[ Page 3945 ]

CONTENTS

On Motion 13 Motions and adjourned debates on motions

Mr. Lauk –– 3945

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3951

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3952

Mr. Macdonald –– 3954

Mr. Calder –– 3955

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3957

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3961

Mr. Barrett –– 3964

Division on Motion 13 –– 3967

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 158.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3967

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3969

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): We have in the members' gallery today a very distinguished visitor from Alberta, the Hon. Graham Harle, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, accompanied by his wife, and his executive assistant, Mr. Bill Samos. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): By leave I move we proceed to adjourned debate on Motion 13.

Leave granted.

On Motion 13 - continued.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just prior to resuming the debate on the motion, I would like to quote from a book intituled The Office of the Speaker by Phillip Laundy. It's from page 61 for those who may wish to read the citation. It goes as follows:

"On July 29,1957, a debate took place on a motion which was subsequently withdrawn, criticizing the Speaker's decision in refusing to allow a motion to adjourn the House on the grounds of urgency. The supporters of the motion were careful to concentrate their criticism on the actual decision and avoid impugning the integrity of the Speaker himself."

If all members that enter into this debate on this motion today would take that into consideration, it would make the job of the Speaker much easier.

The first member for Vancouver Centre, you have 31 minutes left in which to speak.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I probably won't need it all.

Mr. Speaker, the reference that you made is a reference to a time in history and a description of what took place and is not a rule in practice. Certainly when a resolution is asked of this House with respect to the confidence that this House may or may not have in the Speaker, it would be dishonest and hypocritical of me to stand here and not state clearly and honestly to hon. members why I do support this motion.

I do feel that the Speaker, in making this decision, clearly demonstrated his partiality and I therefore do impugn him - as an individual, and not the Speaker's chair - for that partiality. Otherwise, this motion is frivolous. Otherwise it should not be supported. I want to go on to state why I think the Speaker's ruling was partial. I have stated earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence which the Speaker used to base his decision to deny a prima facie case was only two written memoranda. The Speaker ignored and did not refer to the statement of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when he was presenting the question of privilege. That statement from the member for Nanaimo included a number of references to telephone messages - which by the way, have been subsequently proven to have taken place - and a telephone message in particular between the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) and the witness who was improperly persuaded - directly or indirectly - from attending the committee hearing. The Speaker did not even refer to that in his reasons for denying a prima facie case. Why? Because that fact makes a prima facie case. That fact so binds up any right-thinking, reasonable-thinking person that this is a case that should be investigated and that is why the Speaker deliberately - and I repeat, deliberately - ignored that fact. And when I charge him with deliberately ignoring that fact, I must conclude and charge him with partiality.

Other people outside this chamber, have the same opinion. Hall Leiren, the chief of the Sun's Victoria bureau, an astute student and observer of the proceedings of this chamber, has watched this debate unfold - he's much more astute than those who have been in the press gallery longer, I might say, Mr. Speaker. He concludes in a Sun editorial, or opinion, which states that it's an opinion Other people write reporting stories which are really editorials, like one half of a well-known journalist family in this city. He states, after reviewing the facts very carefully

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): One-third.

MR. LAUK: One-tenth and diminishing. He states, in conclusion, in reviewing all the facts: "How do you avoid the BCR management being questioned before the committee? How do you tube the efforts of the committee? How do you avoid it? Close down the committee, Mr. Bennett decided." I'd like to draw the Premier into this because you don't have to be a genius to see that the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) isn't, and that he's not capable - with respect, I should say - of designing any kind of strategy with respect to the committee. This is a government action and it's shameful to the effect that they have used the member for Coquitlam to take the fall.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition):

[ Page 3946 ]

He's got enough problems.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They didn't even tell him he would be taking the fall.

MR. LAUK: He deliberately and clearly involved himself to the extent of denotifying this witness, directly or indirectly, and the witness did not appear. That was tampering with a witness; that was persuading the witness not to appear.

Now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has stated that Mr. Norris is an independent-thinking man. He's a man who can make up his own mind and do you think that he would just take hints that he shouldn't appear before a committee or just draw his own conclusions? Well, the fact is that if this was an independent witness of an independent corporation -let's say it was MacMillan Bloedel that was appearing before the committee - that's one thing. This is one of the chief officers of a Crown corporation under the direct control of the cabinet of this province -the British Columbia Railway. This is a man who doesn't need to have a direct order; all he needs is a hint from the cabinet minister in charge of the railway, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . We found that he got more than that nudge and a wink from the Minister of Economic Development, the second culprit, if you like, in these proceedings, Mr. Speaker. We found in committee hearings - the only one the Minister of Economic Development attended, although he's a member of it - that he had a conversation with Mr. Norris two weeks prior to his proposed attendance at this committee. During that conversation the Minister of Economic Development expressed the opinion to Mr. Norris that he felt Mr. Norris shouldn't be giving evidence before the committee because the BCR was before a royal commission.

That's tampering with a witness too. If that statement were made to an independent person and not a servant of a Crown corporation, that would be one thing; but when that statement is made by a boss to a servant, to an employee, it's more than just a casual conversation, Mr. Speaker. It's an attempt to persuade the witness not to attend, which was culminated and brought to fruition by the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . The standard or test for a person who is an employee of a Crown corporation is vastly different from the standard or test of tampering with a witness in an independent corporation. The test is much higher for an employee of a Crown corporation. In other words, the slightest interference with that witness in giving honest and fair testimony and appearing before the committee must be thoroughly condemned by this Legislature.

Now let's deal with the Speaker's conduct. I've canvassed most of that. There is no reasonable British Columbian today who has followed this issue who believes that there isn't a prima facie case. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that most people in the province believe that the case is proved, Now to be fair to the Speaker, the case has been proved subsequent to his decision. But up to the time of his decision, there was more than just a prima facie case. There was a case that had to be answered. I repeat my criticism of the Attorney-General, who said there was not only not a prima facie case, there was no case. That's the same thing. Prima facie means a case or no case. If there's no prima facie case, that means there's no case. There's a prima facie case if there's any evidence at all that should be considered. That's a prima facie case, and the Attorney-General has slithered, if you like, around the facts and slithered around the law and around the definition of prima facie as he had done in the previous week with respect to that shameful and manipulative opinion on another matter that will be raised in this House later.

Now what was before the Speaker for his consideration at the time of his decision? There was the apparent conduct of the member for Coquitlam. He sent a memorandum saying there'd be no quorum. I say to you that there was a conspiracy and I agree with Mr. Leiren's conclusion that conspiracy comes from the Premier's office. It seems clear to me. There is an inference of conspiracy, and that conspiracy is contained in the memorandum from the member for Coquitlam when he says there's not going to be a quorum because none of the Social Credit members will attend - none of them. Of the 11 members, Mr. Speaker, there was only one that was out of the country on a valid excuse and he's the only one who has dared to stand in this House today and make a speech. He's the only one.

MR. LEA: Where were the rest?

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) looked into the committee rooms at the very time it was sitting and walked down the hall quickly away. The hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) was available and did not attend. The hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was available and did not attend. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was available that morning and did not attend. The hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) , the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were available and did not attend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LAUK: All of these people conspired to subvert the solemn duty of the public accounts committee.

