be speaking on an amendment that would hoist the bill for six years or six decades rather than just six months. This bill is an offence to the parliamentary system. If it does come back in six months, let's hoist it again and again and again until that coalition is out of power and no future government would ever have the nerve or the audacity or the foolishness to introduce such a bill.

I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will do for that coalition what unfortunately, and with far less reason, the Land Commission bill did for our government. It will mark the turning point. It will mark the fear and the anxiety in the hearts of the public towards that government as did, by dint or not fact but fiction, the Land Commission Act to our government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: In the Land Commission Act, lies were told by people in this province that the Land Commission itself had the power of expropriation. That was a lie. It was never true either before or after that bill was passed; it was never true. No lies need to be told about this bill, Mr. Speaker, in order to point out how odious it is to this system. Six months isn't long enough to hoist it, but six months is at least a start.

I'd like to read into the record the order-in-council description of this bill. I believe it will serve to add to our arguments in favour of a six-month hoist. Reading from the Resume of Orders-in-Council Approved and Ordered volume 3, No. 32:

"The purpose of this bill is to amend the Constitution Act to enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to restructure the executive government; establish new portfolios; establish, merge or separate government departments; and transfer powers and duties under any Act or part of an Act from one member of the executive council to another."

That is an extraordinary power to be concentrated in the hands of one man. This is a more succinct and a more accurate summary of this bill than any other that has so far appeared. I don't know who we have to thank for it. It appears nowhere in the Act itself, but rather in the orders-in-council resume.

There is another section which has to read into the record again and which is and of itself another sound argument for hoisting this bill six months or six years:

"...the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that all or part of the money authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied for the purposes of those powers, duties and functions and remaining unexpended, as he considers appropriate, 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, and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied."

We need to hoist this bill for six months, Mr. Speaker, in order to let the people of British Columbia know that what that section allows that coalition to do is to go back and rewrite history, is to go back and alter the past and the records and the documents, is to go back and pretend, through section 12B, that the Legislature actually granted them that authority. We need to delay this for six months because the complex and legal language of that section is at the moment largely incomprehensible to the people of British Columbia. It will take a good six months to explain it. It will take a good six months for the significance of that section to sink in.

This section allows that coalition to go back and pretend that our Legislature — not theirs, ours; it belongs to all of us and not just to them — approved various expenditures, approved various transfers, approved the switching of money and civil servants and departments from one agency to another and back again, if they wish.

There is another logical contradiction in the arguments of that coalition. If, as the Provincial Secretary said in her opening remarks, thin as they were, this is merely a technical bill of no great significance, then why will they object to a six-month hoist? Isn't that a fair question to ask, Mr. Speaker? If it's only technical, if that's all it is, if the Provincial Secretary was telling the truth, then why will they object to a six-month hoist? If it's only technical, they shouldn't, should they? If it's only a technical bill, there is no reason why they shouldn't allow it to go back for further technical study — if that's all.

MR. KAHL: That makes as much sense as you do,

[ Page 2857 ]

Charles.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: If, on the other hand, the purpose of this bill is to legalize something retroactively that they have already done without the benefit of law, if the department continues and because we were perhaps foolish enough to take the word of the minister responsible that they had consulted legal authority and that it was correct to establish a Department of Environment, if that, too, is the case, then what's the hurry? What's the rush? Why do they want to get this bill through as quickly as they can before anyone realizes what it means? Why do they want to get it through as quickly as they can before anyone in the public understands the significance of this?

This is a bill that serves the pleasure of autocrats. This is a bill that paves the way to tyranny. If it's only a technical bill, they won't object to a hoist. If it only makes legal something they've already done, they won't object to a hoist. If there's any other reason, let's hear it; if there's not, let the hoist stand. Let the bill stand.

This is as grave a threat to freedom in British Columbia and to the dignity and the power of this Legislature as any bill these guys have tried to push through. If it's only a technical bill, let it wait — another six months of study won't hurt. If it's a bill only to legalize an action they've already taken, let it wait. There's no hurry, because the action's been taken, the department exists, they're doing their job as best they can. Let it wait. They can have no further objection.

If, on the other hand, as we suspect, this is an attempt to avoid the Legislature because they're scared, inept, inarticulate, incompetent and bungling, then we need six months to realize what's going on. I'd like to quote another authority. Let me remind you, this bill actually says "that money may be expended for those powers, duties and functions, and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied." They propose to rewrite history, Mr. Speaker. They propose, on the basis of a blank cheque issued once at the beginning of every fiscal year — this year in the amount of $3.6 billion; next year, $4 billion — to go back and rewrite history and to pretend that we gave them authority which, in fact, they didn't have.

Let me quote the authority who knows better about this stuff than anyone else:

"As soon as old corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of the Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute, the past was brought up to date.

"In this way, every prediction made by the party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct. Nor was any item of news or any expression of opinion which conflicted with the needs of the moment ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed had been done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest section of the records department, far larger than the one in which Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction.

"A number of the Times which might, because of changes in political alignment or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been written a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books also were recalled and rewritten again and again and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed. Always the reference was to the slips, errors, misprints or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy. But actually, he thought, as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another."

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows the government to go back and rewrite history to make believe that we approved something when we never did or, in the words of the Act, "to conclusively deem that moneys shall have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied". We need at least six months, Mr. Speaker. The careful, the Byzantine, the legalistic manner in which this was written, the ever-so-flighty manner in which it was presented, are a deliberate attempt to make it impossible for the people of British Columbia to understand the gravity of this bill.

If it is just a technical bill, you won't object to six months, will you? If it's only to serve the purpose of

[ Page 2858 ]

legalizing a step you've already taken, there's no hurry about that either, is there? If there is a more serious and a more significant purpose, tell us what it is. When you do tell us, tell us what we know to be the case: this gives you powers that no democratic government should have, that no democratic-minded citizen should ever have asked for in the first place.

Do you really want the power to rewrite history, to go back and pretend that we authorized something that we didn't? Do you really want that authority? If you don't, amend the bill yourselves and, while you are doing it, take six months. Consult with the people. Don't be afraid of public opinion. Go out and solicit it. Go out and ask for it. Go out and let the public discuss the significance of this bill and see if you want to let.... Let them tell you if they want you to do this to their Legislature.

