[ Page 3911 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Surrey Dodge ICBC claim. Mr. Cocke –– 3911

Routine proceedings

Tabling documents

Report of the public inquiry, corporation of the district of Matsqui. Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy –– 3912

Oral questions

PREP programme. Ms. Brown –– 3912

Save-the-VRB rally. Mr. Wallace 3913

Alleged irregularities in ICBC claims. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3913

Veterans handicapped pension increases. Mr. Gibson –– 3913

Employment of relatives by cabinet ministers. Mr. Lauk –– 3914

Alleged unauthorized payments by Canadian Forest Products. Mr. Levi –– 3914

Violation of individual rights by policemen. Mr. Wallace –– 3915

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On Motion 13.

Mr. Barrett –– 3917

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3920

Mr. Stupich –– 3926

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3929

Mr. Gibson –– 3931

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3934

Mr. Wallace –– 3937

Mr. Veitch –– 3940

Mr. Lauk –– 3943

Erratum –– 3944

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today, from the great riding of Boundary-Similkameen, I would like the House to welcome Yvonne Storey, her husband, Peter Bolzi and his mother from Italy.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): As MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, I also would like to welcome Yvonne Storey, who was a very able and most enjoyable candidate in the last election to run against. I am pleased that she is here, and I would like to extend my personal welcome too.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, Alderman Laverne Roberts is with us today from the. city of Chilliwack. I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on numerous occasions I have argued before Alderman Roberts that this House is constantly improving, and I would urge you to ask members to remember that today lest I be embarrassed.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): In the House this afternoon are two friends of mine from the village of Chase, Alice and Frank Shelest. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I have the honour to introduce to the House three members from my constituency who are particularly interested in the industrial development there. I welcome them here and I hope you will do the same. They are Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Harris and Mr. Carlson.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

SURREY DODGE ICBC CLAIM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a conflict of statements related to a sworn statutory declaration on the ICBC Surrey Dodge claim tabled in the House yesterday by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) In this declaration I Mr. Ronald Richard Hudgins, a director of Surrey Dodge Ltd. said: "During the month of June, 1975, 1 telephoned the ICBC Surrey claims office and advised the person who answered the phone that the vehicle in question which had been stolen - namely, a 1969 Mustang - had been recovered. The person to whom I spoke told me to wait until the strike was over."

I compare this with the statement made at the time by this same Mr. Ronald Richard Hudgins.

"We did not report this to ICBC at the time of the theft, due to the strike." - the sworn declaration goes on to say - "Approximately one week after the ICBC strike was over, I again spoke to someone at the ICBC Surrey claims office by telephone and was told to go ahead and have the Mustang fixed and submit the claim."

Mr. Speaker, I again compare this with the statement at the time of the claim.

"In September, when the strike was over, the car was sitting waiting for repairs and was completely forgotten about as far as the insurance claim was concerned."

Mr. Speaker, the statutory declaration goes on:

"I personally saw the 1969 Mustang in question before it was stolen and after it was recovered and the said 1969 Mustang did, in fact, exist."

Mr. Speaker, the statement at the time of the claim says:

"The insurance claim was brought to my attention when I received the account for repairs in the amount of $2,946.79 from our service department at the end of February. When I received the account, we still had the car in our possession. I came in at the end of February to the Surrey claim centre to report the claim. There was a long line-up and I left." Mr. Speaker, it is patently obvious that both statements cannot be true. I am therefore referring this matter at once to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to investigate a possible application of the Criminal Code sections on perjury.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Before I deal with the point of order, hon. member

MR. COCKE: May I table the documents, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster asks leave to table documents. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, before we proceed further this afternoon, hon. members. It would appear that, on occasion, members from both sides of the House have asked leave to make statements and that leave is granted. I do not wish to interfere with

[ Page 3912 ]

the right of the members to ask leave to make statements Or the House to grant that leave. But I would observe that it is customary in making statements, particularly if they are ministerial statements, to allow the statements to be made, even without leave. But other than that, I would also like to point out that generally, a person who wishes to make a statement to the House in order to inform the members at least briefly of the subject matter, states briefly what they have in mind at the time they ask leave.

Otherwise what you're asking all of the members of the House to do is approve leave to make a statement without them having any knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter which is about to be brought before the House.

I just make that as an observation and I would hope that all members in future would preface their asking of leave with just a brief indication to the House of the subject matter they wish to discuss in the statement.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: If you're on a point of order, state the point of order, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , that material filed in affidavit form by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) yesterday was false on its face ...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: ... is also, Mr. Speaker, something that has to be considered by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in terms of the abuse of the Legislature - it was presented to the Legislature ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR.MACDONALD: ... and in terms of the abuse of members of the Legislature who have maintained that that accident was not reported until March 25,1976. That affects the whole Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a matter of debate at the moment, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: I've stated my point of order and it's in the hands of the Attorney-General, but those points must be borne in mind because they're very serious points.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I would suggest, hon. member, that you take those matters up with the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I just have.

MR. SPEAKER: By asking leave to make a statement in the House on a point of order which was really not a point of order, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Abuse of the rules.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tables the report on the public inquiry, corporation of the district of Matsqui, submitted by Alfred 0. Hood.

Oral questions.

PREP PROGRAMME

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Yesterday I started a question to the Minister of Human Resources and I would like to continue with it. I asked at that time whether any people were being turned away from PREP who were in search of jobs. The minister's response was: "No."

On July 6, Mr. Speaker, the following letter was sent from the PREP office in Vancouver to all Vancouver Resources Board offices. It said:

"Please remember that we cannot handle the regular amount of clients because our staff is on holidays. When booking PREP appointments, please book only those that are really important. If a PREP interview could be put off until September, we would really appreciate it. After all, if we have too many clients, we can't be of proper service to them."

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister now is: as there are 93,000 persons unemployed in B.C. and as the minister is constantly boasting about the efficiency of his PREP programme, can he explain why the clients who desperately need employment should be put off until September?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, firstly I think there should be a correction. The question was not as suggested by the member and the answer certainly was not a simple no. I gave an explanation yesterday as well.

However, in response to the matter raised now, I will look into the memorandum having been sent out of the Vancouver office of PREP to the Vancouver

[ Page 3913 ]

offices for the Vancouver Resources Board. I will provide a further answer later.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I have a supplementary for the minister. I would like to ask him, regarding the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Programme, if he can explain why an employee was referred by PREP to a job and was subsequently paid for only half of his wages by a cheque which was returned as NSF and which he is presently having to go to court to try to collect, and why this same employee was referred to another job by PREP where he earned $600 and was paid only $50 and then found his employer himself was on welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some programme! A businesslike government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe the member should provide all of the information to the minister's office and we will then provide the appropriate answer. But to proceed on a little bit of what may be hearsay is totally out of order.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): No details, no names.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask leave to file the document with the House after the question period and I would ask that minister whether or not that man becomes two statistics in his PREP programme.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that she can file documents or ask leave after the question period.

SAVE-THE-VRB RALLY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This question is to the Premier, with regard to the march and the rally which is being organized at the Orpheum Theatre on Sunday, July 25, by the Save the VRB joint committee made up of various groups representing every area of Vancouver.

Since the Premier has been invited to attend and offer his comments, and since he has supported the principle that he will always listen to interested groups in an open manner, can the Premier tell the House whether he will be attending or sending a delegate in his place?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, I will not be attending, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd also wonder what delegate the minister is sending in his place. My supplementary question was: Since the minister has been invited to ask government members to attend as observers, can he tell the House whether he has made any request to any members of his party to attend as observers on Sunday?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I just got the letter.

ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES

IN ICBC CLAIMS

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I took as notice some questions that were asked earlier in the week with respect to claim No. 196107S, and the questions were these: (1) Did the vehicle exist? (2) How is it possible to pay a claim without the vehicle being inspected?

Mr. Speaker, I've inquired of officials of the corporation on both these points and have a memo from the senior claims manager, B.F. Pearson, which I will table with the House. It lists the record of owners of the particular vehicle. There are seven of them and the details are not tabled in this document, but the vehicle itself has a long history of registration, including the return of the vehicle by the police and the police report of the time of the theft.

With respect to paying claims, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked about paying claims without vehicles being inspected. During the strike and the period after that, over 10,000 vehicles were repaired without the corporation inspecting them. In other words, there were over 10,000 claims where claims were paid without inspection. This, of course, was during the time in which the NDP was responsible for ICBC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

VETERANS HANDICAPPED PENSION INCREASES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. As the minister is aware, every time that veterans' pensions are increased to allow for cost of living or any other reason, the amount the province pays to such a recipient in respect to handicapped benefits decreases dollar for dollar. The result is that the province saves money when the veteran's pension goes up and the veteran is no better off.

The minister promised me on March 22 that immediate consideration would be given to my suggestion that even though the province won't index the HPIA benefits to cost of living, at least they would stop the procedure of cancelling the federal cost-of-living increases. In view of the fact that I have a file of letters from veterans who are anxiously

[ Page 3914 ]

awaiting good news on this subject, will the minister tell me the outcome of his March review?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's so upset he's losing his voice.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will get the report on this and table it for the member.

EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES

BY CABINET MINISTERS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): This question is to the Premier. As the Oxford dictionary defines "relation" as....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: They're very nervous over there, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Listen carefully. The Oxford dictionary defines "relation" as: "The connection between persons arising out of the natural ties of blood or marriage."

Will the Premier be reconsidering his statement that Tony Tozer is "no relative of mine, " and will Mr. Tozer by released from government service, in keeping with the Premier's memorandum on nepotism?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be reconsidering it. My interpretation is correct. If I had the time I would probably take the time to explain the dictionary and how that interpretation is made to the member who asked the question.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Premier indicate whether or not he or the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) is correct as to when the Premier was first notified that Mr. McKelvey was a son-in-law of the Minister of Transport?

The Premier refuses to answer the second supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier indicate why he does not include Mr. Tozer, who is the husband of the brother of his sister (laughter) ... or the brother of the wife of the whatever... ? (Laughter.) He's the brother of the husband of his sister - that's what I meant.

. Will the Premier indicate why he feels that his son-in-law, who is not a blood relative of the Minister of Transport, is any different than Mr. Tozer, who is the brother-in-law of the Premier's sister? Will the Premier answer that question? (Laughter.)

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): It's a good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, in view of the gravity of the allegations involving hon. elected members of this assembly and the Speaker, to proceed this afternoon to Motion 13 and to Motion IS standing on the order paper in that order, for debate and consideration of the House at this time,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Attorney-General, I must draw to the attention of the members of the House that the question period was five minutes short. I unfortunately did not know that until I had recognized the hon. Attorney-General, so I must say to the House that we still have five minutes left in question period.

EMPLOYMENT OF RELATIVES

BY CABINET MINISTERS

MR. LAUK: I don't know why the Clerk.... Is there any relationship between the hon. Clerk and Tony Tozer? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there is some concern expressed that the Premier draws lines that would include staff and relatives that he's hired and excludes staff and relatives that the Minister of Transport hires. Is there any reason why the Premier has drawn the line there? Could he indicate any reason to the Legislature? None? Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It is quite clearly outlined who could be considered relatives.

MR. LAUK: By you!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's a very easy definition that most people in British Columbia have no trouble understanding. But by the convoluted question by the member, I can understand that he must have trouble with the answers.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Does that mean that Davis gets his son-in-law back?

ALLEGED UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS

BY CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): On Monday night during the estimates of the Minister of Forests, I raised the issue of the MacMillan Bloedel unauthorized payments as were revealed in the form 10-K in the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States. This matter was outlined by Paddy Neale of the Vancouver and District Labour Council in letters to the Attorney-General, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , and

[ Page 3915 ]

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . I'm sorry, there was a referral to the Attorney-General by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

A few days ago Ron Longstaffe, the executive vice-president of Canadian Forest Products, admitted that his company was involved in making an unauthorized payment of $10,000 while acting as an agent for Reed Paper Ltd. without the appropriate corporate authority.

So my question to the Attorney-General is: is his office going to initiate an inquiry into both of these matters? They involve the rights of shareholders.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

BY POLICEMEN

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, also to the Attorney-General: in view of two recent events, one where Vancouver policemen were convicted of assaulting an undercover agent . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's under appeal.

MR. WALLACE: ... and another where a Surrey husband and wife, through mistaken identity, were dragged from their car, manhandled, handcuffed and searched by RCMP officers, is the Attorney-General concerned over such incidents where it appears that innocent individuals are subjected to physical abuse by conscientious policemen who too readily violate the rights and freedoms of the individual?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, in response....

MR. WALLACE: Now don't wriggle around on legal points. Answer the question. Are you concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay had his opportunity to ask the question. Now please recognize the Attorney-General, who is on his feet.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I just got up, hon. member, and I was just breathing in. I hadn't expressed a single, solitary word as yet. If you could just restrain that fuse a little bit longer you can have a response.

MR. WALLACE: I heard your interjection. I'm not deaf.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't interject, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You said it's under appeal.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, the first case is under appeal, hon. member. You are aware of that fact. Being aware of that fact, I find it strange that you raise it in the House. In the second case I gather that a lawsuit has started.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't ask in relation to the appeal. Are you concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General has the floor.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed, I am concerned.

MR. WALLACE: What steps has the Attorney-General taken to prevent, as far as possible, the repetition of these mistakes by policemen?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to mention to the hon. member that in society in every walk of life we have human beings who transgress rules. I would like also to draw to the hon. member that there are provisions within the two specific forces for action to be taken for people who transgress rules. People in society, since the time we came out of the cave, have transgressed. rules. They will always do that and sanctions can be applied against them. There are also the provisions of the Police Act, which is a very good mechanism, and there's the Police Commission, as you know. There is also access to the courts on criminal charges if they are warranted and, furthermore, access to the courts for personal damage actions.

In the illustrations in question, I gather that in the Vancouver police situation - I'm speaking from memory now and I certainly could stand to be corrected - the two officers in charge were suspended. I couldn't tell you today whether they are still on the force but I will certainly find that out. By virtue of it being under appeal, they probably still are. Insofar as the other incident is concerned, I gather that an internal investigation is being conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I can assure you they will do a thorough job.