[ Page 3947 ]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Right on. They should each stand up and say where they were.

MR. LAUK: They conspired to subvert that committee. If they did not have each one of them stand in this debate and tell us, as hon. members of this House, where they were and what their valid excuse was for not attending that committee. Have each one of those members stand up in this House and say so. They are now cowering in their places and cringing in the halls as they did on that morning.

This is a conspiracy that goes to the Premier's office. This is the kind of sleazy plotting that goes on under this present administration - this seamy government that's falling apart at the seams.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of cheap political conspiracy that goes on to subvert the democratic process in this province. Is there any wonder the opposition is taking a strong stand on this issue?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I must caution you and ask you not to impute improper motives to any members.

MR. LAUK: I'm saying sleazy government as a whole, Mr. Speaker. I don't impute improper motives to hon. members of the House or to the Legislature.

The first part of this conspiracy was the memorandum of the member for Coquitlam. He was a clairvoyant, as was the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The night before the meeting he told Mr. Norris: "There's not going to be a quorum." Here is that man, the Minister of Economic Development, with a tremendous ability to see into the future. He checks his crystal ball and he tells Mr. Norris there's no meeting the next day because there'll be no quorum. He knew that there would be no quorum. Here is the very man with this tremendous foresight who appeared under oath at the Grizzly Valley commission and couldn't even recall his own name. He had no recollection of what went on. He was accused of interference; he was accused of improper conduct. There were several charges, and he could recall none of the evidence surrounding these charges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must remind you that conduct of members can only be brought up under substantive motion. I would refer you to the 16th edition of May, page 400.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. This is a substantive motion. I'll deal with his conduct just prior to the meeting. This man, who drinks milk of amnesia, the night before this meeting was to be held had a sudden flash of clairvoyance. He looked into Mr. Norris' teacup and he said: "There will be no quorum tomorrow." They rocked back and forth in their seats, praised the Lord and left that evening.

The next day, on the direction of the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Norris called Mr. Kerster's office. I should point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in a committee meeting Mr. Kerster was asked by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) on July 5,1977: "Mr. Chairman, what I would like to know is whether or not Mr. Kerster or persons acting under his direction communicated to Mr. Mac Norris, directly or indirectly, information in advance of the committee meeting that the committee meeting would not be held." 1 ask all members to take that into consideration.

The answer that the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) gave, as an honourable member of this House in a committee of this House, was: "The answer is no."

Mr. Norris was then brought before the committee. Under oath, Mr. Speaker, he said the following....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Listen to the truth,

MR. LAUK: On July 19,1977, Hansard reports that Mr. Norris said, inter alia, the following: "The next day I telephoned Mr. Kerster's office." He is referring to the morning of the committee meeting. I see the Premier is a little nervous, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so, because it was his plot that has gotten the member for Coquitlam in the glue. He should be nervous.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The first member for Vancouver Centre has made a charge that is untrue. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I'm not withdrawing any such charge.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to withdraw an untrue statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member can speak in this debate. Otherwise, sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if the first member for Vancouver Centre is imputing any improper motive I must ask him to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I am not imputing any improper motive. I am saying the Premier plotted this whole thing from beginning to end.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask you to withdraw.

[ Page 3948 ]

MR. LAUK: I'm not withdrawing that; it's a charge. He can answer it in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member has imputed an improper motive and a charge and I ask him to withdraw, as an honourable member. That may be difficult for the first member for Vancouver Centre.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 must ask you to withdraw any imputed improper motive.

MR. LAUK: 1 did not make any, Mr. Speaker. If any was taken, 1 withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it must have been from the Premier's office - this conspiracy to boycott and subvert the committee - because the member for Coquitlam does not have the authority, nor does he have the track record, that would indicate that he would put together such a conspiracy. Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. Please bear with the novice in the chair this morning.

MR. LAUK: Withdraw "track record, " is that it? (Laughter.) I hope this is not out of my time, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to charge any member with interfering with the committee is to charge that member with the breach of privilege.

MR. LAUK: With a breach of privilege? That's what this motion is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion does not involve other members. The motion is merely with respect to the Speaker.

MR. LAUK: And with the charge of privilege against the member for Coquitlam.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the motion is against the Speaker.

MR. LAUK: The motion is against the Speaker who improperly ruled that there was no conspiracy to subvert the committee. That's what the motion is about.

MR. LEA: Same as the old seatbelt story.

MR. LAUK: Let me carry on with Hansard description of Mr. Norris' statement under oath, recalling, of course, that the member for Coquitlam is an honourable gentleman and we must accept his word. We know he is honourable, Allan Fotheringham notwithstanding. We know that and we accept his word. In answer to the question: did he communicate directly or indirectly with Mr. Norris, he said: "The answer is no." Mr. Norris, under oath, before the committee said:

The next day I telephoned Mr. Kerster's office - it was my understanding he was the acting secretary of this committee at the time - and he was not there. I called about 8 o'clock in the morning to determine whether or not the meeting was on. His secretary advised me it had indeed been cancelled and asked me if Mr. Kerster should call me. I said: "If it's cancelled it's not necessary." Mr. Kerster did call about 15 minutes later.

MR. BARRETT: He said he didn't call. Phone call, George.

MR. LAUK: Continuing Mr. Norris' evidence:

He arrived at the office and confirmed the meeting would be ... I used the word "cancelled" and that was my understanding.

That's Mr. Norris' evidence.

I would ask the Attorney-General to look carefully, Mr. Chairman; I'm speaking to the Attorney-General through the Chair. Will the Attorney-General look carefully at this transcript of evidence with a view to investigating Mr. Norris for a charge of perjury? We cannot have an honourable gentleman's word ....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Are you laying that charge?

MR. LAUK: Did you hear what I said? Is there anything between your ears at all? Good Lord, man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Kindly address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Where is, Bob Bonner now that we really need him? The old 770-day wonder - the 770-day wonder, Bob Bonner - could do a better job than this Attorney-General.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that either Mr. Norris is lying or the member for Coquitlam is lying; they both can't be telling the truth. And I ask you this: Is Mr. Norris of the British Columbia Railway, under oath, not telling the truth or is the member for Coquitlam not telling the truth?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order. One moment please.

[ Page 3949 ]

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, the member hasn't talked to the motion since he started this morning. He's been all over the ballpark.

MR. LAUK: That's not a point of order.

MR. LLOYD: You made a citation when you started. I find his last words offensive and I ask him to withdraw them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fort

George finds your remarks offensive and asks you to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: Well, let me explain my remarks to the member for Fort George, Mr. Speaker. I said that one or the other is telling the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has found your remarks offensive and asked you to withdraw, hon. member. I must ask you to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no requirement to withdraw just because someone finds something offensive.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is implicit in your remarks that a member may have been lying, and if that is your intent I would ask you to withdraw that.

MR. LAUK: On the application of the member for

Fort George, I withdraw any charge that the member for Coquitlam was not telling the truth. But then on that application I conclude, because everyone here is honourable and must be telling the truth, that Mr. Norris did not tell the truth under oath.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Certainly. And do you lack such moral courage that you will not look at this squarely as an Attorney-General of this province? You tell me to go out in the hall. You have no moral courage whatsoever in the face of this kind of charge.

