1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976
Night Sitting
[ Page 2875 ]
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Second reading.
On the amendment to defer second reading for six months.
Hon. Mr. Davis — 2875
Mr. Nicolson — 2876
Mr. Veitch — 2882
Mr. Lauk — 2883
Mr. Barrett — 2886
Mr. Hewitt — 2891
Mr. Kerster — 2892
Mr. Levi — 2895
Mr. Gibson — 2896
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1976
The House met at 8:30 p.m.
Orders of the day.
HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59.
Leave not granted.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the Chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not required now, Hon. Member.
AN HON. MEMBER: Our hero!
GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT
(continued)
On the amendment.
HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a number of members said that there was no particular urgency in the passage of Bill 59. I would like to identify one item, section 6 of the bill, which is urgent. Unless it is passed, there will be considerable loss of income to B.C. Ferries. Section 6 substantially permits B.C. Ferries to lease new equipment, notably new ferries, from financial houses. The leasing of this equipment will, in effect, provide B.C. Ferries with much lower-cost money than would otherwise be available to that agency. Air Canada leases its new jets; the Canadian National Railway has been leasing a lot of its new rolling stock. By using the leasing route, in effect it has been able, in each case, to obtain its money for around 8 per cent interest rather than paying 10 per cent.
Interjections.
HON. MR. DAVIS: What it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that, in the case of B.C. Ferries, instead of paying out $48 million immediately, annual payments of several million dollars a year would be made. At the end of an 18-year period, B.C. Ferries would in fact own the vessels. In the interval, however, it would make annual payments — obviously a much lesser drain on the revenues to B.C. Ferries by using the leasing route. I think the most important aspect of these leasing arrangements, however — and it is an aspect which obviously appealed to Air Canada and appealed to the Canadian National Railway — was that instead of having to pay in the order of 10 per cent for its money, it paid 8 per cent.
In the case of these leasing arrangements B.C. Ferries would have the vessels, would maintain them and would operate them as if they owned them. Physically, outwardly, there would be no change in the programme — no change from what has been experienced in the past. The title to one vessel would be held, for example, by the Canada Trust Co.; the Royal Trust Co. in the case of another vessel; and in the third case, the Central and Nova Scotia Trust Co. would own the vessel.
Interjection.
HON. MR. DAVIS: There is a deadline for the first of these vessels later this week because the ownership of the vessel, in the case of the Queen of Coquitlam, which is the first to be delivered, will change at a date later this week from Burrard Drydock to its new owner. Either that new owner is the Royal Trust Co., if a lease is effective, or B.C. Ferries if a lease arrangement is not made possible as a result of this legislation.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): You can do that six months from now, Jack. You know that.
HON. MR. DAVIS: You cannot buy and sell. The leasing agency or company can never have held title to the property in question. This kind of arrangement is limited to ships and aircraft — other mobile equipment. The ownership must never have been,
[ Page 2876 ]
must never be in the hands of the leasing corporation. Mr. Speaker, the urgency is the deadline for delivery of the Queen of Coquitlam from Burrard Drydock later this week. This bill, were it not to pass, would cost B.C. Ferries approximately $1 million a year for 18 years, or $18 million.
MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a need to bring in an amendment to hoist this bill in order that the public could have the benefit of six months in order to scrutinize this bill, it would have to be at this time. I think the words of the Minister of Transport and Communications tended to reinforce rather than persuade the opposition to drop this amendment. It would appear that this amendment is even more in order.
He says that section 6 would permit leasing. Of course, we note that section 6 amends the Act, and in addition to allowing the acquisition of property, improvements and other things, this would now allow the minister to, indeed, dispose of these ferries.
Now the minister has gone out and made statements — he's said that this would allow us tax write-offs, but still hasn't demonstrated with any proven examples how the tax write-offs would work, under what sections of federal tax legislation these things would work. Has he taken the dollar amount? Has he taken the price of these ferries? Has he taken the instance? Does he have a contract, a pro forma contract which he can sign with Canada Trust? Does he have a contract which he could sign with Royal Trust? Does he have one with Central and Nova? Is the minister prepared? If it is such an emergency and if this hoist cannot take place for six months, that minister should be prepared.
Mr. Speaker, it's our worst suspicions confirmed — that this
government is willing to work behind the backs of the people of British
Columbia, that they are trying…even in this bill in which they're
trying to take unto themselves all kinds of sneaky powers. They're not
only taking unto themselves these powers, but within this bill they're
trying to sneak in…
MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They're businessmen, and might think it's all right to beat Ottawa.
MR. NICOLSON: …this thing the minister's been talking about and which we've been waiting for some time to discuss in his estimates. He should certainly table the agreement, which must be drafted if the deadline is later this week, on the Queen of Coquitlam. If Royal Trust and the government had nothing to hide, and if this power is so urgently needed and can't sit around to be considered, then certainly, if everything is above-board, these contracts should be tabled. The minister didn't seem to show any inclination toward tabling these things — he's talked in very wide generalities.
Now we know that in business, certainly, one can depreciate capital costs and one can even defer taxation. You can make provision that from a high-earning year you can defer taxation to a year that you might anticipate would be somewhat lower. There are many loopholes within business — when you're in business for profit and when you're showing profit and loss. But certainly it's a very strange wrinkle where a Crown corporation, which does not itself have to pay income tax, will try to avoid paying income tax. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the provincial Crown corporation is going to seek to do something which up until now the federal government has allowed some of the federal Crown corporations to do, because, after all, they're just robbing from Paul to pay Paul.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I think that the federal government might indeed be interested if they were to see that provincial governments were engaging in some sort of a loophole, as the minister described it. So the urgency of passing it for section 6 wouldn't seem to be as much justified as the minister has stated. Indeed, if it were so urgent, why wasn't that power brought in as a separate bill? Why was it not brought in in such a manner that we might have been asked for all three readings in one day?
I see my mike is back on again.
Interjections.
MR. NICOLSON: I think I'll start at the beginning again, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a need….
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I bring to your attention the fact that…. Order, please! Apparently there is some problem with the microphones today, but the recording is taking place and everything you say will be in Hansard.
MR. NICOLSON: Oh, that's good, Mr. Speaker. My mother-in-law will be very interested to hear that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, why was it snuck into this bill? Why did not the Provincial Secretary make a great point of this? Why did she just say, well, it was just technical and just to facilitate government — just to facilitate? You know, that's a rather misleading phrase when a government tries to just sort of facilitate things. You know, you can facilitate, I suppose, by doing away with the Legislature. You can facilitate by stating a state of emergency and doing as has been done in a lot of jurisdictions lately, suspending the constitution. That's another euphemism, Mr. Speaker, and that's what we think this bill is akin to.
[ Page 2877 ]
But why was it snuck into here? The minister got up. He still hasn't given us any dollar-and-cent figures in terms of starting out with…. Okay, what are the capital costs with the Queen of Coquitlam delivered from the drydock? What are those capital costs? Who will we sell it to? Will we sell it to Canada Trust at cost? Will we sell it below cost? Will we sell it to them at a profit, above cost? Did the minister tell us that in making his plea that we not hoist this bill for six months?
MR. GIBSON: Royal Trust.
MR. NICOLSON: Okay, are we going to take it at its actual cost? Are we going to inflate or depress that cost in selling it to Royal Trust? Are we going to…?
Okay, at what rate is Royal Trust going to depreciate it? How does this affect Royal Trust's total taxes payable? What share of whatever savings is Royal Trust to get from this thing which they are going to hold in name only? Then, Mr. Speaker, does that minister honestly expect that the federal government is going to stand idly by if we urgently allow this thing to go ahead before six months' careful consideration? Is the federal government going to let this minister get away with this? Mr. Speaker, I think there's some very serious question in that respect. If we embark upon this, well then, is Alberta to then take its airline — and I know it has discussed the leasing route — to leasing some of the Boeing 737s? Is Alberta going to do it? If Alberta does it, then will they still let British Columbia get away with this type of a ruse? Because if it's going to be fair for British Columbia, and if we urgently allow him to do this so this can go ahead in just six weeks time, then what is going to happen?
Well, I think now, Mr. Speaker, we see the government's reason for urgency in this matter. I think it's come out. Finally the truth is out. This bill, the major part of the bill as presented to us by government, is certainly something that could stand a great deal of scrutiny from the people of British Columbia, and it should die on the order paper this year. But the minister is now telling us he's in a jam. He's only got six weeks. If that's the case, why didn't he bring in a bill earlier than this?
The government is out of control, their legislative schedule is running amok, and then they say that we should allow a bill of this nature to go ahead without being put out to the public.
AN HON. MEMBER: Because of one section not related to the rest of the bill.
MR. NICOLSON: Because of one section. It just doesn't wash.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the government is, I think, going to allow the ombudsman bill to be held over to the next sitting, maybe in the fall. It is a good idea, maybe, that there be some scrutiny of it. It never hurts. We need an ombudsman with this government. But if they do hold it over…. I know there are some concerns. Maybe they could bring in some amendments. Maybe they've had enough input, from some of the people out in the community who are interested.
But the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as an instance of the worth of holding a bill over, pointed out that the Societies Act was going to be held over, I believe, until an anticipated fall sitting. Certainly, government would be well advised to take the advice of the opposition and to support the holding over of this bill, because the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) hasn't laid out an example in dollars and cents. He has not said what sections of the Taxation Act are going to apply, hasn't tabled the basis of any agreement between Royal Trust and his department concerning the Queen of Coquitlam. What commitments does he have in writing from Ottawa? He says, trust us, and we're hearing a little too much of that from this government — trust us.
MR. GIBSON: Royal Trust does.
MR. NICOLSON: Yes, that's right. And Canada Trust does and Central and Nova Scotia Trust does.
Interjections.
MR. NICOLSON: Why was this snuck into this bill when this certainly is not part of rearranging departments? It's not part of their desire to seize more control from the Legislature and to make it no longer necessary to come before the Legislature if they want to start a new government department.
Mr. Speaker, the speaker who preceded me on this bill from our side of the House spoke about the need for education on this bill. I would say that it's perhaps a criticism of our education system in British Columbia that we're not familiar enough with the British parliamentary system. We're not familiar enough with the system as it operates in Canada or in British Columbia. The education system has failed the community in this regard, and perhaps a lot of people are wondering why one would be concerned and why we would feel that there should be time. But there should be time for the public to be educated and for public opinion to become formed concerning this bill.
It's like the Revelstoke Dam hearings which started today. The government and B.C. Hydro, or the comptroller of water rights, I guess, Mr. DeBeck, in his wisdom saw that once all of that information was dropped, the public would take some time to digest that information and then be able to make informed arguments and express their opinions based on the information — the technological information
[ Page 2878 ]
— concerning the Revelstoke Dam. And so it is with this bill to supposedly reorganize government departments. The public should have the time to realize that up until now if government wished to create a new department such as we did, such as the Department of Housing or the Department of Consumer Services, it had to come before the Legislature.