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that which I mentioned a few moments ago, when I was under the impression that question period had terminated, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave of the assembly today, Mr. Speaker, in view of the gravity of the allegations involving hon. members of this House and also yourself, sir, to proceed to Motion 13 and Motion 15 standing on the order paper and in the order of calling Motion 13 followed by Motion 15 for debate and for consideration of the House at this time.

[ Page 3916 ]

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I recognize anyone on Motion 13, 1 would call on the hon. Deputy Speaker to take the chair.

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like your direction as to whether or not I must ask for leave separately on the motion standing in my name on the order paper, or is it appropriate for another member to ask for leave for my own motion?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You said yes.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to clarify that for future reference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll just confer for half a moment to see whether an extra motion is needed.

Hon. members, it is understood by the Chair that leave has been granted by the entire House. The House has given its expression of leave on both motions, so it would be proper to proceed to the motion at this time. However, before we proceed, could the Chair just take this moment to acquaint the House with the procedure on a motion such as this; At least in my time in the House, I do not remember a motion such as this having been placed on the order paper and perhaps it might be wise for us just to review what the precedence of the House and standing orders require of us at this time.

The motion to be considered is as it appears on the order paper, and the debate is quite different from debate which may take place in Committee of Supply or, indeed, even on a bill in second reading. The material to be covered in the debate of this motion must be strictly relevant to the motion which is before us. I know that all members will keep this in mind. Any information which could be considered irrelevant and which could bring yet another matter to be considered should be brought in by separate and substantive motion. I think all members know this, but I would like to remind you and it will make my job that much easier if you keep it in mind.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling that a motion in the name of another member can be called by leave by any member, as is the decision now advised by you today, if that's my Correct interpretation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not exactly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, no, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, a motion standing in the name of a member can only be moved initially by that member himself. A motion standing in one person's name cannot be moved by another member, except if it be one cabinet member moving a motion of another cabinet member who has a motion standing in his name on the order paper. The observation that the Chair made was that leave had been granted in the instance of both motions. If the member in whose name the motion stands does not wish to have this motion debated, it is his prerogative not to move the motion.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. What you're saying. . . . Mr. Speaker, let us clear the rules so we understand completely. I think it would be appropriate, considering earlier Speakers' rulings, if I ask leave, specifically, that I call my motion. I so ask leave, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not required, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Then you are saying that any member can call for leave for any member to call his motion at any time. If that is what you are saying, then I appreciate that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling was only that the expression of the House had already been heard, and that was that leave was granted. It wouldn't be required; it is superfluous.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, thank you. What you're saying, and I just want to clarify it before I go on, is that any person can get up and ask leave that the rules be suspended so that a member may call his motion at that time if that member wishes to do so, if leave is granted. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that. I may want to get up and ask leave of the House to let the Attorney-General call the motion in his name, as this precedent now allows me to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is apparent that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Speaker might well sit down in the office together and discuss it, but as it is....

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. The place to discuss it is here, Mr. Speaker. I ask for advice and I get your interpretation. I am bound by your advice. I respect it. I only want to say that if the same question comes again, the same ruling is recorded so that the same request will be granted to all members who have equal rights in this House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

After consultation I'll try to make it clear for all

[ Page 3917 ]

the members. The ordinary business of the House at this time is that we move to Committee of Supply. In order for that order of business to be replaced by any other order of business, such as motions, leave must be granted by the House to move to that order of business. Having been granted leave to move to that order of business, it is then the duty of the House Leader to call a motion which is to be debated at that time. Further leave is not required. Leave has been granted to move to motions per se. Therefore, a motion, Motion 13, when it is called, is then responded to by the mover. The mover does not require further leave. He just then moves his motion. Is it clear?

MR. BARRETT: Yes it's very clear, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank you again for the clarification. What you're saying is that the House Leader got the floor and asked leave of the House to proceed, by suspending the rules, to Motions 13 and 15 those two motions specifically.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. In effect we changed the order of business from Committee of Supply to motions, whatever number they happen to be, His motion involved 13 and 15. It is then the prerogative of the House Leader to call which motion he wishes to call. As a result, he called for Motion 13 and then the mover of the motion moves the motion.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the House Leader did was ask for leave to move Motions 13 and 15, not to motions generally. He specifically mentioned 13 and 15. My point is that if a member who has the floor can ask for leave for the suspension of rules to move to any particular order, including motions, that member then has the right, by this precedent, to specifically name a motion, as the House Leader did, and ask for the mover of that motion to call that motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, as I understand the rules, and I'm very happy to review them again, leave is not necessary for a House Leader, a government leader, to call a motion. Leave is only required that we move to the order of business called motions. That is precisely what the House did.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you are quite correct, Mr. Speaker, except that the House Leader specifically mentioned leave to move to 13 and 15, which I am willing and anxious to do. However, it is establishing a precedent that anyone who has the floor, when asking for leave to move to a certain order of business, can indeed, by this precedent, request the suspension of the rules to move to a specific motion that does not stand in that member's name on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, a member can ask leave, but leave may not necessarily be granted.

MR. BARRETT: Leave may not be granted, thank you. That's all I wanted to settle, because we had a different ruling earlier. Now we've got it straight. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 13 standing in my name on the order paper, which reads as follows:

"That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to be examined by a committee of privileges and his failure to give proper or any reason for his decision, thereby interfering with the right of the House to vindicate its rights and dignities."

This motion is seconded by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , although by rule it is not necessary to have a seconder. I so move.

First, I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I recognize, with respect, the decision made by the Speaker to vacate the chair, although I have been advised that by tradition that is not necessary. I respect the decision of the Speaker to do so under this unusual move, and I think he is to be commended for that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank you for your very clear instruction as to the nature of this debate, which is indeed unusual. It is unusual, and as a matter of fact, it is not possible for me to recall in terms of my personal experience of some 17 years to have the unfortunate responsibility of having to deal with such a motion. We must, of course, then deal with rules that are the time-honoured governing bodies for legislatures such as this, as they are throughout the whole esteemed British Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, In reviewing those time-honoured rules and the esteem that we hold with them, we must understand that in the British House of Commons and Commonwealth Houses of Commons, there is a great deal of trust as well as tradition and rule that goes into gentlemen and ladies being representatives of various constituencies. It is indeed a matter of traditional understanding beyond the specific subscriptions of laws and rules of this House that standards of fairness and conduct be respected by all sides of the House.

It is not unique, Mr. Speaker, in citing examples throughout history of May and Beauchesne, that in other jurisdictions than this other people have lost their tempers, have strayed from the rules and indeed have been the cause of such judgments, by recording in May and Beauchesne. It is not unique in this House. Anybody who is a citizen of this province who is concerned about the sometimes harsh tone or heaviness of debate in this House should understand that that is indeed common on any occasion in any House that is governed by a free legislative body

[ Page 3918 ]

under the British tradition, and it must remain so. It must remain so because in the free flow of debate and exchange of opinions on rules of debate, there are human beings involved. In our free society, those human beings must be fettered only by the rules and traditions of this chamber and the chambers that we have received these honoured rules from.

In dealing specifically again with this motion, Mr. Speaker, with the complaint of breach of privileges brought to the attention of the Speaker, Beauchesne's 4th edition states at page 95:

"It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privileges does not extend to deciding the question of substance, whether a breach of privilege has been in fact committed, a question that can only be decided by the House itself."

The importance of that quote, Mr. Speaker, is that the Speaker is. the neutral judge. The facts are to be decided upon by the majority that has been delegated a majority by the people in a free society.

To quote further, Mr. Speaker, I point out:

"The Speaker requires to be satisfied both if there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest possible opportunity."

May further states, Mr. Speaker:

"That the proceedings of the House may be interrupted at any moment, save during the process of decision, by a motion based on a matter of privilege. When a matter has recently arisen which directly concerns the privileges of the House, in that case the House will entertain the motion forthwith."

So in reference to those two quotes, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing essentially with our House business and the conduct of that business.

This debate will not capture the attention of the vast numbers of the population of this province. Many people will wonder: Is this debate worthwhile? And although it is not a dramatic debate, and it is not the stuff that popular press reporting is made of, this debate deals with the very foundation of representative democracy as it is functioning here in this country of Canada and in this province of British Columbia.

What is the complaint, Mr. Speaker, that led to this very grave motion in our terms? In a sense, it is our family terms. The complaint here is the actions of the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) in allegedly countermanding the summons of the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs to a Mr. Norris of the B.C. Railway on the grounds that certain members of the committee had decided on their own, and not by the committee's decision, not to attend the committee's ordained meeting on June 28 at 9 o'clock. This evidence was to be not examined and countermanded by the Speaker, by the two articles I've quoted in Beauchesne and May, but these actions were decided without sanction by the chairman or the committee and were done unilaterally, thereby thwarting the chairman's authority conferred under our House standing order 72 (l) .

Mr. Speaker, you know that the committee is required under the original terms of reference from its parent - that is, this House, which you must overlook, Mr. Speaker - and was instructed by this House to meet and to comply with the instructions laid down by its parent. If the members deliberately flout the order of the House that you run, Mr. Speaker, and decide to abstain from their duties to the House, this prima facie case would be a breach of privilege qualifying for immediate intervention of the House, and in a proven case would be contempt of the House's direction given to it when the committee was appointed.

Speaker Shantz, when he addressed a similar case - although not on the same motion - stated on March 4,1963, on the subject of committee arrangements.

"The chairman of any committee may, in order to facilitate the work of the committee, make certain preliminary arrangements; however, only the committee is competent to direct the performance of its own functions within the rules and within the terms of reference of the House. It is true that the chairman may summons -a witness without instructions from the committee, and the power to do the same thing by a slightly different method is available to each and every member of the committee, but whether or not the witness may be heard is for the committee to decide [illegible] standing order 72 (l) ) ."

The Speaker, Mr. Speaker, was advised that we would want a ruling on whether or not the allegation was indeed a prima facie case of a violation of the House's instruction; and that the Speaker, indeed, is the person who is the one to interpret the rules from the parent House to the committee, recognizing very clearly that by time, honour, tradition and rule, there is no direct interference by the House through the protection of the Speaker with the committee's daily activities. There is only interpretation of the rule.

From this, it is clear that in examining the complaint coming back to the office of Speaker, that the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) had no right to take upon himself the rejection or obstruction of an appointed witness called by the chairman or to cancel an appointed meeting of the committee, as is alleged. At the time the complaint was made, that indeed was the allegation. So it was not so much -again I refer you back to Beauchesne - for the Speaker to- determine whether the allegation was

[ Page 3919 ]

correct or not; it was a matter for the Speaker, in my opinion, to bring this to discussion by the House itself, rather than the Speaker making a decision on the weight of the allegation.

1 do not intend to be much longer except to quote a couple of references as well. Such a matter is for the House to decide since it bears upon an interference with its instructions to a committee, the instructions that are traditional to all committees. Interference with the summons from the chairman of a committee of the House is for the whole House to examine after an investigation by the committee of privilege. In the B.C. Journals of the House on March 22,1892.... Where a summons to appear before a committee was disregarded - indeed, was deliberately disobeyed - the House intervened to vindicate its dignity in the face of the defiance of the Kennedy brothers, publishers of a New Westminster newspaper in 1892.

Some time has passed since 1892, but regardless of the passage of that time, the rules of this House are the same, must be the same and must be guaranteed to be the same. The passing from life of the members who made that decision in 1892 bears no direct connection with this House. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the sense of the passage of time, members are not even known by their own given or Christian names, but are temporary occupants of seats representing the people who ultimately pay the bills and the money that is being spent by the government of the day. None of us are here by name. Only in the corridor outside of the confines of this particular arena are we known by name. Here, we are known as honourable gentlemen and ladies bound by an honourable, time-worn code; and in March, 1892, the Kennedy brothers, publishers of the New Westminster newspaper, interfered and, indeed, were interfered with, in appearing before a committee. And that could have happened yesterday, 100 years ago or 500 years ago; the point is still the same. This House must not brook interference, and when a prima facie case is made, the House must decide whether or not it took place indeed, not the Speaker

Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to conclude with three more references. Mr. Speaker, in May, the 17th edition, at page 129, it states and 1 quote, sir:

'To tamper with a witness in regard to evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.--The second quote I give you, Mr. Speaker, is May at , page 130, 17th edition:

"Any conduct which is calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either the House or before committees of either House is a breach of privilege."

AN HON. MEMBER: Any conduct.

MR. BARRETT: Any conduct - that's correct, Mr. Member. I know the Speaker clearly understands that any conduct, whether it's a definition of impressions of phone calls, whether it's a [illegible] impressions of statements.... May clearly states: "Any conduct which is calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before a committee of either House is a breach of privilege."

In the 1970 B.C. Journals of the House at page 202 esteemed Speaker Murray quotes with approval Dawson's 2nd edition of Government of Canada, page 399: "The privileges of the individual member are primarily designed to enable the member to attend his parliamentary duties without interference and to encourage members to speak and act freely without fear of undesirable consequences."

Mr. Speaker, in relation to that, while the House is sitting all members as hon. members can make statements, allegations and file documents in this chamber with absolute freedom from fear of prosecution by any civil court. That indeed, too, was handed down to us at the time when we had an ill-advised sovereign who was receiving messages from the House of Commons from sources that are known today as newspapers that were incorrect. When that sovereign who was ill advised received those notices, that sovereign who was ill advised and did not act completely on his own will had certain members of the House put to death for making statements. They were put to death unceremoniously in dark alleys. So this rule was made, Mr. Speaker.

That ill-advised sovereign was told by the two Houses in Great Britain some 350 years ago that any member has the responsibility. It is the privilege of the individual member and those privileges are designed to enable the member to attend his parliamentary duties without interference. My colleague, the esteemed member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , who is the chairman of the public accounts committee, was attending to his duties. In the attendance of his duties an allegation was made that a witness was interfered with and this was immediately brought to the attention of the Speaker. I respect my esteemed colleague for doing that because this House is more important than any individual career. The member was courageous in taking that move.

Speaker Murray went on to say that: "Contempt of parliament relates to offences against the authority or dignity of parliament." A sovereign found that out, to his regret. Not to cast any reflection on any sovereign, I make it clear that that particular sovereign was obviously ill advised. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Murray clearly spelled out that: "The authority or dignity of parliament relates to offences of it ... as such is a disobedience to its legitimate command."