[Deputy Speaker rises. ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members kindly take their seats.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, the member for Coquitlam isn't under question this morning here.

We're talking about the Speaker's order. He has t continually wandered off the path; he's making accusations against an hon. member of this House. I ask him to withdraw them unconditionally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my understanding, hon. member, that the first member for Vancouver Centre, when asked by me to withdraw, has withdrawn. The first member for Vancouver Centre continues.

MR. LAUK: Here we have a situation where one or the other of these persons was not telling the truth. We now conclude, because one of the hon. gentlemen is a member of this House, that he must have been telling the truth. Now when the member for Coquitlam....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Fort George on a point of order.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's been asked to withdraw. He just brings it back in on a different line. What are we doing here? What kind of a circus are we running in this province? Are you going to allow that kind of conduct to take place? What kind of conduct is that? I ask him to withdraw that last statement as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw any imputation against an hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw anything that the member for Fort George finds offensive about your last remarks.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't know what it was, but whatever it was it's fine. I'll withdraw it.

MR. LLOYD: It's obvious you haven't known what you're talking about all morning.

MR. LAUK: Does the member wish me to withdraw my entire speech?

MR. LLOYD: I'd like to see you withdraw from the House.

MR. LAUK: Doesn't that reveal exactly where they are, Mr. Speaker? We don't like to hear the truth, do we? Social Credit members do not like to hear the truth; it makes them very uncomfortable. They make points of order. They say: "Withdraw these unfortunate remarks." They don't like to hear he truth; they burn the tapes. Destroy Hansard, keep quiet, muzzle the opposition, have backroom government. What amuses me, Mr. Speaker, is that he three former Liberals sit there grinning and bearing it as this travesty on the democratic process is taking place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask

[ Page 3950 ]

you to keep your line of debate more relevant. I'm sure you will appreciate the position of the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Getting back to the transcript of July 5,1977, where the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , when asked, said: "The answer is no."

I'll repeat it. The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) asked the question:

"What I would like to know is if Mr. Kerster or persons acting under his direction communicated to Mr. Mac Norris directly or indirectly information in advance of the committee meeting that the committee meeting would not be held?"

"The answer is no."

Later on in this committee meeting - I'll paraphrase - I stated that we must accept that member's answer as an hon. member as final and definitive. I repeated it. I gave the member for Coquitlam any opportunity to respond and change his statement. I gave him every opportunity and I did so twice in committee. He stood by it. You were there; that's what he did. Later on under oath, Mr. Norris of the BCR completely contradicts that statement. It's a shocking state of affairs, Mr. Speaker.

Now to be fair to the Speaker of this House, in whom we've lost confidence, at the time he made a judgment on this question of privilege when proof of tampering with the witness was not before him. But you see, Mr. Speaker, that's not the issue. The question is: was there a prima facie case before the Speaker? No reasonable, right-thinking person, after looking at the memorandum from the member for Coquitlam and listening carefully to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , who predicted there would be no quorum, no committee meeting....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, the Minister of Agriculture was on his feet in his estimates the night before. It's in Hansard. He said there would be no committee meeting the next day. He said: "That's what I heard." Golly Moses, Mr. Speaker, that's what he heard. Another clairvoyant!

Now the MLAs were available. They have the opportunity to stand in this debate and deny the charge made by Mr. Hall Leiren, that very, very incisive chief of the Sun bureau here in Victoria. You can fool a lot of people, but you can't fool the Sun . . .

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Not all the time!

MR. LEA: It rises every morning!

MR. LAUK: or half the Humes. You can't fool half the Humes, you can only fool....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And what did he say? I'm reading on from Mr. Leiren's article in the Sun on July 2. He said: "Mr. Kerster's contention that there were insufficient Social Credit members around the Legislature to make up a quorum is simply not true." This was said outside the House. Maybe Mr. Kerster would like to issue a writ against Mr. Leiren in the Sun. I'll pass on my card.

I'll repeat it:

"Mr. Kerster's contention that there were insufficient Social Credit members around the Legislature to make up a quorum is simply not true. There were at least six Social Credit members in the House at approximately 9:20 a.m. just after the committee convened. They could have been in the Hemlock Room at 9:22 had they been interested in attending."

AN HON. MEMBER: What room?

MR. LAUK: Hemlock.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the three minute light is on.

MR. LAUK: I hope you're not taking the interruptions by hon. members on the other side into consideration.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your three minute light is on, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: This is another attempt to muzzle the opposition, quite obviously. You might well consider it a deliverance, my friend, and so should the member for Coquitlam, because it was the Hemlock Room, where he was made to drink a cup of it recently.

"They could have been in the Hemlock Room at 9:22 had they been interested in attending. Instead they met in the Social Credit caucus room for two hours to discuss, Mr. Kerster said later, 'new procedures' for the committee."

Mr. Speaker, I ask this question, and this is the watershed - this is where each and every member have to ask themselves as a question of conscience: what would the committee of privileges have found on investigation had the Speaker found a prima facie case, which he ought to have done?

They would have found that he tampered with the witness, Mr. Norris. They would have found the question of privilege proved. He would have had to

[ Page 3951 ]

resign his seat. Mr. Speaker, that is what the committee of privileges would have found.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) .

MR. LLOYD: I find those remarks offensive against the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . This has been a carefully orchestrated plot from day one by the former member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett) to dishonour an honourable member of this House. It's really poison. To sit over there and watch all this from day one on.... If they can't get him on ICBC, they try to get him on something else.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must rule you out of order. Your point of order is not a valid point of order.

MR. LLOYD: I ask him to withdraw the last statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have been asked to withdraw another statement that the member finds offensive.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps he could tell me what it is, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few seconds to conclude.

MR. LLOYD: You're so rabid, you can't tell yourself. Why don't you just sit down?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: What did you say? I'm what?

MR. LLOYD: Rabid.

MR. LAUK: He said that I'm rabid. Was I bitten by a Social Credit backbencher? (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, before totally succumbing to that illness, I wish to conclude.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says I was bitten by a hyena, which is very much the same thing. He's a master of redundancy.

What would have happened if the committee had met? I say they would have found the question of privilege proved. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. We should have done it.

The Speaker, I say, was partial. The Speaker has lost the confidence of the members in him to be impartial, which is required by this House. I repeat, in the exercising of those duties the No. I attribute he must have is impartiality, and 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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time under standing orders has expired.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the allegations and charges have been rehearsed so many times during this debate, they don't need further repetition from me. But surely this whole saga must be viewed by any objective person, even half a step back from the passions of the assembly, as a touch of mid-summer madness.

This is the largest enterprise in the province. The people in this assembly control its destiny. Therefore, what the public would regard as a group of individuals elected by them as competent to manage their affairs surely must reflect upon the priorities we place in this assembly as to the time we spend here and the direction that we take with regard to what's important and what's unimportant.

Sure, Mr. Speaker, there has been a squabble between the chairman and the acting secretary of the public accounts committee. There can't be any question about that. It's also true that the general manager of the B.C. Railway has been caught in between in this squabble. But to ask the Speaker of the assembly to violate the traditions he's obliged to uphold, lasting over hundreds of years, in order to insert himself in such a partisan squabble would be beneath the dignity of the office that he must try and uphold despite the level to which the assembly itself may dip. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in the 15 years I've sat in this House, I don't think it has dipped below the present debate.