But here we have a Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Have we had a debate about this government's attitude toward the environment? No, Mr. Speaker, we've been denied that. We have a bogus minister who sits there without any real legal qualifications. There have been some orders-in-council passed, Mr. Speaker, and they've assigned to him such duties as the administration of the Better Housing Act of 1946, and he's taken that power away from the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis). The Minister of Housing will not have the power to wield some of those powers which are contained in the Better Housing Act of 1946.
How many people recognize that already there's some sort of centralization going on within the cabinet in which even housing statutes are not under the control of the Minister of Housing but have been taken to this minister who does not have a portfolio? He's the pretender to the portfolio of Minister of Environment. It is quite pretentious of this government so suggest that they can come in here and retroactively rectify their wrongs by this. If they've been out of order for about five months, or six months in this case, I suggest they might as well continue that pretension, Mr. Speaker, for another six months. But allow the people….
MR. LEA: You said it was legal when you did it.
HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): It's against the law.
Interjections.
MR. NICOLSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, that lawyer Minister of Labour says that it's against the law for this Minister of Environment to continue, and I believe that those also were the opinions expressed by the Provincial Secretary out in the hall — that it's illegal — and now they want to make it legal.
MR. LEA: How did you do it if it's illegal?
Interjections.
MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should think that they should kind of compromise and at least have that minister place any differential between the pay for a minister without portfolio and a minister with portfolio…. That money that he's received should be put in trust.
AN HON. MEMBER: In escrow.
MR. NICOLSON: In escrow, yes. Maybe that minister should be put in escrow, but at least that differential, Mr. Speaker, should be put in escrow. Then we could continue this for another six months, and I think the opposition might even agree that 50 per cent of that amount, if the matter is resolved, could be returned. But really, Mr. Speaker, the fact that they moved hastily and made mistakes is not a reason for urgent action in order to rectify these mistakes by making further mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, I think one of the reasons why the government is so anxious to get this bill through and is against the very prudent recommendation of the opposition of hoisting it for six months I think is because of some of the company that the Premier has been keeping. He's been travelling. He hasn't been in this House very much. He's been travelling in rather heavy circles with some of those Eastern intellectuals, Mr. Speaker — people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I think it's pretty well recognized by some great Canadians, like John Diefenbaker, that Mr. Trudeau is out and trying to…. I think he's sort of a lame-duck Premier and I don't think that his own party is going to put up with him till the next election.
MR. GIBSON: Who is he?
MR. NICOLSON: So as a lame-duck Premier he has one mission left, and that is the repatriation of….
AN HON. MEMBER: Mission impossible.
MR. NICOLSON: Yes, mission impossible. It's the repatriation of the British North America Act.
MR. LEA: If he doesn't do it, he'll self-destruct.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you please now relate the remarks that you are delivering to the House to the amendment that is before the House?
MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I should have done that before instead of after making this point. But it will fit in.
MR. LEA: That's where Jim first found out he was a cabinet minister. He got a phone call.
MR. NICOLSON: The First Minister of this government and the First Minister of our federal government — it will soon be our republic government — have been keeping company together and I think that some of the attitudes towards
[ Page 2879 ]
republicanism of the Prime Minister have been rubbing off on our Premier. I think that is why we see this Act here — this Act which is a major step toward republicanism, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: It's a fairytale.
MR. NICOLSON: Just as in the federal House there is the unilateral intention to repatriate, the contemplation of the unilateral repatriation of the British North America Act, just as they are opting out of cost-sharing programmes and such unilaterally, here in British Columbia under this Act there is a rush, without allowing the people to make the decision over the next six months, without allowing the people to recognize the gravity of the action and the step which is being taken here. Mr. Speaker, this is really companion legislation to some of the acts being taken in Ottawa, the acts away from the British parliamentary system.
Under the British parliamentary system new departments, for instance, have received the scrutiny of debate in the Legislature. The Department of Consumer Services was not only an occasion to grant powers to a new minister, to create some new title. It was the opportunity for debate about consumerism, about the cost of living, about unfair trade practices, about mortgages and various other aspects of that Act. If we pass this in undue haste, Mr. Speaker, if we don't hoist this bill for six months…
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, a bill which is before the House in the United Kingdom, unless you can relate that to the reason to hoist this bill for six months, is not relevant to the debate that's before us this evening.
MR. NICOLSON: I'm willing to try, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I realize that and I am listening very closely, but I do suggest to the hon. member…
AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?
MR. SPEAKER: …that we are on an amendment. We ate not on the far-reaching debate that takes place in second reading of the bill. So by the rules of the House, the debate is confined. I would wish that the hon. member would respect that and confine his remarks to that scope which is before us at the moment.
MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the far-ranging thing that certainly does concern me, because looking six, twelve or two years ahead, if we move hastily and allow this bill to go through without careful exposure of the powers within this bill to the public, we will really…
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.
MR. NICOLSON: …kill a part of the British parliamentary system. It is a dangerous step toward a republican system of government which…. I am not here to discuss the merits of it. I would discuss the merits in my major remarks on the bill, not on the part to hoist the bill. But what I am saying is that the opportunity for that discussion to take place, not just in this Legislature but by the people outside of this Legislature, as to what direction we might want to go here in British Columbia or to what extent we might want to go with the federal government in terms of changing the constitution, provincially and federally…. That wide-ranging debate should, at least, be allowed six months in order to take place — at least that much.
So the educational system has failed to bring us even an appreciation of that which we have today, let alone, Mr. Speaker, what we might wish to change it into. Before we make a change of that nature….
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the educational system of the province has nothing to do with the amendment which is before the House at the present time.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're doing fine, Lorne.
MR. LEA: I'd say he was right!
MR. SPEAKER: Unless there is some way you can relate that to the reason for hoisting this bill for six months, please return to the amendment before us.
MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's been the inadequacy in the region of social studies, we might say, in terms of really giving every person in this province an appreciation of the parliamentary system and how it operates that precludes people to just listen to news reports about what might have been said in second reading of the bill, prior to getting into the amendment to hoist the bill. That type of thing precludes people from making a very snap decision as to whether or not the government is doing a prudent thing, and it will take some time. People don't understand, Mr. Speaker, that we have….
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Member, the amendment which is before the House this evening is one which deals with hoisting the bill for six months — in other words, the bill shall be read six months hence.
[ Page 2880 ]
The bill is No. 59 which deals with government reorganization. In second reading I observe that the hon. member has already spoken to the bill, and now I've asked the hon. member to relate his remarks to the debate that's before us this evening which is, specifically, the reasons for hoisting the bill for six months.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: It's not as wide in scope, as the hon. member knows, as other debates before the House. As a matter of fact, I have allowed considerable latitude to all the members, and I suggest now to the hon. member that he return to the matter which is before us, because to do otherwise is an abuse of the rules of the House and of the hon. members of the House.
I am, I think, allowing as much latitude as possible in debate, but I must enforce the rules of this House, so would the hon. member please confine his remarks to the debate that is at hand at the moment?
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that's what I have been doing, with respect.
MR. SPEAKER: With respect, Hon. Member, if your remarks were in line with the debate that's before us, I wouldn't have brought it to your attention.
MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the present situation without really casting aspersions upon the members of society, because this something unexpected; this is a departure and it's the kind of thing that people leave to legislators to decide, and they don't give it too much consideration from time to time. Only when they feel very threatened do people become alarmed about certain measures that are taken in this Legislature. I don't think that the average person today is too alarmed about this. It will only be, Mr. Speaker, that people will be in a position…. And without even casting on the merits of the bill itself, but on the advisability of the people having a chance to scrutinize and become familiar with the issues at stake, and for the people to become in an informed position so they will know whether legislators did well to support or to oppose this bill — I think it's in that interest that this bill should be hoisted.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, some might go out in the community and might say that it's a real bother to have to come into the Legislature every time you want to change a bill, every time you want to change an Act, every time you want to transfer a power to flood land from a minister who's supposed to be able to flood land to some minister who might want to use it for some other purpose. The power to flood land, which is perhaps granted to the minister in charge of water rights, might want to be transferred to the minister in charge of water rights, might want to be transferred to the minister in charge of Recreation and Conservation so they can enhance wildlife habitat — that's the type of thing that could happen here.
It's not up to us to go out…not in this debate on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to say whether that's right or whether that's wrong for one minister to pass in the Legislature years ago…to have granted that power to one specific minister for some purpose and for it now to be just arbitrarily handed over in cabinet. That's really for the people to decide, to feed back information to their legislators through letters, through petitions, through public hearings, and for the people who support the granting of powers like that to go out and say why it is necessary.
If they want to go out and say that the Legislature has become obsolete, Mr. Speaker…. If there are people who want to go out and say that the Legislature is obsolete, and if that member is going to go out and argue that, he should have time to go out and convince the public of that argument.
For those who hold to the thought that government must be scrutinized, and that new powers of this nature should not be granted without care, for those who might feel that with these powers the cabinet could be shrunk to a triumvirate, Mr. Speaker…. Some might argue that the cabinet could be shrunk to a triumvirate, that….
AN HON. MEMBER: Or expanded.
MR. NICOLSON: It could be expanded.
MR. LEA: To a triumvirate! (Laughter.)
MR. NICOLSON: Perhaps just the Premier and two very powerful super-ministers who have taken unto themselves all of these powers. We've already seen that if a ministry of environment can be created and if the Land Act and the Water Rights Act and if the…
MR. LEA: A minister of internal security.
AN HON. MEMBER: How about a nightclub act?
MR. NICOLSON: …Better Housing Act, 1946, can be transferred to one person, some people might argue in the community, if given the time, that the
[ Page 2881 ]
dangers are the erosion of the parliamentary system which has a cabinet, which has government members and opposition members, and that certain powers have been granted to cabinet for orders-in-council, and other things can be done by ministerial discretion. But in order that people, those who go out from the government benches and argue that the Legislature just impedes government…that scrutiny is a waste of time — scrutiny in the Legislature — that if you don't trust us you can throw us out in three or four years, that's the type of thing….
Mr. Speaker, I think another thing people will have to consider is: okay, what will the function of the Legislature be? During this six months some of the things people can consider are: will the Legislature just be there to pass special appropriation bills that are motherhood bills, like the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act, to add another $15 million, and then there can be great positive publicity? This would be a good-news place; it would be nothing but good news coming out of here, Mr. Speaker. And people might want nothing but good news; they might only want to listen to the news that they ought to hear, and then people could decide questions of that nature.
In some ways this is a bill to eliminate bad news emanating from the Legislature, such as when the veracity of statements made by persons of the cabinet are cause for some confusion when they say one thing one day, then say the exact opposite the next day, but some member of the opposition gets thrown out of the House for accusing them of deviating with unerring accuracy from the truth.