[ Page 3920 ]

What does this all mean, Mr. Speaker? It does not mean that everybody who is a citizen of this province now hangs on the edge of their chairs in their homes in front of the television or reading the newspapers tonight to see the outcome of this debate. Outside of law schools and a particular fancy in some law schools, this particular debate will be noted in the Journals of the House and filed away to find some post-graduate student examining this curious happening this day of our Lord in the summer of 1977 - the first sitting in the summer since the Boer War. It is not an earth-shaking event that will be catalogued on hotline shows or in extensive editorial writings, but it is a matter that is important to every one of us who is in this House today because we are custodians of the freedoms and rights and responsibilities of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in this present complaint the elements presented to the House which require immediate investigation and which were blocked, in my opinion, by the Speaker, prompting this move and this motion - and this is my opinion, regretfully - were as follows: (1) a committee witness was admittedly told not to show up, although the committee had not formerly changed its appointed meeting or excused the witness; (2) the chairman's authority to summon witnesses under standing order 72 (l) appears to have been subverted, and I choose that word cautiously; it appears to have been subverted; (3) there was a question of whether the decision of the House ordering the committee to carry out its duties and its terms of reference was being deliberately - and it's only a question when I use the word "deliberately" - and designedly disobeyed or sabotaged. Mr. Speaker, in all these circumstances, with the greatest of respect to anyone who occupies the chair of Speaker, I submit to you and to this House that it is not the function of the Speaker to disregard such serious complaints or to judge their gravity.

The case that I've been making is that in the rare instances where serious complaints of breach have been made in the House, the Speaker must be protected by those rules. That's why those rules are written. That's why it is a snare and a delusion for the Speaker to avoid placing himself or herself in that position.

In conclusion, I quote again that in all these circumstances, it is not the function of the Speaker to disregard such serious complaints or to judge their gravity. It is for the House committee of privileges to examine and for the House to judge, in due course. It should therefore come ahead of other business on the order paper since it was raised at the earliest possible moment. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in this regrettable debate as to having lost confidence in the Speaker when, indeed, the obvious course should have been to put it to a House committee of privileges to report back to this House.

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal note. I hope we've all learned something from this experience, and I frankly hope that I never have to participate in moving such a motion again. It was not moved with anything more than a serious concern about the whole role of Speaker. It is not a usual motion, and indeed has not been moved by anyone in my time over these past years. I refer completely to the 1892 incident. I thank the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and I thank the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in agreeing with the motion after we had some discussion and regretfully came to this conclusion. There is one way to solve this matter and have this motion withdrawn. That way would be for the Speaker to quietly say that this should go to a House committee of privileges.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In order to properly consider this matter, I think we have to very fully and carefully consider the material that was before the House, the sequence of events, and the long established rules and practices of parliament. It is an extremely serious charge. It is an attack on the Speaker, which in essence is an attack upon every other member because the Speaker derives his authority from each individual member, is responsible to and for each individual member, and also because the Speaker has the duty to interpret, adjudicate and act upon the rules and practices of this assembly.

In his motion, which is a charge against the integrity of the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sets forth six points: (1) the House lost confidence in the Speaker; (2) because the Speaker failed to allow a prima facie case of contempt to be examined by a committee of privileges; (3) the Speaker failed to give proper reasons therefore; (4) the Speaker failed to give any reasons therefore; (5) in so doing, the Speaker interfered with the right of the House to vindicate its rights; (6) in so doing, the Speaker interfered with the right of the House to vindicate its dignities.

These are six grave charges. These are six serious allegations. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that not only are they not proven, but also they are non-existent and not factual. The motion refers to dignity. I would submit, with every respect, that the most obvious and dignified approach that is open to the advocates of this manoeuvre is for them to request that it be withdrawn or vote against it. I'd like to consider the sequence. I refer to Hansard and I refer to filed material.

On June 28, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) rose on a point of privilege. He recited a series of events and he concluded by saying essentially four points were clear to him: (1) Mr.

[ Page 3921 ]

Norris "was a duly summoned witness" to the public accounts committee; (2) that he, Mr. Norris, was "improperly persuaded from attending a duly constituted meeting", (3) that "there is therefore a prima facie case of breach of privilege to be considered by Mr. Speaker", (4) Mr. Speaker found it to be "a prima facie case." The hon. member "proposed" to move a substantive motion. I'd like to deal with those four points.

First there was no evidence before Mr. Speaker that Mr. Norris was summonsed. It rather seems there was evidence of a request for him to attend.

Secondly, there was no evidence that Mr. Norris was "improperly persuaded" from attending. There was no evidence that there was any impropriety or persuasion waged against Mr. Norris. There was only the bare statement from the hon. member for Nanaimo that he had received "another call from Mr. Norris' office to the effect that he was en route back to Vancouver since he had heard that the meeting was cancelled. I" - that is, the hon. member for Nanaimo - "was since informed that he had heard this from Mr. Kerster's office."

The hon. member for Nanaimo indicated that it was "clear" to him - those are his words - that Mr. Norris was "improperly persuaded." Yet evidence to support such an allegation was not advanced.

MR. MACDONALD: That's for the committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member for Nanaimo clearly and correctly indicated to the Speaker.... My friend, the Speaker's responsibility is to adjudicate a prima facie case. Pm sure you will have an opportunity to add your great contribution to this debate at a later stage.

The hon. member for Nanaimo clearly and correctly indicated to the Speaker that the Speaker had, first, the responsibility to determine whether or not there was a prima facie case, which is correct. If the Speaker so determined, then the substantive motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo could follow. So the hon. member for Nanaimo made it abundantly clear, as is the case and as is well known by all members, that any substantive motion precludes the normal and ordinary business of the House. But it is clearly conditional upon the Speaker determining a prima facie case.

The hon. member for Nanaimo very correctly articulated the prima facie guidelines test, which all of the authorities have prescribed to, that a Speaker must follow. All Speakers under this administration and in former administrations in this province indeed have so followed. If Mr. Speaker did find there was a prima facie case, then it was open to the hon. member to present his substantive motion and the House would hear it. If the Speaker found there was not a prima facie case, then it was always open to the member for Nanaimo, as he well knows, being one of the senior members of this House, to put his motion on the order paper.

The hon. member for Nanaimo in his submission appended to his material the hon. member for Coquitlam's (Mr. Kerster's) memorandum of June 27, wherein that member said that Social Credit members were unable to attend the meeting in question, that he requested the meeting be cancelled and that the B.C. Rail delegation be recalled at a later date. That's the memorandum filed by the hon. member for Nanaimo.

The hon. member for Nanaimo further appended his own memorandum of the same day to the hon. member for Coquitlam, expressing his view that the B.C. Rail vice-president had confirmed his attendance and that it would be embarrassing to admit that the meeting had to be cancelled for lack of quorum. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) were both away in Toronto at another meeting at the time in question.

In his memo the hon. member for Nanaimo expressed the hope that the five Social Credit members could attend so there could be a quorum. I'd say it's patently clear and obvious from both of these memoranda - and I would suggest it's a reasonable assumption - that there certainly was considerable doubt on the part of the hon. member for Nanaimo of there being any likelihood of a quorum or of the meeting proceeding.

Hansard next shows that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose and related to the Speaker certain excerpts from authorities. The Speaker then indicated he would reserve his decision in order to give full consideration to the matter, as has always been the accepted and customary Practice in this Legislature.

Before referring to the Speaker's decision I'd like to mention to you the parliamentary courses that were open to the hon. member for Nanaimo according to the rules of this House and the rules under which he has existed for many years and well knows: (1) the Speaker could rule there was a prima facie case and the member could present his substantive motion and have it debated; (2) the Speaker could rule there was not a prima facie case and if this occasioned the hon. member could file his motion, have it placed on the order paper and/or challenge the ruling of the Speaker, as could have any other member; (3) the ruling of the Speaker could not, however, according to the rules of this House, be debated or reflected upon.

Those are long-established rules. These points are all of long-established parliamentary procedure. It's been the practice of this House ever since the senior members whom I shall be referring to have been here, and they full know exactly what they are. But what

[ Page 3922 ]

emanated, Mr. Speaker, was a raft of spurious points of order and prima facie abusive language relating to a non-debatable ruling and a ruling that in itself was not challenged. Instead of following correct practice and procedure, reflections on the ruling were volunteered, which in itself was wrong, even apart from it not being debatable and unchallenged.

The Speaker's procedure was correct. The Speaker's actions were correct. The Speaker followed the course suggested to him by the hon. member for Nanaimo. The Speaker followed rules which are abundantly clear, which are the subject of historic precedent, and are well known to all members of the House.

He heard the question of privilege, which was correct. He listened to a recitation of authorities, which was correct. He considered the question, which was correct. He ruled on the question, which was correct. He said there wasn't any debate following his ruling, which was correct. He indicated his ruling could be challenged, which was correct. He indicated to the member for Nanaimo that he could exercise other procedures. He could have filed the substantive motion and placed it on the order paper, and that was correct, too. There were seven specific steps, all well known all abundantly clear and all correct. Having delivered his judgment, as he was called upon to do by the member for Nanaimo, and having ruled that there wasn't a prima facie case, Hansard clearly shows that the harangue started and the rules were flaunted.

In summary, in his ruling the Speaker indicated: (a) that it was clear to him that there could not be a quorum as Social Credit members were unable to attend ...

MR. MACDONALD: Why?

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... (b) there was no evidence of an attempt to "persuade a witness not to attend." In fact, the memorandum filed by the hon. member for Nanaimo expressly referred to a request that the B.C. Rail delegation attend at a later date.

The next point that the Speaker ruled was that there was not a prima facie case of privilege. Not only would I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was not just the absence of a prima facie case of privilege, but there was no case at all. The whole matter, as I will shortly indicate, was nothing but the grossest of political flim-flam and all very carefully orchestrated.

I want to show you how the abuse of the rules of the House and the abuse of the Speaker next developed, all to a non-debatable and unchallenged ruling. The hon. member for Nanaimo said: "It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there was evidence that Mr. Norris had been. . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm quoting from Hansard.

"It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there was evidence that Mr. Norris had been ordered by someone -that he should not come." This may well have been the conclusion of the hon. member himself, but it is unsupported on the evidence that he filed in the House, and he well knows that.

Then the Speaker advised the hon. member: "There is a provision, if the member wishes to exercise it."

To which the hon. member responded: "If you don't like what I've done, challenge it."

The Speaker informed the hon. member: "It's not a debatable matter."

The hon. member replied: 'That's an incredible statement."

There is nothing incredible about that statement. That has been the rule since long before the hon. member for Nanaimo has been in this House.

Then the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre said this to the Speaker: "Mr. Speaker, you have. . . ."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: First!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you first? I'm sorry.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Wrong again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought you were first. Well, you should be first!

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said this to the Speaker: "Mr. Speaker, you have deliberately ignored evidence placed before you." Upon being asked to withdraw those words he did so. But then he alleged: "How can we expect to respect the rules of this House after a decision like that?" This was dealing with the test of a prima facie case.

He wasn't to be outdone by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , , who now also entered the non-debatable debate and said there was "a deliberate throttling of the public accounts committee on June 28, " with not a scintilla of evidence in this to back it up.

MR. MACDONALD: That's up to the committee to decide. You're afraid of the committee. You just want to vote it down by your government majority. You won't let the evidence be heard.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This member knew, in full breach of the rules, that he was debating a ruling that was non-debatable. It's a disgraceful performance!

MR. MACDONALD: Cut it off; vote it down. Don't let the evidence be heard.

[ Page 3923 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the first member for Vancouver East come to order?

MR. MACDONALD: I've been attacked.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Next developed was the interchange between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and the Speaker. The leader proposed with leave to present a motion which he said was co-seconded by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and by the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , which, as I said in my opening remarks, contained augustly precalculated and pre-orchestrated points. I would like to repeat them. It seemed that this miraculous little motion was typed in the middle of this debate in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Of course it was. It was prepared for an eventuality.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Isn't that marvellous! He said the House lost confidence in the Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Speaker failed to adjudicate a prima facie case of contempt. He failed to give proper reasons; he failed to give any reasons. He interfered with the rights of the House and he interfered with the dignity of the House.

The rules clearly establish, Mr. Speaker, as the second member for Vancouver East, who is a member of many sessions, well knows, that a motion as serious as this - an attack upon the Speaker - is an attack upon the members. It has got to be on notice. May refers to that in the 16th edition, page 361: "Matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion: Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinctive vote of the House. Among these are the conduct of the Speaker." It repeats essentially the same thing on page 417. On page 225 it says this: "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be [illegible] as breaches of privilege. His action cannot be criticized incidentally in debate" - as it was throughout on that seamy afternoon ...

MR. BARRETT: He's been reading Fotheringham.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... "or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion." Mr. Speaker, lo and behold, in the middle of an acrimonious and out-of-order debate, a motion, impliedly spontaneous ...

MR. BARRETT: Not spontaneous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... unrehearsed ...

MR. BARRETT: No!

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... extemporaneous ...

MR. BARRETT: Order!

HON.MR.GARDOM: ... chock-full of righteous indignation ...

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: . . . miraculously appears-, already typed (laughter) , and dealt with conclusions I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that were obviously reached and decisions that were obviously made before the Speaker rendered his judgment - contrived, calculated. I think perhaps chicanery is too strong a word, so I won't use it. It said that the Speaker didn't give proper reasons. The motion said that the Speaker didn't give any reasons. There's a page and a half of reasons in there. It said it interfered with the rights and dignities of members. Surely, I'd suggest, that's disrespect of the highest order to spider-web up those kinds of conclusions without even the fairness or propriety of waiting to hear what the Speaker had to say.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to deal with the issue or what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The next abuse was the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that his request for leave to move this motion was refused by hon. members. The nays were resounding. Everybody in the precincts heard them. Ask the attendants. Everybody heard them -everyone, it seems, but the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and he attempted to humiliate the Speaker, in essence, by questioning his impartiality. When the Speaker said, "I heard a number of noes, hon. member, " the hon. Leader, of the Opposition then said: "You're ruling on your i own motion while you're in the chair." This was not correct because the Speaker was ruling on leave, but in either event it has always been the established practice, as the hon. leader full well knows. What was the response of the hon. Leader of the Opposition? "That is pure obstruction by the Chair, absolute and pure. I've never seen anything like this - a straight fix." I think the propriety of those words is not deserving of comment.

