[ Page 1617 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Agricultural Produce Grading Act (Bill 23) Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Introduction and first reading –– 1617

Oral questions

Bribe to Crown prosecutor. Mr. Macdonald –– 1617

Railcar subsidies. Mr. Gibson –– 1617

After-hours lighting in government buildings. Mr. Wallace –– 1618

Student summer employment. Ms. Sanford –– 1619

Coastal ferry service. Mr. Lockstead –– 1619

Loan to B.C. Steamship Company. Mr. Wallace –– 1619

Food industry inquiry. Mr. Gibson –– 1620

Elk hunting rights. Hon. Mr. Bawlf answers –– 1620

Matter of urgent public importance

Administration of justice. Mr. Wallace –– 1620

Mr. Speaker rules –– 1620

Mr. Barrett –– 1621

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Gibson –– 1622

Mr. Barrett –– 1625

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1629

Mr. Macdonald –– 1631

Mrs. Jordan –– 1633

Mr. Lauk –– 1636

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1638

Mr. King –– 1640

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1646

Mr. Wallace –– 1646

Tabling documents

Telegram to Premier from G.D. McKinnon. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1650

Crown counsel brief to Attorney-General. Mr. Wallace –– 1650

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): In the gallery today is a group of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by Leslie Johnson. I would like the House to bid them welcome, please.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the House today two constituents from Courtenay, Stan and Judy Hagen. Stan Hagen is the chairman of the board of school trustees for School District 71. 1 would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Introduction of bills.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GRADING ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Produce Grading Act.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

BRIBE TO CROWN PROSECUTOR

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, in view of the very serious charges that have been made by a senior Crown prosecutor in Vancouver, Mr. McKinnon, that he was offered what he says was an outright bribe of a salary increase of 33 per cent if he would keep his mouth shut about the chaos in the Vancouver prosecutor's office and, secondly, that if he talked to the media he would be unavailable or cut out of ad hoc Crown counsel work, which would be intimidation, will the Premier immediately instruct that a judicial investigation be conducted without delay?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'll be meeting with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , who's holding meetings in Vancouver all day today, partly on this subject. I'll be seeing him on his return to Victoria regarding the whole area of the Crown prosecutors.

MR. MACDONALD: Inasmuch as Mr. McKinnon says that the name of the person who was alleged to have offered the bribe and engaged in the intimidation would be given only to the Premier, has the Premier received that name?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a telegram was received late Friday at my office requesting such a meeting. As of yet, my office hasn't been able to set up such a meeting that would take place with myself, the Attorney-General, the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Mr. McKinnon, which I am prepared to do. When such a meeting can be set up, when we can contact him, such a meeting will take place.

MR. MACDONALD: Apart from the question of the meeting, which I'm glad to see, however late it may be held, the Premier has been named as the person who could receive the name of the person. Will the Premier take active steps to see that he gets that name, even before a meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we can't get the name before we can contact Mr. McKinnon, which my staff is trying to do. At that time, I'd be willing to receive such information as he is prepared to give, whether it be on the phone or in a personal meeting.

RAILCAR SUBSIDIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question also to the Premier on behalf of the mayor and the people of Squamish, and 265 Railwest jobs in that community. Now that the federal government has offered a $5,000-per-railcar subsidy for the manufacture of 100 cars at the Railwest plant, will the Premier offer on behalf of the province to match that with an additional $4,000-per-car assistance if the order can be boosted up to 300 to make it economic and save those jobs for the coming year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know if the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was in the House the other day when my estimates were on. I mentioned that when I met with Hon. Mr. Lang, I offered a provincial subsidy to try and increase the order. That was before the order was given. I believe that was on the 9th, and I said we needed a minimum order of 500 cars in order to facilitate the tooling up, which would have been 25 per cent of the order, as there are four car plants in Canada. At such time, I said, we'd be prepared to deal on a provincial basis. I never had a response to my offer.

The next thing we realized, the order had been placed. Right now we would be hopeful that additional car orders could be placed, giving the B.C. Rail plant some business to prevent layoffs.

[ Page 1618 ]

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could indicate to the House the dollar figure per car that he put on that subsidy and whether he would be prepared to negotiate something slightly lower than 500 if we could at least get some cars - a minimum of 300 - to save those jobs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No limit was put on the offer.

MR. GIBSON: You say that you offered an unlimited subsidy per car. What was the dollar figure?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There was no dollar figure. What we were trying to do was find out at what rate the government of Canada would give the order to British Columbia. As such, no restrictions were made. It wasn't opened-ended, but no restrictions were made and we never received a response. The next thing I knew, there was an announcement in the paper that the order had been given - none of it to British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary: since the Railwest management has indicated that they would need about $4,000 extra beyond the $5,000 federal subsidy offered, will the Premier undertake to offer that $4,000 and see what happens?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're still negotiating, but I want to assure the member that there was no restriction put on that could in any way hamper British Columbia getting the order in the first place. Negotiations are still underway. The surprising thing to me was that our original proposal so that we could achieve a part of the original order wasn't accepted.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): A supplementary: would the Premier clarify his statement? Are negotiations underway on the original 2,000 contract or future contracts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would think that the original contract has been let. I don't know how they're going to withdraw a guarantee of, say, the Hawker-Siddeley or one of the eastern plants where they had layoffs of 1,000 people last year. What we're asking for is supplemental orders. As far as I can ascertain, the original contracts have been let. What we're trying to get is additional car orders for British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that negotiations were underway. What specific negotiations are underway, if not on the first contract?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Discussions are still going on with the federal Transport minister.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question that I had was on negotiations on a specific contract. Discussions and negotiations are two different things.

AFTER HOURS LIGHTING

IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Public Works with regard to the Belmont Building, which has seven office floors, and with regard to the new government building at Blanshard and Pandora: it is very obvious that evening after evening all the lights in these buildings burn for hours. I've left this particular building on the last two Sunday evenings, for example, Mr. Speaker, and every light on every floor of the Belmont Building was burning. In view of the government's commitment to conserve energy and restrain operating costs....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): If you were the last one to leave, you should have turned the lights off. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, this is usually around 7 p.m. in the evening, Mr. Minister of Health. It is a recurrent feature and I wonder if the minister can tell us, first of all, who is responsible for supervising the lighting in these buildings and what measures the minister is taking to conserve lighting.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I'll take that question as notice and bring an answer back to you.

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Energy....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, is this a supplementary or another question?

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. If it 's a supplementary on the same subject, hon. member, I must point out to you the decision that I handed down in this House, and that is that supplementary questions would not be permitted to questions taken on notice.

MR. WALLACE: Well, could I ask a new question and not a supplementary to the Minister of Energy?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, I think that you've already participated in the question period; it's now the duty of the Chair to go back to the official opposition.

[ Page 1619 ]

STATUS OF

CONSUMER PROTECTION OFFICES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confirm that the storefront operation in the Kingsgate Mall in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard and the debtors' assistance office on Thurlow Street in the riding of Vancouver Centre are being closed down? Could the minister confirm if that is happening?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): They are not being closed down, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: As a supplemental question, it's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that these offices are going to be closed down. Now is the minister saying that they are not going to be closed down and are not going to be moved to another government office? Is that what he's saying? Perhaps he's not aware of the fact that they're going to be closed down.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you're becoming argumentative. I believe the minister answered the question that you asked.

MR. LEVI: He said that they're not going to be closed down.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister advise the House how many applications the government has received for student summer employment? In case he takes it as notice, I would also like to know how that compares with the number of jobs that are available.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have a choice.

COASTAL FERRY SERVICE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I wonder if the Ministry of Transport has carried out a feasibility study regarding the new coastal service utilizing the Queen of Surrey.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, such a study is underway.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Could the minister inform this House what the cost estimates may be for provision of overnight accommodation on the Queen of Surrey?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, estimates are being prepared in that connection. I understand they run to several million dollars.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, have the feasibility studies recommended a Kitimat terminus?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We're still awaiting the results of a particular study. It was let by the B.C. 1-Harbours Board.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I have a supplementary to the same minister. Could the minister reassure the people of Prince Rupert that the service to Prince Rupert will not be cut regardless of recommendations from the study group?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we'll be awaiting the recommendations contained in the report but I would be surprised if the service as it's been established in recent years would be reduced.

LOAN TO B.C. STEAMSHIP COMPANY

MR. WALLACE: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: I notice that the British Columbia Steamship Company has been given authority to borrow $3.73 million and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been authorized to advance the funds. Could the minister tell the House the specific requirement? Why is this sum required at this time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, essentially that sum of money was required in order to, in effect, change bankers. The province of British Columbia is now the banker rather than the Crown Development Corporation and one of the credit unions. That sum of money is required both to cover the capital costs of the past and to operate the Princess Marguerite through one more season.

MR. WALLACE: Could the minister tell us which fraction of that $3.73 million is related to operating deficit?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the operating deficit, including capital charges, was approximately $1 million last year. The estimate for the coming year is approximately $750,000.

[ Page 1620 ]

FOOD INDUSTRY INQUIRY

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. The minister was to have received a proposal from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about one week ago, I think, requiring the form the inquiry into the food industry was to take. Can he inform the House as to what conclusion has been reached?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the conclusion has not yet been reached. We're hopeful that we'll have the format of the review by the middle of this month.

ELK HUNTING RIGHTS

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would just like to reply briefly to a question raised in question period a few days ago.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BAWLF: This is with regard to a question from the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) relating to the opening up of hunting rights for elk in the North Island area and the Nanaimo lakes area. She was inquiring whether I was intending to do any specific advertising in order to ensure that all hunters will have an equal opportunity to participate. The answer is yes, we intend to issue a public news release if and when the decision is made in late May to proceed with this.

Further, she had asked where the draw will be held. The answer is Victoria. When will it be held? It will be held within 10 days after the closing date, which is usually July 15. As to whether or not it will be a public draw - yes. As to whether or not the winners will be announced, this is public information. A list will be made available to those requesting it.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. WALLACE: I ask leave to make a motion under standing order 35 for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, public statements over the weekend, together with information I have gained by personal inquiry of Crown prosecutors, police and the judiciary in Vancouver, show that a crisis situation exists with regard to the administration of justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The senior prosecutor, Mr. McKinnon, stated Friday that half the 36 prosecutors are planning to resign and the offer by the Finance minister on Friday to raise salaries by 5 per cent has not changed the attitude of the prosecutors. An urgent telegram to the Premier on Friday requested a meeting

TO DISCUSS THE PRESENT CRISIS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. SALARY PROBLEMS ARE ONLY SYMPTOMATIC OF THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY AN INEQUITABLE AND INFLEXIBLE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE. THE CRITICISMS RECENTLY EXPRESSED IN THE MEDIA ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY SHARED BY ALL THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

The existing backlog of cases awaiting trial is highlighted by the directive from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to Crown prosecutors to drop charges which have not been proceeded with inside of 181 days. This existing problem, in conjunction with the likelihood of mass resignations of Crown prosecutors, shows that the administration of justice may well virtually grind to a halt. Such an imminent situation demonstrates that a crisis exists today which is of definite public importance.

Deputy police chief Bob Stewart reported that 66 per cent of police called to court find their evidence not required, and this costs $693,000 per year. Mayor Volrich, as police commissioner, has appealed "for immediate steps to avert serious consequences." The Vancouver Policemen's Union has expressed concern "over the deteriorating situation." This serious breakdown in the administration of justice is causing the judiciary, the police, the prosecutors and the public deep concern, as indicated by their several statements in the media. Judges, by virtue of their role, cannot enter public controversy but I have confirmed they are deeply concerned. Prosecutors and the judiciary have stated to me that criminals are free who would have been convicted if the system of Crown prosecution were efficient, and this is leading to low police morale.

Debate is indicated now, Mr. Speaker, since debate of the estimates of the Attorney-General, according to the list given to opposition leaders, will not take place until the estimates of 12 other ministers have been debated and passed, which will be several weeks from today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to your request for adjournment of the House under standing

[ Page 1621 ]

order 35, 1 think that you are aware of the fact that it's not for the Speaker to determine the urgency of the matter but it is for the Speaker to determine the urgency of debate at this time. It's not a matter of making a decision on the matter itself; it's a matter of whether it qualifies under standing order 35 for an emergency or immediate debate.

In commenting on your request I would draw to your attention a statement in question period by the Premier which indicated that the Attorney-General is presently in the city of Vancouver meeting with people and, I presume, the judiciary, which is certainly concerned and involved at this very moment. I would also draw to your attention the fact that many times in this House a request for a debate under standing order 35 - and there are many precedents - has been refused on the grounds that there would be an opportunity, either immediately or in time, to discuss the matter.

While you have indicated in your notes that the estimates of the minister will not be debated or passed for some time, I presume that's a matter open to change. But there is also a situation with respect to the fact that the minister can be asked to answer questions about this matter at any time under the rules of the House, particularly during question period. I would have to say to you respectfully, hon. member, that on the basis of the rules we work with in this House your request under standing order 35 fails to meet the matter of urgency as set out in that particular standing order. I therefore must refuse your request for an emergency debate, and I so rule.

MR. BARRETT: Had I known that you were immediately making a ruling, after making a statement which obviously expects some response from the members, I would have asked to point out to you, sir, that the matter has indeed been made even more urgent under the standing orders because of the statement made by Mr. McKinnon today: "It was an outright bribe to keep my mouth shut about the low pay for prosecutors and the intolerable administration of criminal justice in Vancouver."

Mr. Speaker, that added information is what, indeed, in my opinion, necessitates an emergency debate. Because of that, the plea made by the member for Oak Bay should, I think, be given even greater examination under our standing orders. Because that alone, in conjunction with his statement, makes this a matter of urgent public importance. The whole question of daily criminal justice delivery system, decision by decision, is imperative to be discussed if we are looking at the system.

MR. SPEAKER: As I pointed out to the hon. members, it's a matter for the Speaker to decide if the proposition brought before the House is one for an immediate debate that would allow us to set aside the other business of the House, I have ruled that it does not qualify, and I have given you my reasons.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, that is not a matter to be challenged, as you will find in our rules. There's no appeal against the decision of the Speaker, on a manner of a debate or the lack of it, under standing order 35.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There's no further debate.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I'd like to have some clarification from the Chair. I admit that I'm a bit of a novice to the Legislature, but I have yet to see where anything has ever been allowed. I would just like some undertaking by the Chair to explain to us how anything would ever be allowed under this standing order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what it is you rule it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a proper point of order.

MR. LEA: I'd like to know what it would take to put it in order.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a proper point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Well, could you explain it for the members?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure if you read the Journals of the House you will find occasions when debates have been allowed and others have not.

MR. LEA: The only time I ever saw it allowed was when Speaker Bill Murray did it and the Socred government voted him down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: It's the only time I've ever seen it.

MR. SPEAKER: Take your seat, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doesn't bribery qualify?

Orders of the day.

[ Page 1622 ]

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 -

continued.