I want to repeat the prediction. This bill will do for you what public fear and hysteria about the Land Commission Act did for us. In the case of the Land Commission, those criticisms were not based on the truth. There never was a power to expropriate; there never was a power to seize land. That was all a lie from beginning to end.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: There is no lie in our arguments. We are simply reading the bill back to you, but you are giving the lie to your own political promises, and the freedom fighters themselves have counterfeited their own message. Give us another six months. Let the people tell you what they are thinking and I suspect we will never see this bill again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie, and before the member begins, perhaps I could remind hon. members again in their debate to address the Chair and remind them that the debate is much narrower than if it were on the main question.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very short and brief, but I did wish to place myself on record as supporting the amendment that the bill should be hoisted for six months. As previous speakers have suggested, I think that the people of this province, Mr. Speaker, should be allowed the opportunity to voice an opinion on this type of legislation — the type of legislation that, in my opinion, erodes from the democratic process, a process that people have fought and died for over the centuries, to build in safeguards for this type of system, a system that is not perfect but has been improved over the centuries because people fought for the rights that we now have.

I see this bill as removing some of those rights, Mr. Speaker, and I think that all members of this Legislature would be very remiss in their duties if they can't or would not support at least a motion that this bill should be hoisted for six months.

I would like to know why the government is afraid to face the Legislature, why they can't come to the Legislature if they wish to make changes in procedures and activities and appropriate funds for whatever purpose. I think it should be done in the Legislature and not in the cabinet rooms, Mr. Speaker. I think the full legislative body must have the opportunity to examine treasury bench decisions. I think, if this bill passes, that part of those rights will be removed.

So it is not difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to support this amendment, and I would hope that the members of the back bench on the government side will take the time to read this bill thoroughly and understand what they are being asked to vote for. I don't think some of them do. I hear a lot of chirping over there but I really don't think some of the members over there have read this bill, frankly, and I wish they would take the time. I am sure that if they did they would support us in this amendment to hoist.

I further feel, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion, if the government is really serious about proceeding with this bill, rather than proceed with this bill I really feel that they should resign and give the people of this province a chance to see if they approve of this type of legislation. Thank you.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my main concern in supporting this amendment lies in the fact that really I think the bill — even if delayed six months — is still not the kind of bill that I could support without some very radical omissions from its present content. It hasn't been in the House very long — certainly not long enough, it would appear, for the public to respond or react to the kind of criticisms which the official opposition, I think quite legitimately, have raised in debate. Therefore the only hope of getting a better bill is to delay any further proceeding with the bill through the second reading and committee reading in the hope that the particular section which is so reactionary — and I'm referring to the part of the bill which allows for the spending of money in a different manner from that for which it was first allocated by the Legislature, and the provision of the bill that no matter how the money is spent, even by a different department or a different part of the department from the original intent, then the money shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied.

That really, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the opposition to this bill, and it would seem to me that in asking for a delay in decision on this bill for six months.... The government has no pressing need for this bill at the moment that we have been made aware

[ Page 2859 ]

of, unless there is further intent of the government in regard to new departments, which it hasn't yet revealed to the House, and that would make this debate even more crucial.

MR. LEA: The department of internal security.

MR. WALLACE: But unless there is some pressing need for the government to set up a new department, which it is not willing to tell us about at this time, I can see no tremendous haste that's required to pass the bill as it is now written. Perhaps another question we should be asking the minister in this debate is whether or not some hitherto unnamed and unrevealed department is about to be set up under this bill, or is it simply a bill to facilitate legalizing such departments as may be required in the future without the government having any specific intention which one?

But the wording in the bill, Mr. Speaker, dealing with transferred powers and duties is a most unusual degree of power to give to any government, particularly in the spending of public funds, without the precise nature of that funding being open to scrutiny and criticism and debate by the opposition parties in this House.

I think that while a six-month delay really wouldn't satisfy me, we seem merely to be using what devices are open to the opposition parties to try and make the point that this is bad legislation. While I would only support this bill if certain sections or certain sentences were deleted completely, at least in the hope that we may persuade the government to take that famous second look and give the many other groups, citizens and taxpayers the opportunity to better understand and react to this bill, I certainly feel that the idea and intent of delaying the bill for six months is at least a measure of safeguard which we as opposition members have the opportunity to present. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments on the amendment. I will indicate initially, though, that I am fully in support of the amendment, although I agree with certain of the previous speakers that a hoist of six months is hardly a solution. It would indicate that we perhaps believe that it can be a workable bill, but I'm of the opinion that the bill represents an extremely serious precedent in the province, despite the government's attempts to indicate that they are not initiating anything new and that there are precedents such as what they're proposing in other jurisdictions, and so forth.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, if one were to recall the pronouncements by this government in the last election, and even prior to that — those of them who were in the opposition, both in the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, before they became a coalition and decided they wanted to form a government — they were very, very adamant about the weakening of the democratic system, the democratic processes, which historically we all have enjoyed in this province. I must say that as a member of the back bench during those days, I sat with some sense of appreciation for their concern.

I find it curious, though, that in Bill 59 — the bill that attempts to amend the constitution of the province of British Columbia, the type of move that usually and in most instances requires at least a two-thirds vote or better before there is any hope of making a major change to the constitution of an institution or organization — here we have a government that is very casually throwing a major piece of legislation on the table of the House and indicating that it is nothing more than an administrative, housekeeping bill and that they would see no cause for even participating themselves, other than the remarks made by the hon. Provincial Secretary in introducing the bill.

Strangely enough, there's been no one, other than the Provincial Secretary, to my knowledge, who has risen in their place to speak on the bill, to assure us that they, too, agree with the minister that it is nothing more than a housekeeping instrument to facilitate the people's business and in no way will deprive any of us of our fundamental rights to be represented by our chosen, elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly.

I find this a rather disturbing, to say the least, display on behalf of the government, and that they are sincere in indicating that this is nothing more than an administrative instrument to facilitate the government in carrying on the people's business.

What it is is a major overhaul of the parliamentary system. There is no reason to believe that there wouldn't be a companion piece of legislation also on the drawing board planning to do away with the Legislative Assembly itself, because what is left now that Bill 59 has been introduced — and the indications are that it is going to be passed — is that there will be no matters of importance for us to discuss. All the matters of public business will be taken care of by the executive council without reference whatsoever to the Legislative Assembly. I think this is cause for alarm.

I would like to remind the House that just a few short years ago when the now Premier was the Leader of the Opposition, he stood in this House and stood fast many, many hours suggesting that not a dime would be passed in this Legislature without debate. At that time he was talking about the departmental

[ Page 2860 ]

estimates that had to be approved before the government at that time to get on with the administration of the various departments. He insisted that there was to be no money without debate. "Not a dime without debate," I believe was the quote.

He was speaking about the very same thing that we are concerned about this afternoon. I don't understand what has happened to the now Premier who at that time felt that he was committed to defending the rights of the people of the province of British Columbia by ensuring that there be no weakening of the processes by which the business was carried on, and that he saw no way in which we could expedite the system, other than through debate, that there could be no simplistic approach to dealing with the people's business — everyone should have an opportunity to have input and feedback, and all views should be heard.