The Leader of the Opposition next said to the Speaker: "Just stick to the rules." The Speaker did, all the way through, and that certainly cannot be said for those who are attacking him. The performance was not only rehearsed and staged, but contradictory and out of order. The hon. member for Nanaimo didn't choose to file a substantive motion, which he could have done. He didn't choose to challenge the

[ Page 3924 ]

ruling of the Speaker, which he could have done. This motion, which is baseless itself, should have been on notice. Apart from that, it's still technically out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Why is it out of order?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The reference is incorrect in it, hon. member.

I'm informed that the hon. Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , dealing with this matter on the programme of Mr. Jack Webster, said words to the effect that he had doubts about "the rectitude" of this motion. I'd submit, with every respect, that those doubts are readily capable of being reinforced and made even stronger now.

The authorities are clear. If a breach of privilege is raised, the Speaker's responsibility is to decide whether a prima facie case exists. That is, one which would justify those proceedings taking precedence over all other business of the House - supply, estimates, bills. If Mr. Speaker concludes that a prima facie case has not been made out, then the complaining member has complete opportunity to place the matter on the order paper by way of notice of motion, if he feels he has a legitimate complaint. To have the Speaker now faced with a motion of lack of confidence because he reached an obviously correct conclusion that there wasn't a prima facie case that would require the House to stop its business, I'd say, is a sorry reflection on the part of any member proposing it.

There was in the material before the Speaker nothing more than a transmission of a statement of fact that a witness had been informed that a committee would not be meeting to transact business. That's far from solicitation or persuasion not to attend. It is extraneous to the matters that are now before the House. That was the case that the Speaker had to adjudicate, and he was correct - obviously correct. I'm certainly not going to refer to anything more that has developed since then by virtue of your admonition, Mr. Speaker. It's even more confirmatory of the correctness of the decision of the hon. Speaker of this House.

In 1934, a select committee of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom was appointed to consider the operation of sessional orders relating to witnesses. The chairman referred, with apparent approval, to the following description of the office of tampering: "Tampering with, deterring, threatening, beguiling, or in any way unduly influencing any witness in regard to evidence that may be given by him before parliament or any committee." This illustrates the gravity and the tenor of the offence. In dealing with the complaint of influence being exerted to bring about a withdrawal of evidence, it was observed in the House by Mr. Avery that the other instances in which privilege was claimed all involved, if not corruption, at any rate, intimidation or victimization.

In a memorandum prepared for the Select Committee of Privileges by Sir Horace Dalkins, Clerk of the House of Committees in Westminster, the following statement was cited:

"It is obviously not right that when an inquiry has been ordered by this House or the other House or by any public authority, a person should be debarred through fear of consequences, or threats of unpleasant consequences, from coming forward freely and fully to give the information which it is desired to elicit in the public interest."

And these observations apply with equal force to inference with witnesses before they have appeared to give evidence.

These authorities, Mr. Speaker, all clearly refer to threats, intimidations, coercion. There was not a suggestion nor even an allegation - not a suggestion nor even an allegation - of such conduct by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , let alone any evidence whatsoever of it in the case that he presented to be considered by Mr. Speaker. There was not only no prima facie case, there was no case at all.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that each and every individual member of this assembly will now be able to clearly see that what we have had happen here is an act of the lowest kind of a political manoeuvre. It does, in the terminology of the hon. member for Oak Bay, "lack rectitude." I would urge all members not to support it, because if they do - by implication, if nothing else - they certainly become parties after the fact to it.

I would most respectfully suggest to the two seconders that on reflection they now be able to see that which they assented to may well have been received in haste and was not correct. The facts that they might have received dealt with matters when they were away which probably were misinterpreted. But they were not correct. On the basis of what they have seen in the House, on the basis of the authorities, on the basis of the ruling handed down by the Speaker, on the basis of the behaviour that emanated in this House following the ruling of the Speaker, I do hope they'll be able to see their way to withdraw their co-seconding of this motion.

In fact, I also hope that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) himself would withdraw his motion and let us get on with the business of the people. Every person in this room has been elected on the mandate of working for programmes and polices and the betterment of citizens of this province and not to manufacture personal attacks. As one of the senior columnists recently said: "The real solution lies with the members themselves, and only they can bring to the House the decorum and dignity needed

[ Page 3925 ]

to conduct business properly."

Mr. Speaker, it's about time the work should be done, the business attended to and the needs of the people put ahead of personal vendettas. Purely and simply, this place, instead of acting like a Legislative Assembly, is quickly becoming little more than a hatching house for a nest of adders. Surely every person here has a responsibility to the electorate to put politics and programmes and priorities first and get off this personal-attack kick.

I think a good start would be by supporting the system; concentrating and building rather than wrecking;, strengthening rather than weakening the democratic fabric, which indeed is fragile enough as it is.

I must conclude by expressing the opinion that the background, the reasons, the procedure, the complete modus operandi of this motion has been regretful and unfortunate to say the least. I call on all members to make the job of the Speaker, the function of this House, the job of all members and the dignity of all offices the better by unanimously rejecting this motion. The public deserves better.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Clarification as to the substance - I will be able to wind up debate. That is correct.

The point of order is one that must be raised immediately after a member speaks. The member stated that we were attacking the integrity of the Speaker. I would ask the member to withdraw that in the nature of this debate as it is imputing a motive against members that is unwarranted in this debate. I ask the member to withdraw that we were attacking the integrity of the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The phrase has been found to be offensive by the Leader of the Opposition. Would the hon. Attorney-General withdraw?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would be happy to withdraw any phrase that people take exception to. I certainly will withdraw that one. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly like to mention to you that if anyone else would receive an impression other than the one I illustrated as a result of the substance of this motion and the indignities that happened to the Speaker that night, I'd like to know what it would be.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking the withdrawal of the allegation that we were manufacturing personal attacks and attacking the integrity of the Speaker. "Manufacturing personal attacks" are the words that he used.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this phrase in addition to the one he has just withdrawn?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that was at the end. I'm asking him to withdraw those statements that we are manufacturing personal attacks and attacking the integrity of the Speaker. I ask those withdrawals without qualification, as is required by the rule.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Attorney-General please withdraw the offending phrase?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to repeat the point I raised. I said every person here has the responsibility to put policies and programmes and priorities first ...

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for withdrawal. Debate is one thing; I'm asking for withdrawal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ... and to get off these personal-attack kicks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. Attorney-General withdraw the offending phrase?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think I'm just being misquoted on it. If he interprets it that way, it's fine with me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the spirit of the debate, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, sure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): First of all, before I make my point of order I would like to clarify a rule with you, Mr. Speaker. Is it against rules of the House to read your speech?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To read the speech in its entirety has been known to be out of order in this House. To have copious notes, as the member knows and has well experienced, is in order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think the Attorney-General, while telling us that we have been breaking rules of the House, broke the rules through the entirety of his speech by reading it in its entirety. In order that this may be clarified, I would ask that the Attorney-General table his copious notes in the House so that we can ascertain whether or not that speech was read in its entirety.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would

[ Page 3926 ]

remind the hon. member for Prince Rupert that his point of order is irregular on two counts. If the exception was to be taken to the reading of the speech, it needs to be made during the reading of the speech.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I waited until he was finished. As a matter of fact I would also ask, on the point of order, that the Attorney-General withdraw the word "adder" - "nest of adders."

Also, I contend he said it. If he will table his speech, we can prove it. We can prove it, and I would ask him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has taken offence at the phrase "nest of adders." Would the hon. Attorney-General please withdraw?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Judging the source, I shall withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. An unqualified withdrawal, Mr. Attorney-General, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Unqualified.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Some hon. members are perpetuating the very point of order that we are trying to clarify. On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert. State your point of order.

MR. LEA: The Attorney-General did not rise in his place and withdraw. I would like to have that withdrawal on the "nest of adders" unqualified.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to withdraw it unqualifiedly. I did not refer to specific members; I said the assembly is becoming like it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So ordered and it is withdrawn.

The member for Nanaimo on the motion.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): As the hon. Attorney-General has pointed out on several occasions during the course of his remarks, I've been in the House for some time. As a matter of fact, I entered the House before he did. But may I say, it is the first time I have heard as weak a defence from an

Attorney-General in this province as we have experienced today? I think he recognized himself the weakness of his defence and the choice of language that he used and the several occasions on which he was required to withdraw that language.

I think he recognized the weakness in his defence when he continued to repeat particular phrases selected from certain materials without reading the rest of the documents, and in some cases, Mr. Speaker, dwelling not even on phrases but on simple words, taking those words out of context and repeating his arguments based on the use of that word many times during the course of his presentation. If you don't have sound arguments to use, then you depend on the length of your speech and on repetition in the hope that you are going to win your point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now to the motion, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: The hon. Attorney-General said that he was not, in accordance with your admonition, going to refer to happenings since the Speaker's ruling was handed down. He then proceeded to say that things have happened since then that have made the Speaker's decision even more confirmatory. And that's a direct quotation, Mr. Speaker.

I deny that that deduction can be taken from those happenings since. I am not going to deal any further with those happenings but I did want to disagree with the Attorney-General's remarks with respect to something that has happened since that he was not going to refer to. Yet somehow or other he seemed to work them into the record. Perhaps that's a legal trick that is available to lawyers and should not be used by other people.

Mr. Speaker, we were ready with a printed motion, and the hon. Attorney-General took much from the fact that we had this motion ready. That in itself, I think, shows something about the opinion of the combined opposition with respect to resolution 13 before us now.

Some time elapsed between the time this was first raised in the House and the time the Speaker came down with his ruling. It was during that time that had elapsed that the opposition came to the conclusion that the Speaker had indeed arrived at a decision with respect to the matter before him but was taking a good deal of time in which to arrive at the arguments to support that conclusion, in the same way that the hon. Attorney-General tried to support his defence this afternoon. We were ready in the eventuality that, as we expected, the Speaker came down with the ruling with which he did come down.

MR. STUPICH: We were ready. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when this issue was first raised, the

[ Page 3927 ]

Speaker challenged the hon. member for Nanaimo by saying: "If you don't like what I'm doing, you know what you can do about it." Well, I took only one conclusion from that: Mr. Speaker at that time was inviting the very course of action that is now being considered in this House.

MR. MACDONALD: According to the rules.

MR. STUPICH: According to the rules, Mr. Speaker, if we don't like the way the person in the Speaker's chair is dealing with matters before the House, there is this option available to the House. The Speaker not once but twice or even three times, to my mind, invited me or someone on this side of the House to embark upon the very course of action upon which we are reluctantly embarking. I say reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, because you well know, as all of us in the House know, that to the best of our knowledge it has never happened before in British Columbia that this kind of a motion has been used against the Speaker. It is a serious matter.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has pointed out, it's not something the people all over the province are going to be sitting on their chairs wondering about, but it is important, Mr. Speaker. I doubt that people in England were sitting on their chairs wondering when the Magna Carta was being signed and wondering whether it was going to be signed, and that they were interested even some years after that document was signed. Yet it was the beginning of something very important just as this issue today is very important. Can we trust the Speaker to come down with what we consider to be a fair ruling? That's the issue before us.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote from the Blues edition of the Speaker's ruling, and I think this is fair enough. It was a prepared statement and I'm sure it will be accurate. I don't have Whites before me but I do have the Blues and I would like to quote from them. In reading this report, the Speaker says as follows:

In reaching my decision I have considered the authority cited ... by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre ... and I have carefully examined the material provided by the hon. member for Nanaimo, namely a memorandum addressed to him from the hon. member for Coquitlam and his reply thereto.

Mr. Speaker, if this was an ad lib speech such as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) gave when he was reading from copious notes, we might have to consider whether or not this was in context. But it wasn't, Mr. Speaker; it was a carefully prepared statement. In this paragraph the Speaker is saying that what he considered were two short memoranda and that he paid little, if any, attention - he didn't even mention it - to the statement accompanying those memoranda that detailed the events leading up to this motion being placed on the order paper. It was a two-page memorandum outlining what had happened, yet it was something which the Speaker apparently felt was not worthy of consideration in trying to decide whether or not there was a prima facie case. The Speaker did not consider everything that was put before him in arriving at the decision at which he arrived. That's point No. 1.

The Speaker went on to say:

I also note that under standing order 72 the chairman and the members of a committee have the right to call witnesses in accordance with an agenda agreed to by the committee or arranged by the chairman with the general consent of the committee, although no person has the right to bar the attendance of a witness.

Now I'm going to read standing order 72 (1) . Let's see whether or not there is any relation between 72 (1) and the reading of it as included in the record by Mr. Speaker:

"No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House, save at the instance of the chairman or a certificate shall first have been filed with the chairman of such committee by some member thereof stating that the evidence to be attained from such witness is, in his opinion, material and important."

The Speaker chose to go much further than standing order 72 because he was trying to bolster up a weak argument in support of a conclusion at which he had previously arrived. There is absolutely nothing in standing order 72 that agrees with the Speaker's reading of it when he says that "the chairman and the members have the right to call witnesses in accordance with an agenda agreed to." There is absolutely no reference in that standing order to an agenda; absolutely no reference in this reading to general consent of the committee; absolutely no reference to his inclusion of the words: "No person has the right to bar the attendance of a witness.--There is none of that in standing order 72. Yet the Speaker felt that in order to bolster up a weak argument he had to use those words in an attempt to colour the hearing of what he was saying, in an attempt to persuade people that his ruling was indeed fair and proper under the circumstances. We deny that it was.

The Speaker goes on:

In his memorandum the hon. member for Coquitlam requested adjournment of a meeting scheduled for the following day, as he had been advised that the Social Credit members on the committee would be unable to attend.

Standing order 71 (2) indicates that a quorum of the committee would be a majority of its members. Based on information provided to the chairman there could

[ Page 3928 ]

be no quorum for the meeting in question.

Mr. Speaker, the then Speaker was assuming something from a memorandum that had changed hands. He was assuming that all of the members on the government side of the House had informed him that they would not be attending that committee, in which case there would be cause for another question of privilege, when a committee set by this House has been instructed to meet and yet when some members of that committee had apparently connived to arrange that that meeting would not go ahead. Now that's one conclusion.