I'm embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) should have associated themselves with this motion because there has been a different tradition of opposition from that side. I sat in the smaller opposition for many years when it received a larger support from the general public than it does today, and I can tell you that we would never have touched a thing like this. You have to have, Mr. Speaker, if you expect to have respect as opposition, something that has some purpose and some substance.

To tamper with witnesses - really, Mr. Speaker. The man himself was summoned by subpoena and asked if anybody had exerted a , ny pressure of any kind. He hears from the acting secretary that a quorum won't be there; he draws the logical conclusion and goes home. That's what you and I would have done.

MR. BARRETT: The acting secretary said he didn't contact him and now you are admitting that he

[ Page 3952 ]

did contact him.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MeGEER: Again, Mr. Speaker, it indicates the passions and lack of common sense of my friends opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ohhh!

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

MR. LEA: Yes, 1 would ask the Minister of Education to withdraw that the member for Coquitlam contacted Mr. Norris.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because it conflicts with his statement and that makes him a liar.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, really, they had a conversation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. McGEER: 1 take it there was a conversation with the chairman of the public accounts committee. But, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the public accounts committee cannot compel a quorum in the House, any more than the Premier or the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly can. It's one thing, Mr. Speaker, to do as was done in the famous case of Mr. Churchill, in which he brought up moves made by members of the cabinet of Britain to have testimony before their committees of the House that was planned to be purposefully changed, and quite another thing to have a date when a meeting would be held agreed upon by all the people who were required to attend that meeting. So, Mr. Speaker, it's a petty squabble.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a childish squabble. It's not a matter of high principle and anybody who is half a step back from the unhealthy partisanship of this assembly would be able to see that. 1 think the public could be well excused if they consider this assembly as monumentally stupid in the way it organizes its affairs and if it considers something of this nature important enough to occupy two days of debate. If there were some evidence that people were trying to prevent Mr. Norris from attending a committee meeting at some time that was convenient for sufficient number of members to be there for a quorum, then, of course, that would be an entirely different matter. But to try and involve the assembly for several days, to try and involve the integrity of the Speaker, in what is nothing but a petty, childish squabble between the person who is the chairman of that committee and the person who is the acting secretary is monumental stupidity, Mr. Speaker, and somebody has to try and put the whole matter in perspective.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, 1 was not going to participate in this debate. However, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) raised my name and made mention about comments I made during my estimates. He stated that 1 was aware of this meeting being cancelled. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to set the record straight. The first raising of the matter of the public accounts meeting was done by the member for Nanaimo. During my estimates, at which, time I was dealing with Swan Valley Foods - and I don't have to go into that because that's a unique situation in itself - the member for Nanaimo, in taking the pressure off the fact that he was being properly put in his place for misdirection during his term of office, raised the question about the memo. 1 have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after the amount of research 1 did on Swan Valley Foods, 1 was somewhat hurt because of the fact that he took all the press away from me, but that's an aside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are not discussing Swan Valley Foods at this time. Please stay strictly to the motion.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's right, Mr. Speaker. 1 just wanted to clarify the record and I would say that the member for Vancouver Centre would agree that the member for Nanaimo raised the issue of the public accounts meeting - the memo - and started this whole nonsense during my estimates. He raised it first, and if that member over there was a little more honest about that matter he would stand up and agree with that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal really with the motion. The motion was raised over the fact that the opposition had lost confidence in the Speaker because of his ruling on the matter of the public accounts committee. Mr. Speaker, 1 don't have any terms of reference. 1 didn't get back into May, Beauchesne and all the other technical authorities to this debate. But 1 would just like to deal, possibly, with common sense. Cause and effect: what caused the motion in regard to the Speaker? What was the cause and how did it come up? Well, the member for Nanaimo raised it, as 1 mentioned, in my estimates. He neglected to say in his debate that he had a verbal agreement or did make a verbal agreement with the member for Coquitlam because, in his statement that he filed with this House, he said:

[ Page 3953 ]

"He did come to see me a little later on and gave me the following memo." By "he, " he means the member for Coquitlam. I would ask that member for Nanaimo: was there any discussion at that time? Did he agree to cancel the meeting verbally? I would suggest that he did.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): You're asking that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You may respond, I imagine, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read Beauchesne.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Maybe you should have mentioned it at the time, Mr. Member.

That is the fact of the case. I would suggest to you that the member for Nanaimo went away from this House, took a look at the situation, said, "I can make a few political points, " and decided to make an issue of it. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that member for Nanaimo had that memo early on a Monday afternoon. That memo stated that there would not be a quorum. It was delivered to him in ample time to cancel the delegation from B.C. Rail -ample time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of a chairman of any committee, of any organization, of any board of any company, I think, when he finds out that a meeting should not take place because of a lack of a quorum, is to cancel. You know very well, Mr. Member....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the reason I raise the point is that basically the meeting can't take place, the debate is not of value, because you have to have a quorum to proceed in the committee.

MR. LEA: Then why didn't you go? Then why didn't you go to the meeting?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have dubbed the member for Nanaimo.... It seems, Mr. Speaker, that they are a little nervous on the other side of the House now. May I continue, Mr. Speaker? I would suggest that we have dubbed that member for Nanaimo "Little Caesar" in the committee because he seems to want to run it all his way. But I would suggest that it was the duty of the chairman.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth, Jim.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We know the cause, we know how it all started, so let's go to the effect of this whole situation.

The Speaker reviews the memo and the debate that took place and he determines that there was no abuse of the witness and no abuse of privilege. He reports on that fact. Even in the statements the member for Nanaimo filed, he returned a memo, he stated - and I wish I could find it here - to the member for Coquitlam, acknowledging Mr. Speaker, that there would not be a quorum. It was right in his memo. On that basis, on the fact that he admitted it himself and with the evidence before the Speaker, the Speaker determined that there was no abuse of the witness and no abuse of privilege took place.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that being the case, it is unfair, it is unwarranted, that this amount of debate has been allowed to carry on. Basically I feel strongly that it was the responsibility of the chairman and not the responsibility of the acting secretary in regard to that meeting being cancelled. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is in order and I think it has been clarified, that since this matter has been raised we have had another public accounts meeting and Mr. Norris has stated that he was not influenced by the member for Coquitlam, which I would say should be sufficient evidence for the members of the opposition to stand up in this House and withdraw the motion so we can proceed.

MR. D.D. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think this is my only opportunity to correct a statement that the member attributes to me. He said that I sent a memo out acknowledging there would not be a quorum. Mr. Speaker, my memo did not acknowledge that. That could only be determined at the time and place that the meeting was called for, as to whether or not a quorum would exist at that time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the implication, Mr. Speaker, and I read from the....

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. One moment, before I recognize any member. I have to hear the point of order before I can determine if it is a point of order.