Now this very same member, through his government, has the Provincial Secretary coming forward with a bill called the Government Reorganization Act which will do away with the opportunity of most of us to participate in the expenditures of the various departments. Furthermore, we won't even have anything to say about what departments will or will not exist. Nor will we have anything to say about how they will mix the departments, or how they will change them. In fact, any estimates that come before this House are really just an exercise in futility because under this legislation as soon as they go through the House they can be changed, re-assigned, altered, and so forth, without any further referral back to the Legislature.

I think this is the crux of our concern, that it's the first step towards complete executive control and management of the people's affairs without the due process which we are so concerned about.

You know, it is no accident, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is coming forward. I think, when one takes a look at the kinds of legislation the government has brought in, it is very close to a philosophy, very close to an attitude, that I think has been displayed by other ministers through their remarks in the House and by the legislation they have introduced, and the general thrust of this government in the handling of the people's affairs.

I recall the one I find the most alarming and disturbing has been the activities of the one particular person among all the ministers and in the department where you would have expected some compassion, some sensitivity and some real concern about the rights, the historically cherished rights, of all of us who live in a free and democratic society. But the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has consistently brought in legislation that has been punitive, insensitive, without regard for individual privacy and their right to live in dignity and the opportunity to participate with respect in his society.

Some of the legislation that has been introduced — and one of them we are presently debating, which I am sure will also pass, called the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, is a bill that has taken away more rights than it has given and has restricted the people, has forced them to have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt their rights, their ability...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: ...to be on welfare. This is again, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. As the hon. member knows, that particular bill is not before the House at this particular moment, so you must relate your remarks and your debate to the amendment on Bill 59 which is before the House, and which is an amendment to read the bill six months hence.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks. I am only using that bill — I believe it is referred to as Bill 28 — as an example of the thrust in which the government seems to be going, and why we have every cause to be alarmed about Bill 59 which is presently before the House for debate, and the amendment which suggests that we hoist that bill for six months, and the cause for asking for six months to look at the bill and try and get some response from the community and try and get some indication from the people of the province whether or not they feel that the constitution of British Columbia should be so amended.

As I pointed out to the House before, Mr. Speaker, the government should feel it incumbent upon itself to want assurances, to want a clear mandate, to want to be beyond any doubt whatsoever that the step it is taking is one which the people of the province of British Columbia will approve. Certainly it should want 100 per cent approval from this House just as sure as it intends to get 100 per cent approval when it rings in this ombudsman. It wants unanimous support, and I would hope that the same attitude will prevail when it comes to a bill such as Bill 59.

You're asking the people of the Legislature who have been elected to represent the people of British Columbia to support a bill that deals with a major change in the constitution with less than two-thirds support, which the government does not have, and it could be requesting full support from the opposition. Unless it gets 100 per cent support on a bill such as this, they should be in no hurry.

In fact, this is the kind of bill that they should be prepared to go back to the people on. Go back to the people and ask for a mandate, a clear mandate, on

[ Page 2861 ]

whether or not they want to change the way of life that they enjoy in this province, whether or not they want to get rid of the British parliamentary system and go onto an executive type of system where, when you elect a government and the premier and the cabinet are designated, those people have the inalienable right to do all the governing without any reference whatsoever back to the representatives who were elected also to participate in this Legislature — because you are eliminating them with this bill. You are saying that there's no longer any need now that we're the government to refer back to the Legislature to get approval before we take acts that affect the lives of the people of the province of British Columbia. It's very typical, though, when you consider how the government has behaved so far in bringing in legislation. It is very typical when you consider how careless they've been with established institutions and communities within this province by making irresponsible acts that have caused disastrous effects both in the social life as well as the economy.

The people who have made their homes on islands in this province find that they're paying a dear, dear ransom in order to live there. They have no freedom of movement, because it's being restricted because of the increase, Mr. Speaker. This is an example of their irresponsibility and their lack of concern for the people's ability to be free of any of the resources in this community — the freedom of movement, the freedom to participate. In fact, the only people who are able to come to the Legislature and enjoy these important debates before they will soon be, of course, removed are the ones who are already on the islands. The rest cannot afford to come here any more.

I feel that this is an historical opportunity we have to make perhaps a final pitch for freedom and democracy within the Legislature. Those of us who happen to be here this afternoon are enjoying perhaps the last vestiges and gargantuan efforts of the opposition to try and save this Legislature and the democratic process through which we have in the past enacted the legislation needed to carry on the people's business. Because you can be assured that in the future the executive council will be making the decisions in the privacy of the executive chambers and what will be coming here in the House will be a matter of routine. It will have no impact.

What's more important than the finances of the province? What's more important than those departments that are designated to overlook and oversee and manage in specific areas of concern in the communities? If we don't have the right to determine what departments will exist and will not exist and whether funds will be spent for the carrying on of the people's activities, what are we here for? Who's going to do that?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You see, this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It's one that unless we can get the time through hoisting this bill to go to the people in the various regions of this province, to ask their opinions, to have them realize the full significance of what is happening with Bill 59.... I'm sure that this bill will pass without having been fully aired in the communities, and I don't think that that should happen.

I feel that the people of the province, as happens quite often, you know, are busy carrying on their daily activities and trying to achieve the ends that they need on a daily routine basis and haven't had the opportunity to get the kind of information they require. I feel that the press and the media and any other carriers of information to the people will have to be made cognizant of the significance of what Bill 59 is. I think that we're all going to be equally responsible as time goes on if we have failed to assure ourselves that we have done this.

I'm not suggesting that the people of this province of British Columbia will not in fact say: "Fine, it's about time we did away with certain parts of democracy." I'm not saying that everybody wants all of these democratic processes to continue, but I think they have the right to participate in whether or not they are going to be eliminated. I suspect that it'll be a very close vote in any event.

I certainly think that when it comes to constitutional changes we wouldn't want to do any less than any organization does when it's going to make constitutional changes. There are certain moneyed members in the House who have had professional experience as far as the legal trade is concerned, and who would agree that it is unusual for any constitutional change to take place in most institutions without at least a two-thirds majority vote. We just don't do it. Now the government doesn't happen to have that two-thirds; it's close, but not quite. I think they are two or three seats short, but that's enough. Furthermore, you should want 100 per cent support; you should want unanimous support on a major change.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is being most reasonable to ask for only a six-month hoist of the bill because in fact who knows, the people may require more than six months in order to fully digest the implication of what Bill 59 will mean.