The other conclusion is that he had canvassed some of the members and had an indication that a number of them would not be present. There was some question in his mind as to whether or not there would be enough present to have a quorum - a question that he could not possibly answer without contracting the other non-government members of the committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker apparently, in arriving at his ruling, made no attempt to find out which was the case - whether there was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the committee or whether there was an opinion expressed by the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) that, possibly, there might not be a quorum. I think either conclusion can be drawn from the memos submitted by the hon. member for Coquitlam. But certainly the Speaker apparently has arrived at a particular conclusion because it backs up a decision that he had made in advance of considering the arguments in favour of that conclusion.

The Speaker goes on to say: "I cannot find in this material even an allegation or a suspicion of corruption or intimidation or any appeal." Well, Mr. Speaker, it's quite true, he couldn't find anything in the memo from the hon. member for Coquitlam to myself, or the memo from myself to the member for Coquitlam. There's nothing in there that would lead him to suspect that there was any appeal to the witness not to appear. But as I pointed out previously, Mr. Speaker, the then Speaker, for reasons best known to himself - and I suggest that there could be only one reason and that was he wanted to back up the conclusion he had previously arrived at -chose to ignore the information contained in the memorandum that 1 filed along with those other memoranda.

He then goes on - not following in the footsteps of the Attorney-General because the Attorney-General followed - and uses words to try to impress in the minds of the listeners that there's something much more here than was there indeed. Apart from appeal, he uses the words "corruption, intimidation, direct or indirect, . greed or fear." Mr. Speaker, it was not necessary to prove that there was greed; to prove that there was fear; to prove that there was corruption; to prove that there was intimidation. It was only necessary to show that there was persuasion, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in reading from May, quoted an authority to that effect. All we had to prove was that there was interference.

There didn't have to be any proof to the effect that he would be paid off if he didn't appear. There didn't have to be any proof that he would be fired if he did appear. None of those things had to be proven. There had only to be proven that somebody interfered with that witness appearing before the committee. Mr. Speaker, a reading of the two-page document submitted with the memoranda does show that there was interference, beyond any question. But the Speaker chose to ignore those memoranda, as is evident from a reading of his statement.

The then Speaker and the hon. Attorney-General made much of the fact that the memo from the hon. member for Coquitlam said that the witness could be rescheduled. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will appreciate, as many members of the public accounts committee will appreciate, that it could be rescheduled to a date when it would be impossible to hear him. There's nothing in that that need convince the Speaker or the members of the House that that witness would ever be heard. The Speaker didn't have to rule on that. That was really not the point of issue before him. The point of issue before him was whether or not a witness had been interfered with to arrive at a particular time and date.

The hon. Attorney-General, as I say, repeated several times - quoting from my memorandum, which the Speaker chose to ignore - the word "request." The hon. Attorney-General, because he had little else to go on, chose to ignore in his arguments that it didn't end with a request; that following the request, there was correspondence from the witness to myself; that following the request there were two completed telephone calls between Mr. Norris and my office; that following the request, there were two other phone calls. The Speaker chose to ignore all of that evidence and seems to infer, because there was simply a request; and suggest, in the way he uses that word "request" over and over; that possibly the request was never even transmitted, that possibly the request was never received and that possibly the witness had no intention of answering the request in any way at all or possibly the witness forgot the request.

Mr. Speaker, there was evidence before the Speaker that it was much more than a request; that a definite appointment had been arranged; and that that appointment was broken by the witness and it was broken because his attendance at that committee meeting was interfered with.

Later on in his statement, the Speaker says:

I can find no authority to suggest that it would be

[ Page 3929 ]

improper to inform a witness that he need not appear on a particular occasion, based on information that a scheduled meeting of a committee should not transact business by reason of the lack of quorum.

Mr. Speaker, 1 leave it to your fairness. In that paragraph alone the Speaker is admitting that a case has been proven, that a witness has interfered with. Just read that again, Mr. Speaker: "I can find no authority to suggest that it would be improper to inform a witness that he need not appear . . . ... Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest in those words alone the Speaker is saying: "I admit that someone advised the witness not to appear." Yet the opposition has not proven that the witness was advised not to appear.

The Speaker admits he was advised ' and then goes on to say that no case has been proven that he was advised. The Speaker goes on, and this is the concluding paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

The authorities 1 have referred to indicate that it would require a positive move to intimidate, hinder or deter with a wrong motive a witness in order to constitute a contempt, and such a situation is not indicated in the material at hand.

Mr. Speaker, in my reading of the Speaker's statement, he did not refer to a single authority which indicated that it would be necessary to positively prove that a witness was intimidated, that a witness was hindered or that a witness was deterred with a wrong motive. We don't have to read motives into it. The question put to the Speaker was whether or not a witness was persuaded not to attend.

He did not refer to any such authorities, Mr. Speaker. He did not refer to the memorandum that detailed all of the happenings. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious in the minds of the combined opposition that the Speaker had arrived at his conclusion before doing his research and did his research to back up his conclusion. That being the case - and it's obvious and I think I have proven that to you, Mr. Speaker -the House can do little less than to support Motion 13 now before this House.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Are you going to sit down?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I've got the floor.

MR. LAUK: Are you on the committee?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Possession is nine-tenths of the law!

HON. MR. MAIR: It's a hundred-tenths right now, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, 1 find it amazing that he who comes into this House with a prepared motion prejudging a decision now has the gall to criticize the judge for the same sin.

I listened with great difficulty to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his emotional speech before the House and his crocodile tears. 1 noticed that some left the room, presumably to be ill. But I wondered whether or not in his 17 years' experience he gave us, he isn't really telling us that he has had one year's experience 17 times.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, let's move to the motion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, let's do that. Mr. Speaker, I think that because all hon. members in this House must make a very serious judgment, we must look at this motion in context, we look at the merits of it, and we must, to some degree, Mr. Speaker - and I'm sure you would agree - judge the actions of the accusers as well as the accused.

I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problems that gave rise to this motion did not happen simply by reason of the incident that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nanaimo have given us today but arose much sooner. I'm going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, in judging the motion in its overall context and in order to come to a fair decision on the merits, one must go back to March 17,1976, when, in a petulant answer to a defeat at the polls and at the last minute, the opposition withdrew unanimous support of this same Speaker. Because of a loss and because of bad sportsmanship, this Speaker, in moving into the chair, Mr. Speaker, started off without any fair chance whatever.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at the beginning of this motion it was exactly this kind of thing that the Chair was cautioning. We must restrict our debate to the facts in the motion itself and not bring other activities or other actions into the motion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I fully intend to abide by the Speaker's ruling, of course, but 1 must, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and with the same latitude that was taken by the Previous two speakers, set the stage for the remarks that 1 will deliver in direct relationship to the matter in question.

MR. LEA: Ask for leave!

HON. MR. MAIR: After this rather unfortunate start, the Speaker has been subjected by a few of the members opposite - 1 specifically refer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , the first member for

[ Page 3930 ]

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) - to a constant barrage of flagrant abuses of the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

HON. MR. MAIR: This is the context into which this particular matter was injected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may 1 read the motion for you again? "That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker. . . .-

HON. MR. MAIR: You may, Mr. Speaker, but 1 an aware of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may read the motion for the hon. member again in order to guide him in remaining in order:

"That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to be examined by a committee of privileges and his failure to give proper or any reason for his decision, thereby interfering with the right of the House to vindicate its rights and dignities."

Any remarks that the hon. minister wishes to make should be related to these thoughts contained in the motion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As 1 say, I am just trying to very briefly set the stage for the remarks which I will direct to the specific instance in question. I think 1 must, in fairness, remind the Speaker of the House that the Leader of the Opposition made one good point. He did say that the Speaker must be protected by the rules. 1 should also point that he should also be protected from the rule book being thrown at him, which happened on that disgraceful day a year ago -twice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is entitled not only to the protection of the rules, but also to the protection of common decency. We have seen this particular Speaker - a fair-minded man -attacked at every opportunity by people who do so for minor political gain. This Speaker has never been given any chance at fair play by some of the members opposite. He has had rule books thrown at him, he has had his rules ignored, and he has been flagrantly abused at all opportunities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may 1 remind the minister again that we are not to introduce other incidents into this particular motion? Please restrict your material to that matter covered by the motion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having set that stage, and it now being clear to all members of the House the details about the Speaker who is now being called into question by this motion of confidence, let me turn to a point which nobody on the benches opposite seems willing to address themselves. It's time, Mr. Speaker, that we stopped kidding ourselves. We know that you, Mr. Speaker, both as Chairman and in your capacity as Speaker, and all Speakers and Chairmen before you, have relied very heavily in making decisions raised in this House upon the eminent Clerks who sit before you.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, 1 understood that the point of order ought to be raised at the end of my speech and not during it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, a point of order is in order at any time. On a point of order, the member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. MAIR: If he wishes to abuse the rules.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it's the height of improper behaviour ever to refer to the Clerks' advice to the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken.

MR. LAUK: It's absolutely outrageous!

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 wonder if you would be good enough to give me the authority for the proposition that 1 cannot refer to the fact that the Speaker sometimes gets advice, as we all know he does.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the practice of the House, hon. minister.

HON. MR. MAIR: I wonder if 1 might ask for more explicit reference on that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the practice of the House, hon. minister, and if you wish to have a citation I will prepare it for you.

MR. GIBSON: Why don't you challenge his ruling, Rafe?

[ Page 3931 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, but because you have a disorderly House I was not able to hear precisely what you said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister please withdraw that remark? The Chair is attempting to run an orderly House.

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 know you are, Mr. Speaker. 1 withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! If this House is disorderly, it is because hon. members make it so. It is the practice of the House not to refer to the Clerks. Because the minister is new in the House we will remind him about that. If he needs a citation, we will prepare the citation for him. 1 will have it for him at his desk. Will you please proceed?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intended no discourtesy to you either in asking for the citation or in pointing out that I could not hear your ruling because of the words being tossed at me from the opposite benches.

1 think it is evident that the Speaker in question has acted with the abundant fairness he has always shown in this House and with the patience he has always shown, which has not been returned to him. He has acted with the authorities brought to his attention, on the authorities based on the authorities, and in accordance with the authorities. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the only possible basis for the bringing of this motion by those members opposite is to disguise through this motion their own inability to deal with the issues that face the general public today and to do the business of the people, as they were elected to do.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, for a member knowing so little of the courtesies of the House to make reference to a Clerk in that fashion and to dress down the opposition on its motion, I just find that extraordinary. He was right in one thing in his address and that is in referring to March 17,1976, when the hon. members opposite in this House - and by that 1 mean on the opposition benches - had something to say about the way in which the appointment was made. I said, in concluding my remarks - and 1 will say no more about them, Mr. Speaker, than this - that the partisan nature of that appointment will haunt the life of this government, and it has done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I will say no more about what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said. I want to refer somewhat to what the Attorney-General had to say. He told us in marbled tones, dripping with West Point Grey suburbanity (laughter) , that this motion is an attack on the House.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a defence of the House. And it's right, Mr. Speaker, that this House should be defended at all times against this government, or against all governments, because I want to tell you that the people of this province have historically - not just today - not been happy with the way governments have run this House.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says the motion was planned in advance. Let me tell him a little bit about what happened coming up to this motion. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the famous committee meeting that took place, because 1, in company with the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , was back at a conference in Toronto having to do with national unity, sponsored by the Ontario government, called by York University, called Destiny Canada, where the government had no member of the Legislative Assembly there, unfortunately. We came back, we heard the story and read the evidence, the same evidence that was available to the Speaker, Mr. Speaker. So I think you might say we looked at it in something of an impartial manner.

I couldn't believe it. The actions that were stated and evinced were incredible. I waited for the Speaker's ruling in confidence that he would find that there had been a prima facie breach of privilege. An official opposition spokesman approached me and said: "What if the Speaker rules against this? What if he says it's not a prima facie breach of privilege?" I said: "Surely that's not possible."

But then I reviewed the history of this government, and I agreed to support a contingency motion. I didn't think it would be necessary - I hoped it wouldn't - but it turns out that it was.

Mr. Speaker, you have to regret the circumstances under which a motion of this kind has to be moved. But I can hardly tell you, sir, the sense of outrage and disbelief that arose among opposition parties the moment that ruling was delivered in this House. I could not believe my ears as the words were coming out.

Let me lay a bit of groundwork as to the duties of the Speaker. The Speaker interprets the rules of this House. This House is the only check and balance on a government which has all of the powers to schedule the business, to pass everything they want to run things. All we can do is ask questions. The Speaker is very important in that process. I'm citing now May, 18th edition, page 225: 'The chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of

[ Page 3932 ]

Commons are authority and impartiality." Later on at that page: "Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure. . It carries on in that sense.

The Speaker has enormous discretion to interpret the precedent and the standing orders and the law that has come down over the years and the circumstances of the day for the good and benefit and integrity of the Legislature. In the exercise of this discretion, if it's to be done truly in the public interest, independence is required. In London, at Westminster, independence has long been established in the office of Speaker. In Ottawa independence has been established in the office of the Speaker. How can we tell? Well, one way we can tell is that sometimes rulings go against the government. That is one of the measurements as to whether or not a Speaker is independent, because, after all, a government isn't right all the time.

In B.C. we have unfortunately over the years rarely had that kind of a tradition. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have researched the rulings of our current Speaker since March 17,1976, and I find that on every substantial motion, whether of privilege, of urgency of debate or whatever, the ruling has been against the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is the kind of evidence that is not admissible on this particular motion.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll move to the current question as a case in point. A breach of privilege was alleged, and the Speaker's ruling on that breach of privilege gave rise to this motion.

Now let me define privilege, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me reject the narrow definition of privilege as cited by the Speaker in his ruling of July 4. where he spoke of such things as corruption or intimidation or any appeal, direct or indirect, to greed or fear. Let me rather cite the breach of privilege and contempt definition that's given by May, 18th edition, page 132, which is the general definition, a definition quoted by the Speaker with approval in this House only two or three days ago, if my memory serves me. It runs as follows:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

I am particularly drawn, Mr. Speaker, to that part at the end: ". . . even though there is no precedent of the offence, " because the Social Credit government has found many offences for which there are no precedents against in this House.