MR. GIBSON: On Friday last, there came before this committee one of the most astonishing revelations of the true approach of this government, and in particular the Premier, to the manner of functioning and the role of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, on that occasion the anti-democratic bias of the Premier came out of the closet and went on the floor of this committee for all the world to see. I had to remark in the prayer opening our proceedings today the phrase, "the long history and the slowly developed heritage of parliamentary government." That has to be, to all of us in this chamber, one of the most precious things that we preserve: our democratic heritage. It's perhaps not the system that's best for all countries, I don't know. It's not our business. But it is absolutely best for us in Canada and in British Columbia, and Canadians and British Columbians are absolutely dedicated to it.

I say to you, sir, that on Friday the Premier mounted an attack on this institution. Mr. Chairman, the democratic system under which we live should be the most sacred trust and diligent concern of all politicians, because without trust in that system and in its fairness and in its responsiveness and its integrity, you have nothing. You have nothing in terms of the trust of the citizenry in their country and in their government. Whoever strikes at that system, in my opinion, commits a crime against society, to a greater or lesser degree. Some do so for their own purposes. Let me tell you why I think the Premier did so on Friday.

If I may set the scene, we live in British Columbia under a variant of the British parliamentary system, which, among other things, provides - whatever the political science theory may be - for an elected dictatorship of a term not exceeding five years. The purpose of the Legislature is to control that elected dictatorship as best it can through the seeking of information, the making of propositions, the posing of questions. But let's be very clear: as long as the backbenchers stand up and sit down when the government says so, the government has absolute control of this House.

Nevertheless, we can try in one way or another to make this House function better, to make it serve the people of the province better, to act as a better check on the government. We should all know and the people of this province should all know that you can ever afford to trust any government of whatever political stripe. This chamber must be the recourse of he people of the province in auditing the activities of he government of the day.

Last Friday I made what I thought was a modest proposal that the potential of the committees of this house, be they the standing committees or special committees which might from time to time be struck, was being under-utilized. There are a number of questions about the province on which we could perhaps mute some of the partisan aspects of our usual debate, which is set up by the system in here whether we like it or not, and find through the committee structure some of the things that unite us rather than divide us, pose genuine inquiries and the eliciting of information on various subjects, and make constructive suggestions to the government on these problems. I suggested some of the things which might e looked into, including the operation at B.C. Hydro, the marketing boards, municipal finance, juvenile problems and a number of questions that I think are of genuine concern to British Columbia. I believed then and I believe now that the committee system is one of the best ways of obtaining information, ideas and constructive suggestions on these problems.

Having made those statements, which I thought were modest enough and which I might say in my belief have a good deal of support in the Premier's own back bench, I had to leave for a previous meeting. I was astonished to hear later of the comments that the Premier had made in reply. Those comments, in my opinion, were such as to show his rue opinion of this Legislature and his reaction to constructive suggestions that the role and functioning of this Legislature be improved. I want to quote from some of his words on Friday. He says this sentence:

However, I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of members of this Legislature in the way they've conducted themselves so far.

T hat comment on the operation of this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, comes from a Premier who has systematically refused this House information of the greatest importance for the rational debate of all kinds of questions touching this province. He has the effrontery to criticize the performance of members in this House when he has denied them the kinds of information and the kinds of staff backup necessary. To me, Mr. Speaker, the standard of debate is about what one would expect, given the information and resources that this government makes available.

But then he goes on to make another statement which is even more objectionable. He speaks of the view of the public of MLAs:

I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy. I think it's something that's going

[ Page 1623 ]

to have to be earned.

"Going to have to be earned, " Mr. Chairman. If the Premier was any kind of a democrat, he would know that that was earned hundreds of years ago and it was earned in legislatures different from here of which we're the inheritors of the traditions. It was earned in many cases by blood, and it's not going to be taken away by the whim of one man sitting across the floor saying that the participation of members elected by the people has got to be earned.

As to the system, it was earned hundreds of years ago. As to the right of individual members, it was earned on the day of their election. The Premier may or may not agree with the colour of their political affiliation, he may or may not agree with their ideas or how they part their hair, but they have those rights. And that man cannot take those rights away.

Then he went on to twist a suggestion that I made and a suggestion made immediately thereafter by the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . He is now referring to my words:

He suggested that, in fact, we should be looking for work for the members of the Legislature. The other alternative is that if they're not prepared to work, perhaps this Legislature should be looking at the other suggestion - that is, cutting our salaries. If we're not working a full year, perhaps we should only be paid for half a year and go back to the single session pay that most legislatures work on.

What a twist that was, Mr. Chairman. Wouldn't the Premier love that? Wouldn't the Premier love for MLAs on this side of the House to only pay attention to government operations for however many months of the year this place sits? Wouldn't that be pleasant and convenient to the government if the opposition members just faded away into the background the day the session was adjourned?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): We could vote by proxy - not even meet.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member beside me suggests that perhaps the Premier would wish we could vote by proxy and not even meet. That would be a lot more efficient and convenient. You just mail out a mail ballot at the beginning of each session: "This is the Speech from the Throne. Check yes or no. 11

They don't like questions, Mr. Chairman, and they don't like this Legislature because it's sometimes embarrassing, it's sometimes inconvenient, it's sometimes slow and awkward, but, Mr. Chairman, it's the best we've got. I say we've got to improve it, not take the attitude that that Premier is taking of finding ways to emasculate it.

MR. W. DAVIDSON- (Delta): How's the mail service to Maui?

MR. GIBSON: I don't know if the Premier's a republican, but I know what I think of that member. I hope he will stand up and give us his contributions to the democratic institutions of this House before we're finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: One-termer. Pipsqueak.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I can see now that I've been naive. I've been very naive.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's a nice way of putting it.

MR. GIBSON: I had hopes for this Premier and this government when the auditor-general and ombudsman legislation was promised. I thought, "well, perhaps there will be some real contribution to democratic institutions-, " but I think now that was just a pay-off to the three former Liberal members. Those were long-time Liberal promises.

Then we started to see things happen. We started to see an attempt, right off the top, to cut opposition staff. I was naive. I said to myself, "well, I don't think this is right, but maybe this is just an aide talking, " because the initial memorandum to the Speaker, you'll recall, was signed by Dan Campbell. Then we saw some political firings - very serious political firings - for example, the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. There was a first-rate public servant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: That was a strictly political firing, and I said to myself: "Well, maybe that's just the Premier pleasing the minister. I'll look on the best side of it." Then when the Legislature bogged down a little bit last spring, we heard the Premier say across the floor of the House, as he was trying to discipline this Legislature with sittings at various times and extended hours, that it took him two weeks to train his dog. Then I said to myself: "That's perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words."

MR. LAUK: Yes it was!

Interjection,

MR. GIBSON: I have sufficient testimony from people who did. Do you deny you said it? Stand up and deny you said it.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 1624 ]

MR. GIBSON: Of course the Premier said it.

MR. BARRETT: Naughty, naughty!

MR. LAUK: I heard it.

MR. GIBSON: And then - let the Premier deny this - at the Social Credit convention last fall, the Premier waved in the air a piece of paper and said this was the last NDP budget - or words to that effect....

MR. LAUK: That's what you said, and it wasn't true.

MR. GIBSON: It was a $4.8 million collection of figures and the Premier gave his audience to understand, and the reporters present to understand, that this was what the province would have been faced with had the NDP remained in power. Later on it was revealed that this was nothing but a collection of departmental requests and not a budget at all. I said to myself then - still trying to look on the best side - "Perhaps it was just bad advice. Perhaps he didn't really understand what that document was."

Then when he wouldn't repudiate the de facto separatist comments of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , I said to myself: "Maybe he's just being protective of that minister." I was still trying to look on the best side.

MR. WALLACE: He's a minister who needs protection, that's for sure.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, he is a minister who needs protection.

Mr. Chairman, now I see I have been naive. Now I have no further doubts. I believe the Premier of this province is a man who is not a friend of the democratic process, and as a politician who believes in that process, there are no stronger words that I can use. You can say of a Premier - and perhaps of this Premier - that he believes the establishment should run things, that they know best; or that he's a technocrat; that he's a bottom-line man; that he doesn't have a feeling for people. All of them are harsh criticisms - and I happen to think true criticisms - but they all pale before the essential fact that he is an enemy of that system of checks and balances which, if allowed to operate in the fullness of time, put all of those things right. That is our legislative system when it works as it should.

Mr. Chairman, I was naive. It's the same old Socred game - it's just a bit smoother. I thought the Premier would be better than his father, and now I fear he will be worse in these terms. The members of this House who have been here for many years will recall better than I the years of division and class against class, the bitterness, the game of "polarize and rule" in the province of British Columbia. Men and women who spent years in this House show the scars of those days, and you can see those scars when you talk with them. They're on both sides of this House. When I think how some of today's ministers in that cabinet are acquiescing in the kind of treatment of this Legislature by the government when some of them suffered those scars - again, on both sides of the House - from that Premier's father, I'm aghast. It is simply renewed evidence of the corrupting potential of power.

There are not just people in this House, Mr. Chairman, who show scars of that way of operating a Legislature and a province. British Columbia shows the scars. We have a terribly polarized society as a result of the way Social Credit operated this province for 20 years, whether it's labour against management, or whether it's the lower coast versus the interior or any of the many ways of divide and rule that used to be played and that we're getting back to. Teachers and doctors are set one against another. The scars show in our lack of a secondary economic base. They show in some of the attempted and some of the effected resource sellouts. All of those things happened because the proper operation of this Legislature was frustrated by the old Social Credit Party, and now we see that the new Social Credit Party has exactly the same way of thinking.

It's a simple game, Mr. Chairman. It's the game of how to stay in power by making sure there are no alternatives. It's the game of using your influence as government to keep the Legislature so nasty, so petty, so uninformed and so fractious that people will come down to the polls and say: "We have no other choice. We have to go with this group because look at the way that House operates." The man who has it within his power to make this House operate in better ways, in gentler ways, in better-informed and more civilized ways, chooses not to proceed in those directions.

Mr. Chairman, the father did it for 20 years and got away with it for 20 years. Finally the people couldn't stand it any more and they threw him out. I thought something had been learned from one generation to another. What do the backbenchers think about it?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I think you're totally wrong.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Whip, have you been talking to your own backbenchers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the

[ Page 1625 ]

Whip knows what his backbenchers think about the potential usefulness of the committee system in this House. They want to contribute something. They don't want to be just cannon fodder and stand up and sit down, and get briefings by ministers every once in a while in caucus, and ask a few questions, and hear the important announcements the day they come out. Some of those backbenchers want to make a contribution. It might not hurt the Whip to talk with them.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): We all have that opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the game. You keep the Legislature a place that is as nasty as you can make it by the way you operate as government. You deny information; you schedule business at the last minute; you change sittings at the last minute; you make it difficult to have sufficient time to do research because you don't even know what the business of the day is going to be, let alone when the sittings are going to be. You're as partisan as you can be, you're as vengeful as you can be towards the last government. You do everything you can to tear down their works, good or bad, and then you say: "That place isn't operating well. The people of British Columbia don't have any respect for it. The people of British Columbia don't want them to have a direct influence on policy." I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia think.

The Premier is responsible for making this system work better for people, and that means making the Legislature work better. In that context, the government must take the lead.

The government, if it feels itself to have been wronged, should turn the other cheek. The government, if it feels this place lacks information, should provide information. The government, if it feels that there are vexatious public problems to be solved, should use this instrument, rather than setting up phony committees comprising exclusively government MLAs as if they were genuine sounding boards for the wishes of the province. What a contempt to this Legislature that Bawlf committee was!

That's the duty of the Premier: to make this system work better for the people. Instead, he's out to make the system work better for him.

Mr. Chairman, last Friday we had a glimpse into the mind of the Premier insofar as his attitude toward our most democratic institution is concerned. Mr. Chairman, I was sickened by what I saw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for North Vancouver-Capilano for making that statement on not only the basis of tradition of this House but for everybody who is both in the House or aspires to be a politician.

I too was shocked by the reports I read in the newspaper as to the Premier's statements. I was asked by one reporter to comment and I said that I would prefer to read the Blues first before I made any statement. I have indeed done that.

Before I go to the Blues, I must say that I was shocked at the attitude that was displayed by the Premier in response to what appears to be not a very provocative debate. As I understand, there was no heat of emotion or exchange that led one to say things at hot temper that perhaps in cool temper would not have been said. Apparently these statements were made in all deliberation, in calmness, and there appears to be some forethought to them. Because of that, I share the disappointment - but not the shock - of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. The catalogue of statements from the Premier over the past three years, prior to becoming Premier and since becoming Premier, have indicated a tendency to stray when under pressure, to make half-statements of allegations and then to back off, or when confronted with an unpleasant situation, rather than to come right up front and say exactly what the situation is, to differ.

My friend, whom I oppose because of philosophical differences, has made the essential point about this place: philosophical differences are to be decided by the people of the province, not by the Premier or the cabinet or any individual member. As a matter of fact, one of the most sanctified rules of this Legislature is the presumption that once somebody is elected, they are honourable. That presumption is seriously guarded by every single rule that we have in front of us in the standing orders.

MR. DAVIDSON: Did you bear that, Gary?

MR. BARRETT: The presumption to be made on anybody's honourableness, regardless of their past or their future, is something that makes this whole system work. We do not personalize, even by calling each other - as the Chairman will point out to us on occasion when we slip - by our legal names but by the constituencies we represent. The system is psychologically structured to temper us, to make us understand that we are not infinite, that we come and go at the whim of the voters. We come and go at the whim of those people who pay the bills and who ultimately suffer the consequences or enjoy the consequences of considered acts of members of this Legislature.

And the particular line that upset me, Mr. Chairman - I'll refer to it in a moment - brought to mind the Premier's approach to any kind of criticism, to any analysis of any situation he sees - that quick jumping from one foot to another, that quick-to-blame, quick-to-run, quick-to-hide approach,

[ Page 1626 ]

rather than facing the issues squarely in terms of the esteemed office that he holds.

The office has been held, in the scheme of things, by a large number of people. The office remains constant; the players come and go. The determination of the players in that office must and always must remain in the hands of the free men and women who make up this great province in this country.

My good colleague states a catalogue of events that he reminds us of in terms of statements that he hoped would bring about some reflection, some sense of, perhaps, anguish, or a little touch of guilt about statements. I recall on one particular day in this chamber when a most unfortunate statement was made by the then Leader of the Opposition about the parentage of a member of this Legislative Assembly. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was a particularly unpleasant exchange in this chamber. A perhaps unwise joke was made about the Premier's father, but that's currency considering the political history of this province. In response to that particular moment of heat, the Premier shot back across this floor the statement: "At least I have a father."

I was very angry that day. The remark was not addressed at me, but it was addressed at a colleague of mine. I was very angry that day. I left the chamber, and I thought the matter should rest there. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, as he was then, was biting his tongue that he made such a statement. In a moment of heat or passion such comments are passed and then best forgotten.