AN HON. MEMBER: You mean that this is a bad-news bill?
MR. NICOLSON: I think this is a bad-news bill. Some people might argue, from the government side, that it is a good-news bill, but that's the type of thing that the people of this province should have six months to decide. Do they feel that the only types of things that should come into the Legislature are special appropriations bills? Other bills like the Homeowner Grant Amendment Act in which each year….
There will be a Legislature, sure, Mr. Speaker. If the people in their wisdom, after six months of listening to the pros and cons, and if the feedback to the government is: "Sure, go right ahead with this; you should have those powers; we love you and we trust you," well, then the government goes ahead with the bill and they bring it in.
If they feel that the Legislature is just to be here to raise the homeowner grant an extra $10, $20 or $30 every year, and there can be the news go out from that, and that's good news, and the opposition will vote for it and the government will vote for it, and everybody will vote for it…. Then, of course, there is the Community Recreational Facilities Fund; then they'll bring in a bill like the Greenbelt Protection Fund and maybe appropriate some more funds to the Greenbelt Protection Fund and various things like that — that is what the Legislature would become.
I think that is what the Legislature is, Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions such as maybe in Washington state. I notice when I look at some of the proceedings down in Arizona, and the types of bills that are brought into that House and the things that are debated there….
MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please return to the amendment which is before the House?
MR. NICOLSON: To hoist the bill for six months, Mr. Speaker. By the way, Mr. Speaker….
MR. SPEAKER: Could I suggest to the hon. member that his debate has to be relevant to the amendment which is before the House? It has nothing to do with other jurisdictions outside of Canada or anywhere else, or outside of the province of British Columbia. It's a matter of zeroing in on the reasons why you, as an individual member of the House, feel this bill should be hoisted for six months.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: It is very narrow, Hon. Member, in terms of your debate.
MR. NICOLSON: Yes. Well Mr. Speaker, I certainly didn't get into the Taghum Bridge on this one or Notre Dame University.
Interjection.
MR. NICOLSON: I've tried to narrow the field to things which I feel…. Just because I have a smile on my face, Mr. Speaker, don't think that I'm not serious about this, because this bill should be hoisted. It should be hoisted for more than six months — I'll tell you that.
I am, Mr. Speaker, trying to keep a rather even kind of frame of mind toward this debate. I'm not trying to raise my voice, as I am very well capable of doing, particularly under the face of constant interruption.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.
MR. NICOLSON: What I have been discussing, Mr.
[ Page 2882 ]
Speaker, are some of the things that could happen if this bill was hoisted for six months. If the bill is run through the House in the next couple of days, certainly the people in Nelson-Creston aren't going to have the opportunity of really becoming informed. How many people have received copies of this bill? Has it been printed in the Unity News, Mr. Speaker? How many people even in the Social Credit Party have had the opportunity of scrutinizing the detail of this bill?
HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Peter McNeill has printed it in his column.
Interjections.
MR. NICOLSON: Peter Hyndman hasn't seen this bill, I am informed, Mr. Speaker. So it is a cause for concern.
Just this evening revelations were made…
MR. LEA: Did Phil Gaglardi see this bill?
MR. NICOLSON: …concerning the urgency for this bill by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). That will be the subject of some news and some discussion and some editorial comment, but that bill could well have been ramrodded through committee stage and third reading and His Honour could be brought in here before the people would know.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Hitler dissolved their equivalent of parliament. Others have suspended the constitution before the people have had a chance to know what has….
MR. SPEAKER: Could I draw to your attention, Hon. Member, that you are on your final two minutes?
MR. NICOLSON: That's regrettable, Mr. Speaker. Who is our designated speaker?
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): We haven't had one.
MR. NICOLSON: We haven't had our designated speaker yet, Mr: Speaker, but….
MR. SPEAKER: Not on an amendment, Hon. Member.
MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?
MR. SPEAKER: Not on an amendment.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. NICOLSON: I won't challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But in spite of the fact that I have a smile on my face, I have a sad heart to be speaking to this bill. I just hope that the government would really take the Legislature and take the system — the very delicate system that they have — a little bit more seriously than they have shown to date. I would hope that maybe some of the attitudes of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would prevail upon the minister who has conduct of this bill and, like the Societies Act, this could be held over to another session in order that the people of this province really understand the full impact and in order maybe that some of those government members over there might understand the full impact of this travesty that they have brought into the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to speak in this debate, but I do rise to speak against the amendment to hoist Bill 59, the Government Reorganization Act.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated there was nothing like this Act in the British Commonwealth. I would like to read excerpts from a few Acts from a few jurisdictions which I believe fall within the British Commonwealth. The first one I would like to read from is the Province of Alberta. It is called Bill 110. In the definitions it states in this Act…
MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Order! Order!
MR. VEITCH: …that appropriation means an expropriation of public moneys of the province. Enactment means an Act or any portion of an Act. It goes on to describe the ministers and their duties and their functions and that they can be moved from one portfolio to another. It states that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order transfer the administration of any enactment from one minister to another or transfer the administration at any part of the public service from one minister to the other.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you please relate your remarks to the amendment which is before us?
MR. VEITCH: I will be relating it to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: It would be of assistance to the
[ Page 2883 ]
Chair if you would do that very quickly.
MR. VEITCH: Oh, I'll do it very rapidly, Mr. Speaker. I would hope you would give me the same latitude as you gave the previous speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I am trying, Hon. Member.
MR. VEITCH: Thank you. And the same amount of logic, of course.
Interjection.
MR. VEITCH: Oh, yes. This afternoon speaking in the debate the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) said:
"We find people who are tremendously concerned when they see that by this one statute authority and moneys can be voted for the protection of the environment and can be moved from one department to the other. 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."
I want to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, and I want to refer to another Act in another province which will relate to this, and to show why this bill should not be hoisted. It says:
"The Lieutenant-Governor may appoint under the Great Seal" — of this particular province — "from among the members of the executive council, in addition to the officers presented, any officer to hold office at his pleasure, during the time of his tenure."
It goes further to say:
"Where the administration of an Act, or any portion of an Act, or any portion of the public service is transferred to a member of the executive council under subsection 3, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also transfer to the member for the administration the whole or any part of the moneys appropriated for the Act or any part of the public service."
That's the province of Saskatchewan. It was passed on May 5, 1972, and it's Bill 171.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.
MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we get on with the business of the House and reject this nonsense that we have before us.
MR. LAUK: I'm sure that several members on the opposite side, if they decided to rise in their place as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has done, would be able to point out that there are other jurisdictions, even within the Commonwealth, that have some powers. The ones that he particularly described, Mr. Speaker, were already present in British Columbia prior to the introduction of Bill 59. But there other jurisdictions. Of course, you could even find a jurisdiction other than in the Commonwealth that may have extraordinary powers. From time to time, the national government employs the emergency powers Act. The only party that voted against it was the New Democratic Party. You'll find from time to time that the only party, really, that I'm aware of in Canadian history that stood against an anti-democratic measure by a dictatorial government, against even the popular feeling of the country, has been the CCF — New Democratic Party.
Let's put it this way: what we're concerned about on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and why we ask this amendment pass, is that every action in a democratic system should be a public action.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. LAUK: Every action should be a public action. I ask not that the government look at what's happened in the past, I ask not the government to look at other regimes, governments, be they NDP, Social Credit, Coalition, Liberal, Conservative, and look for some solace there. I ask them to consider the principle that is under attack in the latter part of the 20th century in democratic countries all over the world, There's more secretiveness in government now than ever before. There is more backroom government, Star Chamber judgments going on than ever before in the history of the democratic process. A great democracy in the United States, with tremendous traditions, has given rise to none other than a Watergate scandal in the United States, a most mammoth coverup. The idea is public view. The idea is that legislation….
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: The idea….
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Has anyone got an idea? (Laughter.)
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: May I have at least your attention, Mr. Speaker? Are you listening?
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the idea behind the
[ Page 2884 ]
opposition to this bill is that we are arguing for a public debate on major changes of structure in government. The departments, be they established or disestablished…that's an interesting word. I suppose if we are opposed to this bill we become the antidisestablishmentarians.
Sure it can be argued, as the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has stated, that this is more efficient. It takes up less time of the government machinery. It certainly takes up less time in the legislative chamber, but we should remind ourselves — all of us hon. members here — that the Legislature is the people. This assembly, through our democratic institution, represents the people. The cabinet doesn't represent the people. The cabinet is the government. The only body in our parliamentary system that represents the people and is the people is the Legislative Assembly or the House of Commons.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's apart from the people themselves.
MR. LAUK: I ask you to juxtapose two major issues that have happened in democratic countries in the last five years. One incident was a major scandal involving two or three years of inquiry by the Congress in the United States — two committees of both Houses — to uncover one of the most elaborate presidential coverups and plots in the history of that country. Finally he was forced to resign, after two or three years. Then look at the prime ministership of Willy Brandt — a parliamentary system where one of his close aides was implicated in an espionage allegation and he immediately resigned.
The contrast is this, Mr. Speaker: the British parliamentary system requires that the government — not the people, but the government — is answerable to the people in this chamber. Their actions must be exposed to this assembly. It must be argued. We must discuss the issues; we must discuss their legislation; we must discuss their programmes and their spending. It must be in this chamber.
That does not mean that we should have all of the secrets of cabinet laid open in this House; it does not mean that we should know all about the movements of each cabinet minister in their private lives. No. But what we must know in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, is what their programmes are. We must be able to approve, on behalf of the people, their legislative programmes, their changes in structure of government, their establishments of departments and their use of public funds.
[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]
That's why I argue that the full implications of this statute are not realized yet by the members opposite, and that a six-month hoist would be very beneficial to them. Yes, this system is inconvenient to the government. I remember sitting on that side of the House and becoming irritated from time to time at having to put up with a noisy, obstructionist, harping, critical opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LAUK: I remember all of us who were sitting in cabinet were very, very upset at the opposition. It was inconvenient; it was uncomfortable to be put in the hotseat during question period or during estimates — and we weren't happy about that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now can we get back to the principle of the amendment, which has nothing to do with the previous administration.
MR. LAUK: No, I am pointing out that however inconvenient to have the Legislature review the structures proposed by the government of the day, it is a good system that brings justice and democracy to the people of British Columbia.
Okay, the opposition is not always right when we're opposing legislation of the government. I'm not saying we're always right in our judgment. We take the position that we think is in the public good; you take a position that you think is in the public good, or that portion of the public you claim to represent — big business. Nevertheless, I'm willing to say that your intentions are good, and I'm not saying that we're always right. What I am saying is that the debate must occur in here. The public must have a view, through the press and through Hansard, of all government actions that will directly affect the public. That's why I think it's important. Sure, it's inefficient; sure, it would take less time; sure, it's an inconvenience. It would be more convenient to have a backroom government without public view. But when Thomas More was a judge…. Thomas More, the judge, do you remember him?