I would hope the government would agree that this is a minimum level at which they should participate and would not hesitate...they would not use examples of what may have happened or may not have happened in other jurisdictions when they stand to close debate. I'm speaking to the hon. Provincial Secretary through you, Mr. Speaker — that she would not bother to say what may have happened in other

[ Page 2862 ]

jurisdictions. What we are concerned about is freedom in the province of British Columbia.

As the former MLA, now the Premier, when he sat here, used to say: "Not a dime without debate." I think his point was well taken; we certainly don't want the Premier now to find himself in a contradictory position. I'm sure that when he goes back out to the community he is going to be able to show that he has been consistent, that he is not now saying: "Well, not a dime without debate when I was myself in the opposition. But then, you know, now that I'm the Premier, and we have a lot of administrative things to do, we really don't have too much time to go through the process of debate and details in the Legislature." I hope the Premier will not be making such a defence for Bill 59. I hope the hon. Provincial Secretary will not be relying on that kind of defence as well when she stands up to close debate.

I would just conclude by saying that I certainly support the amendment to hoist this bill for six months. Thank you.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of the amendment to hoist this bill for the period of six months.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment, is to make really very clear that the fact that legislation of a similar nature has been introduced by other jurisdictions in other parts of the world, and indeed even here in Canada, has nothing to do with the opposition's position as to whether this is good legislation or bad legislation.

Earlier in the debate today the hon. member for Langley, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) intimated that as a member of the opposition, I should not be speaking against Bill 59 because in fact the Government of Jamaica, which is a socialist government, on the weekend apparently arrested three of their opposition members. And someone was very kind to cut out the newspaper clipping and share it with me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was your mother one of them?

MR. BROWN: No, my mother wasn't one of them. I'm sure the House will be pleased to know that my mother was not one. The Minister of Health has been very concerned about my mother; I have to give him daily reports about what my mother is doing.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I missed that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rosemary's mother.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, right. Rosemary's mother.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this does not alter the act that Bill 59 is bad legislation and should be hoisted for at least six months, maybe. I certainly would be in support of hoisting it longer than that.

MR. LEA: Is that why you want the bill — to arrest the opposition members?

MS. BROWN: Also, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, can I have some order, please? The House disrupts into absolute disorder whenever I'm trying to.... (Laughter.) I try to bring some sanity into this House, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Just be quiet and listen. Are you going to call them to order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems, Hon. Member, that at this time of day the House quite often becomes a little disorderly, but I'll call the House to order; the hon. member has the floor.

MS. BROWN: If you're really concerned about their disorderliness, Mr. Speaker, and would like permission to call a recess so they may arrest.... I would be willing to....

MR. SPEAKER: I respect your right as a member to continue your place in the debate.

MS. BROWN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to say is that despite the fact that in 1970 the NDP government in Manitoba introduced a piece of legislation, which in many instances is very similar to this legislation, and in some of its sections, even word for word, the bill reads exactly the same as this.... There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that in drafting this piece of legislation, whoever did the drafting copied verbatim from the Manitoba legislation. Despite that fact, the opposition still does not consider that this is good legislation, and the opposition still persists in its position that this legislation should be hoisted.

I don't know if any of the government members are ever going to speak on this bill, but surely when the Provincial Secretary is winding up debate I hope that she will not subject us to a statement to the effect that the Manitoba NDP government in 1970 had legislation that is very similar to this. Because that does not make it right. In fact, if I were a member of the Manitoba House at the time when that legislation was introduced, I would have spoken

[ Page 2863 ]

against it exactly in the same way that I'm speaking against it now. It's a matter of principle, and the fact that someone else has done it doesn't change that very basic matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment to hoist for six months, I want to say that earlier today when I was speaking about this legislation one of the things that concerned me and which I mentioned was the fact that so many people were unaware of the kind of system which we have enjoyed in this country since its duration, and which is presently under attack. Just before my time ran out I was in the process of going through a historical travel down through time to show how a historical....

I keep forgetting that the Minister of Health insists on practising medicine without a licence. Now he's diagnosing. That's okay, Mr. Minister. That's the problem, as we said, about power corrupting.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Member for Oak Bay.

But what I would like to continue on doing, Mr. Speaker, in justification for supporting the amendment to hoist this legislation for at least six months, is to continue with the history lesson which I embarked upon for the benefit of the back bench, because I know that as the Speaker of the House, you certainly know all of these things about the evolution of the parliamentary system. What you haven't done, probably, and what I think would have been certainly a very good precedent to set as a new Speaker, would have been to educate certain of the new members in the House, as well as some of the old members, into the history of how we came to have the kind of legislative system we have, and some of the reasons why it should be protected. It's so very special and so very precious and shouldn't just be disbanded through the introduction of a piece of legislation, because, as the second member for Vancouver Centre pointed out, a very serious constitutional change like this under normal circumstances and in any other institution than this one would have called for a two-thirds majority. But because this is a Legislature and there's one vote for one person, a simple majority is enough to make a very radical and basic change such as the one that is embodied in Bill 59.

It's a very destructive change, and the opposition is concerned that certainly every effort should be taken and no effort should be spared to postpone the final decision pertaining to this particular piece of legislation.

Now in speaking earlier, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the bill of rights which was introduced by William III. I'm not quite sure whether I gave the correct date for William's reign or not, but I think I said 1888 and I should have said 1688, because I want to go back and show....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, thank you, Mr. Member. You should have corrected me earlier, but it was 1688.

Really what that bill of rights did was to give to all of us, to give to all people within the British Commonwealth anyway, the right to a free choice as to who they would be represented by in parliament. That's a very basic right and one, Mr. Speaker — I notice you nodding your head — you're in complete agreement with and one which must be protected. We must protect that.

You know, it was Charles II, Mr. Speaker, who was continually at war with his councillors. He never really trusted them. And it was Charles II to whom we must give thanks for the cabinet which is now going to vote itself into being a presidium to make all decisions affecting this province. Because it was Charles who went inside of the elected representatives and picked out the one or two people he could trust and established the cabal which is really the mother of the cabinet system which we know.

You know, this is the kind of information, Mr. Speaker, which when this bill is hoisted and there's an opportunity for a legislative committee or a special committee or whatever to take it around the province, to talk about it and to give everyone an opportunity, adults and young people alike...because I feel very strongly about the input which should come from some of the young people in our community and in our province into the legislation which is brought down in this House.

Hoisting this bill for six months will give us an opportunity to start on that democratic process which must precede any kind of constitutional change as far-reaching as this one.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1715 it was the Whig ministry — W-h-i-g, not Tory — who introduced the concept of party solidarity. They are the people whom we have to thank for the fact that the back bench always votes with its government. They were the ones who introduced the idea that each elected person who came in didn't just vote in terms of their own principle or in terms of what their constituency wanted them to do, but instead voted as a party on behalf of the principles which their party supported.