Shortly after the election an interview took place between the present Premier and Allan Fotheringham. That interview was written in the Weekend Magazine. That exchange was raised with the Premier by Allan Fotheringham. During the course of the interview the Premier did not only not show any remorse for having made that statement, but he gave cause to Mr. Fotheringham and every reader to believe that he had indeed planned to make that statement. In the article, his excuse or pride in making that statement was to say: "When you're in a hockey game, you learn your opponents, and you use anything that's necessary." Then he went on to quote in the article that he "never had any trouble from that minister again." With a sense of pride and with, frankly, a shallowness, a reflection of no depth whatsoever of the understanding of the dignity of individuals who let their names stand for office, successful or defeated, he was proud of the fact that he threw across a remark to a member that he could coldly discuss months after the remark took place, and explain it by saying to the newspaper interviewer: "I've never had any trouble from that member again."

It has bothered me for some time that this did indeed take place. I had shared my concern with my colleagues. I had said that I might raise it, and they said: "Let it go. Let it go." And I did. I put the matter aside as perhaps a measure of the depth of the man who holds the office of Premier of this province. Perhaps other citizens would not be as harsh to judge him. Perhaps the rationalization of having made that statement would again prick his conscience and force him to feel, in his private or quiet moments, that he had initially been wrong to cast that remark to the member. He had been wrong to rationalize it in the second case by saying: "I didn't have any trouble from that minister any more." But Friday's event, Mr. Chairman, compels me to speak in the vein that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has spoken in today.

Oh, yes, we can deride little things such as the Premier leaving an automobile and, when asked by a cameraman standing there with a camera, "Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?", the Premier saying: "There wasn't one." And then the camera pans to show that indeed there was a seatbelt in the car.

Yes, we can show some amusement over the Premier, in the exuberance and emotion of standing up in front of idolizing fans at a provincial convention of a political party in that heady moment and saying, "here's a budget, " only to be asked by the press if that was indeed the case and to discover five hours later that it wasn't.

Yes, we can share some amusement at the Premier's embarrassment at not giving us correct figures at a press conference related to Thanksgiving. But Friday was too much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to read from the Blues. I hope that the Blues are wrong and the Premier's words quoted here are incorrect. But as I see them, and as reported in the newspaper, they come back to me this way. The Premier said:

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano made a strong plea for multiple-use of a lot of legislative committees. I can only say that the government has standing committees. Committees have been used with varying success in the past. Committees will be challenged in the future.

Fair enough. That's a good statement. The record of this government is that we do have committees looking at personnel for the auditor-general, and I think another post as well.

We have not been given any real substantial work by this government and the member's complaints about earlier years are absolutely correct. As a member of this House for 12 years before our election as government, I do not recall one instance where any significant matter was given to a committee outside of this chamber over those 12 years. When we were elected to government we put the committees to work and they were admired in the press as having delivered answers on very difficult problems on a non-partisan basis.

[ Page 1627 ]

But it's the next statement, Mr. Chairman, that bothers me. I quote again from the Blues: "However, I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far." I'll deal with that separately. But to go on, Mr. Chairman, the following statement is the one that gives me great concern: "I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy. I think it's something that's going to have to be earned."

May I work with those three statements made by the Premier? First of all: "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far." That's a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman. I have people tell me they don't have any confidence in this government. They make particularly saddened remarks about individual cabinet ministers, as well as members of this Legislature. Feature articles are written by newspaper columnists either criticizing or praising individual MLAs. Frequent radio or television interviews are had and hotline shows give analysis of separate MLAs. But every single time someone makes a comment about the government or the opposition that is their opinion. It is to be respected as their opinion but not to be taken as anything more than an expression of opinion and not a matter of judgment by the government.

We don't run governments by popularity poll on every given day, on every given whim. Governments are elected under our system to govern for a constitutional period of time. If the Premier wanted to make a decision on the behaviour of the members related to what the public response is, he would have to resign, if he read my mail. People come to me and criticize the Premier every single day. They write letters to my office criticizing particular members of the government.

When he says, "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members of this Legislature in the way they have conducted themselves so far, " that could be truly said about any member, any cabinet minister or anyone who holds public office anywhere in this country. That's part and parcel of the system. But for the Premier to leave the impression that he's making a decision about evaluating the performance of any individual MLA based on the popularity polls of that individual man or woman in this House is frankly absurd.

The popularity polls that I receive are different from his. If they've got a complaint about the Premier they write him and send me a copy. I have never evaluated the performance in this House by varying comments that I have received from the public about this House. To make such a statement casts, in my opinion, a reflection that the Premier is making his judgment on the members of this House based on what he perceives to be individual citizens' evaluation rather than the production of the House itself. Let us deal with that.

We are seven weeks into a session and not one committee has met, not even the public accounts committee. Who is responsible for that - the public, the MLAs of this House? Not at all. The Premier is the leader of the government. Has he issued instructions after seven weeks of half-days available for the members to work here in the chamber that those committees be asked to sit? Not at all. For the Premier to say, "I must say that the comments I get from the public regarding our Legislature show that they don't have very much confidence in a lot of the members in the way they have conducted themselves so far, " is nonsense. It's nonsense. You haven't called the committees.

The determination from that to say, "I don't think they particularly want them to have a direct say in policy, " is a vicious statement, in my opinion. Who is the Premier or who is any individual human being to say who should or should not be on a committee? It is the time-honoured tradition of the British parliamentary system that the people who have the authority and the responsibility in any given jurisdiction to select representatives to an august chamber such as a legislative assembly or a House of Commons.... It is their ultimate right to pick men or women whom they choose to represent them, not the Premier's. Only in a dictatorship does one man or one woman determine who goes on committees; only in a dictatorship does one man or one woman determine who should or should not have input in policy; only in a dictatorship is the measure of the value of someone to sit on a committee the absolute responsibility of one man or one woman.

The democratic process is tried and true. It has made mistakes and it has been correct, but hindsight is the judge of that, Mr. Chairman, not an individual man or woman.

If the population of any jurisdiction determines to elect a certain group of people to represent them, then those people must be unfettered in their rights and their responsibilities to participate in policy. Policy is not only made in committee, Mr. Chairman; policy is shaped and formulated, albeit slightly, in this very chamber in such committee debate as is taking place here today.

Then we come to this last statement - and I think it is the most shocking one of all. I suppose it can be glibly set aside by saying that the Premier may have been under some pressure when he said it, but the next statement he said was: "I think it's something

[ Page 1628 ]

that's going to have to be earned." Mr. Chairman, he said: "I think it's something that's going to have to be earned." Mr. Chairman, every single man and woman who sits in this chamber, however short, however long, has not earned the right to be here. They have been ordered to be here by the citizens of their constituency. Once any public servant - whether it is in municipal office, provincial office, any board, or any administrative level in a democratic society - has been ordered by the due process of democratic vote to present herself or himself to the performance of their job it is not a question of defining whether or not it is earned by that person who happens to be leader for that particular day. It is an honour-boundary legally bound responsibility of that person to serve.

I don't like this, Mr. Chairman. I don't like the creeping attitude that somehow, somebody has the right to determine who has earned to do what in this place. It borders on privilege, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. It smacks as if somehow, some definition of worthiness - i.e. obedience or conformity - is to be the criterion of the present holder of the office of Premier.

One hundred years from now we will be the curious sights of school students who, I pray to God, will be involved in this same system, in the same manner, in the same legislative centre, in these very same precincts, walking by looking at pictures of people who held these positions. One hundred years from now we should be the object of curious discussion, of evaluation, but time will have passed and other human beings in good health, in good presence of mind, will be ordered by the voters to be in this chamber to make decisions about lives and times that are involved at that particular time. But never before, not now or ever, should there be in our legislative process any one person, once the House has been decided by the electors, to say that this member or that member has not "earned" the right to be on a legislative committee. No one person, man or woman, in our society has the right to have an absolute opinion about the behaviour, the participation, the worthiness or lack of it of any individual who has stood for office and has indeed become successful in that campaign for office.

The seeking of office is one thing, Mr. Chairman -and many, many people seek office, and that is good - but the acquisition of office is something else again. The acquisition of office automatically changes the character and the role of responsibility in morally placing acts by every individual man and woman in our society. To broadcast the opinion by the leader of the government that he thinks it's "something that has to be earned 'misses the whole point of the august and grave nature - despite the humour, despite the levity - of the responsibility given to men and women who do put their name for office. We must never insult people because they aspire to office. It is our responsibility to challenge and debate philosophies, attitudes, points of view and opinions, but I tell you this: every free man and every free woman has the right to hold their opinions whether they be in any spectrum of the political scale.

Who was it, Mr. Chairman, who made that statement: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it. I I?

MR. MACDONALD: It was Voltaire.

MR. BARRETT: Voltaire it was. Thank you, Mr. Member. Perhaps it would be worthy of the Premier to read some Voltaire and understand that in this time and in this place we are not the initiators of the great freedoms we have. We happen to be the inheritors. As my friend, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, said, blood was even shed at one time for us to reach this point.

There is a sense of history and a sense of proportion that is missing from this government. It has to permeate from the Premier right down to the rest of the cabinet ministers. When my colleague says that a certain member made disparaging remarks about Confederation, that is a matter which the member has a responsibility to raise with the Premier. When other events take place, such as where certain cabinet ministers make disparaging remarks about groups of people because they happen to be handicapped by lack of income in our society and are welfare recipients, that, too, beggars the call from the leader of the government of the day to clarify how he or she feels about the responsibility of the role of individual citizens. It is the meekest, it is the mildest, it is the citizen on the lowest bottom of the scale who must depend upon every single man and woman in this House to protect their dignity. That can only be done when every man and woman in this House has their dignity understood and protected.

I have no quarrel with the Premier or with any member of this House expressing his opinion. But to then express an opinion and put that down as law goes too far. I have some opinions of the government that I don't fear to express, on many occasions. I think the government is pretty awful, and I've said so and I've given my reasons why. But I don't think the Premier is pretty awful. I don't think the cabinet ministers, as individual human beings, are pretty awful. I don't think the backbenchers, as individuals, are pretty awful.

I might say that I never thought that I would be standing here in this chamber almost on the edge of reflecting on my own experience in that office, but when I held that office, I found it tempting on many occasions to make personal comments back when I received personal comments. I attempted to restrain myself, because for temporary holders of that office

[ Page 1629 ]

there is a certain aura of behaviour that is expected, related to the office. Not that every individual becomes perfect because he holds the office. The office itself is a role and us striving to reach perfection.

But I find it shocking, I find it shallow and, frankly, I find it very threatening that the Premier of this province, at this particular time on this particular day, would stand in this chamber and say: "I think it's something that has to be earned, " in terms of committee participation. That is not a matter of a question for the Premier to comment on. That is a decision made by the free citizens of this province.

Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps many other things that could be said or perhaps left unsaid. But I must tell you that I was moved by the words from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, whose philosophy was shared by that member and his father. Jests are made about that relationship, just as jests are made that way, but that's never affected judgment. I respect you, Mr. Member, all the more for what you've said today. I hope that it's seriously understood by all members of this House - who, whatever their role, in the passage of time and in relative terms hold positions temporarily - that someone else beyond will decide about us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, while I can agree with some of the comments of the members who spoke today, I must disagree strongly where they put their own interpretation and when they make comment, especially by two members who were not present during the sitting.

MR. LEVI: Don't be ridiculous! What do you think we've got Hansard for?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano - if the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) can contain himself -is indeed a great one for putting his own interpretations on what people say. He's even convinced the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . I listened very carefully. A member of this government - that is, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) - "made disparaging remarks about Confederation." The Minister of Education has never made any disparaging remarks about Confederation. He offered his suggestions about how to make this a stronger country. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to continue to twist, as he has and continues to do, the words of others, and if the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, continues to wish to put his own interpretations on the statements of others for his own convenience, then let them. But let them not join in their little game together of agreeing with each other's interpretations without an answer from the government or the members to whom they wish to interpret.

The Minister of Education in this province is as strong and fine a Canadian as I've seen. His contribution in this House and in this province in the private sector and in his chosen field recommends him as an example to all British Columbians. I don't think he needs defending. But I do find it strange that in an attempt to mount an attack, the Leader of the Opposition would say he made disparaging remarks about Confederation. I'd like him to name those remarks to the Legislature because in the comments I've read, and in my interpretation, the Minister of Education has made suggestions on how Confederation could be made stronger so we can build a stronger country.

I'd like to deal with what went on in this Legislature last Friday, because we did have some suggestions fro m the member for North Vancouver-Capilano on expanding the committee system. The committee system has functioned every year and, as I said in the Blues, has functioned with mixed success. I also said the committee system would be challenged in the future in this House, which it will. The members appointed to those committees will have every opportunity to acquit themselves well, as will the House upon their recommendations.

I did say, though, that there is a tendency for parties and members who profess great loyalty to the British parliamentary system to forget the very nature of the system, and that is that a government is elected to govern. The policy of the government is the policy that they earned at the ballot box. When I say you earn a place, a direct say in policy, that is exactly where you earn it. If I was one member, only a single member of a very minority party, I would be concerned if I hadn't earned my say at the ballot box to direct the policy of the province.

That member' for North Vancouver-Capilano worries about polarization. Why? Because there is no room, apparently, for him. He's not concerned about the polarization that's taking place nationally because the party he supports nationally has been continually in power, with the exception of a brief interlude, since the middle 1930s. There has been very little opportunity for minority parties to ever become the government of Canada or to have a say. The fact that they haven't had a say and the fact that the reason that there has been some discontent in western Canada is, many people felt, because they don't have a say in the party in power.

I'll go back to my quote - I don't particularly want to have a direct say in policy.... That's exactly what the people said on December 11,1975. They elected a government to bring about policies. It was the policies we advocated that they voted for; it was the policies of the last government that they voted

[ Page 1630 ]

against; it was the policies of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that they didn't consider.

You earn your way at the ballot box. If our policies and if the government we provide isn't satisfactory, when we go next to the electorate we will not earn a second chance. That will be between the voters of British Columbia and all people who seek election, for whatever party, when that date comes. But I do say you do have to earn a say for policy. That's the British parliamentary system. Governments are elected to govern. That governing, in fact, means putting forward policy and passing it into law. That is the role of government. That is what elections are all about and you earn your place at the ballot box.

The member complained about not being sufficiently utilized, I agree there are lots of opportunities for MLAs. There are many MLAs in this House who are more than full-time MLAs, who go beyond the normal eight-hour day, who go beyond the 365-day year. They live in their constituencies, work in their constituencies, maintain contact in their constituencies and in fact do their utmost to represent people. They're not just part of government or the Legislature, but they represent those people to laws that have been passed by other parliaments and other legislatures. They help them deal with government regulations and government departments. To those MLAs, I say they're never paid enough.