The duty of the Speaker in considering whether or not a matter of privilege should be further considered is very simple. It is to discover whether or not there has been a prima facie breach of privilege; whether or not on the face of it, from the evidence in front of the Speaker, there is a substantial question as to whether or not a breach of privilege may have been committed. With that in mind, let us examine the evidence adduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) in his capacity, I should say, Mr. Speaker, as a chairman of the public accounts committee, a responsible position in this House.

The material provided was not merely that cited by the Speaker, which was "namely a memorandum addressed to him" - that's the member for Nanaimo - "from the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) and his reply thereto." The material was a statement, filed in the House by the hon. member for Nanaimo with the Speaker, which established a certain history of the affair. There are 10 points. I will start at point 5 because the first four points simply lead up to it. Point 5 - the member for Nanaimo notes that he had received a memorandum from the hon. member for Coquitlam. It puzzles me that that member has not been in this House during the currency of this debate; I had hoped to hear from him on this. That memorandum suggested that there would not be a quorum. As a matter of fact, it said there will not be a quorum.

Let me read that memorandum into the record. It's signed by the hon. member for Coquitlam; it is addressed to the hon. member for Nanaimo.

"I have been advised by the Social Credit committee members that they will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, June 28,1977, and therefore request that the meeting be cancelled, with B.C. Rail delegation to be recalled at a later date. Further, we request that the next scheduled meeting be conveyed without any delegations for the purpose of general discussion.

(signed)

"George H. Kerster, MLA, acting secretary."

A curious memorandum from an acting secretary, Mr. Speaker, who, I would have thought, would have seen it as his duty to make sure that members were at the committee. But let's let that pass for the moment.

The hon. member for Nanaimo got this memorandum and then did some further checking with Mr. Norris. Mr. Norris, as late as 5:30 that afternoon, reconfirmed the meeting with the hon. member for Nanaimo's office. The hon. member for Nanaimo reconfirmed that four members from his caucus would be there and sent a memo to the acting secretary saying the meeting would go ahead.

[ Page 3933 ]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The meeting was called to order the next morning, and ". . . although several Social Credit caucus members of the committee were near, and some looked in, none of them attended the meeting."

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): How strange!

MR. BARRETT: Did they look in?

MR. GIBSON: I guess they looked in and didn't like the look of what they saw. I don't know. Maybe they were surprised there was no witness there, so they thought it wasn't worthwhile attending. I don't know. But they looked in and they didn't come in. Mr. Norris didn't show up.

MR. LEA: They were available?

MR. GIBSON: Let me read point 10 in its fullness.

"At approximately 9:45 a.m., I received another call from Mr. Norris' office to the effect that he was en route back to Vancouver since he had heard that the meeting was cancelled. I was since informed that he had heard this from Mr. Kerster's office."

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion as to who told what to whom. But the question is, what evidence was before the Speaker? It is the Speaker's duty to make his ruling on the evidence before him. The evidence before him was purely and simply the evidence given by the hon. member for Nanaimo - the word of an hon. member - and not contradicted by any other hon. member in this House. Therefore it was a prima facie case. Did the Speaker seek or allow any other evidence? Did the Speaker say to the House: 'Does any other hon. member wish to make any comment on this before I take it under advisement?" No. Did any other hon. member of this House see fit to stand in their place and say: "Mr. Speaker, you have been presented with an incomplete presentation of the facts and I think you ought to know thus and so."? No.

I am informed by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that the member for Coquitlam was present during these proceedings and said nothing.

Therefore I say to you, sir, that the evidence that was in front of the Speaker was exactly the evidence presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and that evidence, without question, establishes a prima facie case in the absence of any contradiction.

The next question: if there is a prima facie case of privilege, is it urgent enough to set aside House business? I submit to you that any question of privilege is always thus urgent. The presumably facetious suggestion of the hon. Attorney-General -

that if the opposition didn't like what was done with the suggestion and if they didn't like the fact that the motion wasn't given a privileged position it could have been put on the order paper - is one ...

MR. BARRETT: If you can't pay the premium, sell your car.

MR. GIBSON ... that in my mind calls into question his sense of reality. In examining the order paper, for example, I note motions in this House that date back many, many months and that have never been called. I note order papers in previous years where motions have never been called - not one. So what remedy is this when the Attorney-General tells us to place a substantive motion on the order paper? It is the time-honoured remedy of government: bottle it up, cover it up and get rid of it. Then the Attorney-General told us that in the alternate the member could have challenged the ruling. This is a generous, generous suggestion from an Attorney-General who has never lost a vote while he's been in government and never won one while he was in opposition.

The next question I would draw to you, sir, is whether the privileges of the House were not breached in another way, as clearly pointed out by the body of evidence placed by the hon. member for Nanaimo - namely, an instance of tampering not only with the appearance of a witness before a committee but tampering with the very sitting of that committee itself.

MRS. WALLACE: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I draw to your attention sir - and I will not read them - standing orders 71 (1) and 6 1 (1) and (8) , which have the effect of compelling members to the service of a committee, just as to the service of the House. This rule, as we know, is seldom enforced as to individuals, but surely, Mr. Speaker, there must be something in it as concerns whole caucuses. When the Speaker has placed before him in evidence a memorandum from the acting secretary of the committee saying, "All of my caucus that is on this committee is not going to be there, " I say that is tampering with the committee. I say to the Speaker, who has concern for the privileges of the House and its committees and particularly the public accounts committee, which is the most important one to the people of British Columbia in terms of being the only one that can really get into what the government has been doing with their money.... A Speaker concerned with the privileges of such a committee would have looked at that and said: "I would like to hear further evidence on this."

In those circumstances and with that background, Mr. Speaker, we come to the actual decision which

[ Page 3934 ]

was delivered in this House on July 4. I've referred to it a little bit so far. The Speaker was obviously embarrassed by the question of a quorum because he went to some pains to rule it out. He said: "Any question of why a quorum wasn't able to be present is not before me and is not relevant to my consideration of the matter." Well, I'll tell you, it should be relevant to his consideration of the privileges of this House.

He goes on to say:

I can find no authority to suggest that it would be improper as secretary of a select committee for a member or his staff ... He's covering all the bases there, isn't he?

... to inform a witness that he need not appear on a particular occasion based on information that a scheduled meeting of the committee could not transact business by reason of lack of a quorum.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense, considering the much wider definition of "contempt" that I read out from May, page 132. But more than that, if we have a Speaker who is prepared to take that position, we have a Speaker who is prepared to say that the activity of the public accounts committee can be frustrated in any and every meeting by the actions of the government majority in simply refusing to show up. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary occasion. I think that some good can come out of it if we can do something from it. If we can, for example, obtain as a result of this unhappiness an inquiry into the standing orders of this House, which we so badly need; an inquiry into the terms under which a question of privilege may be allowed, under which emergency debates may be allowed, under which powers of committee might be expanded, and in general, Mr. Speaker, under which the balance of power between the executive and the legislative which is so badly overbalanced in the direction of the executive could in some way be redressed.... We had no such positive suggestions from the Attorney-General. Rather, we had some platitudes like this: "The real solution lies with the members." Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more and I draw to the Attorney-General's attention the fact that the majority of the members are on the government's side and the government sets the tone of this House always.

Then the Attorney-General said a couple of other things. He said: 'Get on with the people's business." This is the people's business. This is their protection.

Then he said: "Support the system." I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker: what is the system? I'll tell you what the system is. The system is where we have an elected dictatorship in this province that goes on for a few years - no more than five, but it's an elected dictatorship up until then. We have a system of partisan warfare. We have a system of absolute power on the one side of the House and absolute power corrupts. And we have a system of absolute lack of power on the other side of the House, and in the end that can corrupt just as much.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear. Look what happened, to those fellows who crossed the floor and switched parties.

MR. GIBSON: It's a system, Mr. Speaker, that may be convenient to the government but it is not good for the people, and it should be reformed. We need a system in this province where people can work together, not work at loggerheads, and we need a government that's prepared to recognize that. This decision, and the way in which the government is treating this decision, is working absolutely in the opposite direction.

The only check on a government under the current system that the Attorney-General wants us to support and which we shall have to until someone comes along to change it, probably by outraged public demand, is by talking and asking questions. If our right to do that is circumscribed by Speakers' rulings of this kind and upholding contempt of the public accounts committee of this kind, then we lose what little ability we do have to protect the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that people do care about this place. They come here and they sit in the galleries and many days they are disgusted by what they see here. Part of the reason is the rules of this House, which lead to confrontation and which lead to the absolute power on one side and the absolute lack of power on the other side. Above all, it is the warfare that is inimical to the interests of the people of British Columbia. I say that people do care about this Legislature, and I hope that this debate will be one of the ways of sensitizing popular opinion about some of the difficulties here.

For the reasons I have adduced, I believe that the Speaker's ruling on which this motion was based was not only wrong, but was so importantly wrong as to say that as a result of it we, or at least 1, lack confidence in the Speaker. Therefore I will support the resolution.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, just a few words about Motion 13, which I find to be a shameful and unnecessary motion. It's one that is vindictive, bitter, and it's an over-reaction by a former Premier of this province who has been completely repudiated by the electorate.

This motion, Mr. Speaker, is one which is filled with hate and a wish for revenge against anyone that doesn't agree with the political whims of the Leader of the Opposition. I can't understand this motion even being before this House at this time when the

[ Page 3935 ]

opposition didn't follow the normal procedure that evolves in this motion appearing before the House, and that is by challenging the decision of the Speaker at the time they disagreed with him. They've displayed a completely schizophrenic approach to legislative procedure in this House. It indicates that the opposition will say anything and do anything if they think it will further their political cause.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is a personal vendetta on the part of the Leader of the Opposition against the candidate that defeated him in the last campaign.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister has on three occasions within two minutes impugned the motives of the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the House. He spoke of the motion being motivated by hate, which is out of order. He's spoken about vendetta and that kind of thing. He cannot impugn the motives of members of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken.

Hon. Minister of Mines, you cannot impugn an improper motive to any member of the House, and if you are doing so I must ask you to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just saying that this motion is filled with hate and the urge for revenge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would just ask you to withdraw,

One other point to the other speaker: the Deputy Speaker, who was previously in the chair, has counselled members on both sides of the House to stick specifically to Motion 13. 1 would ask you to do the same.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've been dealing with it in the light of the motion and the motivation that's behind its introduction in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. minister. I have asked you to withdraw and I would like you to withdraw at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What do you want me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything - the whole speech.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If there are some words that I've uttered, Mr. Speaker, that offend any members across the way, if they feel touched or offended by anything that I've said....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like you to withdraw any indication of false motive.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I certainly withdraw anything that they might feel offended by.

Mr. Speaker, too frequently in this session we have dealt with frivolous motions of privilege. This, I suggest, is another example of an abuse of a matter of privilege in this assembly. We have the motion of privilege raised by the member for Nanaimo which gives no conclusive evidence that there was any breach of privilege by a member of the public accounts committee. It is wishy-washy and one doesn't know who conveyed a message to the member for Nanaimo in which he said: "At approximately 9:45 a.m. I received another call from Mr. Norris' office to the effect that he was en route back to Vancouver, since he had heard that the meeting was cancelled. I was since informed that he had heard this from Mr. Kerster's office."

There is no conclusive evidence, Mr. Speaker, whether he heard that directly, indirectly, third-hand, fourth-hand, fifth-hand, from one of the pages or from anybody else. One doesn't know. There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever. Under the circumstances the Speaker had no alternative but to come to the conclusion he did in the matter of privilege put forward by the member for Nanaimo. His statement that he made of privilege, suggesting that the member for Coquitlam interfered with a witness appearing before the committee, was completely repudiated when that witness appeared before the committee just a little while later. It was completely repudiated.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Speaker originally ruled that there was to be absolutely no reference to anything that happened after this issue was dealt with by the Speaker. The hon. Attorney-General chose to refer to it and the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is referring to it. I completely disagree with their interpretation of events that have happened since, but I would ask you to ask the members to refrain from referring to those events.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On your point of order, one moment, please.

Hon. member, the understanding of the Chair is that other rulings of the Speaker are not to be ruled on at this time, but the ruling of the Speaker pertaining to this particular issue is appropriate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there was flimsy evidence that a member had interfered with a witness appearing before the committee. We have conclusive evidence now that there was no interference, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3936 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have conclusive evidence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that one of us is not understanding your instructions. The hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is again referring to evidence that has come forward since. I ask you to clarify for the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources whether or not he may refer to that evidence. Certainly if he does, we will. And the evidence is conclusive - it proves the opposite of what the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is suggesting.

MR. KING: We'll table that!

MR. LAUK: I've got the transcript here and that makes the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) a liar!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw that. Withdraw! You withdraw that allegation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw the transcripts?

MS. BROWN: Oh! What are you talking about?

MR. LAUK: Have you read it, Jim?

MS. BROWN: Of course not!

HON. MR. CHABOT: You can't accuse a member of being a liar! What kind of nonsense it that? You two-bit lawyers will say anything!

MR. LEA: I'll bet the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) doesn't speak on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: You're a minister!

MR. LEA: They suckered you, Jim. The Minister of Labour won't speak in this debate.

MR. COCKE: They didn't sucker him; they didn't want him to speak. When he wanted to speak they couldn't hold him back.

MR. STUPICH: They don't want to be influenced by the facts!

MR. LEA: He won't speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should!

MR. LAUK: He should break with his colleagues on this issue.

MR. BARRETT: Let it show there were 10 government members in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, speaking to the point of order from the member for Nanaimo, it is not proper to rise on a point of order merely to contradict a point being made by another speaker until such time as that speaker is finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the first thing.

MR. LEA: It'll be your last thing, too!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I normally do the chairman's job, and this is a new chair and I'm not quite used to it.

MR. BARBER: We'll give you a second chance.

MR. COCKE: You're doing all right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, in discussion on the matter it would appear that evidence that ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Has come forth since.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... bears on the correctness of the Speaker's ruling is going to be in order on this debate.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are now ruling that subsequent events to the Speaker's ruling are in order for debate. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you care to call a recess for 5 minutes? It would be appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that would be in order.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Would that be for 5 minutes or 10 minutes?