Interjection.
MR. LEA: Your dad bought you the leadership.
MR. LAUK: Graham, I'm talking about Thomas More. Now pay attention.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. LAUK: Thomas More, the judge.
Interjections.
MR. LAUK: Thomas More was being attacked by the king, King Henry VIII. He was protecting the law of the land, and he said that the rule of law must
[ Page 2885 ]
prevail, not the king. He didn't say that the rule of law was more efficient; he didn't say it was more convenient. But he did say it was just; he did say it would hold the society together in the long term, and it would survive.
What did Churchill say to Hitler and Mussolini? Did he say, yes our democratic system is inconvenient and yours is more efficient — sorry? Of course it's inconvenient; certainly it's inefficient. But the people have a voice in their legislative chamber, and any encroachment upon that voice, any encroachment on that right, that privilege of the democratic system, is a fatal one. Every one is a fatal one. You cut down tree after tree — as Thomas More says — you cut each law down, each convention, each protection down until the wind howls through the valley without protection, and no one is safe…
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now, Hon. Member, if we may turn….
MR. LAUK: …and no one is represented….
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LAUK: Oh, don't be pompous! You know perfectly well I'm talking to the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LAUK: You know perfectly well I'm talking about the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
[Deputy Speaker rises. ]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated?
Interjection.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
Interjection.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's obvious to the Chair that the material the member is covering is perhaps somewhat far afield from the motion. The amendment is somewhat more restricted than the main question. I'd like to draw this to the member's attention again, and will continue to remind the member until his remarks are at least somewhat near the amendment.
[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]
MR. LAUK: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that these issues of parliamentary democracy are not understood by the members opposite. The opposition feels duty-bound to bring it to their attention. That is why we feel a six-month period of time for them to consider these principles will bring them to their senses and they'll withdraw the bill, as they must do.
MS. BROWN: It's no guarantee, but it's worth a try.
MR. LAUK: No one argued, from time immemorial, as I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that the democratic system, the Legislative Assembly, the House of Commons was the most efficient one. No one said it was the most convenient. More didn't say that to King Henry VIII and Churchill didn't say that to Mussolini. From Athens to Westminster and from Plato to John Stuart Mill and John Diefenbaker, no one has ever claimed that the democratic system is the most efficient. No one has ever claimed that it saves time, and that's the point that I want to get across to them. But I do argue, as others argued, including Winston Churchill, that this system is the best possible democratic system and this bill must be looked at as an encroachment upon the democratic rights of the Legislative Assembly.
What about the privileges of the House that are affected by this bill? They're not the privileges of the members of the opposition; they're not the privileges of all of us together. As Edward Blake said, the privileges of parliament are the privileges of people. The rights of parliament are the rights of the Canadian people.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Edward Blake — you know who he was?
HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): He lives over on Lonsdale Avenue.
MR. LAUK: That's right.
MR. LEA: He wouldn't join the Socreds.
AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't join the NDP either.
MR. LAUK: The rights and privileges that are offended by this Act don't belong to this chamber alone; they belong to the people as a whole as their rights. Of course that issue is obscured.
The government asks us to trust them with this kind of legislation. It's not a question of trust. They must remember that all power is a trust, and that you are accountable to this chamber and to the people through this chamber. That's where all the power
[ Page 2886 ]
comes from in a democratic state: the people. Those are the principles we're talking about in subparagraphs A, B and C of section 12, the proposed amendment to the Constitution Act. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about whittling away the Canadian democratic system through the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies of the provinces. When that happens it's one step from there to a one-man government, answerable to no one.
We don't know what circumstances will exist in this province in years to come. It was a shock to us all that Indira Gandhi suspended elections in the Indian democracy. It's a shock to us all, from time to time, when people even in Canada take high-handed actions through emergency powers and other measures. We don't know that. We're not equipped with crystal balls. We don't know the future — we're not clairvoyants.
One day there'll be a time when someone might thank us for putting up a resistance to this encroachment upon the constitution, upon the democratic institutions of government. I know they're not appreciated now. I know that the Marie Antoinette of the coalition government described us as being fairly frivolous — I guess she's reserving "frivolous" for some other day.
This is an attitude that's held predominantly by the frontbenchers over there — that this is just a very soft housekeeping measure. The Attorney-General, who must be a minister protecting all the laws, the conventions and the democratic institutions of our province, is very amused. Just off the racquet court, popping in with a "tennis, anyone?" attitude, he says: "Oh, well, how can you give us that dreary argument on this bill? It's just housekeeping, you poor fellow!" Well, it's a typical dilettantish attitude toward government, a back-of-the-hand treatment to the democratic institutions that have been fought for so many years.
Sure, it's all cliches. You stand up and you argue about parliament and how it came about and how many people fought and died and argued and lost for those principles to protect the Legislative Assembly's integrity, its rights and privileges on behalf of the people. It sounds like it's very cliched, but it's only in this chamber where it all comes to rest. There'd be chaos everywhere in British Columbia society if it wasn't for this room. I know that's hard for you to believe. I know it doesn't seem like there's much rational debate, that there's much order in this House, but this room stands between order and chaos, Mr. Speaker, and this bill whittles away the power that this room has and this room represents. So I urge everyone to support the amendment.
MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we've had the opportunity of hearing the government defend the reasons why this bill is necessary. There have only been two spokespersons from the government side against the motion to hoist: one, a cabinet minister who referred only to section 6, relating to a leasing arrangement that we have no knowledge of.
We've seen no draft of those leasing arrangements; we have no idea what the purchase price is, and he's asking us, on his confined remarks to that section, to hurry up and get it through so he can shuffle through his deal, whatever that may be. We don't know what that deal is.
MR. GIBSON: He's not even here.
MR. BARRETT: No, he's not even here. He's in a hurry to go and read the documents that we don't have the privilege of seeing even though it's the public's money. That's just one part of the bill. The other was a stirring defence from the member for Burnaby (Mr. Veitch) who obviously has been put in the front lines because the cabinet itself is not prepared to defend this legislation, so they throw him in.
Mr. Member, I refer you to chapter 71 of our own constitution, section 10, that covers what you were describing in Alberta and other provinces; we already have that power in British Columbia.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's inappropriate.
MR. BARRETT: The lawyer member over there says that it's inappropriate. Then, for goodness' sake, please stand up in this House and say to this House why it's necessary to have this legislation. Just to call across the floor and say that it's inappropriate, it's not necessary, means to me, Mr. Speaker, through you, that if he were still sitting in the opposition, in the Liberal Party, he would be the first one up standing fighting against this bill against Social Credit. He would be the first one. If his conscience pricks him to the point that he must interrupt, then stand up and speak on the motion to hoist. I'll wait for you with pleasure, Mr. Member, to see your convoluted arguments that come out after you've changed your policies and changed your party.
Interjections.
MR. BARRETT: section 10 says:
"Any powers and duties assigned by law to any of the officials constituting the executive council of British Columbia may from time to time by order-in-council be assigned and transferred, either for a limited period or otherwise, and to any other said officials by name or otherwise."
It's right there in our statutes. The authority is there
[ Page 2887 ]
to do it.
If it is a matter of just correcting the changes that the government wishes to make in the cabinet, which is fair enough, then let them bring in specific legislation amending the Constitution Act so that each step they want to change is discussed here in the House and routinely passed. But to use as an argument that this bill must rush through to validate what they've done when the Act that we are asked not to hold up for six months gives them the power to do anything they want to do, notwithstanding any Act, to the cabinet or to the votes of this House, that's the key to why this has to be hoisted. That's the key.
We're not opposed to any reorganization of the cabinet. For goodness' sake, any government at any time may wish to do that and may have reasons to do that, and all they have to do is bring in legislation to do it specifically. But why this huge, sweeping bill? Why this huge sweeping bill — from May to November? If you don't know your mind after one reorganization of cabinet for another eight or nine months, all you have to do is call the House back together again, because we should have full-year sittings with adjournment anyway. If you want to do it, call us back for a day or two. There won't be an air traffic controllers' strike every day of the year; we can get back here. If you want to change it, go ahead and change it, but don't use any argument that somehow you need these wide legal powers to overcome….
Interjection.
MR. BARRETT: I'm coming to that point too. Don't use the argument that somehow you need this immediate power. Absolute nonsense! You have the power already to delegate and designate within the constitution. What are we saying to hoist for six months? We are saying to hoist this bill because of two sections specifically, before the other minister threw in the one he was concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention this particular line: "Notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the organization of the executive government and the various departments or ministries" at any time. All right. Do you want that sweeping power? Change the number of cabinet ministers; send some out; bring some in; change the titles. Do you want all that power? Do you really need all that power all year, round? Is it that important to have that at your fingertips 24 hours a day? I don't think so. Certainly not at the risk of basic constitutional rights in this country that relate to the performance of the duties in the next particular section of this bill. This section says:
"…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…."
That's why, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) raised the question of message bills and the authorization of the expenditure of money.
There is absolutely no reason why a government with an overwhelming majority cannot pass votes in this House for any department that it wishes to have. Why should it need, why is it necessary, after having gone through the exercise in the House, to have more overwhelming power to move votes in any direction at any time they want, or to disestablish a department, Mr. Speaker? Do you mean to say that we have a prolonged debate on any particular vote only to know that vested power exists with the cabinet to disestablish that vote and wipe it out and transfer it somewhere else and make a mockery of the whole debate on the estimates?
MR. KING: Exactly!
Mr. Speaker, there is a question of the wording of this bill and its legal implications, notwithstanding any Act. In the opening of our own constitution, chapter 71, section 8 says: "The executive power continues the same, unaltered by this Act, as it existed on the 14th day of February, 1871, subject to provisions of the British North America Act, sections 58, 60, 61, 62, 66 and 67."
Mr. Speaker, legislation that has tampered with the British North America Act has been the subject of great historical debate leading to legal action against the specific legislation in many legislatures throughout this country. The BNA Act has wide overwhelming power of disallowance that on occasion has had to be used by the federal government because the provinces, through their lack of wisdom and foresight, have rammed through legislation without thinking of the legal consequences or the conflict with the basic freedoms guaranteed by the British North America Act.
One of the most outstanding cases in point, because there was not a delay, was the federal disallowance of the Alberta Press Act. Mr. Speaker, that bill was disallowed by the federal government because it had taken away freedoms guaranteed to legislators through the British North America Act, and the federal parliament in its wisdom disallowed the Press Act. The Press Act was passed by Social Credit in Alberta. It was an attempt to censor the press and it was found that it was denying freedom in this country.
[ Page 2888 ]
What you're doing is saying that you want to take legislative authority for this executive chamber unto itself, behind the green door, make any changes you want in the cabinet or the expenditures without having to come to this House to account. If that is not what you're saying, then what do you need the bill for? If it's not true, then have the common courtesy to the people of this province to bring your changes in every single legislative session, instead of giving sweeping powers to do anything you want through order-in-council.