But the member wasn't speaking for all MLAs. He was suggesting that perhaps some MLAs didn't have enough to do. I only took him at his word, and said that of course another alternative is, for those MLAs who don't have enough to do or haven't been able to fill their time in working for their constituents, perhaps to consider a cut in salary. That's one of the alternatives if that member maintains that as a problem. It's his suggestion. I'm not advocating it; I throw it out as one of the alternatives he forgot to mention.

When the public asks about the conduct of the Legislature, I made it quite clear that it wasn't my personal attack on this body. In fact, I reiterated what the Speaker said to this Legislature a few days ago. He admonished the Legislature on its conduct. I take responsibility for any criticism of this Legislature upon myself as part of this body. It is true.

We all receive mail, and as Premier perhaps my mail is heavier. Because I'm the Premier of the government in power, perhaps the criticism I get is all aimed at members not of my own party. But my mail has been running very heavily in criticism of the conduct of some members of this Legislature. Again, I bring it before this body. The government and the opposition all have a responsibility to make the legislative system work.

I think the Leader of the Opposition described it a bit when he said it's hard when the government is put in a reactive role quite often in the Legislature. He is a person and reacting to comments. The level of debate and the level of conduct is always reactive on the part of the government.

I think we have a responsibility as individuals to make the system work. My statements were not an attack. My statements were, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, said very calmly, not in anger, but in response to various statements and suggestions that had been put forward by members of the opposition and of this assembly during the sitting last Friday.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about the committees not having been formed that they have been formed; they have been awaiting the call of the convenors. Perhaps he wasn't here last week, but Votes and Proceedings _ of Wednesday, March 2, lists those committees and the convenors. As such, the committee system will work. The Leader of the Opposition_ and perhaps the Liberal leader, are more used to sessions that are called later and go much shorter. It is the earliest session that has ever been called and as such may be one of the longest sessions that has ever been held. But everybody will have an opportunity, while the House is sitting and perhaps beyond this year, in the committee system for the committee system to work, and hopefully work well.

I would just like to deal with some of the other areas that have come up during my estimates to do with the PWA, because the Liberal leader was not here after bringing up the subject the other day. I was concerned. I would have liked him to clarify his suggestion that we oppose the routes applied for that would be of benefit to our people.

Interjections

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government will always support those third carriers, but that's not what PWA is. It's not a third-carrier airline, it's a regional airline.

I think we should be doing our people a disservice if I took, as his remarks were stated and as I understood them - but I would like him to clarify them - that what he would do is oppose those routes and the service that's being asked for by PWA, which would only be to the detriment of our people. The only reason there's a fight over an airline is that it may result in lack of service for our people. We're not fighting, in this case, whether it's government ownership or private ownership, but whether B.C. citizens and residents will be well served by an airline - a regional airline, controlled in a certain province. To suggest that the remedy is to oppose any application for service for our people in this province is ridiculous.

[ Page 1631 ]

MR. GIBSON: Don't you care about the head office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's ridiculous. We're out to make sure the people of this province get all the service, and more, that's coming to them. I disagree strongly with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who would cut off the people's noses to spite Alberta because they have so far held on to the airline. The only reason the government of British Columbia is fighting - the main reason - is to guarantee that our people's interests will be served and that service will be provided to the people of British Columbia. To say that you would fight against that service being provided, fight the airline, is just ridiculous.

There are ways to carry out the dispute through the courts, and through the CTC, and through appeal to the cabinet. But to take the final alternative as suggested by that member and say, "have service restricted to the people" - service which we are fighting to get - has got to be the most ridiculous suggestion that's come up in this Legislature this session.

MR. GIBSON: Another twist.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's got to be very, very, very unusual because this Legislature - opposition and government - are sitting here to discuss and debate how to provide services to our people, not take them away.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope I misunderstood the statements he made concerning that because I believe there are a lot of people out there waiting for services to be provided by the airlines. I have suggested that this government ...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member talks a lot about free speech, and now he says: "Sit down. Sit down. Sit down." Now he says: "Sit down."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members -each hon. member in his time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that member....

MR. LEA: Why are you so nervous?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm looking for all my notes, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Who wrote them - your dad?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, when the member for Prince Rupert is finished with his usual high conduct, we'll continue.

MR. LEA: It's okay - go ahead.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to say that this government is prepared to deal with helping to encourage third-level carrier service in this province. We want to see additional air service provided to our people. I've even suggested that we're prepared to move in if the failure of the federal government to provide airport facilities - which is their responsibility - to our middle and north coast and to the northern parts of British Columbia continues.

It's obvious to anyone who has travelled those parts by any form of transportation, but particularly tried to reach those areas by air, that air would be the only logical answer to transportation. In many cases we need new airfields in many parts of this province, and this government is going to be prepared to perhaps supplement the amount of money the federal government puts up to make sure those airstrips and airfields are provided so the third-level carriers can indeed continue to expand their service. But they can't expand a service into an area when there is no facility for take-off and landing and handling the aircraft. We've made the commitment to the people of this province that we're prepared to deal with their transportation needs in the air as we are on the coast in the ferry system.

We've made strong representation to the government of Canada to meet a longstanding obligation that they have had to British Columbia to financially help in providing that service, not only in the remote areas in which they've recently withdrawn their financial aid or reduced it, but the longstanding complaint of British Columbia that under the terms under which we entered Confederation there should be federal involvement in providing a route from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland. That's one of the areas which this government is actively discussing, and if we wish to put another interpretation on it, negotiating with the government of Canada on the provision of transportation services for people. I hope the member for North Vancouver-Capilano will clarify his remarks concerning opposing air services for the people of the province.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief because I want my advocate to follow and clean up after me. I just want to say a few words because I

[ Page 1632 ]

am concerned about the aura or aroma of intimidation which exists surrounding this government. I just want to mention three things very briefly. There is a feeling of intimidation, threat, watch out, be careful what you say.

The first example, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier was asked about the so-called blacklist. Well, in itself the incident may not be the Empire State Building, but it does mean this. The Premier, by his silence, has never replied as to what the thinks about that kind of thing leaving his office with the labels of political affiliation having been put on this chart by people in his office. The result is that many, many people in the public service are saying: "Am I on some list?" You know, the question we asked the Premier about the blacklist and about his own office was perfectly in order in a parliamentary discussion of his estimates and a totally fair question to ask, because it was not only the question of favoritism but the question of intimidation. That's what we're concerned about. I think to sit for days and not answer that question about the conduct of the minister's office, when he is the First Minister particularly, is something that cannot be overlooked by this Legislature.

The second thing is the McKinnon thing that came up today where a prominent prosecutor says: "I was intimidated. If I go to the media, I will lose counsel work which I might otherwise have practising in the criminal field in the city of Vancouver." Then it's reported today in The Vancouver Sun that it didn't stop there. Mr. McKinnon named a Vancouver lawyer who, he said, also received a similar threat when he resigned from the prosecutor's office several months ago. The lawyer, who told The Vancouver Sun he was scared to have his name' in print, said in an interview today: "I wouldn't call it a threat because it is common wisdom in that office that you don't criticize this provincial government." Now I would say there again obviously an aroma of intimidation -a bad aroma, I might say - has spread throughout the province.

The third example, of course, is that in the middle of a discussion on legislative reform - and we all have different views on that - the Premier announces that he is going to halve the salaries of the members. Well, they're not scared, but when that kind of remark is made in that context, it is a threat - it has to be. It was not a proposal; it was a threat - "Watch out! Be careful what you say!" Now obviously it's not going to work in this assembly, Mr. Premier. This group is not going to see some criticism. But it's the attitude of the government, who seem to behave like the Bourbon kings of France - this coalition over there who learned nothing and forgot nothing and who thought that criticism was something that was much too good for the common people.

That's the attitude I am concerned about because I think it has been developing and I think that it is intimidation. When the Premier doesn't answer that question about Dan Campbell that's been here before the Legislature, what do you think of that kind of conduct? Coming right out of your own office, that adds, naturally, fuel to the suspicion that there is approbation of intimidation from the highest reaches of this government.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to prolong the debate and I don't intend to address myself to some of the points that have been brought up. Mostly, I would like to think in terms of the debate that started the day off, in relation to the Premier's remarks in the House on Friday morning about MLAs and about salaries, and the response that this has drawn from members of this House. I have listened to both debates this afternoon.

I feel the Premier is right. I believe we do have to earn our spurs and I believe many of us who have been here for a long time have done so and we can appreciate the value of this debate as well as the dangers in it. I do believe that the new members first earned the metal for their spurs by winning their elections and they are now earning their spurs, in part, as they sit in this Legislature and as they enter the debate.

But I think we also know what the Premier was alluding to, and that was the falsity of some of the debate that takes place in this House. We are all guilty of taking part in it and this one is very much so. As I sat and listened to the current Leader of the Opposition and the former Premier of this province in his debate this afternoon, frankly, I didn't know whether to laugh hysterically or to cry. On the surface, his words were most idealistic - the highest principles of what this House should be - and they would have been impressive had I not had the privilege of sitting in this House when that man himself held the office of Premier, and had the unfortunate mind today to recall.

I wonder, as we read in Hansard and as the media record his words of this afternoon, would we dare recall some of the instances and incidents that took place? Would we dare recall the famous line that emanated from the office of the then-NDP Premier -the sound, sage advice that he gave to the Egg Marketing Board and how to go out and solve their problems for the people they represented and the consumers in this province? I wonder if we would dare recall that it was this Premier who first used the word - and I use it with great respect - "Christ" in this House in debate, and it was during that man's term of office that the Lord's name, which I happen to hold in. great respect, was brought into debate in vain on the floor of this Legislature. It was during that term of office, as we recall his words during the debate this afternoon, that the level of debate saw

[ Page 1633 ]

more and more the intrusion of more common swear words, if you want to call them that, in the context of parliamentary debate.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I wonder, when we speak of the role and the respect for the office of Premier, and as MLAs, if we would dare recall the famous and infamous incident of the NDP Premier in the hall of these chambers -Mr. Chairman, basically the chambers in which you have considerable responsibility - as they related to a very well-respected feminine reporter in this province and now a very noted journalist in Ottawa. As we listen to his words, would we dare recall these things?

Unfortunately I believe we have to, because that's the only way we can evaluate the merit of the debate he introduced into this House today. I for one find it lacking and therefore 1, for one, feel that we must question why he took that position and why the Liberal leader is taking the position that be is taking.

I personally feel a great honour at having been elected to this chamber and having had the opportunity to serve the people that I have for the number of years that I have. This honour and this responsibility weigh heavily on my mind, as they do with many members. I happen to feel that we should not create, nor should we indulge in, a self-image that we are a lot of high-powered executives making high-powered decisions with high-powered speeches on the floor of this House. We should be representative of the people of British Columbia - a cross-section of people. In relating to the debate in itself, we should be paid justly. But our role here is endangered if we sit in these halls for 12 months of the year. It was proved under the NDP leadership, when we spent so much time in this chamber and when the debate could have been cut in half and been so much more constructive. We're beginning to see an emergence of this type of debate during the current Premier's session.

How can you possibly know what the people are thinking? How can we possibly reflect their concerns and views if we sit in Victoria meeting with committees every morning, meeting with our caucus at noon, and sitting on the floor of this House from 2 to 6, having meetings from 6 to 8, and sitting on the floor of the House, most of the time, from 8 to I I year-round? This is very definitely essential during major times of the year, and we're in this position now, but the people have a right to expect us to be in our own constituencies. This is what I can't understand when the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , or the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , or the hon. members from the NDP, the official opposition, stand up and say: "You can't be a full-time MLA and you shouldn't be paid as a full-time MLA unless you're sitting in this Legislature."

A great portion of our work should, and has to be, in our own constituencies listening to the people we represent, analysing and assessing how the legislation that we've been part of developing and passing is affecting the everyday life of everyday people in this province. For my part, I think most MLAs are full-time MLAs, whether they're here in Victoria for two months, three months or four months. The business of the Legislature should be able to be dealt with in reasonable time.

The NDP believed that. It was the NDP that brought in time limits for all debates, time limits on bills, time limits on estimates, and time limits on the throne and budget speech debates. You must believe it, Mr. Chairman, through you. Why now suddenly change? If they believed in the time limits when they brought them in, and believed that they were to enhance the parliamentary system, what on earth do they expect their MLAs to do the rest of the year -sit in comfort in Victoria during nonsensical debate?

Mr. Chairman, I touched just a little bit perhaps then on philosophy. I think it's important in this debate to see how that philosophy applies, because whether it's a mathematical philosophy or, an economics philosophy or a political philosophy, its strength is in its application and how it affects those whom -it's designed to serve. I'd like to examine how some of our members are observing that application and that philosophy.

I think the hon. leader of the Liberals (Mr. Gibson) , whom we had an opportunity to hear a few minutes ago, gave us a tirade for 35 minutes of what I can call nothing short of a self-image of himself. Mr. Chairman, I have heard nothing but kind comments in the I I years I've been in this Legislature about the then, and now, historical "bull of the woods, " the former Gibson that served this province, and this member. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, that much could have been said, and could be said today, that would cause embarrassment to the current member and leader of the Liberals....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're debating vote 18 and not a former member of this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes ' Mr. Chairman. I believe this is relative to it because in his address this afternoon, and consistently through his addresses the leader of the Liberal Party has had nothing goo~ to say about the former Social Credit Premier of this province, a man of whom you could be critical on many points, a man to whom we in British Columbia owe a great debt. Even his most severe critics will acknowledge that, but not the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

I have consistently heard the current Premier -unfortunately I didn't realize it was coming up and I

[ Page 1634 ]

haven't researched it in detail - in the debate in this House, particularly during this session, allude to the work done on programmes by the former, NDP government and, when it went back, by the former Social Credit government in relation to the programmes we're upgrading or improving today.

Time after time, members will recall, even under his estimates, when he has said that those who took part under the former government should be proud or take great credit. I would have hoped the leader of the Liberal opposition, in keeping with the philosophy he's expressing and arguing today, would have mentioned that.

The tone of debate in the House, Mr. Chairman, which is a reflection on the House, and the leadership of this province and the roles of the MLAs - which the NDP are now attacking - have elevated considerably since the current Premier became leader of this province. The quality of the language has elevated, and I don't have to defend him. I see him scratching his ear and I guess he's embarrassed about it, but 1, for one - and I believe the citizens of this province - appreciate the efforts that he's making, and that is leadership, Mr. Chairman. That type of leadership exercises the unspoken discipline that MLAs want to exhibit in this House and in their work, both here and in their constituencies.