[ Page 3937 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think 5 minutes would be appropriate.

MR. BARRETT: You will call us back with the bell, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will return at the sound of the division bells.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. BARRETT: That's known as taking you off the hook. You owe me one. (Laughter.)

The House took recess at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:03 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seeing that there are sufficient numbers here to proceed, is it agreed that we proceed?

Hon. members, the Speaker has earlier ruled that the scope of the debate on this motion is restricted to the correctness of the ruling referred to in the motion and that reference to other rulings or other events is not in order. The debate, in other words, is restricted to the ruling in question and that ruling only.

the Chair is of the opinion that the reference to evidence directly relating to circumstances surrounding the complaint of breach of privilege is in agreement, as I understand it, to the test of validity of the Speaker's findings of fact and not contrary to an earlier ruling by the Chair. But it must be limited to evidence directly related to the motion and the findings of the Speaker, whether that evidence referred to either supports or does not support the Speaker's ruling, so long as it directly relates to circumstances surrounding the motion and the Speaker's ruling.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting that anything that has appeared in the newspaper report can't be raised at this time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any evidence, whether it supports or does not support the motion, is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there's conclusive evidence that this motion should not be before this House. The member who initiated it or someone else who supported it should have asked leave for its withdrawal.

MR. LEA: Why?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because of the conclusive evidence which I have made reference to, and that is after Mr. Norris' appearance before the committee.

I want to apologize for the delay that took place in this matter and the delaying of the House because, I think, we as legislators have far more important things to do than to debate what I consider to be a frivolous motion. I think we have a responsibility to get on with the reason why we are elected to this office, and that is to deal with the people's business and deal with it as quickly as possible.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have recognized the member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend on the left, with his usual shaft of wisdom, wonders if I will clarify whether or not I was sucked into supporting a motion. I hope the comments I wish to make will clarify that very interesting question by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) . Just as long as I don't get sucked into his professional activities in Burnaby-Edmonds, I won't mind.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Watch it, Scotty, he has his tape out.

MR. WALLACE: For the benefit of the member, I am 5 feet, 71/4 inches and 150 pounds.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. The importance and impact of any decision by the Speaker of any House lies in the fact that when any important issue or challenge is raised, the decision must show, as has been said many times, that justice must be seen to be done. If there is any element of doubt, then the benefit of doubt has to lie in the direction which is most likely to ensure that justice is not only done but clearly seen to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: In this case the issue we are talking about is privilege. If there is ever any doubt in such an issue, my personal conviction strongly lies in favouring that the matter be referred to a committee of privilege, as was not done in this case.

My second basic point is that the Speaker in this case was asked to establish if a prima facie case of privilege had been established. I took the trouble to look up the dictionary to confirm or change my understanding of the meaning of these two words. The dictionary defines "prima facie" as "at first view or sight" or "a case consisting of evidence sufficient to go to a jury." In this case I regard the equivalent of the jury as being a committee of privilege.

If, as I say, Mr. Speaker, the evidence on first sight

[ Page 3938 ]

seems to suggest - and the definition in the dictionary uses the words "suggesting enough evidence to go to a jury" - with the greatest respect to certain members who have spoken in this debate, I would suggest that it is the suggestive nature which has to be decided on.

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , for example - I'm not choosing to be personal in mentioning his name - did talk about conclusive evidence that a breach had occurred. In my understanding, Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of requiring conclusive evidence, but simply a matter of looking at the evidence to see if there was enough suggestion that privilege had been breached - not whether privilege had been breached, but whether there was enough suggestive evidence to suggest that it could have been breached. That kind of analogy that I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that many murderers would never go to a jury if the initial evidence had to be conclusive. That is why the practice of preliminary hearings is held to try and determine if, in fact, there is sufficient evidence to justify going to a jury.

So this is my understanding of what the point of privilege that was raised is all about: whether or not a prima facie case had been established - not proof that in fact a breach of privilege had occurred, but whether the evidence was suggestive enough that the matter be referred to a committee on privilege to decide whether or not a breach had occurred.

In this particular instance I recognize the particularly unique nature of the committee involved, and the fact that the public accounts committee has the very serious responsibility of scrutinizing the spending of taxpayers' money. For that very reason -to give the committee greater credibility and a greater capacity to function and meet its responsibilities in that way - the chairman is a member of an opposition party. When a matter of privilege is raised by the chairman of that committee I consider that all opposition members certainly have to take the matter into consideration very closely. I acknowledge the words of the Attorney-General that I happened to be in Toronto on the occasion which gave rise to the point of privilege being alleged, but like the Liberal leader, I've had the opportunity to look at the documentation and to listen to the points of view that have been expressed. ,

It is also quite true, as the Attorney-General alleges, that I made certain comments when I returned from Toronto on the Webster programme of CJOR. I've tried extremely hard since the Attorney-General raised that point this afternoon to have the recording played back to me to get my exact words. Up to this moment - it's now 5: 14 p.m. - I have been unable to get the precise and exact words, but I know very well what I was trying to say. I was trying to say three things, really: that this House is a shambles and out of control for reasons which we talked about and which are not really in order in this debate, so I don't want to transgress that. But I made that one point that the House is a shambles, and I don't retract that, although unfortunately the Speaker's distracted at the moment and I'm getting away with the things I should get away with.

The second point I made was that on the face of it and on the evidence I still believe that the Speaker's decision was a wrong one, but whether or not it was wise to go to the degree that I had supported a motion of no confidence in the Speaker was perhaps something that I was willing to consider might have been over-reaction on my part. At that time I still considered that the Speaker had given a bad decision. I still do, but certainly in the light in the continuing acrimony which a debate like this engenders, when we've already got an acrimonious House, it would leave me to have to question the wisdom of this step, which I reckon to be a very drastic one and one which I think all of us would wish could be avoided.

I would like to make it plain, in regard to the Attorney-General's raising of that point that I had some second thoughts, that the second thoughts were not in relation to my opinion of the Speaker's decision, and the fact that unfortunately the Speaker had lost control of this House not only then but at other times. My second thoughts were related to the wisdom or otherwise of taking this drastic step we're now embarked upon.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the specific point of alleged privilege, I read the document which was filed by the House. While I don't wish to take up a lot of time, since many of the points have already been documented in debate today, I just want the House to know why I question the decision of the Speaker. Let me please just interject again that we're talking about suggestions that interference occurred. We're not looking for conclusive proof. We're looking for enough suggestive evidence to justify going to a jury. That's the definition of prima facie.

In the documentation tabled by the chairman of public accounts, he stated that on Monday, June 27,1977, at 3:30 p.m. he was informed by the acting secretary of the committee that none of the Social Credit members would be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday morning. He then went to his office to phone Mr. Norris' office only to learn that just minutes before, Mr. Norris had phoned the chairman's secretary to confirm his appearance before the committee on the following, Tuesday morning. The chairman of the public accounts committee then established that all four members of the NDP caucus would be in attendance and he replied by memo to the acting secretary to the effect that the meeting would proceed as scheduled, which is the legitimate right of the chairman of the committee. That decision of the chairman was dictated at 4:30 p.m. and sent to

[ Page 3939 ]

the acting secretary during the evening sitting. At the time of the dinner adjournment, the chairman of the committee was informed that Mr. Norris' office had phoned again at 5:30 p.m. to inquire as to whether or not the meeting would proceed, and he was told that the meeting was reconfirmed.

Now on that particular sequence of events alone, Mr. Speaker, I think any objective person reading that sequence would have to ask the question: why did Mr. Norris confirm his appearance at the committee at approximately 4 o'clock, and then when told that the meeting would be going ahead, phone back at 5:30 to find out if the meeting was going ahead? There had to be some intervening influence between approximately 4 o'clock and 5:30. Again, I have to say that we're talking about the suggestion that there might be enough evidence to go to a jury. I don't know what the intervening piece of evidence was, and at the time that the Speaker rendered his decision, he was not likely to know either. But the question he had to resolve for this House was the suggestive nature of the evidence suggesting that the witness had, in fact, been influenced in the time period that I mentioned.

I would just also say, Mr. Speaker, that great emphasis has been placed on the likely lack of a quorum at the meeting. I just think it's important that in this debate we should record that I have attended standing committee meetings this session where there has not been a quorum and we have proceeded without a quorum. This is a matter of record, Mr. Chairman, because the chairman has had to wait on occasions until 20 minutes or more after the hour appointed for the meeting.

MR. COCKE: There's a quorum unless its challenged.

MR. WALLACE: I've been at meetings where at perhaps 9:20 or 9:25 the chairman has had to explain that there is no quorum, but is it the agreement of those present that we should proceed? That has happened and that's on the record. So we have the whole question of someone who is not the chairman of a committee deciding a day ahead of time that in his judgment there may or may not be a quorum. Even if he's correct in assuming that there may not be a quorum, does he have any authority to decide that on that basis the meeting should not be called?

I just also wish to interject that the Attorney-General stated that an attack on the Speaker is an attack on every member of this House. I say with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, that I can't accept that. I think that any member of this House who feels that the way in which the business of the House is being conducted appears to be deteriorating it to everyone's disadvantage has a responsibility somewhere to take a stand and try and get all the evidence out on the floor of this House in the hope that it has a cleansing and therapeutic effect. When I had my second thoughts on the value of proceeding with this motion, I came to the conclusion that, regrettably, it would be an opportunity to have this kind of debate in the hope that it would, in fact, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has just said minutes ago, lead to some of the changes in the conduct of business in this chamber which would be to the lasting benefit not of us as members, but of the future conduct of this House.

The other evidence which I took into account, Mr. Chairman, which again I think is very suggestive, was that the acting secretary made a clear statement in his memo that the government members of the committee could not attend and yet the chairman of the public accounts committee, in his memo tabled with the House, verified that certain members of the government, who were on the committee, did appear at the door of the meeting room but did not enter.

I want to be more specific than that sentence I just read. In the statement of the chairman of the standing committee, which was tabled with this House, in paragraph nine he says: "The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday. Although several Social Credit caucus members of the committee were near and some looked in, none of them attended the meeting." Again, I'm trying to establish why I believe that a prima facie case was established based on suggestive evidence - not conclusive proof, but suggestive evidence - which was all that was required. These are the important elements in my assessment of the situation: the time sequence I already referred to on the Monday afternoon, and the fact that at the time of the meeting on Tuesday morning, government members of the committee did in fact come to the meeting room but did not enter and take part in the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the Speaker's conclusion. The Speaker ruled that no prima facie breach of privilege had been raised. It's my firm opinion, on the basis of the evidence, that the Speaker erred in attempting to judge whether breach of privilege had occurred, not whether there was enough suggestive evidence to refer it to a jury. Really that is the central point of the whole debate and it is that point, and because of the evidence that I've read relevant to that point, that convinces me that the Speaker erred.

In particular, the Speaker states that the acting secretary in his memo stated that the B.C. Rail delegation be recalled at a later date. He used this as evidence that the acting secretary did not dissuade witnesses, But, Mr. Speaker, the memo from the chairman of the committee that the meeting would go ahead was written after the memo from the acting secretary.

The Speaker also made what I consider to be a

[ Page 3940 ]

very surprising statement. I would like to quote it to get it precisely. He said:

I can find no authority to suggest that it would be improper as secretary of a select committee for a member of his staff to inform a witness that he need not appear on a particular occasion based on information that a scheduled meeting of the committee could not transact business by reason of the lack of a quorum.

In fact, by that very statement, the Speaker is not saying that the acting secretary did not indulge in persuading the witness. He is stating that he, in his opinion, does not find it improper. The very essence of saying that he did not find it improper leaves the clear impression that he is not passing an opinion as to the fact that the acting secretary probably did indulge in influencing the witness. He says: "There is not material to prove that the acting secretary made a positive move to intimidate, hinder or deter. with a wrong motive."

The Speaker concludes that there is no evidence of a "positive move, " although it seems all right to inform witnesses that they need not appear if there is no quorum. In my view, the Speaker, in stating that the recall of B.C. Rail delegates at a later date was suggested by the acting secretary, certainly overlooks the fact that it could well be less damaging to have the witness called at a later date. With that fact, any delay in having that witness attend could be regarded suggestively - not conclusively, but suggestively - as a deliberate attempt to thwart the intention of the committee chairman, at that point in time, to go ahead with the meeting and have the witness attend at that time.

I just wish to sum up, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I consider the Speaker erred in trying, in his best judgment, to determine whether a breach of privilege had occurred, rather than determine on the evidence before him and before this House that there was enough suggestive evidence to take this matter to a jury - in this case, the jury being a select committee on privilege of this House. He was only supposed to determine whether there was enough evidence to take that action, not to determine whether a breach of privilege had occurred.

I would say that much of my personal feeling in supporting this motion is difficult to discuss within the rules of order of this House. While I realize that earlier this afternoon the Speaker implored us to stick strictly to the terms of this motion, I would suggest, because of the acrimony in this chamber on almost every debate and almost every date - related to the faults of all of us at different times and to different degrees - that had that sequence of events and acrimony and deterioration of order in the House not occurred with who-knows-what end in sight, the chances of a motion such as this proceeding would have been much less.

There is no question that in many respects the way in which we conduct our business in this chamber is primitive, to say the least. While it is not strictly for debate on this motion, I think it would be a big gap -in my presentation, at least - to suggest that in deciding to support this one specified motion, that that is the only evidence and the only behaviour of members of this House which has led me to the decision to support this motion. It is not done to attack all members of this House or even to attack the Speaker - as the Attorney-General suggested -but to attack the office of the Speaker.

Putting personality aside, the fact is the office of the Speaker in this chamber has not been well fulfilled. The onus is on each and every member of the House to do one of two things: to try and bring about a debate of this nature which might have the effect, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has suggested, of all of us taking a look at the situation and perhaps collectively bringing about improvements in the House; or, of course, to just accept the - I think -rather exaggerated image the Liberal leader gave of an elected dictatorship, and hope that things don't get any worse.

It's one or the other. We either sit back and just hope that things don't get any worse and that we all find a measure of agreement, particularly agreement on our obedience to the Speaker and our having a fair approach on those occasions when we quite rightly feel that we are not being fairly treated by the Speaker in turn. It clearly has to be a two-way street. It is all very well to espouse genuine conviction that we must obey the Speaker, but it has to be a situation where each individual member of the House and each party in this House has to recognize times at which we feel a challenge to the Speaker is an equally responsible action to those occasions when we accept his ruling without question.