MR. LEA: Under what standing order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have no way of determining whether his point of order is valid or not until he has the opportunity to state his point of order. If you would give him the opportunity to state his point of order, then I can rule on it.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, could I have the

[ Page 3954 ]

acceptance of the Chair to ask for a point of privilege? I want to clarify the statement that that member made.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They're very nervous across the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under standing order 42, a member can only speak once in a debate except to explain a material part of his speech. Is that what you wish to do?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That is what I'm attempting to do, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to refer to the....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You cannot do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston, I must ask you to allow me to hear the point of order that's now up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you can only use this opportunity to explain a material part of your own speech.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I am, I am. I made a statement in my speech that there was an indication by the member for Nanaimo that there would not be a quorum the following day and I would like to read to you part of his memo that went to the member for Coquitlam. It says:

"I have checked and established that all four of the NDP members will be present. I do hope that at least five of the Social Credit committee members will attend so that we may proceed with a quorum."

Now, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have allowed you the point of explaining that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks very much, Jim.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It does seem to the chair that your statement was correct. On the same point of order, the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: Point of privilege. I deny that the words read out by the Minister of Agriculture indicate that there would not be a quorum. That could only be established at the time and place the meeting was to be called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the members for raising these matters and move to the next speaker.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order. Perhaps this could have been avoided had it been recognized earlier, but I'd like to read standing order 42 (l) .

"No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter . . . "

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few quiet words about this because I do not regard the debate that is taking place as a little thing - a sort of midsummer madness - as suggested by the Minister of Education. I think we're dealing with very serious matters of deep principle in this debate today.

I want to explain why I voted and will vote for the motion to censure the Speaker on the basis of his ruling. I objected already, and the Attorney-General drew that to my attention, that in anger - and I admit it - at the time the ruling was handed down I was of the opinion that there'd been a deliberate obstruction to the work of the public accounts committee and that the Speaker had, in effect, covered it up. I was outraged and I want to very briefly explain the reasons why I was, and still am, outraged.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't, because on this basis, Mr. Speaker, I want to defend the remark I made that there had been a conspiracy on behalf of the Social Credit members of the government caucus to obstruct the work of the public accounts committee. I think that if we let this go by, then that government opposite can get away with anything with regard to the public accounts of the province. Yes! Now the sentence in the Speaker's ruling I objected to most particularly was simply this. The Speaker said in his ruling: "Any question as to why a quorum was unable to be present is not before me and not relevant to my consideration of the matter." Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is a deliberate plot to deny a public accounts committee, which is about to hear a witness, of its quorum so that that witness, in

[ Page 3955 ]

effect, cannot speak, then that must be investigated and it is absolutely clear on the authorities. They've been cited. In May at page 157 of the 19th edition: "Any conduct which is calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or before committees of either House is a breach of privilege." Now if the Social Credit members of the government caucus get together and decide that they're going to derail the witness from the BCR, which they did, by denying a quorum within the public accounts committee, that is certainly "any conduct calculated to interfere with the witness giving evidence." A very serious charge was made at that time. I'm not going into the facts as between the member for Coquitlam and what was said or not said to Mr. Norris, except to say this, Mr. Speaker - and the Attorney-General should not leave during this debate, because on the public records of this province, the committee minutes and what has been stated in those minutes, as brought out by the first member for Vancouver Centre, obviously someone, either Mr. Norris or the member for Coquitlam, is not telling the truth.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you charging somebody?

MR. MACDONALD: No, but I say that is something that you must take. You're the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General cannot ignore that when it is on the public records of this Legislative Assembly. It is up to him to take action.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is that it could not have been coincidence. Will you agree with me on that - that 11 government members do not show up?

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he'll agree, Bill.

MR. MACDONALD: It was not a coincidence. It was there for a plan. It was concerted action. It was a plot. It had to be, when none of the members of the Social Credit caucus showed up at that public accounts committee.

Did the Premier know when 11 of his members acted as a group after meeting in his caucus room? I would assume that he would. Eleven out of their ranks is a pretty substantial number. That the acting secretary of the committee should cancel the meeting behind the back of the chairman is bad enough. The acting secretary. Without speaking to the chairman.

In the days of the NDP government, with a view to protecting the public against financial abuse, we established the proposition that the chairman of the public accounts committee should be a member of the opposition. That is still the case. But in the example we have before us, the work of that committee was subverted. The chairman of the public accounts committee was subverted in proceeding to hear evidence on a matter which involves very many millions of dollars of the public money - the BCR.

Mr. Speaker, I was outraged by the Speaker's ruling. I think he had to consider why those Social Credit members did not show up. It is absolutely relevant and that should have been heard in a committee. What we have had here is a coverup and one which, if allowed to proceed and if it is not met with the full protest of this House and of all of the people of the province of British Columbia, is going to mean that, we can no longer trust that our public dollars will be properly spent through that government officer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: That is the basic question of principle. I am supporting the motion.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the public accounts committee I would like to say a few words. First of all, in accounting for myself, I was in Vancouver on business during the morning in question.

I would like to say, after listening to so many people who have taken part in this debate, that this motion under discussion is a spineless one. It has no backbone. If that is what prima facie is all about, then I don't believe there is anything on which this motion can proceed. I do not believe that the motion is a sound one and I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that it warrants consideration. I don't believe facts have been established. Certainly I do not see a case.

As a matter of fact, from where I am standing, I think the motion is out of order. Most hon. members who have taken part in this debate have provided no evidence to support the legality of the motion. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if there are any inklings of evidence, they are certainly not sufficient to support the legality of the motion.

In this respect, in listening to the members of the opposition, I do not find any of them providing any facts to support this motion. There are not too many points to look at in this debate. Any time a member gets up on his feet it is all repetition. They are just repeating two or three points. Some are in support; some are against.

One I have read in Hansard on page 3167, June 28, in which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said:

It is clear to me that Mr. Norris, a duly summoned witness, was improperly persuaded from attending a duly constituted meeting of the public accounts committee.

There is no doubt that the whole debate is based on two words: "improperly persuaded."

The second point I have is a newspaper report which has been quoted by, I believe, two members

[ Page 3956 ]

and has been allowed by the Chair. I'm not going to go through the whole quotation, but according to the newspaper report, Mr. Norris has testified under oath.... I'm not saying anything about the chairman of that committee maybe being heavy handed by forcing the gentleman to take an oath. Mr. Norris indicated that the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) actually was not involved. The hon. member for Coquitlam certainly did not instruct Mr. Norris not to attend.

So on this basis, Mr. Speaker, I really don't know what we're talking about here and wasting the time of the House over. I really don't.

In other words, to me, the hon. member for Coquitlam certainly did not interfere with the witness. He certainly didn't tamper with the witness. It hasn't been proven, even by the so-called experts on the opposite side. The members of the opposition haven't proven one word. Even their supposed best man, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , gave nothing. It was an empty time he spoke in here this morning - absolutely empty, as he has always been, no matter what the debate.

You hear him yapping about conspiracy and plots and whatever, and he never proved his point. The hon. member for Coquitlam certainly didn't conspire or connive. He wasn't plotting. By gosh, if he was, as an hon. member, I would have been one member that would have stood against him. By jeepers, I never...

You're darned right!

So the man who came in here and caused all this mess, the chairman of that committee.... If he says in that motion that says he's got no confidence in the Chair, then I have no confidence in him anymore as chairman of that committee. The information he brought onto the floor of the House is groundless, baseless. That's why I said it's spineless; it's got no backbone.