But what sort of leadership do we get from the leader of the Liberal Party, who initiated this debate and who's constantly suggesting that unless the Legislature is sitting we're not full-time MLAs? This House has been very good to the hon. member, but what does he do when he's not in the House? Perhaps this is why he wants the House. The House seems to provide a convenient forum for the hon. leader, where he can reach the media and he can reach his constituents not by knocking on doors and having a presence in his constituency but by using a convenient field at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Chairman, I've mentioned that I feel that a member's role in his constituency is extremely important. We've had some fireworks in this House because the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition is called the member for Maui, and he doesn't like it. But is there some justification for this? This member has spent considerable time in 1976 while being a full-time MLA and paid as a full-time MLA managing his condominiums and developments in Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this. If the hon. member wishes to do this, fine, but I think we have to relate this knowledge to the debate and the argument and his philosophy he's put forth in this debate.

This is a crucial time in British Columbia. This is a time when we should all be developing, working and investing in British Columbia. But here we have a leader of a major Liberal Party who wants the Legislature to sit year-round, spending his money and his time developing in another country. Is this is keeping with the responsibilities that an MLA has to his constituents when they're not in the Legislature? Does this not separate this member from his philosophy? One wonders on just which side of the coin the conscience lies. It makes one wonder just how to evaluate the debate. How does this hon. member justify the fact that he's not here to the supporters in his constituency? Surely our constituents have a right to expect a physical presence a good deal of the time in our own areas.

The hon. leader of the Liberal Party has just come back from a trip to Washington with the Prime Minister. I believe that we all feel that was very nice that he should have been there. But what would that member have decided if he'd been on a committee? What did that member decide when his responsibility for which he is being paid is sitting in this Legislature and putting forth the views of his party and the people? He chose to go to Washington and, I'm sure, enjoyed the company of Elizabeth Taylor. I'm sure many people would. But really, is this not relevant to this debate, Mr. Chairman, when we're talking about being full-time MLAs?

There are certainly many times when the members have to be away from the House quite legitimately -illness, government responsibilities, party responsibilities in British Columbia, speaking engagements, major constituency problems. And they're justified. But one wonders just how justifiable it is to have a sojourn in Washington in the middle of a crucial debate.

That hon. member, the leader of the Liberals, said every Premier should leave his mark in one way or another on the structure of the democratic institution. One wonders what sort of an image and imprint that leader will leave when he spends most of his time that he's being paid for being an MLA in his constituency in another country. His debate on the value of MLAs doesn't coincide with the practice of his own philosophy.

That hon. member says:

I make this plea, through you, Mr. Chairman. I think the citizens deserve to get all that they can out of this Legislature, to see that it works as effectively on their behalf as it can, and to see it, when possible, work in co-operation rather than confrontation.

Those are the words of the hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

How does he reconcile those words with his conduct in the House the other night when he filibustered for over three hours because he was in a fit of temper because we had to work? It does, Mr. Chairman, bring to mind how much we should evaluate and appreciate the depth of his debate.

I think the whole matter of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard's (Ms. Brown's) attendance in this House is relevant during this debate. She is a very fine

[ Page 1635 ]

woman, a very ambitious woman, but somewhat interesting in the sense of values when we relate it to this debate where we're arguing about whether or not your attendance in the Legislature, and the sitting of the Legislature, qualifies you for being a full-time MLA.

That member was absent from this Legislature for nearly two weeks, and this Legislature undoubtedly will vote to give her full salary. It's an interesting absence. One must ask how that absence is serving the constituents of Vancouver-Burrard. That member was visiting in a country that is a military dictatorship.

That's fine; I don't intend to debate that. The hon. Premier has said that in British Columbia we recognize that it's the federal government's role to deal in international affairs. But at the same time, in this debate that member for Burrard was calling for the Premier of this province to ban all South African wines because of her feelings about a policy in South Africa. This would have denied the people of this province the right to exercise their choice of their own censorship and would have imposed a dictatorial censorship by the government.

How does one reconcile that position on Friday with the position that this member spent two weeks at a cultural conference, while being paid by the taxpayers of British Columbia, in a country under a military dictatorship? If that member had been involved in many activities in many parts of that country, this might have been defensible. But as I understand it, she spent the full two weeks at a cultural conference in the capital city of Kaduna. It's perhaps an honour to have this member represent our country there, make a presentation, and spend a day or two. But the question is not to debate whether or not she should be there, but whether she is, in fact, after requesting that she be paid for this absence, fulfilling her commitment to the constituents of Burrard.

That member, Mr. Chairman, is a member who has said publicly in the Province on January 5,1977: "There is no question that my interests go national." This member is a confessed member who wants to be a member of the national party and who has said that she will give up her seat in the province of British Columbia if she can gain a national seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could we get back to the Premier's estimates on vote 18, please?

MRS. JORDAN: The question might well be: is the argument being put forth by the opposition as sincere as they'd like it to be interpreted? You have to look at the records of the various members in order to support it or adjudicate their arguments.

That member has been absent from this House on other occasions when she's been paid. (1) The leadership of a party in May 7 to I I in 1975. A most interesting trip....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. I fail to see how this relates to vote 18. 1 would ask you to change your stance slightly, please.

MRS. JORDAN: All right, Mr. Chairman. I have no wish to offend the Chair. But I do believe it's important when we have heard a presentation under this vote that we have heard from the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition in terms of philosophy and the criticism of this government and this Premier, relating to what they feel is an abuse of this House. In fact, this House is being abused more by them than any other members. Mr. Chairman, it's a self-serving argument that intrudes into the integrity of this House when you examine those records. I would just like to speak for myself in relation to the role of an MLA. I'd like to read' into the record what my office in the constituency does. I think it's interesting, and this is a year old now. This was done for someone else; it was an analysis of the office, and I'll quote. They list the telephone number.

"The office is open from 8:30 a.m. in the morning until 12 noon; I p.m. until 5 p.m., Monday through Friday every week of the year. There is a telephone number with an alternate telephone number which is in play during those hours, and then the telephone reverts to the MLA's home for 24-hour coverage.

"The number of persons contacted each day by telephone was averaged at 30 calls per day. This includes calls received as well as some calls placed on behalf of constituents. By letter they average nine letters per day year-round, but this does not include congratulatory letters or other letters of what we call routine nature. These are simply direct letters into the office in the constituency every day of the year. In person they see an average of five people per day throughout the year.

"We feel that the above averages are conservative and constitute an average year-round figure of 30 to 40 persons contacted in some form per day, 150 to 200 persons contacted per week, and 600 to 800 per month. This average does not in any way contain any hours spent by Mrs. Jordan by telephone or personal contact, nor do they include the election time period, nor do they include her time when she's in the constituency and not at the Legislature. We have received approximately 2,500 telephone calls into the office over a one-year period. Again, we say this consists of only office calls received."

That is just the constituency office in North Okanagan. That does not include my own time in the

[ Page 1636 ]

constituency or my own time down here. It does not include the functions of the Victoria office here.

That is the record of a full-time MLA. I believe that my own record - and it's not unique - reflects that of many members. There has to be a balance between the functions that are taking place in this chamber and the functions that take place in our own constituency. The responsibility is divided.

The committee system has use, and I think credit should be given to the NDP when they brought in a more active committee system, certainly in the initial stages. But we say that become a farce. The Agriculture committee which had travelled around the province was sitting at the very time the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) released the pertinent points of what that committee was supposed to examine and the policy of the government - before the committee had even handed in its report, while it was sitting drafting its final report.

So again, while we support the committee system, it has to be an effective system. As the Premier said, it has to show that it can function without partisanship, as I believe certainly the Agriculture committee and the municipal committee did under the former government. But to take a good idea, as the NDP did, and destroy it for political partisanship and use it merely as a showcase is an insult to parliament and an insult to the committee system.

I think that we have to be very aware during this debate of the fact that parliament must be open to all people from all walks of life, regardless of what their interests or income are. I think the danger in some parliaments has been that it was only really open to just professional people or professional politicians.

Mr. Chairman, if MLAs are not adequately paid with adequate expenses to cover their responsibilities, then this excludes many women from parliament, many people who do not have an outside income, or people who are not professional people and can carry on their work.

I believe that the life of an MLA is full time, as the system is working now, and I support it, Mr. Chairman. I would only hope that during this debate, when the three members I've referred to speak, at least we'd know on which side of the coin their conscience lies, and we'd see them practise what they are so eloquently speaking.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): On a point of order, I would like to correct a statement made by the member for North Okanagan. She said that the capital of Nigeria was Kaduna. Actually, it's Lagos, and I wouldn't like the world to know just how ignorant she is.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the hon. member's correction, and I'm proud to stand corrected. unfortunately, I do not have the personal wealth, nor have I travelled at the taxpayers' expense in order to these countries as she has.

MS. BROWN: I pity you.

MR. LEA: Couldn't you buy an atlas?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to the House, just briefly, in the question period today in he House there was a question about the current request for meeting on behalf of Crown counsel by Mr. G.D. McKinnon, who has also, but not in the telegram to me requesting the meeting, made some specific charges to the news media. I just wish to advise the House that such a meeting has now been et up for 8:30 tomorrow morning.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I will not comment at all on the member for North Okanagan's constituency report....

MRS. JORDAN: You wouldn't dare!

MR. LAUK: .. . except that I have canvassed this side of the House and we give you 6 out of 10 for hat.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks made by the hon. Liberal leader are grave. They are remarks that I am particularly proud to associate myself with, together with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. While these two speeches were being made, I recalled the time when I was a minister of the cabinet, and how it was a great strain that the New Democratic Party administration was so accessible to various groups, and that we apparently - and I can attest in reality - listened with great sympathy to many entreaties and complaints and so on.

There was a lot of public criticism, and there was a lot of courage expressed by various groups of people - including people who were disabled, including people in unorganized labour situations who had been on the bottom end of the economic totem pole and the social justice totem pole for so many, many years. At times, I can confess to you, Mr. Chairman, I wish we had closed the doors, that we could have reduced the number of hours that we were spending with these groups and these people, and that we could in some way have said: "That's enough." But when I see the contrast, Mr. Chairman, when I can see now the intimidation that's occurring in the civil service and with these groups of people throughout society. . . . I'm talking about minority groups, Mr. Chairman -the people who are cut off from the mainstream of society, who have really no opportunity to participate in the good life, who for whatever reason have no say and no voice in the corridors of power.

[ Page 1637 ]

In addition to putting the lid on - or I should say back on - we have a civil service that is operating in a constant state of terror. We have Crown prosecutors who are now revealing to the public press attempts at bribery, intimidation and blackmail.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: "By whom?" indeed, sir. We look forward with great interest to your investigation in this regard. But can we trust, Mr. Chairman, the Premier's investigation - any Premier's investigation? Can we trust the office of the Premier to conduct it without public review?

It seems to me that the most serious charges of this nature that I have heard in a great many years -and I was born here - have been made today in this province. Not since the Sommers case have I heard such serious allegations made against high-level civil servants. How far does it reach? Can we trust the cabinet, in secrecy, to determine what's in the public good?

The Premier has stated that MLAs must earn the right to make policy for the province. He states in reply to the speeches of the hon. Liberal leader and the Leader of the Opposition that he and his party earned that right at election time. That's what he said. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is something I have always thought was important to understand for any citizen, let alone people running for public office. He is the government only insofar as a majority of MLAs support him and his party and support him in particular and his ministers. As such, the policy, input and agreement to that policy are part of the legislative process.

In 1973, the New Democratic Party government introduced a Hansard. I believe, though I might be mistaken, that this was the only jurisdiction at that time in the British Commonwealth without a Hansard, a written record of debate. We were in the backwoods, as it were, Mr. Chairman. The Hansard was one of the pillars of democracy in the British parliamentary system, and we introduced it. In reviewing the index of the various Hansards since 1973, and also some Journals of the House, I noted with great regret that traditional statements about democracy have not been made. If there is any benefit to today at all, it's that they, through the Liberal leader and the Leader of the Opposition, have been made and have been put on record. I can't equal that, but I think what should be read into the Hansard record today is paragraph 17 of page 14 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th edition:

"Every member, as soon as he is chosen, becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place whence he is sent to parliament ... that every member is equally a representative of the whole has been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither" - this is Blackstone who is being quoted - "is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents" - or interest group - "but the commonwealth of the people."

Again, over the page, quoting Edmund Burke on page 15:

"To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions, mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience - these are things utterly unknown to the laws of the land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution."

I direct that quotation to the back bench in this House.

Over on page 16:

"We use the words 'House of Commons' very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words mean. The word 'Commons' means the people."

Before going on, Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of the first member for Vancouver East when he stated that the Premier made a threat to all MLAs of this House. What I wish to point out by making this quotation is that he hasn't threatened or diminished us as individual MLAs. He has threatened and diminished the freedoms and the rights of the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: I go on with the quotation from Beauchesne: "The House of Commons:

"This is the House of the people, sitting on both sides of this House; and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of Canada. Collectively, those of us who meet in this chamber represent all Canadians. That is our responsibility! That is our duty. Our rights are important only to the extent that those rights represent the rights of the people themselves. If the traditional rights of the members of this House are released, limited or arbitrarily curtailed in any way, it is not our rights that are of concern. What is

[ Page 1638 ]

vitally important is that in that curtailment of rights - there is a limitation of the rights - of the people themselves. The freedom that we have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the House we may sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country of ours. It is here -in the House of Commons, to which all the people of Canada must look for just laws properly considered and properly made, that Canadians in every part of Canada must look for the greater part of their freedom and for the assurance of that type of government which will be itself an expression of the freedom which has come down to us through so many generations of sacrifice and of tremendous efforts."

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, in his defence, has still failed to realize the magnitude and the importance of what he said last Friday. He has made a threat - not to us, not to the NDP and not to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano or the member for Vancouver Centre. He is threatening the very freedoms and rights that a free democratic people have in this province. He is threatening, indeed, the very future operation of the British parliamentary system in this province.

There is an atmosphere of intimidation. There is an atmosphere of terror in the civil service, with the disabled, and with the people on pensions and people who have relied very much on the government of the day. They're afraid to speak out because, as that prosecutor said this afternoon, they're afraid to criticize this provincial government. I know, I've heard people in the civil service and people who live in public housing say: "Well, I support you, but I'm not going to come out and say anything, because you know what they'll do to me." All right, now maybe that's paranoia. Maybe that is a fear that is baseless. I'll grant that. That's possible. But it's there. Why is it there? Why is there this fear, this terror, among people who rely on the government - the civil service, the people on pensions and the people in public housing?

It's up to the leader of this government to dispel that fear by demonstrating clearly that he is thoroughly and utterly committed to the democratic process, and that he has respect for this House, that he has respect for general elections and that he has respect for the British parliamentary system. In so doing, he opens the doors of information to the opposition, who represent the people as well. The decisions are seen to be made openly and justly for the good of the commonwealth, not in the backrooms, not in a semi, quasi-presidential system enabled by the Government Reorganization Act, not by back room meetings. The threats, the blackmail, the intimidation and the bribes must stop, or be exposed as false charges, because so long as these charges remain in doubt, that terror is still there.