The federal government in the case against the Press Act referred back to the BNA and it said to the province of Alberta, and it quoted directly from Justice Davis…. It quoted the first paragraph of the preamble of the British North America Act, and it pointed out that with all good intentions of all hon. ministers, through you Mr. Speaker, you cannot tamper with the basic freedoms of the people of this country.
"Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, have expressed the desire to be federally united in the one dominion under the Crown, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom…."
And that's why I'm not too anxious to see the BNA return.
There is a safeguard in the very preamble of the BNA to say that our constitution must at least by in line with the United Kingdom constitution and the mother of parliaments. There are examples throughout this to show where disallowance has taken place because legislation like this was not thought out legally, was not tested by constitutional lawyers, but was presented as "housekeeping."
I know very well that they would never trust us with this kind of sweeping power. That is very true. They would never have trusted us with this kind of sweeping power. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why should we trust them with the same kind of sweeping power? Because we're talking about power that rests with the ordinary people, not with the executive of the day, not with the ministers of the day, not with the whim of a Premier of the day, but ongoing principles that were established at Houses of Commons throughout the Commonwealth and have given us our own BNA Act on which to model.
I don't want anybody going around this province saying "Oh, well, trust me," because other people say: "Don't trust them." It's not a question of trust or distrust. It's a question of responsibility to tradition. I say, Mr. Speaker, that unless we hoist this we are headed for a case of disallowance. It is a case of disallowance in the federal court that could easily be made.
The federal government could combine its power of disallowance with its authority under the Supreme Court Act to refer provincial legislation to the supreme court for adjudication. Thus the federal government, invoking its power of disallowance, could reserve a questionable provincial statute and thereby prevent it from coming into effect. What harm would there be, Mr. Speaker, to set this bill aside for six months and inquire from the federal government whether or not they view this as a case for disallowance?
Certainly you're not deliberately setting up a situation, Mr. Speaker, that you want a confrontation with the federal government. We were told all you wanted simply was the power to establish new executive council positions. If you really believe that, then bring in a bill saying what executive council positions you want to create and we'll debate those and you'll pass them. But don't ask us in the face of other things that have gone on throughout the world, like the friendly member for Vancouver Centre said, to come into this House and give you sweeping authority to do anything you want.
The six-month hoist would at least allow consultation with federal Department of Justice officials to find out whether or not there would be a case for disallowance. The present Attorney-General when he was an opposition member used to give us lengthy discourses on preserving freedom in this House. Yes, they were very lengthy, very well documented and a very small bill — not a measure of their worth in the bill that you presented, Mr. Member, but certainly a small bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting extensively from an article called "The Protection of Our Birthright," reprinted by the Winnipeg Free Press which in 1954 compiled these particular arguments because of an insidious case in Quebec and the denial of freedom to Jehovah's Witnesses that was so successfully fought by a CCF lawyer at that time.
"The British North America Act of 1897, our Constitution, has four sections dealing with disallowance that need to be tested through a six-month hoist, in my opinion. Under sections 55, 56 and 57 the British government possessed power either directly to disallow or through the Governor-General to reserve for the Queen's pleasure any bill passed by the parliament of Canada."
Section 90 of the BNA Act vests in the Canadian Governor-in-Council — that is the federal cabinet — precisely the same power, Mr. Speaker, and with that power, unless we have a six-month hoist, we will find this bill in front of the federal cabinet — precisely the same power with regard to provincial bills as the British government had with respect to federal bills, with the exception of the time limit which is one year instead of two years. That is, the federal cabinet, within one year of the enactment of any bill by a
[ Page 2889 ]
provincial Legislature, may disallow or annul it by order-in-council, or the federal cabinet may instruct the Lieutenant-Governor of any province to reserve the Queen's pleasure on any bill that may be enacted.
You are asking the Lieutenant-Governor to sign a bill that may be in direct contradiction to his own instructions under his role in the BNA Act as has already been defined in previous cases. It's not as if it were something new. There's been a definition in previous cases where disallowance has taken place.
One could even define this bill in the section dealing with "notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the organization of the executive government…." One could go so far, Mr. Speaker, to make the case notwithstanding any Act, notwithstanding the Lieutenant-Governor, you could sweep the powers into the cabinet and do anything you want by order-in-council. "Notwithstanding any Act, " Mr. Speaker. In light of what is already known and disallowance under the BNA, they wish to persist with this on the simple argument that all they want to do is change a few departments and change a new section in the cabinet.
If that's all you want to do, bring in a bill to do it, but you don't need all this fearful power. Now it's all right to go in the corridor and tell reporters: "Oh, no, we really don't read it that way, " or "we really don't intend to do it that way." Good intentions pave the road to you-know-where, Mr. Speaker — you know better than anyone else in this House where good intentions pave the road to. There is no way that I intend to take that path to legislative you-know-where. Let someone else judge who is going on that path. But let law be law; let freedom be freedom; let protection be protection, regardless of whether it is Social Credit, NDP or come-by-chance — as half that cabinet is made up of.
In contrast with the record of disallowance, the federal government has been involved in disallowance. The right of the Dominion government in Ottawa to disallow and reserve the legislation of every provincial Legislature is just as real and potent today as it was in 1867. That's why it was written in 1867. That's why the safeguard was put there, so that no small group anywhere in any Legislature would take unto themselves the power which this particular bill says that this government wants.
In 1909 there was another case — when Sir Alan Aylesworth was the Minister of Justice. The occasion was a bill passed by the Ontario Legislature dealing with mining. He said at that time:
"As I am willing to go this far in annunciation of the views that I am stating in this House, that a provincial Legislature having, as it is given to by the terms of the British North America Act, full and absolute control over the property and civil rights within the province, I might, if I saw fit to do so, repeal Magna Carta itself."
The reference to Magna Carta in a disallowance case in Canada refers to not only what the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is saying, but even to a further section in the Magna Carta.
The members may think that this is just a simple matter of housekeeping. Why the big fuss? What's the reason for delay? We're talking about a very serious delegation of power to a small group of people who may be same today, but by pressures of office may not qualify for that particular description tomorrow. Why should we give them this power when no other jurisdiction does? When referring back to Magna Carta itself, Mr. Speaker, there is a particular section dealing very, very well about the point of power and concentrated power. section 14 of the Magna Carta talked about bringing councils of knights together. I won't read the old English, Mr. Speaker, but I will read the translation as it relates to this particular bill. Section 14: "…and in order to have the common council of the realm…." Remember, this was in 1215, Mr. Speaker, outlining the very basis of our parliament as it is today — long before socialism, long before private enterprise. Long after will this system live and we must protect this system, regardless of what political party we subscribe to.
Section 14: "In order to have the common council of the realm…" — that is the people coming together, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me just remind you that it was covered earlier this afternoon, but please proceed.
MR. BARRETT: No, she read section 12.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And 14.
MR. BARRETT: No.
"In the matter of addressing and aid otherwise than the aforesaid cases, or of assessing escuage, we shall cause, under the Seal, through our letters, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons to be summoned for a fixed day, for a fixed term, namely at least 40 days distant for a fixed place.
"Moreover, we shall cause to be summoned in general through our sheriffs and bailiffs all those who hold us in chief" — that is, the MLAs in current language, Mr. Speaker — "and in all these letters of summons we shall express the cause of summons" — why the MLAs are called together — "and when the summons has thus been made, the business shall be proceeded with on the day appointed according to the council of those who shall be present, even
[ Page 2890 ]
though not all shall come who are summoned."
Even though the cabinet sat out for most of this debate, they were summoned; they were to have a chance to participate, and we are sitting here. What this legislation is saying is that you are going to take away that right of the common people — who pay the taxes, who pay the bills — to scrutinize every single dollar after they take it back in the green room and change it.
What irony that this group ran around this province saying that they were the defenders of freedom! What irony that they ran around saying, "Not a dime without debate"! Now the slogan has changed; it's "Not a debate on any dime," Mr., Speaker. They'll do it behind the green doors any way they want to.
Mr. Speaker, even if they don't do it, what is there to be above suspicion that they are doing it? What is there to cause some dissident backbencher who did not, because of overwhelming ambition but through lack of talent, make the cabinet...what is there to stop him from saying that something is going on back in there that he should know about? Perhaps one of them may even find themselves on the way back to the Liberal Party because of disappointment.
I don't understand, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier says in the corridor that what the opposition is saying is not what is intended in this bill, then why doesn't the Premier withdraw the bill and bring in exactly what he wants to do instead of all this power? What's wrong with that? If you want to do x, y and z, bring in a bill to do x, y and z, but don't go out in the corridor and say that you don't want all of this power and that it is being misinterpreted, and not withdraw the bill.
The cabinet members have not participated in this debate — except one cabinet minister who got up on section 6 and said: "Oh, I need to get the lease through," which we haven't even read. Are you telling us, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that's the way you want to do business? We don't even get to read the lease; the newspapers don't get to read the lease; nobody gets to read the lease. It's like Damon Runyon and the old crap game — get the tallest guy in the room, get everyone else down on their knees, put the dice in a hat, look in yourself and call out the numbers. Damon Runyon had it all figured out; he never lost a crap game after he got Mr. Tall.
Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we're being asked to do: everybody down on their knees, they'll put the dice in a hat and call out the numbers. And we are being irresponsible if we ask: is that a correct reading? Why, it might even be called a point of order — and you can't do that too often, especially if you've crapped out on the dice.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You want a glass-bottomed hat.
MR. BARRETT: A glass-bottomed hat. I find it absolutely incredible that this major debate should take place without a single cabinet minister giving a justification up to now.
MR. LEA: Nor the Premier.
MR. BARRETT: But there are statements in the corridor, statements to the press. But the only way to clean it up is to come in and say: "This is exactly what we want to do. We don't need all the sweeping power. We've got enough power in the constitution as it exists."
Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this matter found itself forwarded to the federal cabinet. I wouldn't be surprised if the precedent of disallowance by the federal cabinet could be easily applied to this bill. I say a six-month hoist would allow us the time to have authoritative legal counsel examine this bill and tell us that these sweeping powers do not conform to the BNA. There is absolutely no legislative authority that this government needs that it is not capable of having to settle the particular cabinet changes it wants to make.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, without a hoist, and with the passage of this bill, for the first time in the history of this province, at a time when government is more complex, more diversified, more confusing to the average citizen, the cabinet wants more power to say that "regardless of where the Legislature said a certain expenditure and a certain vote should go, we're going to change it any way we want."