I suppose they read newspapers, and no doubt they sort of sat back when they read the account of the newspaper stating the evidence provided by Mr. Norris. But I don't know. Maybe they are honourable men; we'll say they are. But being members of the opposition, they just haven't got that face to withdraw the motion. It's too late, so they want to just keep diving at it. I know for a fact, just sitting here, that they are suffering through this debate. They are! Just take a look at them. They're not big enough; I know.

The third thing I read is the decision of the Speaker, which is quite clear. It's been read into the records by many people who have taken part in this debate so I'm not going to repeat it. But the hon. Speaker had to go and check with all the authorities before presenting his decision to the members in this House. I accept that.

Several people have said that this is a very serious motion. Believe me, it is. It's one of the most serious ones I've ever faced in my many years in this House. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had said how serious it is. I'm glad he said it. He was a former Attorney-General. I believe it's serious because this motion appears to me to completely disregard the authority of the Speaker and this is a very serious situation. It disregards justice from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the motion charges favouritism. By jeepers, that's a very serious charge! And it really worries me because the motion reflects on the Chair. It reflects upon the Speaker. It reflects upon the character of the Speaker. If reflects upon the very actions of the Speaker. To me, this motion represents a very serious situation. It must be dealt with, I believe, very seriously.

You know, at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering who is in breach of privilege. Is it the Speaker, or the Leader of the Opposition who moved this motion? I'll tell you, if this motion proves to be absolutely false, then I think the Leader of the Opposition should answer for his conduct on the floor of this House. This whole criticism is directed to his motion. I am going to tell you, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition has used the avenue of this motion to continue his personal vendetta against the hon. member for Coquitlam. That's how serious the situation is when he uses the Chair for his own ends. The hon. member for Coquitlam defeated the mover of this motion in the last election and the Leader of the Opposition has not forgotten, and he will not forget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I must ask you to keep your debate strictly on the motion.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): He's on the motion.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, to continue, I would say that this motion is a grudge motion. I am only sad because the Chair was used for his own ends. We are witnessing a corrupt episode.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any member of this House should be allowed to continue to impute improper motives against the mover of a motion.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: The member for Atlin is attacking the

[ Page 3957 ]

personal motivation of the mover of the motion. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that's what the government wants, we'll open this debate up and we'll have a rough and tumble fight because we can take that. If you want to talk about principles or lack thereof, that member shouldn't even be sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker. He shouldn't even be sitting in this House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

Interjections.

MR. CALDER: He tried to keep me out of this House!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: You've got no principles whatsoever! Slither across the floor again!

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member for Revelstoke-Slocan to withdraw the statement that the member for Atlin should not even be in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 must ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. KING: 1 refuse to do so, Mr. Speaker. There's nothing wrong with that. That's my opinion and 1 stand by it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the total part of his statement was that the member for Atlin had no principles and should not be a member of this House. That is the statement 1 have asked him to withdraw as an honourable member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 must ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. KING: My statement was that the member didn't deserve to be sitting in this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 must ask you to withdraw your remark.

MR. KING: Well, if that's offensive to the Premier, who is not fussy about principles, 1 withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, 1 must ask you to withdraw your remarks without equivocation.

MR. KING: 1 withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure in his withdrawal he included the imputation that that's the type of principles the Premier of this province had as well. I would like it clarified that the withdrawal was total.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member for a complete withdrawal and he gave a complete withdrawal.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would advise you to advise all members of the House to reread the confinements of this debate. Otherwise, if it strays as it has been, I am afraid tempers will be completely lost.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a point very well taken. I would caution all members to keep the debate relative to the motion that is before us. I would further caution all members not to impugn any improper motive to other members of the House.

MR. CALDER: What do you know! I was just about finished. I see nothing but bitterness in this motion. To me, it's scornful, it's defiant and it's disrespectful to the Chair. I say that it should have been the other way around, because the opposition speakers have not proven the case at all. They can repeat all their speeches if they want to, but they haven't proven a prima facie case - none at all. It's just a waste of time on the floor of this House.

Look, there will be a vote coming up on this, but I am prepared to protect the dignity of the Chair. I have every confidence in the Chair and when the vote comes, this will be one vote in all my years in office where I'll be delighted to support the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the preceding members have stated, the events leading to this motion have been well catalogued - the attack of the opposition, the points they wish to make and the points made by the members speaking in defence of the Chair and the Speaker of this House.

I would like, in just reviewing the debate, to suggest that while there has been a lot of rhetoric, the point of the motion sometimes has been lost. The motion is dealing with the Speaker of this assembly. Yet we've seen speakers from the official opposition such as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who strayed quite far from the intent of this motion and in fact made it an attack on the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) .

I was particularly surprised when the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , in order to break what I thought was a very fine speech from the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) l chose to forget the latitude that

[ Page 3958 ]

their side allowed their own member to take and tried to confine a member on this side of the House from defending another member and finding out why that member became subject to attack, because that seems to be the background on which this unfortunate debate is being held.

Let's just review what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) presented as evidence for his prima facie case. It is all based on the suggestion that a witness to public accounts committee was improperly persuaded from attending. What are the events and what were the circumstances?

You have the secretary of the committee, an hon. member of this House, the member for Coquitlam, showing what seems to be unusual to the members of the opposition in this House, and that is something called common courtesy. Common courtesy might be strange to them and it might be unusual to them to say: "If you can't make a meeting and there will be difficulties in our party members being able to attend, the chairman should be advised in advance." I call that common courtesy. The fact that they don't recognize it as common courtesy makes us question them, Mr. Speaker, and the very standards by which they conduct themselves and the courtesy they show this House. I don't remember them seeing anything wrong in withdrawing their total caucus from this House without notice during the debate on Bill 33. If ever there was a political plot and a political manoeuvre, it was that total party, without notice, withdrawing from this House. If it hadn't been that we had our members here this House might not have had a quorum or enough members to conduct the people's business.

Did they show courtesy to the assembly? Did they show any courtesy to this House? Did they show any courtesy to their supporters in British Columbia who expected them to stand up and speak in that debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not at all! What we have from the member for Coquitlam....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Premier. I must....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr., Speaker, the Premier is obviously out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I haven't recognized the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a point of order; you've got no choice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have yet to recognize you. I will now recognize the first member for Vancouver

East on a point of order. It does make the job of the Clerk and Hansard considerably easier if they have the option to turn on your microphone so at least they can record your remarks.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to say that the Premier is completely out of order in discussing Bill 33 and the efforts the opposition took, quite above board, to bring this important bill to the attention of the people of British Columbia. It is not relevant to what is happening now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the first member for Vancouver East is well taken. I would caution the Premier that we are on this motion, and I have had to bring other members back to the motion. When we get on to Bill 33, we are a long way off the motion. Please continue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: My reason for bringing it up was to draw a parallel between the actions ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... that the official opposition took in conducting itself as part of the business of this House and the good sense and the responsibility shown when members ...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're an embarrassment!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... of a party could not make a meeting, and they showed the courtesy to advise the chairman in advance. I think this is a very strong example of the conduct that is displayed by members and how they conduct themselves between the official opposition and the government. I'm glad that we have this opportunity to draw to the public's attention as to how different members conduct themselves.