Do you want a government, Mr. Chairman -through you to the Premier - based on terror, on fear, on intimidation? Or do you want a government of co-operation, with a demonstration of sensitivity, a demonstration that you are given the mantle of office as a solemn responsibility, that you are not a self-appointed dictator, that your mandate is that you govern for the commonwealth?

Yes, you're elected to government. I agree with that. If you're elected to govern, well, govern. Make your decisions and take the heat or the credit. That's fair. But when there is a fear, such as the one that is now becoming apparent through the individual courage of one or two people such as that city prosecutor, then expose it all.

The elimination of that fear is in the hands of this leader of the government. It is he and he alone who can dispel those fears. The opposition today has given him the structure, if you like, by which he can eliminate those fears.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver Centre gets on to some very serious ground when he starts dealing with a statement in the newspaper by Mr. McKinnon regarding Crown counsel. I wouldn't want him to leave the impression in this House that there have been threats of a political nature by any member of this government. Of those who work within the public service, allegations against any member will be given a fair hearing. I'm sure that member understands, having some understanding of the rights of individuals before the law and against statements made against them.

Such a meeting with Mr. McKinnon takes place tomorrow at 8:30, although that topic wasn't part of his request, but I'll certainly bring it up. The request was merely to deal with the problem of Crown counsel as he sees it in British Columbia, a system that hasn't substantially changed - nor has the Attorney-General's department substantially changed - from the last government. Most of the senior positions are still intact. They're all there, and as far as I am concerned they are, until proven otherwise, honourable and faithful servants of the public of British Columbia. They were not appointed by this government but appointed to the public service by many different governments to carry out the people's business.

Charges levelled against any one or more of them will be heard and shall be presented in the proper place, because there is a place to hear such charges. Such information should not be for the Premier's ears alone and, as such, I fail to understand why such a charge would be made and the statement made that it can only be told to the Premier. Quite frankly, I'm

[ Page 1639 ]

not prepared to place myself in the position of being a judge and a jury. Such charges, if substantiated, will have to be placed before the proper due process -such process as is available under the democratic system with which we live.

The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentions the Premier making a defence today. I make no defence. I clarify, for your interpretation and for your information, remarks made. I agree where members of this House have rededicated themselves to the British parliamentary system as being the fairest and most democratic system available to free societies. I also commit again that all of us within the party system have to earn the right to present such policies as government at the ballot box. That's what elections are about. There is no divine rule of government for certain parties or individuals - it has to be earned. Parties, from time to time, have to rededicate themselves to those principles and ultimately develop new policies for changing times.

As far as the House itself, I can remember a debate in the House where we were concerned about big government or a heavy government, and that was concerning the restrictions placed on estimates. We said the power of the purse was hard to win for parliament and it should remain there. That's the one area, in attempting. to bring some order to debate, where there should be no restriction. It will be interesting, when the motion is called later in the session to deal with that, to see how the members of the former government vote who brought in such restrictions. Where was their concern for the rights of parliament, the spending of the public purse then, when they brought in restrictions to the opportunity of this Legislature to debate the estimates of various government cabinet ministers or portfolios?

Well, I want to say that they'll be given every opportunity. There is an area of public debate that has been opened up, though, and that is whether members should be representatives of the people and of their community on a full-time basis, or whether they need a constant contact with their neighbours who elected them to government or to the Legislature. Should they continue to work and live among them to better understand the problems with which the ordinary people of this province have to cope day by day? There is a danger that in becoming full-time members and removing ourselves from our constituencies we become a form of super-bureaucrat ourselves and lose the ability to deal with the bureaucracy and to deal with the genuine complaints of the people who elected us. In fact, we become just another arm of the government or legislative system without realizing the true . intent of what representation is all about.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) ; Should we have a part-time Premier thereby?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What representation to the Legislature is all about is to continue to live and work among your constituents and to attempt to deal with their very real problems in a personal way.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) raises a point that has always troubled the parliamentary system, but it is one which can be effectively handled depending on the dedication of the occupants of the office. That is, governments, once elected, have members selected for cabinet. They are given extra responsibility, time-consuming responsibility, in the case of provincial governments and the national government. The national government collects those ministers in the capital, and they have an extra problem, but they are unique. But all of us as MLAs, as when I was in opposition, should continue to work and live and represent the people who sent them. Whether this can be done on a full-time basis or whether it can be rationalized that they should have some very continuing experience about earning their way in the community as well as being a spokesman in the Legislature to make them better prepared, is something that should be brought out in this debate - one that hasn't been debated.

I know from experience that different members of the assembly probably treat this in different ways. I know members like the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and others are full-time MLAs. They work at it full time to the exclusion of all else. The member for Delta who has the biggest constituency and the largest number of constituents in the province, has a full-time constituency office. His work is full time. There are others who approach it in a different way. There are those who have left their communities to take up residence elsewhere. It may be that they can rationalize this and say that they still have the constant contact with the people who sent them and can appreciate their problems. It would be for them to justify or to rationalize. But all members have reached different interpretations.

If anything, this is a worthwhile debate on what the role of a public representative is. Should they be of the people or should they become part of a system that works to set them apart? I know for myself it's difficult and different once you've become a part of government, cabinet and the Premier, because the tendency is to move to Victoria and isolate yourself from your community. The extra work put on cabinet ministers, especially from the interior, who attempt to continue to work as MLAs, is very difficult. You end up giving up, for the most part, your weekend, your evenings and, in a good many cases, your family life. That's an undue burden.

It's been suggested many times that those governments where MLAs, or MPs in the case of Ottawa, have been chosen to fulfil this extra responsibility should have surrogates or someone who could take the position as an MLA for the

[ Page 1640 ]

community because of the additional work of an t administrative nature. It's a problem that's plagued the British parliamentary system where we pick the executive branch from among the elected members, and not like the system you have in representative government in the United States where the executive branch is not from the elected members but from outside the elected * assembly.

One of the strongest parts of the British parliamentary system and responsible government is in fact that the executive branch, as elected representatives, must place themselves before the electorate on a continuing basis. It's a prevention of getting some sort of super-bureaucracy in government. That's why I believe in responsible government versus representative government. But it does have some handicaps and it does work some disadvantages.

Those who are not placed in that position must assess the way they can represent their constituents and whether in fact it is a full-time job. That seems to depend on the MLAs themselves and the way in which they approach the position.

Frankly, as there's no hurry to end estimates, it would be a good opportunity for all MLAs to perhaps review the way in which they serve their constituents, the way they think others should serve it, how we could resolve this problem, and perhaps for government to resolve the problem of cabinet ministers who have difficulty in dealing with their constituents.

We spend a lot of time trying to deal with the needs of people. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said the people felt threatened or lost contact. This government last year took the cabinet to many communities of this province, not to deal with big government or local government or organizations but to receive briefs from individuals and groups. There was no limitation to just dealing with local city councils, regional districts, boards of trade or labour unions; many individuals were given the opportunity to make briefs before the cabinet. It was the first opportunity many of them had. In many cases, the things they brought up were those small problems that plague the people of this province from day to day that never get recognized in the ordinary conferences that take place between local government and the provincial government. In many cases they led to improvements in the relationship which local people had with government services. They brought to the attention of members of the government problems of which they normally wouldn't be aware. It did bring government to the people.

Contrary to the statements of the member for Vancouver Centre, this- government has taken very many steps to bring government closer to the people and allow them greater access. I know that besides government being taken to the people, travelling to hose communities and giving them every opportunity to confront government and to present briefs, individually as MLAs all of us serve our constituents in different ways. One of the improvements that was brought in by the former government was the provision of salaries for constituency secretaries. I think most of us have developed constituency offices. Certainly I have.

It's the collection of those concerns that are brought in during the week that can't be resolved that I handle on weekends when I can be available and can set up appointments on a regular basis. Everyone that's expressed an interest in talking to me as MLA, not as Premier, can have some contact with their local representative. Nobody is denied in my constituency a chance for access to their representative. I believe in it strongly. It is a problem in government for those who are called upon to serve in the executive branch. They have a problem maintaining this contact with their community.

I would be interested, while we're talking about improvements in the system, and representation and remuneration, to see just what full-time representation involves, and whether representation, as we see it, should demand continuing involvement with the community and the voters who elect all of US.

MR. KING: I wanted to first of all just to comment on the member for North Okanagan's (Mrs. Jordan's) contribution to the debate this afternoon and to observe, Mr. Chairman, that we have serious matters which have been raised this afternoon. No attempt to divert attention from these very, very serious matters by government backbenchers is going to be successful. I think that's a useless attempt and one that should not be undertaken. We have certain principles about which all members of the opposition have indicated a genuine concern and a genuine apprehension. Surely that is what the Legislature should be zeroing in on - the current policies of the current government. No attempt to deal with conduct or situations that have arisen in the past is going to or should divert proper scrutiny by the opposition from the current policy which the government is following at this point. The government was elected, Mr. Chairman, to govern the province.

Interjection.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. KING: Fine. We're not completely without compassion in the chamber, Mr. Premier. My comments then will continue in the same vein, Mr. Chairman, until the Premier comes back very shortly.

I just wanted to say to the member for North Okanagan that surely the matters raised by the hon.

[ Page 1641 ]

Liberal leader and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as other members, are of current and fundamental concern not only to the democratic process as embodied by this Legislature, but certainly to the very foundation of our judicial system. It's a disservice for any member of the House to attempt to divert a proper debate of these principles anyway. I think that is a partisan political device which has been used many, many times. I know that the -member for

North Okanagan is a well-experienced MLA, but the rest of the members are not without experience either. They would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the current issues, which are extremely grave and which have been raised in a very, very serious non-partisan way, I might add, this afternoon.

I want to make a number of points, Mr. Chairman.

I trust that the Premier will be back very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you wait for him?

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that at times one's physical resources are called on to suffer extreme things, and sometimes impossible things. I trust that the Premier when he returns will be filled in on the comments that I have had to make. If not, he certainly will be able to read the Hansard, in any event, that our government introduced, and apprise himself of the remarks I made. He's back - well done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the Premier, first of all. I don't know whether it's a hearing problem, whether perhaps it's a lack of political experience, or whether it's too much political experience, but he has a habit of misreading or misinterpreting remarks that were made in this House, and I trust that he doesn't do that deliberately. But I noticed when he responded to the hon. Liberal leader last Friday he quoted him as having said: "One thing did disturb me about the member because there was another alternative he didn't suggest. He said the members of the Legislature are paid as full-time members, but they're not earning their pay. They're not used."

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Liberal leader said no such thing. That was the Premier's interpretation, if not his original thoughts. I want to read from Hansard, from the Blues, Mr. Chairman, precisely what the Liberal leader did say. He said:

Not simply while the Legislature is sitting, Mr. Chairman, but throughout the year, we are paid as full-time MLAs and I think we would wish to contribute all year, even if, for reasons of its own, the government only chooses to have the Legislature sit for a portion thereof.

Now the Liberal leader made no suggestion that members were not earning their pay. That was either the Premier's interpretation, which was completely incorrect, or it was his own inherent feeling about members of the House.

Mr. Chairman, there have been a whole variety of points of view expressed this afternoon and some very, very good dissertations, I think, on the democratic system under which this House functions and under which members are elected. I don't think it hurts, quite frankly, once in a while to have this kind of debate in this House. I don't think it hurts at all. I think it's time well spent because, every once in a while, I think it's refreshing. I think it's of value for all members to re-assess not only the constitutional parameters of the role to which they have been elected, but the moral and ethical responsibilities that are placed upon them when they are done the honour of being elected to the Legislative Assembly.

The Premier has made the point that in this institution you must earn respect, and indicated, I believe, that earning that right to involve yourself in policy comes through the electoral process when you are elected. That's true. That process determines at that stage who shall be the government, who shall be the official opposition and who shall be individual members of this House. Obviously, under our system, the party winning the largest number of seats has the right to sit as the government and to formulate policy. But I'm concerned when the Premier zeros in on that point. It displays a misunderstanding of the traditional role of parliament under the British parliamentary system. While the government initiates policy, it is the responsibility of each and every member of this House to participate in the final adoption or rejection of policy - each and every member. That's the vital role that the opposition plays in our process. While the government introduces and initiates policy, it is altogether incorrect to presume that they have the unilateral and arbitrary and sole right to participate in that process.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that seemed to be the gist of the Premier's remarks this afternoon. He has given no response that explains the remarks he made on Friday. The clear and sole inference that one could take from the Premier's remarks regarding the value of members of this institution is one of making an arbitrary and personal judgment by the Premier. That is the clear and sole inference that can be elicited from his remarks, as they stand.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier disagrees, then I think he should be gentleman enough to stand in this institution and to repudiate those remarks and to clearly state that he has full and utter and absolute confidence in all members of this House. If there is to be any judgment regarding the value, the function or he performance of any member, then that will properly take place by the electors in their respective constituencies come the next election. It is not for he Premier to make that kind of judgment.

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of a concise - and, I submit, a humble - repudiation by the Premier,

[ Page 1642 ]

recognizing the danger of the tack he took, I have to construe the remarks as very, very arrogant. They were remarks that are not only arrogant but dangerous, because they lack sensitivity for, and understanding of, this institution and the whole British parliamentary process. I think this is tremendously important for the First Minister of the government of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not only moved to great concern out of the remarks that I read in the Blues on that day, because I had left the chamber temporarily when the Premier made the remarks. But I've read the statement. I point out that his response to the Liberal leader was based on a false interpretation of the Liberal leader's comments. I think the Premier should clarify that. But quite aside from the events of last Friday, when one views the consequence of events, as my colleague, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) pointed out, it is a sequence of events which gives substance and body to the concern that I and others in the opposition have expressed regarding the attitude towards t he rights of members of this House and toward the role of opposition and government backbenchers. I want to trace that series of events again for the Premier so that he might stand in his place and, if he is being misinterpreted, make a clear and unequivocal statement repudiating not only the theme that we see emerging, but any intention on his part to interfere with, to threaten or to intimidate members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in the discharge of their duties to the people who elected them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk, first of all, about the events surrounding the blacklist that I tabled in this House. It emanated from the Premier's office to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , and was signed by the executive assistant to the Premier. It indicated the political affiliation of certain members of the public service.

Continually the Premier has been asked to give some comment on his perception of the propriety of his executive assistant - or indeed any officer, any employee within the Premier's office....

AN HON. MEMBER: Director of intergovernmental affairs.

MR. KING: Okay, director of intergovernmental affairs. But he was certainly working out of the Premier's office when he transmitted it. On the Premier's letterhead the document was stamped: "Office of the Premier." Now I care little what the man's official title is, but he is certainly an influential person, not only in the Premier's office but in the Premier's political party, having been a cabinet minister in the former Social Credit government. When he transmits a document to the Minister of the Environment carrying tattletale revelations regarding the political preferences of some members of the lands branch....

AN HON. MEMBER: Alleged.

MR. KING: Alleged, yes. Alleged should be indicated because it was most erroneous. The information was most erroneous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you introducing some new material in relation to this particular subject?