We are talking about a basic matter of freedom and responsibility, the responsibility of elected officials back to those people who have given us the delegated authority to govern. People give up a great deal through the vote in a democracy. They say: for a period of time we are authorizing you, whom we vote for, to do our business and spend our money, to do it openly and honestly and to the best of your ability. But I do not believe that by the transfer of power through that vote they want the cabinet to have this kind of power, and that has been tested in the past with the British North America Act and found that the BNA has upheld those four basic principles of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, how can this government say that it is interested in protecting the rights of the individual? How can this government claim to say that it is just a housekeeping bill? How can they sit there in silence when the very sweeping powers in this bill would give the cabinet more power than any cabinet anywhere else in Canada? And the difference is in section 12B.
Yes, they have the powers, as the member for
[ Page 2891 ]
Burnaby-Willindon (Mr. Veitch) said. Yes, you read those sections right and we already have that power, through you, Mr. Speaker, here in British Columbia. But if the bill is not sinister, if the bill doesn't encroach on the freedoms, if the bill doesn't do all those things that the opposition's been saying, why doesn't the Premier stand up in here instead of in the corridor and say exactly what he intends to do with this power?
MR. LEA: Because he's afraid.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill has to be hoisted. It has to be tested legally. We have made two inquiries with constitutional counsel who indicate that this is a potential case of disallowance.
Why should this be rammed through now? It's their first year in office, they're fresh with the blush of victory, they ran on a campaign of freedom, they had the emotional support of some of the most hysterical editorials every written in this province in some newspapers. Now, seven months later, we have this kind of legislation — blank cheque, wide, sweeping powers, blinding authority, an embarrassment to people who left other parties, who like all converts become more committed to their conversion than the originals who were born into the faith of Social Credit, zealot commitment and zealot silence. Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous power. I'm suggesting that the only honourable way to deal with this matter is to hoist it for six months. Bring in specific legislation for any changes you want in the cabinet and we'll deal with those, but don't force us to leave this House with this kind of power behind us. It's not good for this province.
MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment and probably do it with a little bit of hesitation, being a new member in this House.
MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): So you should.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I read section 12B, which I think is the one the opposition is dealing so heavily upon, I would say this. As I see it, gentlemen, we approve the estimates of the various departments and the various ministers: The comment has been made: "Not a dime without debate." I think the estimates get fair debate and finally reach their approval. As I read 12B, Mr. Speaker, it states:
"Where, under section 10 or 12A, powers, duties and functions of an official, department, or ministry are transferred to another official, department, or ministry, 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 by and through the other official department, or ministry to which those powers, duties and functions are transferred and thereupon, that the money may be expended for those powers, duties and functions…."
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I read that….
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Finish it!
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, may I have order, please?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, may I have order in this House so I may finish it?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm trying to assist you, Hon. Member, if you'll just….
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we established, I think, an admirable precedent a few moments ago when the last member who was on his feet had excellent attention. Let's do the same for this member.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the last section of that paragraph, but the point I'm trying to make here is that estimates are debated and approved. They deal with money of the province of British Columbia and they deal with responsibility of ministers and officials. Should those powers and duties be transferred to another ministry or official, then the money has to be transferred to carry out the duties and functions to that new department or official. I see nothing heavy-handed; I see nothing out of the ordinary with that. No money is being spent on any other function or duty than was originally debated in the estimates, Mr. Speaker.
Dealing with the last part, as I see it — "and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied" — as I read that particular section, it does nothing more than to give authority to transfer those funds and make it legal for the transfer to be made and the funds expended as an agent to his master. It is no different in my mind. We are not using the money for any other duty or function that was debated in the estimates, Mr. Speaker, as I read that section.
[ Page 2892 ]
If that is not correct, I'd like somebody to point out to me how come the whole section applies with duties, functions and powers that are transferred and the money that goes with it.
MR. GIBSON: Sit down, Jim, and I'll tell you.
MR. HEWITT: All that it is saying is that we are giving the order-in-council the authority to act as the agent for its master, in my simple opinion, Mr. Speaker. There is no sweeping authority under this section.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!
MR. HEWITT: The opposition is making a prime effort at delaying debate in this House. In my mind, as a new member of this House, they've done it ably. We've wasted the time of this House on just a lot of absolute nonsense.
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the principle.
MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, section 12B, to me, is as clear and concise as it can be, and it is considerably, as far as I'm concerned, a smokescreen on the part of the opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
Interjections.
MR. HEWITT: It's delaying tactics, and I would like them to consider for a minute, when they read it in its entirety, that it doesn't do anything else but transfer duties, powers and functions from one department to another, if it is so deemed, and in doing that, it has to have the money to carry out those duties, functions and powers.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask them in all honesty and sincerity to withdraw the amendment.
MR. COCKE: Absolutely incredible!
MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the bill and against the amendment….
Interjections.
MR. KERSTER: Don't try to confuse me.
MR. LEA: Pretty hard to do.
MR. KERSTER: I'd like to first correct the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she said earlier today that this bill copied, verbatim, the Manitoba legislation.
MR. LEA: She didn't say that.
MR. KERSTER: This is the…. Read the Blues! The $100 million man should read the Blues instead of singing the blues.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please address the Chair.
MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member, he should read the Manitoba statutes and he would know that I'm quite correct in correcting that first member for Vancouver-Burrard.
MR. LEA: Except she didn't say that.
MR. KERSTER: She said that it was radical, it was destructive changing — just utter nonsense. The amendment is totally utter nonsense. That hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard also stated that Charles II — and this again is a correction, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the hon. member who is not in her seat — Charles II was continually at war with his counsellors. To quote her: "We should give thanks to him for the establishment of the cabinet system as we know it today." She says this bill threatens this system by sweeping constitutional changes threatening the constitution. Again that's nonsense. To correct her the parliamentary system as we know it is said to have begun with the reign of King William III, William of Orange, and the acceptance of the Declaration of Right, which was the great landmark in democratic government, but the parliamentary system owes its beginning to Robert Spencer, the Second Earl of Sunderland, famous for his complete unscrupulousness — you should recognize that, Mr. Member — and political ingenuity….
MR. NICOLSON: Where's the Mackenzie Valley?
MR. KERSTER: Oh, listen to Karl Marx over there!
It was he who pointed out to the Dutch monarch that if he chose his ministers from the strongest party in the House of Commons, then the party would have to back him in order to stave off the next election for as long as it could. This was the beginning of the two-party system as we know it, and that's the end of that lesson for the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the principle, please.
[ Page 2893 ]
Interjections.
MR. KERSTER: Listen, I'd rather look like Groucho Marx than sound like a retarded Karl Marx. (Laughter.) That's directed directly to that hon. member, the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson), through you, Mr. Speaker.
Again speaking to the amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), he said money spent other than — and this is a direct quote — "authorized by the Legislature," was the crux of this bill. Well, the member for Oak Bay also said that the transfer of powers and duties should be open to scrutiny and debate by the Legislature.
Bill 59 says simply that the government can transfer or combine ministerial duties without undue delays which may be inordinately costly — and all these delays are costly — to the taxpayers of this province. Historically, the opposition say, we have had open government. Well, this legislation doesn't change one thing in that respect. As the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) stated, the bill is simply a housekeeping bill, which disturbed him, because he says: "We're overhauling the legislative system, doing away with the Legislature." Again, utter nonsense. He should know better. It's the same old fear tactics and convoluting that's been engaged in by that double-standard opposition, Mr. Speaker.
Also, you know, we've heard the term "Not a dime without debate."
MR. GIBSON: That's right. Who said that?
MR. KERSTER: All through the discussion of this amendment we've heard that term — or this proposed amendment — "Not a dime without debate." Many times during this afternoon's discussions this came up.
However, if the opposition was interested in being constructive for a change instead of destructive, through you, Mr. Speaker, to them, they would either read the bill or have some of their learned colleagues who are barristers read it or ask, if they can't understand the bill themselves, for some sort of consultation and constructive criticism of the bill from barristers who can understand it.
The democratic rights of this Legislature and of the people of this province are not curtailed by this bill. The opposition alarm, through their amendment expressed so sanctimoniously today, is just another of their false alarms. The changing of the duties of a minister by order-in-council is hardly a threat to democracy — rather a form of insurance that the best people will be doing the best possible job.
MR. LAUK: Where's your brother?
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. KERSTER: That's a switch that cost that particular opposition the government. It put them where they are today.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who are the best people?
MR. LAUK: Where's your brother?
MR. KERSTER: Well, the estimates are the extent of the expenditures and they're passed by the Legislative Assembly. I don't think that if a minister assumes some of the duties of another minister, a transfer of funds allotted under the original estimates to the minister who is assuming those new or additional duties, is any threat to democracy. But then I wouldn't want to muddy up the waters of the opposition's debate on this amendment by suggesting that for once they inject a little pinch of common sense or logic into their line of debate. That would be terrible. That would be some sort of impugning their what-do-you-call-it.
AN HON. MEMBER: That would be asking too much.
MR. KERSTER: Now they suggest that we should have the unanimous support of this bill. They should bow their heads in shame that they've been responsible for such irresponsible waste of time by introducing this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're anti-democratic, my friend.
MR. KERSTER: The people's money is being wasted…
AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about democracy?
MR. KERSTER: …by obstructive, destructive tied-up debate on an amendment for the major part of this session, let alone this inane amendment to a very good bill.
MR. LAUK: Did they have democracy in Maui?
MR. KERSTER: Ask the hon. minister for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I'd like to remind that gentleman, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), that ignorance of the law excuses no man, particularly from practising it, as he well knows, even though he can't….
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
MR. KERSTER: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would make that reminder.
[ Page 2894 ]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.
MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, not to bother him; we need the votes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. Please proceed.
MR. KERSTER: Well, it appeared to answer the hon. member for Prince Rupert on the "he needs the votes."
MR. LAUK: Press on, George.
MR. KERSTER: It seems to me that I came through the front door of this Legislature and not on a parachute through the back door.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. LAUK: You came in on a coattail. You are going to leave feet first.
MR. KERSTER: Well, I'll tell you something. We had several people here. Talking to the amendment again, Mr. Speaker, talking to the opposition — we had many, many situations where they say that this bill is a destructive bill and this bill is creating problems, but we had four actual Ministers of Finance…. It was kind of a catch-as-catch-can Minister of Finance situation under the former government, and again, I would like to point out — and I would be happy to table these documents because they are orders-in-council and these are things that….
Interjection.
MR. KERSTER: The first member for Vancouver Centre, I suggest that a great many people think that they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their political prejudices.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. KERSTER: In that member's case, Mr. Speaker, through you to him, I think the prejudices of Bill 59 are not rearranged but rather…
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
MR. KERSTER: …disarranged.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member now to proceed to the amendment or else we may have to ask you to use different material.
MR. KERSTER: This is good material, Mr. Speaker. It is to the amendment. I will stick strictly to the amendment. To these orders-in-council approved on — let's see — July 2, 1973…. This was an order-in-council: "The undersigned has the honour to recommend the appointment of the hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources as acting Minister of Finance, made by order-in-council No. 2393, approved July 10, 1973."