I wonder if the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the total members of the Liberal caucus advised the chairman of the public accounts committee in advance that he would not be attending that day. And why is he not under question for trying to subvert the committee then by not advising that he wouldn't be there? And I wonder if the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) had the courtesy to advise the chairman of the public accounts committee that the total Conservative caucus would not be there at the public accounts committee on that day. And if so, why is he not being questioned as being part of a plot to hold members away from the public accounts committee? There again, if the....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3959 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: What we have is just what this boils down to. The political games that have surrounded this Legislature since we first sat on March 171976, and in the bitterness from that election the official opposition took the opportunity to attack the Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, I must call you to order. We are on this motion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is nothing more than a continuation of the political games that are surrounding this Legislature for them to say selectively that when one person advises in advance they can't make a committee meeting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'm getting a little fed up with that member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and his flippant remarks across the floor. As the Premier is speaking, he is continuously repeating: "Tell the truth, tell the truth." I want you to have that member withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask that the first member for Vancouver Centre withdraw any improper statement.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Does the member not want me to ask the Premier to tell the truth?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I just asked you to withdraw the statement.

MR. LAUK: All right, I'll withdraw it and say the Premier shouldn't tell the truth. Is that what you want me to say? Okay, don't tell the truth as usual. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that statement. I must ask you to withdraw that statement.

MR. LAUK: All right, I withdraw the statement "Don't tell the truth" and ask the Premier to tell the truth. Which way do you want it? Do you want your cake and eat it too?

MR. LEA: Or do you want the seatbelts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, nobody takes the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) seriously.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , we all take seriously. I'm continually asked by members of the public if that member is just as he appears in print, and I say "yes."

MR. LEA: What about seatbelts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The point we were making, Mr. Speaker, then, is the unusual circumstance of the opposition saying what in fact is fair notice from one party and not fair notice from other members when they have the courtesy to advise the chairman they can't be present. We have the example of them having a total caucus walk out of this assembly with no notice on public business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, surely the question in resolution 13 is whether or not a witness was improperly interfered with. Now the Premier has not referred to Resolution 13 yet in his remarks, other than by number.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has allowed a reasonably wide range of debate and I have cautioned the Premier to keep his debate to Motion 13. Your point is well taken. We are on Motion 13. 1 have allowed other members of the House to stray somewhat from the motion, as was admitted by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I will have to call it as I see it.

MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are correct in saying that you have allowed other members to interfere with speakers on points of order. I'm simply one of those other members who has drawn to your attention that the speaker is not speaking to the question. When I do so, I expect you to call him to order. Now I'll continue doing this as long as the speaker continues to avoid the question before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point is taken.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that as the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) has pointed out, in my view quite correctly, they are not able to show the courage to withdraw the motion after the evidence of Mr. Norris. It has made a mockery of their motion and their contention and as such they are suffering through this debate. They will continue to try and interrupt speakers on this side in an attempt to interrupt the flow of content and the points that are being made.

[ Page 3960 ]

The member for Nanaimo presented what was very flimsy material to the Speaker, and the Speaker quite properly ruled there was no prima facie case, in my view, at that time. If there was to have been.... If they had worried that the Speaker's ruling was incorrect, they could have challenged the ruling. But they didn't challenge the ruling. In my view, Mr. Speaker, an unchallenged ruling is a ruling that has the consent then of the members of the assembly. They had the opportunity to challenge that ruling and they didn't, and by not challenging it, then indeed, that ruling had unanimous consent of the members present that day.

MR. MACDONALD: We'd have just been voted down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. MACDONALD: We'd just be voted down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, they did not take the opportunities of the legislative rules and ...

MR. MACDONALD: We'd be voted down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... historic tradition provided ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please; the Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... because there are a number of avenues open when the question of privilege is being presented and when a motion is made to the Speaker, and you can challenge a Speaker's ruling. But in all of the steps required by the Speaker in dealing with this question, the Speaker has acted correctly. The Speaker acted correctly in all of the steps required of him, and in fact, he gave the opposition every opportunity to challenge his ruling. He gave that member... The member has, as he knows, his right to place his motion on the order paper. The very fact that we're debating a motion now indicates the fact that motions are called in this House.

He had that opportunity to place that motion on the order paper. But what did we have? We had that party not taking advantage of the traditional procedures in this House....

MR. MACDONALD: We'd be voted down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the former Attorney-General and first member for Vancouver East is trying to presume a vote now and say they'd given up in advance. He just said across the floor that they'd have been voted down, which shows that he wasn't confident of his case. He wasn't confident of his case because he thought it would be turned down in advance. Surprising! It's surprising -that he would come to that conclusion.

MR. LEA: Very good. He bites the dust.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now, what do we have? We have the members opposite then, not taking advantage of regular procedure but having prepared in advance a motion - all prepared - which was supposed to come in a hurry, because they had again prejudged what the Speaker's ruling would be, because they again knew they hadn't presented a strong, proper case. There was no case and they showed that they knew there was no case by having that pre-typed motion ready to present in the House, showing lack of confidence in the Speaker.

The very sequence of events - events that they catalogued; events that they orchestrated - proved conclusively to the public that the political games that have surrounded their presence in this House since the beginning, continued, and that the public opinion of this House and the conduct of this House can be further lowered. But the public is also aware of where the political games are coming from in this House and who is preventing the very serious business of the people of British Columbia from being debated when there is considerable frustration and delay and blockage of the orderly business - the people's business - in this assembly.

We have politically staged events calculated only for a momentary headline, calculated to get the 30 seconds on TV, calculated for the black ink. The outrageous statements made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) repeatedly during this session were calculated not for content, not to convince, but calculated for the big, black headline so that somebody out there would know that he's here.

MR. BARRETT: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: This motion must be put in perspective, and that is this....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Yes. I object to the Premier's remarks, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please state your point.

MR. LAUK: First of all, he imputes an improper motive on my part; secondly it's an attack on the press gallery, which is seldom done in this Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, if you did

[ Page 3961 ]

impute any improper motive on the first member....

HON. MR. BENNETT: 1 certainly have never attacked the press gallery.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, 1 would ask you to withdraw any improper motive from the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying they don't know content?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm saying the press know headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't repeat some of his statements outside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Premier, I must ask you to withdraw any improper....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. 1 thought I had.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No prima facie case was proven and the Speaker quite properly brought back his ruling and, as 1 suggested, there is no reason for this motion other than the political gamesmanship that has surrounded the strategy of that party.

They denied themselves the ordinary opportunity to challenge the ruling and to place the motion on the order paper. Instead, in their fight, they have involved the Chair of this House. That's the serious part of this motion, that the Speaker, the very Speaker who is called upon to maintain order and dignity - and goodness knows, this House could use it - that that very Chair is made an instrument of their political gamesmanship by the calling of this motion.

So it's not just a matter of opposing the motion but it's bringing to this assembly and to the people of this province just why this motion was brought and what it's about. The very tragedy is that this motion would be brought up at all in an attempt to create political headlines for a short time. They're elusive, those headlines; they're not lasting. 1 am afraid that those members and the Leader of the Opposition might have got their momentary image on TV and their names in the headlines of the paper. But bringing on this motion, the first in history, is part of the political gamesmanship.