Again, we see with each passing year the evolution of the kind of system — the parliamentary system — which you and I and all of us in this province have now come to take for granted, which we respect, which we live under and which we must protect.

One of the ways of protecting this, Mr. Speaker, is embodied in this amendment, this amendment which says that this bill should be lifted off the floor of this House for six months to give the press, to give the community at large, to give the back bench, to give

[ Page 2864 ]

the young people in our schools, to give everyone an opportunity to look at the constitution as it now exists, to look at the system that we are now living under and to have their input into the kinds of far-reaching changes embodied in this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you a quote from Gladstone. He was the Prime Minister who in speaking of parliament said that it was not the business of parliament to govern a country but it was the business of parliament to call into account those people who govern the country. That's what is going to disappear if this legislation becomes law. Because when all of the decisions are made in private, in secret behind a closed cabinet door, are not made public until they come down in an order-in-council three days or four days or whatever after, how can the parliament, which consists of the back bench as well as the opposition, call into account the cabal — those people over there whom the Premier has chosen to be his decision-makers and his decision-makers alone?

So, Mr. Speaker, in calling for an amendment that says let us hoist this thing for six months, it gives everyone an opportunity to explore whether it is possible to have true democratic government under this piece of legislation.

Now I am of the firm opinion that it is not possible; the opposition is of the opinion that it is not possible. But we are not here to impose our opinion either on this House or on the people of this province. That is the reason why the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) moved that the bill should be amended in such a way that it could have six months during which it could be taken out into the province to be scrutinized, to be studied by more of the brilliant legal minds such as that encased in the skull of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the other people in this province. Let them bring their perception to bear on it, Mr. Speaker, to see whether this further evolution of the parliamentary process protects it and nurtures it or whether it really is going to destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it was King James who was always at odds with his parliament, who was always battling with them over taxation and foreign policy and the like. It was King James who, like this present government, insisted that parliament should not meddle in the deep matters of state.

I would like to quote for you, Mr. Speaker, the response which parliament gave to that. The response was that it was "the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, the state, the defence of the realm and of the Church of England and of the maintenance and making of laws, the setting up of departments and redress of mischief and privileges which daily happen within the realm which are the proper subject and matter of counsel to be debated in parliament."

So, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the parliamentary system has been under attack. It is not the first time that it has been threatened. But it has been defended successfully before. Other jurisdictions have dealt with this attack and defended it in the same way that this opposition is trying to stave off this final attack on this system.

One of the ways of doing this, one of the ways of trying to protect the system, is to suggest to this House that permission should be granted for this piece of legislation to be hoisted, to be lifted from the floor of this Legislature for the period of six months so that everyone out there can have an opportunity to read the legislation, so that all of the members of this House can have an opportunity to go back to their constituencies, to go back to their ridings, to hold public hearings, to solicit letters, phone calls, dialogue, discussion.

This is not a simple amendment that, we'll say, a highway should not go here but it should go there. This is not a simple amendment that says: "This should not be covered by this Act and that should be," that "you may change your name or you may not change your name." This is a basic constitutional amendment which will serve to change the whole face of parliamentary democracy in this province. It will take the business of government out of the public scrutiny, out of the purview where you and I, Mr. Speaker, and the press and everyone out there can view it, can look down on it, and see what is being done and closet it behind closed doors.

Decisions will be made, decisions which indeed can even be retroactive. Decisions already made on the floor of this House can be thrown aside, can be changed, and there will be no recourse, Mr. Speaker, after that. This is why it is so important; that is why it is so urgent that the government members must support this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about a couple of other issues as a part of the history of this system. A simple thing like estimates, for example — which we've been struggling through in this House since March, and we still haven't managed to get more than halfway through — didn't just come full-blown out of the head of somebody. That, too, Mr. Speaker, was part of the evolutionary process....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now engaging in a line of debate which is not part of the principle of this amendment when you relate your remarks to the estimates of the House, Hon. Member. I would ask you to confine your remarks to the amendment which is presently before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. If I had been permitted to complete my line of thinking, it would have become very obvious that the way in which I was using the word "estimate" is very much a part of the principle of the amendment which I am

[ Page 2865 ]

discussing. Now may I have your permission...?

MR. SPEAKER: I am waiting patiently, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I appreciate your patience, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it absolutely breaks my heart that once this bill is amended you, too, like the rest of us, will become obsolete. Okay.

Nonetheless, I was using "estimates" in its historical sense and just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, speaking about the estimates in this House, and seeing that the bill would deal with the basic part of our system, the estimates, which also were introduced by William III when he set up and established the foundation of a common system of estimates and appropriation and audit, and this system came about as a way in which the government agreed that if he would introduce the system which we know as estimates, they would support him in a battle in which he was involved at that time against the country of France.

What I am saying is that that is an additional piece of information; it's additional knowledge which we must have and which will become possible if this bill is hoisted and we have six months in which to really look not just at Bill 59, Mr. Speaker, but to look at the system that Bill 59 is threatening to destroy. That is what is so important about it. Not just the bill; the bill itself is not what is at stake here. It's the whole parliamentary system that's at stake here.

Mr. Speaker, take even the other rule of this House that deals with Committee of the Whole House — and I know that you know that it was in 1607 that that concept was developed, that the procedure of going into Committee of the Whole House was developed, which would free the Speaker from the Chair and allow the House to discuss, without your presence, Mr. Speaker — the whole House, including the opposition, to become part of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please return to the principle of the amendment which is before us at the present time?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is explain the importance of the amendment by saying that by hoisting the bill for six months you and I and everyone here, including the press and the community-at-large, will have an opportunity to relearn — or maybe to learn for the first time — something about the history of the system which is being threatened by this piece of legislation. That is what I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, and in so doing, I'm going into detail such as discussing estimates and Committee of the Whole House....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I agree with the hon. member that there's some latitude allowed in debate on second reading of a main bill. The latitude is less broad when we're discussing a specific amendment to the bill, which we're on now. I'm trying to grant you all the latitude that is possible from the Chair, Hon. Member, but I hope you appreciate the fact that you must relate your debate to the amendment which is before the House at the present time. That is all I'm suggesting to you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I humbly suggest that I really haven't utilized any latitude. Everything I have said to date has been clearly within the purview of this amendment. I have gone into some detail — that's true. I have gone into some detail, but I have not utilized any latitude.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, with respect, if I felt that the debate was completely in line, I would never have interrupted you to bring it to your attention.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. All I am saying is that instead of standing up and saying that I support the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, what I have tried to do is to give some reasons why I support the amendment. In giving the reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have gone into some details, because I have felt that it was important. I disapprove of decisions being made off the top of the head. I disapprove of statements being made without any discussion to support it. This is the reason why I have gone into very minute detail — to explain why I and this opposition will be supporting the very excellent amendment put forward by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the bill be hoisted for six months.