So I feel, in the light of a great deal of what has gone on that we are not at liberty to discuss in this debate, combined with the evidence on this specific issue, that we all should recognize, wherever we sit in this House, government or opposition, that maybe, despite the regrettable nature of this debate, this might be some kind of watershed in the affairs of this House. The kind of circumstances which have led up to this particular motion and this debate might be modified enough that changes not only in our standing rules, perhaps, but certainly in the attitude of all of us as individual members will make a debate like this totally unnecessary in the future.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): I am the secretary of the committee which brought about this motion. I was not present at the committee meeting because I was away in Britain attending the Commonwealth parliamentary conference.

I rise to speak on this motion, Mr. Speaker, not

[ Page 3941 ]

only to oppose it but to condemn the motion in the strongest possible terms. 1 think in order that we may intelligently debate this motion, Mr. Speaker, I will restate it for the House.

"That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to be examined by a committee of privileges and his failure to give proper or any reason for his decision, thereby interfering with the right of this House to vindicate its rights and dignities."

Now if we are to intelligently debate this motion, Mr. Speaker, we must examine the total contents.

First, the statement made by the mover, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to be examined by a committee of privileges is in my opinion itself out of order. It alludes to a prima facie case. Hon. Members, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker at that time on July 4,1977, ruled:

1 therefore rule that no prima facie case of privilege has been raised.

1 would therefore suggest at the outset, sir, that this motion may be out of order.

Further to that, 1 believe this very motion may not only be out of order but it could be unparliamentary. 1 refer you, sir, for your kind consideration, to Sir Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, chapter 10, page 152, which states:

"Analogous to molestations of members on account of their behaviour in parliament are speeches and writings reflecting upon their conduct as members. On February 26,1701, the House of Commons resolved that to print or publish any libels reflecting upon any member of the House for or relating to his service therein, was a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House.

"Written imputations, as affecting a member of parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without, perhaps, being libels at common law, but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity."

As examples, sir, of speeches and writings which have been held to constitute breaches of privileges or contempts 1 will mention the following:

Reflections on the character of the Speaker and ~accusations of partiality in the discharge of his duty, 1 would quote the cases of Woodfall, Commons Journal, 1772-74, pages 452 and 456; Mr. Coneybeare, parliamentary debate, 1887, and Commons Journal, 188, page 385. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. Researching these cases, Mr. Speaker, I found that they all have one thing in common, and that is that in each and every case the offending member has been censured by the House. I'm not suggesting that this should apply in this parliament. I'm only stating that this has been the practice in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster for many, many years and should be taken as notice in this House.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members assembled here today will agree that a basic complaint with regard to the actions of this House from the citizenry at large is that the business of this parliament many times falls exceedingly short of those standards which one could reasonably expect in parliamentary debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes an unruly House but perhaps this is not unusual when emotions run high. This member respectfully suggests that all members would be wise to look to the wisdom of the ages. Look to the rules and forms which have been handed down to this House from the Mother of Parliaments. Look to them and learn. Learn to reasonably accept the Chair as a symbol of authority and to abide by that Chair's lawful rulings.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is important to return to the substance of this motion and to examine just what a Speaker's duty, upon a member raising a matter of privilege, actually is.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: I write my own stuff, hon. member; I don't know about you. Yours seems to run equally bad among all the members of the opposition.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is important to return to the substance of this motion, to examine just what the Speaker's duty is upon a member raising a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, when a complaint of breach of privilege is raised, the Speaker's responsibility is to decide whether a prima facie case has been made, out of which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over other business of this House. If the Speaker decides that a prima facie case has not been made, the member complaining is not precluded from pursuing the matter further if he feels he has a legitimate complaint. At that point in time, the member may place the matter on the order paper by way of notice of motion and that was done, in the case of the motion which w~ are debating today -Motion 13 on the order paper

The Speaker therefore does not, in effect, determine the whole question; he simply expresses his view whether a prima facie case exists, which would require the House to put aside all other scheduled business on the order paper and immediately deal with the matter.

Mr. Speaker, this member does not agree that it could be fairly said that the non-attendance of a committee witness brought about by the witness being advised that the committee before which he

[ Page 3942 ]

was to appear and for which he was not formerly summoned would be transacting any business by reasonable lack of quorum ... I do not believe that this sort of case is a case that would demand such urgency.

Mr. Speaker, surely the scheduled business of the House - the normal debating, the passing of supply and legislation - should retain its priority and surely the matter should be dealt with by a notice of motion such as was done by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion in itself which we are debating today could very well be out of order. I refer you once again to the Hansard verbatim report of debate in the House on July 4,1977. 1 refer you to page 3328 - Mr. Speaker's ruling. "I therefore rule that no prima facie breach of privilege has been raised."

This member respectfully suggests, Mr. Speaker, that we again examine Motion 13. The first part of that motion is "that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker by reason of his failure to allow a prima facie case of contempt for the House to be examined by the committee." I respectfully suggest, sit, that this motion could be out of order in that it was established by the Speaker's ruling on July 4,1977, that in fact, no prima facie breach of privilege had been raised.

Hon. members, to have the Speaker now faced with a motion of lack of confidence because he reached a conclusion that there was no prima facie case - and, I might add, an obvious correct conclusion - is a sad reflection on the part of the members proposing it. And it must be noted that no members of the House challenged the ruling of the Speaker at that point in time when Mr. Speaker handed down his ruling on July 4,1977. Not one member.

Another aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that to raise a prima facie case and breach of privilege, there must be evidence of an attempt by persuasion or solicitations to induce the witness not to attend. And I would refer the hon. members at this point to Sir Erskine May, 16th edition, page 129.

1 hasten to add at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the subject witness, Mr. M.C. Norris of the British Columbia Railway, was quoted on Tuesday, July 19,1977, in the Victoria Times as saying - and he's referring to the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) - ". . . did not tell me not to attend the meeting. He told me there would be no quorum." And again on the Wednesday, July 20th edition....

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, we appear to have a few jackals in the House. Would you ask them to come to order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. VEITCH: And again on July 20,1977, in the edition of the Vancouver Province under the line, "Norris Has to Take Oath, " it was reported as follows, referring to the hon. member for Coquitlam, who stated: "Did I at any time tell you" - referring to Mr. Norris - "that the meeting was cancelled, or did I simply inform you that the Social Credit members would not be in attendance and there wouldn't be a quorum?"

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it appears that when evidence is coming forth, these members don't wish to hear it.

Mr. Norris was reported as saying: "You did not instruct me not to be at the meeting. You did not tell me it was cancelled."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Would the members extend the courtesy to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon? All members have a chance to participate in this debate.

MR. VEITCH: It really doesn't matter, Mr. Speaker. 'they simply don't want to hear the facts, that's all.

I'll read this again, just so it will get into Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Norris was reported as saying: "You did not instruct me not to attend the meeting; you did not tell me it was cancelled." And further on in the article - and I can attest to this because I was at the meeting when MR. Norris stated this - he was reported as saying: "I suppose in retrospect I should have contacted the chairman. That was my mistake." Not the hon. member for Coquitlam. Mr. Norris' mistake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it is usual but not essential that corruption or intimidation be present as an essential ingredient of the offence of tampering with a witness. The allegation of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was that there had been improper persuasion of the witness.

MR. BARRETT: Who wrote that for you?

MR. VEITCH: I respectfully suggest, sir, that there was no evidence before Mr. Speaker of improper persuasion or, indeed, any persuasion at all. There was on the material before the Speaker nothing more than the transmission of a statement of fact to the witness, namely that the committee would not be meeting to transact business. That, in my opinion,

[ Page 3943 ]

Mr. Speaker, is not a solicitation or persuasion not to attend.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Westminster authorities on this matter. In 1934, a select committee of the House of Commons, United Kingdom, was appointed to consider the operation of sessional orders relating to witnesses. The chairman referred with apparent approval to the following description of the offence of tampering: "Tampering with, deterring, threatening, beguiling, or in any way unduly influencing a witness in regard to evidence that may be given by him before a parliament or any committee." This illustrates the gravity and tenor of the offence in dealing with the complaint of influence being exerted to bring about a withdrawal of evidence. It was observed by the House at that time that the other incidents in which privilege was claimed all involved, if not corruption, at any rate intimidation or victimization. On this I would refer you to page 290 of the United Kingdom House of Commons Debates of the year 1742. In a memorandum prepared for a select standing committee on privilege by the Speaker that day and the Clerk of the House of committees in Westminster, the following statement was cited:

"It is obviously not right that when an inquiry has been ordered by this House, or by other House, or by any public authority, persons should be barred through fear of consequence or threats of unpleasant consequences from coming forward freely and fully to give the information which is desired to elicit in the public interest."

I refer the hon. members to Parliamentary Debates, fourth series, volume 4, of 1854.

Mr. Speaker, these observations apply with equal force to interference with witnesses before they have appeared to give evidence. These authorities all clearly refer to threats, intimidation, coercion. Mr. Speaker, in this case there was not a suggestion or even an allegation of such conduct by the hon. member for Coquitlam, let alone any evidence whatsoever in the case presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo to be considered by Mr. Speaker, whose ruling was given on July 4,1977. Mr. Speaker, there was not a prima facie case, which is the test the Speaker had to relate to - absolutely no case at all.

Hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this motion is frivolous not in the best interests of this House and should be completely rejected.

MR. LAUK: Nothing has been said from the Social Credit side relating to the essential thrust of this motion. There were some comments made by the Attorney-General which had the appearance of relevance and some input, and I'll deal with those in a moment. But the comments made by the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) ; have not been relevant, I would submit, Mr. Speaker. In addition they have included in their remarks some incorrect information.

The Attorney-General kept on referring to a prima facie case. He said: "It's not only not a prima facie case, it's no case." Well, from any other member in this House other than the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , I wouldn't be the least bit surprised at that kind of a comment. But these are honourable and learned members of this House, meaning they are members of the practising bar. At least one assumes so, or has the Attorney-General been impersonating a lawyer for so many years?

Mr. Speaker, this was a very unfortunate thing for the Attorney-General to do. It reminded me of the so-called. opinion with respect to another matter before this House that he read by leave of the House the other day. It was very impressive sounding, but when one read the actual authorities he referred to, it was very deceptive indeed. It certainly was a sad comment on the competence of that individual in the field of law and on his opinion about law.

Having made that comment, I will deal later with it when the other motion on the paper is called. But the Attorney-General in his remarks this afternoon said no, it was no case. Mr. Speaker, at law prima facie means the same thing. If there is no prime facie case you must find that there is no case to be considered. Prima facie means that there is nothing to even trouble us about. There is not even evidence there that should be considered. No one in this province who has followed this case through the newspaper reports and no one in this chamber seriously suggests that that was the state of affairs before the Speaker. No one seriously suggests that, because in fact the Speaker has proven that he is a partial person who is misusing and abusing the Speaker's chair to improperly protect the government.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, that's the motion.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, that's the motion. I'm speaking for myself. I know what other members have said. I'm saying that the Speaker, by his finding that there was no prima facie case, has proven that he is partial. That is my motivation in standing in this chamber to speak in favour of this motion.

Interjection.

[ Page 3944 ]

MR. LAUK: No, I'm speaking to a motion. The hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) suggested I committed a breach of privilege. I'm saying no.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This motion is a challenge of the House - it's the members' confidence in the Speaker. I'm entitled to state why I have lost confidence in the Speaker. I have lost confidence in him as an impartial chairman in this House. Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the orientation course for new members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, under the chairmanship of Mr. D.E. Smith, Speaker-designate, February 18, 19 and 20,1976. Page 12 - the Clerk:

"Along with that" - he was referring to the parliamentary traditions on other matters - "I think it appropriate to mention about the Speaker himself. You have all heard, I'm sure, the traditional impartiality of Mr. Speaker. It's an extremely difficult task he has, and from the day he is elected by this House as the Speaker of the House, really some awesome duties are on his shoulders. In exercising those duties, the number one attribute he must have is impartiality.

" All matters of procedure which come to him for decision must be settled purely and only on parliamentary rules without any consideration whatsoever of political bias. He has an extremely hard job to do and his job is really only as successful as the House is within the terms of respect and co-operation. All Speakers with whom our office has worked have striven and have tried mightily to rise to that high tradition of the impartial guidance of this House through its deliberations."

Mr. Speaker, this is the first Speaker whom I'm aware of where that cannot be said.

Tampering with witnesses is a very serious charge. It was not raised lightly in this House when the member for Nanaimo rose on a question of privilege, presented the memoranda, and made his statement. It was in shocked disbelief, indeed, that the Speaker not only ruled against the findings of a prima facie case, but also, in addition, he deliberately ignored the statement on Hansard of the member for Nanaimo.

I'll tell you why the Speaker deliberately ignored the statement of the member for Nanaimo. It is because within that statement, together with the memoranda, there was an irrefutable prima facie case - an absolutely irrefutable prima facie case - to go to a committee on privileges. That's why I say the Speaker has proven he is partial. He deliberately ignored that evidence in his statement in judgment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He withdrew that.

MR. LAUK: It's because it's relevant. It's not unparliamentary to raise it in my reasons for supporting.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You have to withdraw it.

MR. LAUK: No, you don't have to.

MS. BROWN: You're a lawyer - you should know that.

MR. LAUK: Now the Attorney-General, and others have said: "Well, it's not tampering with a witness. There was a conversation perhaps. It was this, that and the other." He gave the impression that Mr. Norris is his own man and there was no direct attempt to interfere with the witness. Well, I don't believe that's true. We have evidence now, after the motion has been placed on the table, that the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was part of the interference with the witness. He stated to Mr. Norris that there wouldn't be a quorum. He predicted that the evening before. A couple of weeks before he also....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House to the clock.

Mr. Lauk moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

ERRATUM

JULY 11,1977 - VOLUME 5, NUMBER 11 - PAGE 3 5 5 1, LINE 16

READS: I'm not an ardent supporter of BART. I haven't

SHOULD READ: I'm not an ardent supporter of BART. I have