MR. LAUK: You're an idiot.
MR. KERSTER: "That pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act" — and that is the sneaky part of the thing — "being chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, the hon. Minister of Education be appointed acting Minister of Finance while said hon. Minister of Finance is absent from the capital or unable from illness to perform his duties." This is signed by the Provincial Secretary. It wasn't signed by anyone else.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, I ask you for the third time: please move to the material that you have that is relevant to this amendment.
MR. KERSTER: Right, to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.
We've discussed this amendment and the fact that we were purported to be assuming some sort of dictatorial powers. I just wanted to point out, by way of correction and by way of clarifying the amendment, of the hypocrisy that has come out of this debate, and some of the convoluting and outright fabrications that have maybe misled the people of the province of British Columbia.
Now to the amendment: again I would point out that we've had four different Finance ministers without the assistance of a bill that would make such a situation a legal situation. We had the Minister of Human Resources as the acting Minister of Finance. The former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), the $100-million man — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the opposition — he was the Minister of Finance. Now, to me that is like putting an alcoholic into a bar as the bartender. But he was Minister of Finance. And there's another one right there, an order-in-council, and that was approved in April of 1974 — April 16.
Interjection.
MR. KERSTER: I think I'm making the former Health minister (Mr. Cocke) a little ill with this, because the truth is finally coming out. But then again, there is that connotation of this all the way through. Nevertheless, here's another order-in-council where we had another one: the hon. Minister of
[ Page 2895 ]
Labour, now the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) — and to the amendment, Mr. Speaker — was acting in the position of Finance minister, again by order-in-council, and not brought before this Legislative Assembly. Everybody was signing everything here.
Here we have a case where the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) was Minister of Finance on five different occasions. None of this was brought before this assembly; this was all done by order-in-council. So I just suggest that these people withdraw this stupid amendment and get down to the government's business. We're not here for laughs and conversation, like some of these comedians on the opposite side of the floor, through you, Mr. Speaker, and to the amendment, would have the people of this province believe. It's more convoluting, it's more academy award performance acting and nonsense, and I ask them to withdraw that amendment, or I wholeheartedly will vote against it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we recognize the next member, I'd like to draw to the attention of all hon. members that just saying in your speech the phrase "to the amendment" does not make the material relevant. Therefore when I interrupt any hon. member, which I hate to do, to remind him that his material is not relevant, really the next statement is that your material is out of order. I would trust that the members would take this advice.
MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, to the amendment. (Laughter.) Now that might be the only point on which I will say that, but I am glad to help you. (Laughter.)
You know, Mr. Speaker, presumably as members of the Legislature we do have to have some knowledge of how Acts are put together, and some background. I appreciate that the previous speaker was somewhat late in getting here and wasn't able to take advantage of the Speaker's orientation course. Maybe he was. If he was, he must have been asleep. But he made quite a point of going through the orders-in-council in terms of ministers who may be out of town, and then you have to have an acting minister. I don't really quite know what that had to do with the amendment, Mr. Speaker, but he made quite a point of that. Obviously he doesn't know the legislation; he doesn't understand the way the government is run, and he somehow thinks that when ministers leave town everybody herds and eight people run 17 portfolios.
But in terms of the research in terms of this, I think it is important that if the few government members who have got up to speak are going to use the argument that somehow there is a similarity between the legislation we have before us — the one that we want to hoist because of some very serious concerns…. So there's a suggestion that the legislation we have before us is similar to legislation that exists in other jurisdictions.
It is very difficult for the people on the other side to rely on the research as only the opposition does. I noticed that they spent quite a bit of time quoting from the Blues. I think a comparison between the bill we have in front of us, and our desire to have it hoisted, and a comparison of the legislation that is presently in force in Manitoba…. What is interesting in comparing the legislation is these two sections which give us a great deal of anxiety — on two occasions in the present bill the phrase "shall be deemed to be the official…" and then lower down in another section of the bill "…shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature." Now, in the Manitoba legislation, Mr. Speaker, those phrases do not appear.
We had a debate from the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and he was quoting the actual legislation before the House. He only went as far as actually putting in context of his quotation what was in the Manitoba legislation. I think it was only because we insisted that he continue with his quotation that we saw the difference. Of course, the previous speaker didn't have the benefit of going into the library and getting a copy of the Manitoba legislation, so he really wasn't aware that the legislation is vastly different. It is, in fact, as other speakers have said, extremely sweeping.
This evening what concerned me was that we had the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) getting up and telling us that we need this legislation almost at 10:55 or midnight because in a few days we're going to lose our chance of getting some kind of income tax opportunity as a result of dealing with the ferries. Well, we have previous legislation in this House in respect to the deficit financing bill that came before the House. We were told that it had to be passed within two days; otherwise the earth would collapse. Now we are told by the Minister of Transport and Communications that we have to do this now because otherwise we're going to lose out. We've had a series of pieces of legislation like this, and almost at the very last minute we're told that it's urgent and that it's in the very best interests of the province. It may be that it's in the best interests of the province….
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have a little less noise?
MR. LEVI: Well, it's a quarter to eleven, Mr. Speaker — they are getting a little tired.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just trying to help you, sir.
[ Page 2896 ]
MR. LEVI: They'll be okay. You and I can communicate. That's all that counts, as long as Hansard is listening.
If they're going to come and use the excuse, which really came out as a result of the minister happening to tell us all of a sudden why it is — this kind of brinkmanship legislation — that the only real reason for getting the legislation through now…this relentless driving, trying to get the legislation through at the last minute, when actually there was ample opportunity. Certainly from their point of view, if they wanted to have brought in a separate bill, that would have been a much better kind of thing. However, bringing in a separate bill might have just prolonged, presumably, the debates around the ferries which presumably are going to be debated in two or three areas of legislation, plus the minister's estimates.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the difference between the legislation is profound in terms of the impact of the legislation that we have before us. After all, it is not often in a bill that has come before this Legislature that we have such phrases as "who shall be deemed to be the official" and further down in section 12B, "and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature." Really what it is doing in that kind of statement — I'm not a lawyer and I was hoping the lawyers would get up and tell us — is that somehow in a post facto basis they are saying that what didn't exist before exists now because we say so in the legislation. This really, Mr. Speaker, is an exceedingly dangerous process. If, as they have said, that the legislation in their minds is similar to the Manitoba legislation, they would go with the Manitoba legislation, but they haven't, Mr. Speaker, gone with the Manitoba legislation. They've gone with a completely new piece of legislation.
We could benefit from some legal advice from the lawyers on the other side as to what these phrases mean. What is the intent of the phrase "shall be deemed" and the phrase "shall be conclusively deemed"? They sound very ominous. They sound exceedingly ominous. When the minister brought in the bill, she said it was a kind of a housekeeping bill, nothing too serious, but then when we start really looking at it and examining it, we will need to have from that minister a very clear explanation. But you know, Mr. Speaker, explanations are not forthcoming. That's why this amendment is before us — because if we don't have the time to examine exactly what the impacts of this legislation are, it will be too late. In any case, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, we appear to have here an excellent example of the kind of legislation in which we can approach the federal government to have them set it aside. That really is important to do that.
What we've had in the debate from some of the people on the other side is first of all to tell us that other legislation of other jurisdictions exists exactly like this. Well, that's not so, Mr. Speaker. That simply isn't so. This piece of legislation is unique. It's unique in its wording, and it's unique in its intent. Perhaps — we still have 15 minutes left before we adjourn, I hope — some of the members on the other side those two diabolical phrases mean, one being "shall be deemed" and the other being "shall be conclusively deemed." There's no way that they can get away with telling us, Mr. Speaker, that this is the same as other legislation, because it simply is not.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard just told us that this piece of legislation is unique, and indeed it is. The opposition has been making a case for the last several hours of debate in this House as to why it is so unique that it should be suspended for a period of six months before any action should be taken on it. I propose to comment specifically on the comments of the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) and the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and finally the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .
The Minister of Transport and Communications, who incidentally had an extraordinarily weak argument, I thought, was the only official representative of the government who has seen fit to speak on this particular amendment. To me that gives some information as to the ground that the government feels that it stands on.
The member for Coquitlam said, and I scribbled this down. I hope I quote him reasonably accurately. He said: "This legislation doesn't change one thing." Mr. Speaker, I think that the kindest thing I could say is that he has studied his subject from A to B, and that's about all. He wasn't listening to his own Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who told this House that among other things this legislation changes the fact that the rest of the bill wouldn't have had to be brought in at all, had the first section been in effect. What this legislation changes is that from now on, if it passes, the government will have the right to establish, disestablish and otherwise vary executive departments of government without let or hindrance or debate of any kind by this Legislature, and that's wrong.
MR. KERSTER: So it's been done by order-in-council for years. What are you talking about?
MR. GIBSON: An hon. member interjects across the floor: "So it's been done by order-in-council for years. What are you talking about?" It's very kind of him and generous to give us a lecture on parliamentary democracy, but the fact of the matter
[ Page 2897 ]
is that it has never been done by order-in-council in this province. It is not done by order-in-council in any province in this country. It is not done by order-in-council in the federal parliament. It is not done by executive order in the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that executive departments are not established and disestablished by executive order.
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.
MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're doing a splendid
job. Would that other hon. members opposite showed 10 per cent your
degree of perception, perspicacity and the many fine attributes…
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be very careful.
MR. GIBSON: …that you bring to the Chair.
The hon. member has kindly sent across some orders-in-council. They are very interesting here. Perhaps I should read them to further the progress of this debate. The first one seems to be out of Victoria, July 31, 1975, pursuant to section 24 of the Revenue Act. The Minister of Finance is certifying something. He is certifying that amount of tax shouldn't be paid and a refund is claimed under section 24 of the Revenue Act. What on earth does that have to do with this bill, Mr. Speaker? Is that an indication of the understanding that this hon. member brings to this bill — refunds under section 24 of the Revenue Act? Here is another page….
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are out of order.
MR. KERSTER: Who was the Minister of Finance?
MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand. Here is another section 24 of the Revenue Act. Again, the hon. member is saying across the floor: "Who was the Minister of Finance?" I have a pretty fair memory, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance in those days was the present second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). If you are talking about the acting Minister of Finance, the acting Minister of Finance of the day — I can't read his signature. He was a bad writer, whoever he was. But the acting Minister of Finance was provided for under the Constitution Act, Mr. Member, as it exists today. There is no need in this bill to provide for that. Acting ministers have been the custom and the rule in our province for many years while you were out of the province, but it nevertheless has been the law here,
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. Member. Please address the Chair and please make sure your remarks are in order.
MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was really doing my best. Then unfortunately these interjections come across the floor. But I did appreciate the lecture in parliamentary democracy we got from the hon. member for Coquitlam in any event.