MR. KING: With the necessary input.

MS. BROWN: With the necessary input. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it would not have been possible for the government to introduce legislation that threatens this province in the way that Bill 59 does, and to get away with it, if we were better informed — if we had been better informed about the evolution of the legislative and parliamentary process under which we operate. When I say "we," I'm including all of us — you and I, the press and the community-at-large.

The reason for a six-month hoist is to see to it that that fault is remedied, that we do become informed, that the back bench as well as the government members,' Mr. Speaker, the opposition, the press and the community-at-large, as well as the students and everyone else who lives in the province get an opportunity to do two things: to learn more about the legislative system under which decisions are made in this House, and, having done so, bring that new

[ Page 2866 ]

knowledge — or old knowledge, as the case may be — to bear on their perception of Bill 59 so that the government will listen to their input, listen to their recommendations and learn something about how the community-at-large really feels about this very basic and radical constitutional change which this bill is about to introduce.

What I'm also saying, Mr. Speaker, is that for the government to use the argument that legislation of this kind exists in another country where there's a socialist government, or exists in another province where there's an NDP government, does not make this legislation right. Despite wherever else this legislation may exist, this opposition sees this legislation as a very clear threat to the parliamentary and legislative system under which we operate. We are totally opposed to it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, my remarks were primarily aimed at people like the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), who was listening, obviously, because it is important, Mr. Speaker, that some of the government members vote in support of this amendment if this amendment is to go through. The amendment needs a simple majority in its favour and it is important that some of the members of the government back bench at least vote for it.

We recognize that the cabal cannot vote against it, but certainly at least some of the members of the back bench must share with the members of the opposition our concern for the speed with which this very basic and radical change in the system is being pushed through this House.

I really am appealing to the members in the back bench to vote in support of this amendment — to hoist this piece of legislation for six months, Mr. Speaker. What is the rush? Why does it have to get through today, tomorrow or the day after? Surely something as important as this is worthy of more time for consideration than what has been allotted to this House at this time. As a matter of fact, it may even be possible that the cabal itself might find it within its moral sensitivity to vote in support of this amendment. I am certainly hoping so. I know that you are, too. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the press and the people of this province would appreciate that additional six months which this amendment would allow them. I hope that the government members take that into account when they vote on this very important amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule that this bill that we have before us is out of order and contravenes standing order 67.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert care to enlarge upon his point of order? I am having some difficulty relating your remarks to rule 67 of our standing orders.

  MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, rule 67 says:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address of bill is proposed."

It's clear to me that this bill is going to allow rule 67 to be contravened.

MR. SPEAKER: In what respect, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: Because money will be appropriated here, there and everywhere by section 12B of the bill that we are looking at. It contravenes rule 67. I don't think it could be clearer.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Garde, you agree with that. Why don't you speak on it?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, I would draw your attention to the fact this this bill is a message bill and therefore could not possibly offend standing order 67.

MR. LEA: No, no!

HON. MR. McGEER: As the hon. member well knows, as a former member of the executive council, no vote, no amount of money can be passed by order-in-council without being approved, first of all, by the Lieutenant-Governor and secondly by the Legislative Assembly at a later time, so there's no possibility of this bill offending standing order 67.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Education has made my point even clearer than I could have make it myself. I think possibly the minister hasn't read the bill.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The bill allows exactly what you said cannot be done, and so I ask that a ruling be made on rule 67.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Obviously this bill contravenes rule 67.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert had the floor.

Interjection.

[ Page 2867 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to be more specific in relation to the argument raised by the hon. member, and in response to the Minister of Education, I quote from the rule itself. The rule is very short, so it's best to quote the whole rule:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor... "

The words are: "...any purpose that has not been recommended to the House by the Lieutenant-Governor...." In other words, Mr. Speaker, traditionally the Lieutenant-Governor, in his message and his budget speech, is specific as to the debate around each vote, and that, of course, is an important part of the estimate process.

I'll refer you, under this bill, the Government Reorganization Act, to 12B. It says:

"Where, under section 10 or 12A, powers, duties and functions of an official, department, or ministry are transferred to another official, departmcnt, or ministry, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may order that all or part of that money authorized by the Legislature be paid and applied for the purpose of those powers, duties and functions and remaining unexpended, as he considers appropriate, be expended by and through the other official, department, or ministry....

Now when it says that the executive council considers it appropriate to transfer funds to be expended by and through another official, department of ministry, the very fact that this section would allow the cabinet to take funds from one vote that was brought to the House by message, then debated and passed, in accordance with the rules of this House, and then would authorize that the official or anyone else would have the right to take that vote's money and put it somewhere else, is in direct contradiction of rule 67 that says, again: "....to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House." I want to thank the member for Prince Rupert for bringing this to the attention of this House and saving further debate on this matter. It is clearly out of order.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Clearly out of order. You are saying that....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's clearly out of order. You are saying that the executive council is going to take authority that rule 67 says they do not have.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Don't be so serious.

MR. BARRETT: Well, this is very serious business, Mr. Member. Of course, you're only a backbencher; you don't even know what this is all about yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not part of your point of order.

MR. KING: On a point of order: Mr. Speaker, just to support and substantiate the position put forward by the member for Prince Rupert and my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, I should refer you also to 12A of the bill which specifically provides the authority to establish or vary. The word "vary" means the power to supersede and override the provisions of message bills that come before this House, and that would clearly be in violation of standing order 67.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to your arguments on standing order 67 which you consider to be the order which would rule this bill out of order. It would seem to me that the main thrust of standing order 67 has to do with the fact that a bill must come in, one of this nature which is first recommended to the House, by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed. It's clear that the bill came in by message on June 8 as a bill from the Lieutenant-Governor to the legislative session. I fail, hon. members, to see how in any respect this bill offends against standing order 67.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct to say that the method of handling the bill has been correct, and there's no quarrel with that method. What the member is objecting to is the substance of the bill, which in sections 12A and 12B would clearly violate Rule 67 by abrogating its authority. The method of bringing the bill in is not in dispute whatsoever. It is that the bill itself, if enacted, would totally push aside the authority and the authenticity of rule 67 in this House, because the bill itself has the power to circumvent rule 67, and this is the problem.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, quite clearly 12B deals with where powers are transferred from one ministry to another. These are existing powers within those ministries, and it deals.... If you look at line 4 of 12B, it says it is transferring the money related to those powers, and it says money authorized by the Legislature....

Interjections.