MR. KING: Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The basic material on the blacklist has been very well canvassed.

MR. KING: Yes, I intend to introduce a new dimension to it, Mr. Chairman, and I shall do so very quickly.

I think it's most important and I think it deserves a statement from the Premier giving his reaction to the propriety of a member of his staff taking this line of action. I put the same question to the Minister of the Environment during consideration of his estimates. I asked the Minister of the Environment whether he felt that it was proper for someone in his department to transmit the kind of allegations referred to in the blacklist, and I asked him whether he felt that such conduct by a member of his department was, indeed, ethical. I want to quote from Hansard, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of the Environment's reply:

Your last question: I responded to you that I felt that action by a member of the civil service in communicating in this manner to anyone -particularly to an elected representative, the press, whatever - is, in my mind, very questionable. The member mentioned morality last night, and I must agree with him that I thought perhaps it wasn't a proper thing. You wonder whether I consider it ethical. I would say I do not consider it ethical. I responded: "You do not?" and the Minister of the Environment said: "I do not consider it ethical."

Now there is a clear and concise statement by the Minister of the Environment pertaining to the same document or same epistle that was transmitted from the Premier's office making serious allegations of political affiliation against people in the Minister of the Environment's lands branch.

The sure and singular connotation that could be taken from that kind of document was that these people would be treated differently because of their alleged political affiliation. I say that is intimidation. The Premier has stonily sat in silence and refused to respond to this very basic, fundamental question: does he, or does he not, consider that kind of activity

[ Page 1643 ]

by a highly placed member of his office as an ethical act in the administration of the current coalition Social Credit government? He has an obligation to tell us. His minister had gumption enough to say it was unethical. Will the Premier, or will he not, give the House the same judgment with respect to the conduct of one Dan Campbell from the Premier's own office? Has he spoken to him? Has he admonished Mr. Campbell? Does he think Mr. Campbell's conduct, in transmitting the kind of information that has been placed in his hands by some ill-informed, ill-advised tattletale within the public service, was ethical?

I submit that the Premier has a moral obligation to answer to this House with respect to his own assessment of that kind of activity. His failure and his refusal to do so thus far gives further and grave cause for alarm in the minds of the opposition and I think I can safely say the total opposition with respect to his intent last Friday when he talked about the value and the performance of certain members of this Legislature.

If he thought Mr. Campbell's activity was permissible within the ethical confines of the government that he heads up, we can only conclude that the same degree of government arrogance, Mr. Chairman, seeped through in the remarks the Premier made last Friday when he presumed to sit as judge over the conduct of members of this Legislature, when he presumed to go beyond the electoral process and say: "Yes, although members have been elected to this institution from their various ridings, I shall have the final say regarding the extent to which they are utilized in this institution, be it on standing committees of the House, or in other functions of the Legislature." That is the clear and inescapable impression. Indeed, I think it is the intent of the Premier's conduct and statements to this point.

Mr. Chairman, we have another incident which gives weight and substance to the conclusions which I have drawn and which other members have drawn, and that is the most serious revelation today that a Crown prosecutor in the city of Vancouver has levelled a charge that the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department has offered a bribe....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I shall read the account in the press, Mr. Chairman. "A former prosecutor said today the Attorney-General's department offered him a bribe of a 33.3 per cent wage increase to keep quiet about the crisis in the Vancouver Crown counsel's office." Now I think that's quite clear. Does anyone wish to dispute that? This is the press report in The Vancouver Sun of today's date, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, hon. member, the Attorney-General should be here to perhaps answer that question under his estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish he were, but I have no control over the presence or the absence of members in the House. I think the Premier has the first obligation, because I will quote further from the statement and show you how it is related to the Premier's office.

"Gil McKinnon, who handed in his resignation from the prosecutor's office February 24, said the Attorney-General's department also threatened that if he talked to the media he would not receive ad hoc work as a supplementary prosecutor once his resignation became effective May 1. 'It was an outright bribe to keep my mouth shut about the low pay for prosecutors and the intolerable ad ministration of criminal justice in Vancouver, ' he said in an interview.

"McKinnon would not identify the person who made the quotation under bribe and threat. 'I can only name him to the Premier of this province.' he said."

Now, Mr. Chairman, here is a man who has made, in a major daily - the largest daily publication in this province - an allegation, a charge, which is extremely grave and serious. This is not just an ordinary citizen making this allegation, Mr. Chairman; in fact, it is not just an ordinary lawyer. This is a Crown prosecutor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they special?

MR. KING: Well, I would indeed hope they are special because they are the lawyers retained by the government of the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You think it's funny, do you? You really think it's funny, and you're both lawyers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: There are two lawyers, Mr. Chairman, who are laughing when I suggest that there is a distinction to be made between any lawyer practising in British Columbia in private practice, and those who are part of the criminal justice system in this province, those Crown prosecutors who were retained by government to proceed with charges against individuals ' and against corporations, and so on, under the criminal statutes of this province. I think they are something special; I think these lawyers are something special. Surely they would have to be above any question of integrity, of competence and of morality.

[ Page 1644 ]

MR. BARRETT: This charge has never been made before.

MR. KING: I have never heard such a charge emanating from a Crown prosecutor, which, in my view, not only suggests the possibility of intimidation, but that if they don't stay in line they will be victimized by being cut out of any ad hoc work for the Attorney-General's department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it doesn't appear to the Chair as though we can relate this to the administrative responsibility of the minister in charge of vote 18. It would appear that it would perhaps be better debated under the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. KING: I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, were it not for the fact that a meeting is pending tomorrow between the Premier - by the Premier's own admission - and the individual who filed the charge with The Vancouver Sun. I want to suggest to you that there should be no political meeting taking place. There should be no meeting of a political nature taking place between the head of the government, which this Crown prosecutor has charged with an attempt to bribe and intimidate. . . . I'm a layman. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think, on the basis of the information filed with The Vancouver Sun today, that there is the possible basis for criminal proceedings.

I wonder what the Premier of the Province has in mind when he proposes to meet with this individual tomorrow who has already said: "I have been intimidated through threats of removal of work that I might otherwise have expected. Attempts were made to bribe me in terms of salary and the remuneration I receive from the government."

Now in response, Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the Attorney-General's department, against which the allegation of bribery and intimidation was made, proposes to meet behind closed doors with this individual. I say, Mr. Chairman, that does not serve the purpose of justice in this province; I say that is further improper conduct. I suggest that the Premier, with the awesome political power that his office holds, has no business meeting with this individual. I suggest that it is a matter for judicial process to investigate and determine the facts, not for the Premier to meet in a political way behind closed doors so that perhaps some agreement, some out-of-court settlement could be made.

We have seen out-of-court settlements made in the past few months, Mr. Chairman, that some people view to be simply a ruse to protect political interests and to prevent political embarrassment. I say that the Premier and the Attorney-General have no right to meet in a private, political way with an individual whose character and personality have to be above reproach and question, who has filed this kind of....

HON. MR. MAIR: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.

MR. KING: When a minister of the Crown in the province of British Columbia asks why a fairly senior Crown prosecutor's integrity, character and reputation have to be above reproach, I say to you we've got a sick system. We have people sitting on treasury benches who have no respect for the judicial system or the parliamentary system. I say that's shocking. And a lawyer to boot, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: He's resigned.

MR. KING: Yes, he's resigned. He had integrity; he was not going to knuckle under to intimidation and the offers of bribery. He has made that clear. I say that is proof positive that here is a man of character and integrity. I say thank God that here was one man who was prepared to stand up to the power of government and not cringe away with his tail between his legs in the face of intimidation and with the temptation of bribery dangled in front of him.

If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) does not interpret that to be the highest type of integrity and character, then I say, Mr. Chairman, no wonder we are divided very firmly and in a very deep-rooted fashion on philosophical approaches to life. No wonder.

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you making a judgment?

MR. KING: I'm making no judgment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I am saying that when an individual....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. One minute.

MR. KING: I'm putting before this Legislature the point of view that when a charge of this nature is made by someone....

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister of consumer services is an unfortunate individual. He wants to joke about everything. I just happen to think that this is one of those occasions where matters that are so fundamental to our whole system

[ Page 1645 ]

of law in British Columbia are at stake. I wouldn't think a cabinet member, particularly a lawyer, would find that much humour in this kind of thing. I'm very disappointed I like a person with a sense of humour, but surely it should be within the realm of reason.

Here's a man who's made serious allegations. I have no intention of making judgments regarding the validity of those charges. I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when someone of the stature of a Crown prosecutor who was fairly senior, who occupied an important position in the Attorney-General's department, presumably for quite a number of years, who was very instrumental and involved in making the whole system of justice work....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I received no warning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I gave you a three-minute warning and a one-minute warning.

MR. KING: Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't notice.

Just let me wind up by saying that when these charges are made by someone of that stature, there should be more attention paid to it through an inquiry, and no political meeting held.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify for the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) , the request was received late last Friday in the Premier's office. There was a telegram:

THE HON. WILLIAM R. BENNETT PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF THE VANCOUVER CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE I REQUEST A MEETING WITH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE FINANCE MINISTER, THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND YOURSELF IN VICTORIA NEXT WEEK AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE TO DISCUSS THE PRESENT CRISIS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. SALARY PROBLEMS ARE ONLY SYMPTOMATIC OF THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY AN INEQUITABLE AND INFLEXIBLE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

I want to repeat that part:

SALARY PROBLEMS ARE ONLY SYMPTOMATIC OF THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY AN INEQUITABLE AND INFLEXIBLE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. A CURSORY INVESTIGATION OF THE COURT SYSTEM WILL REVEAL THAT THE CRITICISMS RECENTLY EXPRESSED IN THE MEDIA ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY SHARED BY ALL THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS LATE

AS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2,1977, INDICATED THAT THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM IS "UNDER REVIEW" WE ARE REQUESTING A MEETING WITH YOU AT THIS TIME BECAUSE NO REASONABLE SOLUTION HAS BEEN OFFERED DURING THE PAST YEAR. I BELIEVE THIS MEETING WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTIVE STEP AND MAY FORESTALL THE LARGE NUMBER OF RESIGNATIONS CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THE CROWN COUNSEL OFFICE.

G.D. McKINNON, CROWN COUNSEL REGENT TO VANCOUVER

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've acceded to the request. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and myself are meeting with Mr. McKinnon to deal with the specifics of the requests made in the telegram at 8:30: tomorrow.

It's also come to my attention through the press -not in communication from Mr. McKinnon - that he's been making statements that have been revealed by reading The Vancouver Sun article by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . If Mr. McKinnon hasn't afforded himself of the opportunity to take such charges to the proper areas by the time he meets with myself as Premier, then I'll most certainly counsel him. If such information is given to me, I'll take such action as is necessary to see that justice is carried out.

I want to say in regard to the Crown counsel that I'm informed that the Attorney-General last October requested a report on the Crown counsel system as part of a report on the role of lawyers in the public service. With respect to Crown counsel, that report is being prepared by Mr. A. Filmer, regional Crown counsel for Vancouver. That report as yet has not been placed before the Attorney-General.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, the Premier will undertake to file that document that he read from in the House when the committee rises.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What document?

MR. LAUK: The documents you've read from, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I see several documents there. Are they attached for any special reason?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre knows that we cannot table material in committee.

[ Page 1646 ]

MR. LAUK: But I asked the Premier in parliamentary tradition, on a point of order, whether he would table these documents when the committee rises.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just in response to the point of order, I quoted the telegram received and I'll certainly table it when the opportunity presents itself.

MR. LAUK: Well, what's the other stuff?

HON. MR. MAIR: It's probably none of your business, Gary.

MR. KING: On a supplementary. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier misses the point. I appreciate that request had come in last Friday to meet with the Crown prosecutors from Vancouver. Certainly I would have no objections or see nothing wrong with that meeting going forward had it not been for the allegations by the Crown prosecutor involved that were made today and carried in The Vancouver Sun.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I would think that the Premier, in consultation with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , would want to question the propriety of proceeding with a meeting with an individual who has levelled allegations in The Vancouver Sun today which, in my humble opinion, could provide the basis for criminal charges. I think there's a vast distinction between the propriety of conducting a meeting as it was requested last Friday and an intent to proceed now that the allegations have been made public in The Vancouver Sun today charging the Attorney-General's department with bribery and intimidation.

I say that these are extremely serious charges, Mr. Chairman. In fact, quite frankly, I cannot recall any charges in the political history of this province within recent decades that come anywhere close to the gravity of the charges made by the Crown prosecutor. This is the whole, fundamental underpinning of the judicial system in this province that we are dealing with. One of the senior members of that process has levelled a charge.

HON. MR. MAIR: How senior?

MR. KING: Okay, he's a junior member. I don't care who he is. Certainly he's a citizen, certainly he's a lawyer and certainly he's been a Crown prosecutor. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that adds to the stature of the individual. If the ministers involved do not recognize the import of that situation, Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid it only displays further arrogance and insensitivity.

I strongly question the propriety of the Premier proceeding with a meeting in which a cynical person might say there is the opportunity for further intimidation and political threats to be levelled against the man who has made the allegations in The Vancouver Sun today. I say that is improper; I say that is disrespect for the fundamentals of justice and parliamentary democracy in this province. I hope the Premier will consult with his Attorney-General about proceeding with that meeting.

MR. LAUK: Meet with him in public.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's not my advice to Mr. McKinnon. I responded to the request I received.

Secondly, the quotation that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has brought from The Vancouver Sun to the Legislature says telling no one - that he would only tell it to me - was Mr. McKinnon's suggestion, not mine. I would advise him, if I had an opportunity to speak to him, to lay his information in the proper place.

AN HON. MEMBER: The proper place?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. LEA: You said you would bring it up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just a second. I'm quite prepared to go through with the meeting. It's Mr. McKinnon who has imposed his own idea of telling the Premier of the province.... There are procedures they can go through. If he doesn't avail himself of those opportunities, then certainly as the Premier of the province, when such information is presented to me, it will be dealt with in the proper way.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean? What's the proper way?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this whole debate....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Oak Bay is trying to make his speech.

MR. WALLACE: I'm trying to get out of the starting gate but it's proving very difficult. We really have two main topics in this debate, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, I think the first one evolved out of the statement by the Liberal leader on Friday. I think I just want to go on record as to how I see the issue

[ Page 1647 ]

and to try to correct some of the misunderstandings that have developed. As I heard the suggestion by the Liberal leader, it was to the effect that members of the House are certainly willing and eager to work, as is expected of any full-time servant, and that one of the ways in which we could make that greater contribution as full-time servants of the people of British Columbia would be to involve us in more participation.