We also heard in due course from the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) . But before going to him, I want to say something about the words of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), who thankfully is in the House at this particular moment and therefore….
AN HON. MEMBER: Thankfully?
MR. GIBSON: Yes, thankfully, in terms of this talk, Mr. Member.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.
MR. GIBSON: Therefore he will be able to explain his extraordinary remarks earlier on this evening. He gave what was represented as being the only consequential remarks of the government as to why there should not be a six-month hoist on this particular bill. His argumentation was that sometime within the next week there must be entered into a lease with a financial house, the Royal Trust-us, with respect to the ownership of the Queen of Coquitlam, a fine ship, Mr. Speaker, that was built only a few hundred yards from the boundary of my riding. (Laughter.) I attended the christening. Those were other days, Mr. Speaker — halcyon days, as they are now. But the minister said in any event that sometime within the next week if this Act didn't pass the province of British Columbia would lose $1 million. I say that's nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
HON. MR. DAVIS: I said $18 million, not $1 million.
MR. GIBSON: Eighteen million? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was $1 million — perhaps over the next year is what you meant.
HON. MR. DAVIS: A million a year.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GIBSON: The $1 million annual man.
[ Page 2898 ]
Mr. Speaker, I ask that minister two questions. Will he stand up in this House and table the documents that substantiate that claim? That's the first question, but that's really a pro forma question because I assume he has documentation and naturally, therefore, he will table it. That's excellent.
Interjections.
MR. GIBSON: He didn't pay his last fees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GIBSON: The second question is more important, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Oh, you're back, Mr. Speaker.
The second question is more important. What has changed in the last few days that puts a one-week deadline on that? The federal budget that the minister is concerned about came out some time ago. It put a deadline on these kinds of leasing arrangements. What else has changed recently? What is going to be different one week from now?
I ask that minister if he will stand up in this House and stake his seat on the fact that if this bill is not passed within one week British Columbia will lose $1 million in the next year. I say that if he will not stand up right now, before 11 o'clock — and we have five minutes left — and stake his seat on the fact that we will lose $1 million in the next year if this bill is not proved in the next week, then I say it's a fraud and sham and it's nonsense! The minister has but to nod his head to indicate that yes, he's going to stand up and certify to this House that he will stake his seat that if it isn't passed in the next week, we'll lose $1 million. That's all he has to do.
Interjections.
MR. GIBSON: That's all he has to do.
There's no nod of his head, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking across there. There's not a single motion of his head except some blinks of the eyeballs. He's nodding his eyeballs, Mr. Speaker — could that be what it means?
I say it's a fraud, Mr. Speaker. I say he was trying to politically blackmail this House with a one-week deadline. The one-week deadline is utter nonsense and a six-month hoist is a good idea.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Withdraw the word "fraud."
MR. GIBSON: I won't withdraw the word "fraud." It's a fraud, and you know it's a fraud, Madam Member. You stand up and make your own speech in this debate that you disagree with it; otherwise be quiet.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. member please address the Chair?
Interjections.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll address the Chair if the rest of the unruly members over there will do it.
MR. SPEAKER: The other unruly members do not have possession of the floor, Hon. Member.
MR. GIBSON: I certainly hope not, Mr. Speaker. It happens at times, but I hope not now.
Mr. Speaker, since I'm still looking at the Minister of Transport and Communications and he still hasn't nodded his head, I can only assume that he's not prepared to back up with action the nonsensical words that he gave to this House earlier on, so I will now turn to the remarks of the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) .
The hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen suggested that the powers to transfer votes between departments were well precedented. I would like to refer to him some of the precedents from the Mother of Parliaments which we take as our basic law as of the time of Confederation, unless our standing orders otherwise provide, or unless our law otherwise provides. I would first of all refer him to Erskine May, 18th edition, page 702, remarking on subdivision of votes. Subdivision of votes, of course, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the member, relates to the particular headings under which we vote through the estimates, as I'm sure he's well aware. In the Mother of Parliaments there are two parts to each vote. I think that one needs to remark that before making this particular quotation:
"Each vote is divided into two parts:
"Part I specifies the services for which the estimate is presented and the net amount of the grant demanded from Parliament.
"Part II sets out under subheads the items of expenditure and receipts (if any) which make up the total amount specified in Part I, gives comparable figures for the previous year, names the department which will account for the expenditure of the grant under those subheads and states the gross expenditure in connection with the service for which the grant is made. In a footnote is stated the expenditure borne by other departments."
Just interrupting that quote for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would underline that portion of the phrase: "names the departments."
[ Page 2899 ]
It's very important as to exactly which kind of department will expend certain money, under which general rubric, under which general head the administration of a vote is to be obtained, because…. Let's take, for example, our situation here in British Columbia where all of a sudden out of the blue there happens something called the Department of Environment that had never been heard of before and yet was supposed to administer, in some way or other, things which had been, for example, under the purview of the Department of Lands. Now the Department of Environment presumably has a different kind of orientation towards the world than did the Department of Lands. It has a different — what did the hon. member for Dewdney used to say? — a different mind-set, a different look at the world. And yet somehow the votes are supposed to be transferred and spent the same way as they were originally voted by parliament.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Member. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is on his feet on a point of order.
MR. GIBSON: Oh, I yield to him.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the clock.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
MR. BARRETT: I was on a point of order! He had the floor and it was my point of order. I brought it to the attention of the Speaker. He's got to leave the chair. There is no motion. Are you trying to ram through this legislation? Shame on you!
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I draw all of the members' attention….
Would the hon. member take his seat, please?
MR. GIBSON: I'll stand up if you don't rule the right way. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Speaker Dowding ruled in a previous sitting of the Legislature on exactly the same type of a situation that a routine motion of the day is in order after someone has drawn the Speaker's attention to the clock. It is a routine motion of the day that's in order and it is recorded in the Journals of the House on a previous ruling by the Speaker of this House. The motion is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
All those….
Interjections.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you will not put that vote! If anyone is to move adjournment it will be me! I tell you, sir, your attention was drawn to that clock. Once the attention is drawn to that clock, then all orders under consideration at that time are dropped. The orders are….
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter of accepting a routine motion of the day is dealt with in our own Journals of the House, 1973, March 22.
In dealing with this same situation at that time Mr. Speaker ruled that this is so implied by the fact that May indicates that another member who has not spoken at the hour of interruption may stand and move adjournment of the debate. The Chair allowed the hon. Leader of the Opposition to interrupt the debate on a point of order, and at that point the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), yielded the floor to the point of order….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Whenever there's a point of order the member on his feet yields the floor. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano…
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
…had possession of the floor in debate at the time the Leader of the Opposition drew the Speaker's attention to the clock. There is still an opportunity for a member to move a motion of adjournment. One moment, please.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, please. I think, hon. members, it's quite clear that an ordinary, routine motion of the day can be accepted by the Speaker after the time that his attention has
[ Page 2900 ]
been drawn to the clock at the ordinary hour of adjournment. This was done by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams.)
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Does the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who has the floor, and had the floor before I recognized the point of order by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, wish to continue? Proceed.
MR. GIBSON: I will proceed. I shall indeed proceed, and I will remind Your Honour that your attention has been drawn to the clock, and when your attention is drawn to the clock you must leave the chair. I want to quote you standing order 3, which I'll do as soon as you've finished consulting.
M R. SPEAKER: Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, may I draw to your attention the fact that while you were on your feet another hon. member rose to his feet to draw the attention of the Speaker to the clock?
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. At that particular time the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, took possession of the floor to draw the attention of the Speaker to the clock. So at that point your remarks were terminated, and the only thing that could transpire beyond that point is a motion of routine nature, which has been fully covered by the Hon. Speaker Dowding…
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
…to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House. It was clearly discussed and clearly outlined by a previous Speaker of this House, Hon. Member, and I must put the motion to the House. The motion is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!
MR. SPEAKER: I must put the motion, Hon. Members.
Interjections.
MR. GIBSON: Who moved that motion, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The motion….
MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He had the floor.
MR. SPEAKER: You had possession of the floor, Hon. Member, up to the time that another member gained the floor on a point of order to draw the Speaker's attention to the clock.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: After that point in time, the only motion or the only business that can be accepted is a routine motion of adjournment, which I accepted from the hon. Minister of Labour.
MR. GIBSON: Unacceptable.
MR. LAUK: That's an outrage — an absolute outrage!
MR. BARRETT: The case you cited is entirely different!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member…. One moment, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano does not lose his right to speak in the debate. He is still able to speak whenever the debate is resumed on the floor of the House.
I must now put the motion that the House….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Members. It is not different from anything that we have this evening.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention the Journals? the Journals say clearly that there was a government motion before there was a point of order, not after.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the hon. member please take his seat — the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano?
Hon. Members, according to the rules of this House and a Speaker's decision from a previous session of this Legislature, it is in order for an hon. member, after the Speaker's attention has been drawn to the clock, to…
[ Page 2901 ]
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
…move a motion of adjournment to the next sitting of the House. That is the motion that I must now put to this House.
The question is….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, that is what is in the Journals.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no point of order.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! It certainly is, Hon. Member. As was said before, this House, by a previous Speaker….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members…. Order, please. There is a motion before the House….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House. Please sit down.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not the Speaker, Hon. Member, who is making a farce out of the chamber; it's a matter of….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Then would the hon. member please take his seat?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please take his seat first?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please take his seat?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please be seated?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not the Speaker who is trying to bully the House….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is it a point of order, Hon. Member, on the decision of the Chair or on some other matter?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm required, Hon. Member, to put the motion….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Speaker is required to put the motion to the floor of this House. The question is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House. Those in favour say aye; those opposed….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Sergeant-at-Arms please see to the gallery?
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 12:01 Tuesday morning.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is adjournment….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: On a new matter, Hon. Member.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on the ruling you made, which is illegal, which said that
[ Page 2902 ]
opposed business, which the adjournment of a substantive debate is, could be taken after the adjournment, and Mr. Speaker Dowding makes it clear that it cannot serve….
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. previous Speaker made it clear that it could be….
MR. GIBSON: I will not stand for that, sir, without your listening to the argumentation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GIBSON: That scanty reading of a complicated decision….
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is a motion before the House….
MR. GIBSON: No, sir, my point of order is that you can turn off my microphone, but you can't silence me.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House.
MR. GIBSON: You can't silence me, sir. I have a good deal to say about this topic….
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House adjourn…
MR. GIBSON: It was opposed business…
MR. SPEAKER: …until 12:01 Tuesday morning.
MR. GIBSON: …attention was drawn to the clock! And you know that, sir. It is absolutely wrong, and anyone who sits in this House….
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion say aye; those opposed to the motion say no.
MR. GIBSON: Completely out of order, and improperly constituted at this moment.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried and the House is adjourned….
Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:25 p.m.