[ Page 2868 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: What it says right in line 4 — money authorized by the Legislature. Now that's quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I've listened to the points of order from both sides of the House. The point of order originally raised was that the bill was irregular inasmuch as it offends against standing order 67. I have looked at the bill and the method of introduction and the sections of the bill as they are before the House. I do not see, hon. members, that it is in any way irregular, either as to its introduction or in its present form, and I so rule.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask your interpretation of section 12A(a) . Now disestablishing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, I listened to the arguments by yourself and other members and the members of government with respect to irregularity or the fact that the bill was out of order in your opinion.

I have ruled that this bill does not offend against standing order 67, it is not irregular and it is proper in its present form. I have so ruled, Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The recourse open, if you do not agree with that ruling, is to challenge it. There is no further debate.

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there are further arguments that have not....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order at this particular time, Hon. Member....

MR. BARRETT: There are further arguments that must be presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You cannot rule without further argument. You can't shut off debate that way. There are further arguments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: How in the world can you rule...?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! For the benefit of all of the members of the House, I must say to you this....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Once a decision is made with respect to the point that was raised by the hon. member for Prince Rupert, and I have so ordered, it is not then a matter of debate or further points of order.

It is now a matter that you either accept the decision of the Chair, or you challenge the Speaker's ruling.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since when are points of argument cut off before it's finished? Since when?

MR. SPEAKER: You asked for a decision....

MR. BARRETT: I'm making a new point of argument and you shut me off before I have an opportunity to speak, and that is brand new in this House, brand new!

MR. SPEAKER: Correctly so, Hon. Member. Correctly so!

MR. BARRETT: I was elected in this House to speak in this House, and you cannot shut me up until you've heard my argument. You're giving a rule before you hear the argument. I cannot stand for that, no sir. Twice today, not a minute.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Members, order, please! The members of the House know the rules of debate in this House. They also know that when the matter was raised by the hon. member for Prince Rupert I was prepared to listen to a number of arguments from both sides and points of order, before making a decision.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has ruled on the matter raised by the hon. member for Prince Rupert. The course is open to any member of the House...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[ Page 2869 ]

...who disagrees with the ruling to challenge the ruling. At this point in the proceedings of the House, that is the course that is open: either you accept the ruling or you challenge the ruling, but you do not advance further arguments, Hon. Members.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

MR. BARRETT: Sir, I think you should know that it is also my course to...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: ...move a substantive motion, and that is what I intend to do. There is no way that we will challenge your ruling, because you did not even hear all the arguments and it would be a farce to challenge a ruling that has not even been argued properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's an absolute farce to challenge that ruling — an absolute farce! Absolute nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Didn't you overrule your own Speaker this morning?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: That's not a ruling; that's an order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I draw the attention of the hon. members....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! May I draw to the attention of the hon. members Beauchesne, 4th edition, page 114? It is very clear when you read page 114 that interruptions on points of order are themselves often disorderly. This is the only point that I wish to make to the members at this time: when the Chair has ruled either for or in the negative respecting the point raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).... And this is what the Chair must do. He invited a ruling from the Chair and I so ruled. The course of action that is open to an hon. member if he or she disagrees is to challenge the ruling of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Nonsense!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it's a matter that the Chair has to interpret and deal with the rules that we are all governed by in this House. I have made a ruling, Hon. Members, and the ruling is open to challenge if that's the desire of any member of the House. If it's not....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no point of order at the present time. It's either a challenge to the ruling or we proceed to other business of the House.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, I would like to point out to you....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I know that you will not accept any further points of order on your particular decision. I just want to make a point with respect to your actions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out something to you with respect to the way in which you brought down that ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I have said to the hon....

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring something to your attention with respect to the way in which you made your ruling just now. Would you kindly hear me out?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I repeat for the benefit of all the hon. members of the House that a point of order at this time is out of order according to the rules of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has ruled, so there is no further point of order.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I am not challenging the Chair. I just want to bring up a point of order....

[ Page 2870 ]

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, a point of order is not always in order. It depends upon the stage of the debate. It depends upon what is actually taking place on the floor of the House at that particular moment. The hon. member requested a ruling. I listened to the argument and the debate and I gave a ruling. Would the hon. member for Comox please take her seat?

The situation is now that there is no further business before the House, including points of order on the same matter; the rule of the Chair either stands or is challenged, and that is the exact position that we are in at this particular moment.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, what if no one wishes to challenge your ruling and then we go to another point of order? Is that not in order? If there is no challenge to the ruling, is it not in order to raise...?

MR. SPEAKER: There is a challenge to the ruling, if anyone so desires.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: No one has challenged your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a course of action that's open to the hon. members, as they know.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Now, Mr. Speaker, no one chooses to challenge the ruling. Now someone else gets up on a point of order; is that out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, to the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).... If it's a new point of order on a matter which we have not just previously dealt with, then the Chair will listen to the point of order.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's on a new point of order. It relates to the way in which your decisions are brought down in this House during points of order. This is a new point of order; I really want some clarification from the Chair on this.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, during your deliberations just now on this point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) was on his feet. You asked him kindly to take his seat while you talked to the Clerks of the House. He dutifully did so. Then when he got up to continue his point of order after you had asked him to please take his seat, you gave your ruling and then refused to allow him to speak. Now I would like some clarification. If people are up on a point of order and wish to advise the Chair with respect to a decision that he is about to make, are these going to be cut off after two are heard or after three are heard or is there some rule or regulation that applies here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say to all of the hon. members that first of all, in dealing with the matter that was brought before the House, I listened to points of order, or people arguing really the merits or otherwise of the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) on points of order.

There is no such thing as an absolute right for any member to rise on points of order. It can be and sometimes is a device used as an interruption, which is in itself an offence against the rules of the House and is disorderly.

I listened to a number of points of order and I ruled with respect to the matter which had been raised by the member for Prince Rupert in that I could see nothing irregular about the method of introduction of the bill or its present form before the House.

I ruled in that respect, which the Chair is obligated to do. The reason I would not entertain any further points of order after that ruling is that to do so is a clear offence of the rules of the House. There is only one question to be answered beyond the ruling of the Chair and that is that if the members disagree with the ruling, they challenge it.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter of your opinion, hon. member.

MR. LEA: You ruled early; it's a big trick.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a clear-cut decision in my mind, hon. members, according to the rules of the House, after having listened to points from both sides, I make a ruling, which I did at that particular time. I would suggest to all of the hon. members at this time that the device that is often used to try to gain the floor by points of order beyond that point is

[ Page 2871 ]

clearly out of order according to the rules of our House. They cannot be recognized because they're not in order.