The example he quoted was committees. I responded on Friday by saying that I believe the committee function could make a much greater contribution to our total efforts in this chamber, provided that government gave some assurance they would follow the recommendations coming out of the committees. I don't mean by that that I anticipate a blanket approval by government of committee reports, but I did quote a limited experience we had with the former NDP government which did emphasize committee work to a greater extent. I quoted one particular example where the evidence before the committee was almost unanimous in every town we went to, and I'm talking about the health and education committee investigating home care and intermediate care.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What about the Queen Charlotte junket where there was never even a report filed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Municipal Affairs may well have the attention of the Chair if he wishes to speak but the member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR, WALLACE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman, has made a very valid point -that the NDP government had some committee work on the Queen Charlotte Islands and did not even submit a report. The point J'm trying to make is that the committee system offers potential to improve the overall performance of this Legislature but it will not happen in any magic or automatic way. It involves, I would suggest, a degree of co-operation which doesn't presently exist in this House. But that does not, or should not, in my opinion, damn the system. I think that the potential for committees to function in a more productive way and to involve the members of this House does exist. It has not been used well in the past; it is not being used well now. The reason I suspect that it will not be expanding is that the House is very bitterly divided and the first hope that a committee can function well is for all members to start off with a common goal and a willingness to consider differing points of view.

I just want to go on record, Mr. Chairman, as saying that undoubtedly the most effective committee I've sat on in this House is the committee selecting the audit or-general. This is an all-party committee chaired by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) . I also want to commend the Minister of Agriculture for the job he is doing as chairman because as members, I think, we all start out with that common goal that an auditor-general is desirable for the province and that we want to find the best person available.

Whether or not that community of interests and concern can be translated to other more contentious areas I don't know, but my understanding of the Liberal leader's comments was that the potential certainly exists to develop a more effective committee system, not just to put the members to work, but to involve the members on both sides of the House in a more realistic and contributory way to better legislation, for one thing, and presumably many other forward-looking proposals.

Subjects have been discussed at some length this afternoon, such as open government and participation by MLAs and the fact that the primary reason we're all here is to protect the individual rights of the people. of British Columbia by constructive and progressive legislation and to do away with legislation which perhaps hinders or impairs their rights and to bring in new legislation where it's obvious that some measure of greater protection is needed. That's the primary reason we are here.

Granted we all believe in progressive social legislation dealing with housing, schools and hospitals and so on, but even more paramount to that is the reason that the democratic system of parliamentary government exists in the first place. It was to protect the individual against the Crown. That's what it's all about. That's what Magna Carta was all about. Certainly we're here to develop better ways of providing service to people and better health care and better education and so on, but all of that, Mr. Chairman, would really matter for very little if the system were such that the people as a whole were some kind of slaves to a dictatorial government. That's the reason we're over here and you're over there. It's because the people, in their wisdom, chose to consider that that party over there would do a better job of carrying out these fundamental functions of government that I've mentioned.

What perturbed me about the Premier's apparent position is that government members are elected to govern, and he made little, if any, reference to the role of opposition members. The impression which I am sure was not intended, but the impression which the Premier has left, is that we're elected to govern, we were the chosen ones, and that's the way it's going to be. There has been little, if any, mention given to the fact that the system can only flourish if in fact we on the opposition side of the House fulfil our function as opposition members and, all too often, that has to be in a critical role. But it would certainly

[ Page 1648 ]

be a tragic day for British Columbia if there were any widespread public acceptance of the idea that the government is elected to govern and to tolerate, as best it can, the opposition parties who just get in their hair all the time, and that until each election comes around that's the one and only way in which some of these very basic purposes of this Legislature can be accomplished. I would be most distressed if I felt the Premier has no thought for the essential and vital role of the opposition parties. Now he might not like some of the speeches and he might not like the persistence of the opposition. We've heard complaints that certain debates on estimates have been dragged out. I've heard that from each side of the House during the eight hours I've been here, regardless of who is in power. I can remember the Premier's statement when he was Leader of the Opposition: "Not a dime without debate."

I don't want to go back over all these statements that have been made, depending on which side of the House the spokesman sits, and many of the statements that have been made today from both sides of the House really add very little to the essential issue we are discussing, and that is the role of this Legislature and the role of the MLAs in this Legislature. We're all agreed that one of the reasons the protection of individual rights is so important is that governments are getting bigger and stronger and more powerful at all four levels. If there ever was a time when there is a greater need for elected MLAs to be on the ball 365 days a year, and it matters little whether they're in here 300 and out 65, or in 65 and out 300 - it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that if there ever was a time for elected members, whether MPs or MLAs, to be constantly on the alert to do the job they were first elected to do, and that's to look after the basic rights and freedoms of the people of British Columbia, this is that time. That is a full-time job in the kind of world we are living in with these burgeoning governments and Crown corporations, and every time you turn around there's another arm of government that seems to be directly or indirectly involved in your daily affairs. We're wondering if it's necessary for us, as elected members, to be on the job full time. I don't think the question even needs to be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Chairman, I've heard comments that the Premier has received criticism in the mail about certain individual MLAs. I am not interested in knowing who they are, and that isn't the point. What is the point is: let's not brand the whole system and brand this whole Legislature because perhaps there are one or two guys who aren't pulling their weight. That doesn't change the system, that doesn't change the reason we're here, and I don't think it changes the kind of work that the vast majority of MLAs are doing. I have the highest regard for people like the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . You ask him whether he's full-time or not, or some of the members on this side of the House.

I think we're getting a little confused in one sense - none of us can really boast about the way we behave in this chamber. If we're talking about the overall, year-round performance of MLAs, I would say that I would be ready to stack up the 5 5 members of this Legislature with any other Legislature across Canada. If you're asking me to stack up our performance in this chamber, then perhaps I would hastily beat a retreat, because I think that the mistakes that are made in debate and the way we all lose our cool at times - myself included, of course -compared with what I hear about the decorum of other legislatures, make me feel that we could improve our performance.

MR. LAUK: Texas?

MR. WALLACE: But, Mr. Chairman, I think that to lose sight of the wider, more basic and important issue of why we're here and what the issues are in order to castigate each other because of our personal shortcomings in debate or our personal absences from the chamber or whatever, really doesn't serve any constructive purpose in this debate this afternoon. The Premier's statement that there may be one alternative to straighten out what some people believe to be a shortcoming in the way we function - cutting our salaries in half - is again, I think, a negative view of the problem.

MR. LAUK: That's what he said.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the clipping in front of me to read back the Premier's exact words but the clear implication was that reducing salaries might lead to a situation where the MLAs would be more appropriately rewarded for the amount of work they are doing. That was certainly the theme and the comment. I just say again that I think it would be very tragic if the whole Legislature or our whole system as represented by 55 elected members were to be branded as being some kind of abysmal failure because possibly a few members are not pulling their weight. I take that to be the essence of the letters the Premier has received about certain MLAs.

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the people of British Columbia can't have it both ways. I'm always hearing the appeal by many people when I travel in this province that they wish better people ran for office, that we get a poor caliber of candidate many times. It's just a very amazing analogy with the problem in the prosecutors' office. Because whether

[ Page 1649 ]

you're an MLA or a doctor or a secretary or whatever, you're human and you tend to perform according to the value that society seems to place on your services.

In other words, you get what you pay for. If this government wants well-experienced, well-educated people to run for office, these very people are usually earning very substantial incomes. Do you expect them to give up that kind of income and sacrifice their family interests and many other very important economic factors to come and serve in here and put up with some of the abuse which you're well aware, Mr. Premier, that every elected person has to suffer? Now the public can't have it both ways. If you want good legislators and hard workers who are willing to work around the year, as I think they should, you can't do it on the cheap. If you try to do it on the cheap, you drive people like me, for a start, right out of politics and you encourage millionaires to get into politics.

So let's not get off onto this subject that one way we'll improve the system is by reducing the salaries of MLAs. I think that is a negative and ill-conceived idea as a way of dealing with some of the very real problems that we have. I don't disagree for a moment that we have problems right here in this chamber and that we can't seem to make the system work. As a result - again, we're all human - there's action and reaction. When someone behaves in a stubborn fashion towards me, I'm just human enough that I become stubborn in response. That's not to excuse either side, or to blame all the government, or all the official opposition. Let's face it, we haven't functioned very well in this chamber. But just because we've had our shortcomings in that regard, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's realize that the system as it exists has potential for improvement. One of the ways in which it might improve is through the greater use of the committee system, if it's used intelligently and if the recommendations of committees are given some serious consideration by the government that appoints them.

I just want to touch briefly on the very important issue of the Premier meeting with the Crown prosecutor tomorrow. I want to say, in a completely serious and non-partisan way, that the reason the Premier finds himself in that position tomorrow is the sheer and utter frustration experienced over a period of more than a year. The Crown prosecutors have tried to follow the non-public regular channels that are open to them.

I won't take the time of the House to refer to a great deal of the documentation that I took the trouble to acquire over the weekend, but I have communications - telegrams, letters and verbal reports - going back to February of last year that show the very serious attempt that was made by that body of responsible lawyers to meet with the Attorney-General's department to try to point out, by virtue of their reasonable arguments, that changes had to be made and had to be made fairly soon. Throughout all that correspondence, the word "crisis" pops up repeatedly and the need for immediate measures. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, the reason the Premier got that final telegram on Friday is a clear reflection of the utter frustration that has been experienced over a period of time by these prosecutors.

The Premier commented that some report had not been provided by the prosecutors. I hold a document in my hand - and I'd certainly be very happy to table it after we're out of committee - dated March 12,1976, entitled "Crown Counsel Brief to the Attorney-General." It spells it out there in the clearest language. I'm not suggesting that the Premier or the government would agree with all of it, but on March 12,1976, the nature of the problem and the documentation of the costs which were being incurred by this two-layer system, if I can call it that, were all spelled out. There were some permanent salaried Crown prosecutors and another tier employed on a fee-for-service basis. For lack of a better expression, it has been called the ad hoc system, which has already been referred to. This documentation was available in March of last year. As the Premier probably knows, in September of last year, these same lawyers, out of desperation, wrote to the Provincial Secretary. Again, I'm skipping over this very quickly because time is precious.

These repeated communications to different people all reflect the lack of leadership which this government was showing in respect to one of the very serious and crucial elements in our society, and that's the administration of justice. If you can't give some kind of guarantee that we have an effective administration of justice in a reasonably prompt period of time, then one of the basic elements in our democratic system is sadly in jeopardy. These words are used throughout this correspondence: the word "crisis, " the word "jeopardy, " the words "immediate measures are needed, " and on and on and on.

So if the Premier feels this situation is being exaggerated, it is only as a result of the fact that measures which the government, particularly the Attorney-General's department, were asked to take over the past year or more have not really been heeded by the Attorney-General's department.

The incredible thing I find in discussions, particularly yesterday, with some of the parties concerned in this problem is that out of it all apparently a report is being prepared by the Attorney-General's department to try and establish a permanent group of ad hoc Crown prosecutors - just the very opposite of what the Crown prosecutors have been talking about for the last year.

[ Page 1650 ]

1 want to finish my comments, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we've all made mistakes from both sides of the House in recent weeks. I could spend time quoting back to various people what they said when they were over there in 1972-1975 and I could quote to the opposition what they've said now that they're over here, and vice versa as far as the government and the Premier are concerned. But that really doesn't help at all. I think what we really need in the immediate future - and I know it sounds trite - is just a little more respect for the House and a little more respect for each other.

We've all lost our cool at different times in recent debates and all it leads to is the stubborn attitude between the opposition parties and the government which seems to be based on the thought that the least little bit of co-operation or the least little bit of give and take will be interpreted as weakness. As a result, if the Premier chooses to flip from one vote to the next, or from one minister's estimates to another without giving the opposition parties some warning or some notice, then we over here will show the Premier whether or not we are about to take that kind of treatment. That's the way children behave. I sometimes feel our performance in here is just one great big game where we play like children when, in point of fact, if we tried to show a little more consideration for each other we wouldn't get into some of these very bitter arguments which, I admit, lead to prolonged debate which otherwise we could avoid.

If there were one positive suggestion I could leave with the House it would be that if, in the very practical day-to-day operation of the House, we could work out a system with a greater degree of assurance as to what the House will be doing and when, and if both sides of the House would live up to that agreement, then I really honestly believe that the content of debate would not only be better, but the kind of acrimonious fights that occasionally - or more than occasionally - erupt would be minimized and we could make progress. Neither side need lose their political position or compromise their philosophy, or in any way say anything more or less than they really believe in respect to any of the issues before the House. In the light of what's gone on in recent weeks that may seem like a very simple and, to quote the Liberal leaders' word, a "naive" suggestion, but I happen to think that this is the key to starting afresh this session in trying to have intelligent and productive debate where each side can still make their point of view known very clearly and 'unmistakably, but where we can do it more accurately, more briefly and without a lot of the venom and bitterness that seem to have crept into debates.

I certainly feel that some of the comments today that have related particularly to personalities in the House could start us into an even worse situation than we are in at the moment. I would hope that perhaps the Premier, later on in this debate, can give us some indication that he's willing to look at the suggestion of some more open co-operation between government and opposition parties, as that first step to try and create an atmosphere, not just of harmony, but an atmosphere of mature and adult behaviour in this House.

The committee having risen and reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to table a telegram containing the request for a meeting with the Premier and some members of cabinet, from Mr. G.D. McKinnon, Vancouver. For those members of the assembly, I just point out that the notations on top have to do with the meeting that was arranged, and in no way change the intent of the telegram.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: I ask leave to table a Crown counsel brief to the Attorney-General, dated March 12,1976.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, last week - I believe it was on Thursday - I asked that Your Honour take under advisement a ruling that had been made by the Chairman of the House in committee, relative to comments made by the hon. member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . I wonder when Mr. Speaker intends to report back to the House on that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll check the Blues. But as I recall, I made it very clear to the House at that time that the business that takes place in committee is settled in committee and not outside of the committee, and that if there was a problem with respect to a Chairman's ruling, that problem should have been dealt with in committee, not outside of the committee. The problem, if there was such a problem, was never reported to the House.

I also indicated at that time that if members of this House wish to meet with the Chairman of committee - and the Speaker, if that was desirable -to listen to the tapes, I would certainly be prepared to do that with any member who so desired. To this date no one has come to my office.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 1651 ]

was under the distinct impression that the Speaker's ruling was that you would study the Blues and anyone who wishes to consult with you was entitled to do so, but that you would report back to the House.

The point that you made, Mr. Speaker, was that the House had no knowledge of what took place in committee unless it was brought to the attention of the House, which I did when I rose on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in committee though. It was a matter that should have been dealt with in committee, I would respectfully suggest to you, hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. I raised the point of order in committee. What I was arguing with was a decision which I believed was inconsistent with rulings of the Speaker. Under those circumstances, I would think that it is a legitimate point of order to have the Speaker, in the interest of consistency, give guidance to the House as to when a remark must be specifically withdrawn. That was the point of order. And the inference I took from your dissertation to the House that night, sir, was that you would study it and report back - which was my request.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly take your remarks under advisement, hon. member.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.