I am only doing the duty that was assigned to me by pointing out to the hon. members that after a ruling has been handed down by the Chair if there is a reason to disagree with the ruling it may be challenged, but there's no further point of order on the same matter.

If hon. members have a point of order to raise on something that is completely separate and in no way connected with the matter which has just been decided, then I'm prepared to listen to it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this and appreciate your explanation of the situation, but what you're telling us is that when an hon. member is on his feet to advise you with respect to your decision on a point of order, if you ask that person to sit down so that you can confer with the Clerks, and then bring in a decision, that person has no further right to speak on an issue as important as this. This point of order, Mr. Speaker, is under section 67. It's the first time in my time in this Legislature that a bill has been challenged on those grounds. It seems to me that it's very important that we hear as much as possible on this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's a matter for the Chair to determine when I have listened to enough points. Quite often the points become very repetitive when they're issued on the floor of the House. I had to determine if, in fact, the item and the problem that was raised by the hon. member for Prince Rupert was one that required further clarification or further study before I ruled. I ruled upon the matter and at that point further points of order on the matter were strictly out of order. There's no provision in our rules for further points of order.

That is why I say that that decision was not taken lightly. It was taken after looking at the rules that you rose to challenge the validity of the bill upon. It was after determining the method in which the bill came before the House that I ruled, hon. members.

For other points of order to be raised on the same matter is irregular and not allowable under the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: In light of your remarks I refer you to standing order 38:

"A member addressing the House shall, if called to order by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, sit down while the point of order is being stated, after which he may explain. Mr. Speaker may permit debate of the point of order before rendering his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken."

The point, Mr. Speaker, is: how do you know if it's relevant until you've heard the debate? The cause of the whole argument is that you refused to hear the point before you ruled. That is what has caused the trouble today and, frankly, the loss of confidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's sometimes difficult, I realize, for the House and the Speaker to decide when sufficient points of order have been examined before ruling on a particular issue. Having heard a number of points of order, and being convinced that the bill was not irregular under standing order 67, I ruled in that manner. With deference to the hon. member for Prince Rupert who brought the point up, he had a good point to bring up, and I appreciate the fact that he brought it up under a specific standing order of our House. It was a decision then for the Chair to take as to whether the matter raised by the member did offend against standing order 67 and was irregular or not.

I listened to a number of points of order before rendering my decision, hon. members. Some of you may feel that I did not listen to enough points of order. I would ask you a question: What is enough? All afternoon? A half hour? A quarter of an hour?

MR. BARRETT: The House determines that!

MR. SPEAKER: Or is it sufficient time for the members to make points, and sufficient time for the Speaker to determine whether the matter that is to be decided has merit or has no merit under our standing orders? Sometimes that can be ascertained very quickly, other times not, as you well know.

MR. LEA: This is pertaining to the point of order I made, because it's obvious that you misunderstood my argument and therefore, I believe, ruled not correctly. I think you misunderstood, so I'm not at this point.... I'm on section 42....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There's no debate under section 42 in this particular matter.

MR. LEA: I don't see where it says you can't. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, under section 42 — rule 42 — is that we are not arguing the method which the bill was brought in; we're saying that if this bill is proclaimed that....

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, there is no way in which rule 42, which you have drawn to my attention, relates to the matter which you raised under standing order 67, and it's not a matter of further questioning or debate at this

[ Page 2872 ]

particular time. It's a matter that I have ruled.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]

Hon. Mr. Davis moves adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The motion, hon. members, which is before the House at the present time is a motion to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House, and that is the question which I must put to the House. It's not a debatable motion, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: There are a number of us who wanted to deal with the point of order, who were immediately and.... Really, how many assistants do you have? Are you the Speaker of this House? I mean, I know that the Premier is also the Speaker, but are you the Speaker of this House too? Mr. Speaker, there are a number of us....

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, will you please take your seat?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: A motion to adjourn is always in order, hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Many of you have moved it unsuccessfully.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion itself is in order. Whether it is acceptable or not is something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: Depends on who moved it.

MR. SPEAKER: It depends on the method, hon. members. The motion before the House is for adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Member. The matter which is before the House is a motion of adjournment, which is not debatable.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I will hear your point of order, Hon. Member, after the vote on the motion that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it's really just a point of order that I hope will expedite business. At the time when you recognized the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), there were several points of order seeking to obtain the floor at that time. Inasmuch as it is a rule of our House that points of order should be taken into account as soon as possible, I'd be grateful if you would just advise us that those points of order will be held over until the next sitting and we'll be allowed to raise them at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you know that the point of order after a ruling has been made is out of order.

MR. GIBSON: No, it has nothing to do with that ruling, Mr. Speaker; they're new points of order which arose from that debate.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, when you recognized the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), you later, when his motion was disputed, said that a motion to adjourn debate is always in order. It's not correct, and I ask for further reference in this House that you must only accept such a motion for the person next in place for debate, or during that person's debate on the motion before the House. Otherwise, it is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: What I should have said, Hon. Member, is that a motion for adjournment may be made at any time. I stand corrected. There is nothing to prevent any member from rising to their feet and moving a motion of adjournment, which may or may not be accepted, may or may not be passed. I stand corrected.

Interjection.

[ Page 2873 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Your point of order, for the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, is that many points of order will be raised in the course of debate when the House resumes, I would think. We will have to deal with such points of order when they are raised on the floor of the House, Hon. Member, and if they are a reflection on a previous vote, you know that they may be out of order or they may be ones that can be considered.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No. There is no intention to do that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I was about to recognize the Hon. Provincial Secretary. Do you yield to the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have no motion before the House. I am about to make a motion.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You did not. I was recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: I was recognizing the hon. minister. Do you yield to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make the motion of adjournment, and there's time between the motion of adjournment — the two motions — for the Leader of the Opposition to make his point.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask respectfully when we can expect the report on the matter of the telegram and the unauthorized use of your signature.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be in by 11 o'clock adjournment, if we adjourn at that time, Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, have you had the opportunity to review the Hansard on which I raised earlier this morning? If not, I do have a copy here which I might give to you to expedite....

MR. SPEAKER: No, Hon. Member. I have a copy in my office. Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of information. You remarked earlier that there was no absolute right to a point of order, indicating that there were situations in which a point of order was out of order. Being fairly new to the parliamentary system, I would like to know when you would give us a report indicating specifically those instances in which we would not have an opportunity to speak, because it's only on a point of order...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: ...to my knowledge, that you have an opportunity to rise on a very difficult time, as you know, from time to time. Otherwise, there is a great risk of closure.

MR. SPEAKER: You'll find a number of references in May and Beauchesne, which I will be pleased to draw to your attention, Hon. Member, as to when a point of order is irregular.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.