I can believe what was brought up earlier by other members - that it may be, as they suggest, a vendetta; that the Speaker could be involved; that they would involve the Speaker in this motion. It's obvious now....

Interjections.

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

MR. MACDONALD: To say that it's a vendetta is to impugn motives, and the Premier must withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Premier, if you did impugn motives I would ask you to withdraw.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the debate that was already brought up. That's all I did. As such that debate is in the record and I referred to it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Barrett's bitter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I would like to say, then, is that this motion must be defeated. On the evidence that was brought to the committee last week, it should have been withdrawn. As the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) has said, perhaps they are not big enough for that. It should have been withdrawn, but above all, because it wasn't withdrawn it must be defeated. But from their having learned a lesson and getting a message from the public, the people of this province whom we represent, that they are tired of the political games, perhaps we can settle down and do the public's business because there is much business to be conducted.

Times are not easy in this province and this country. There is work to be done and I am sure the public of B.C. is tired of the name-calling, the personal attacks, the innuendo, the smear and the muck-raking that has been brought to this Legislature. If one wants to know who brings it in, one only has to read Hansard. I'm glad the former government brought in Hansard. I know now that they sometimes regret it because the content.... But I am pleased it's here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Premier, when we enter into a discussion on the introduction of Hansard, I believe we are straying substantially from the motion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm just saying that I am glad it's here. For these reasons - and above all, for these reasons - I suggest that this motion must be defeated. It must be defeated. It's unfortunate that it wasn't withdrawn.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to make a brief contribution to this debate, There have been some difficult things said. As I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition introduce this motion yesterday I was caught by his comment as he, unfortunately, concluded his debate when he said

[ Page 3962 ]

that it - referring to the motion - was not moved with anything more than a serious concern about the whole role of the Speaker. I had hoped at that stage that the hon. Leader of the Opposition might have dwelt at some length upon the role of the Speaker and therefore clarified the basis for his motion. Or perhaps the other members of the opposition might have been better able to make their contributions to this debate.

Yes, the role of the Speaker is under examination here in this House and there is no more appropriate place for that role to be examined than in this House. One of the privileges which we have, as members of this assembly, is to govern our own affairs and to regulate the manner in which we conduct ourselves, and therefore the people's business. We place upon the Speaker a most heavy burden in controlling the affairs of the assembly, a burden which can only be lessened by the actions and conduct of the members in this House, recognizing that they are honourable members and that they have been sent here by their constituents for a very important purpose and given a very special place to occupy in our society.

But saying all these things, Mr. Speaker, makes me wonder about this motion. I wondered on the evening when the Speaker made his ruling why it wasn't challenged. A matter of such import, traditionally, in this House had been subjected to challenge by the opposition if they found they could not accept the ruling. However it might have come about is a thing about which one can speculate, although unfortunately there has been altogether too much speculation about this whole affair.

As I read the motion on the order paper when it was printed, I was left in puzzled wonderment about the impact of the motion. It seemed to be otherwise in accord with the ruling the Speaker had made. This was drawn to the attention of this House yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) . The motion seeks to express lack of confidence in the Speaker because he failed to allow a prima facie case of contempt of the House to go to a committee. As I read the motion, I thought that it indicated a prejudgment on the part of the persons who drafted the motion. They had made a decision that there was a prima facie case and they were quarrelling because the Speaker wouldn't allow that prima facie case to go to the House.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not for the mover of such a motion, or for any other member of this House, to determine whether there is a prima facie case. That is the Speaker's responsibility and his alone. That's the burden we cast upon him. It is for that reason that if we disagree as a House with a decision that the Speaker makes in such circumstances, this House challenges his ruling. That's the course of action to take. Of course, that's not the end of the matter. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, the person who sought to introduce the matter of privilege had the right to place a substantive motion before this House. The mover, the hon. member for Nanaimo, has not seen fit yet to take that action. It leads me to believe that perhaps he is not as sure of the statement which he placed before the House as he would have us believe.

But then again, as the Attorney-General said yesterday, a matter of puzzlement arises when we learn that the motion, when it was attempted to be introduced by the member for Nanaimo at the first instance, was already typed.

MR. MACDONALD: With you guys you have to be ready for anything.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ready for anything, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, but the member for Nanaimo referred to this yesterday in his remarks. I will read them: "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.

Mr. Speaker, what is obvious from that course of action by the combined opposition is that not only were they prepared to usurp the function of the Speaker and determine whether a prima facie case had been made out or not, but also, in a fit of clairvoyance, they had already decided that afternoon what the Speaker's decision was going to be. Those remarks from the hon. member for Nanaimo, a man of considerable experience and stature in this House, leads me to believe that the purpose of the motion was somewhat other than that as stated by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Today in debate we have heard from the honourable and learned first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . He had made it perfectly clear what his opinion is. I trust sincerely that his opinion is not shared by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We have heard from the first member for Vancouver Centre through the course of his debate today, and in other times as well, an unrelenting, vicious and unsupportable attack upon the Speaker.

He is unrepentant in that position. He said in his remarks this morning, and I paraphrase: "If you can't

[ Page 3963 ]

impugn the Speaker personally as an individual, then this motion is frivolous." He expressed his views with respect to the Speaker. He charged him with conscious partiality, but there is not one shred of evidence of such partiality before any member of this assembly or placed before us today by that member.

Fortunately for this Assembly, and for the process of this House, the Speaker is governed by rules and by precedents which have come down to us over centuries. Such rules, such precedents, obviously have no impact whatsoever upon the first member for Vancouver Centre. He supports his arguments with press clippings, the opinions held by others who observe these proceedings. That's the depth of his research; those are the parameters by which he would judge others.

I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that in the view of the first member for Vancouver Centre, this motion is frivolous. I trust that his leader, a person of longer experience in this chamber than 1, will take the opportunity of expressing his rejection of what that member said today.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , in moving his motion, said that it was not for the Speaker to disregard serious complaints or pass upon their gravity, and that is absolutely correct. But it is for the Speaker, as the leader so ably pointed out, to determine whether a prima facie case has been established. The Leader of the Opposition said in the course of moving the motion that when a prima facie case is made, the House must rule.

Mr. Speaker, in those circumstances I can only conclude that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to vote against his own motion. It is for the Speaker to decide whether there is a prima facie case, and when he does, this House will rule on the next successive step. It is not for any member of this chamber, as I said a few moments ago, to take away from the Speaker that basic obligation of his. We may disagree with his decision. If we do, there is a course of action. We challenge that ruling. But what we have seen in the past two days is the Speaker attacked for carrying out the responsibility which is his, a responsibility which, I would remind all members of this House, was cast upon him by the members of this House.

MR. LAUK: Not from this side. You don't recall?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let it be clearly understood by all who are observing this debate that the opposition believes - or some of their members believe - that once a vote has been taken in this House, whether it is for the establishment of the position of Speaker or otherwise, and passed by the majority of this House, that that vote can be ignored, and the consequences of it. And these are democrats!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ha!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What it means, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, is that some members of the official opposition would like to obey the votes they agree with but not to obey the majority decision of those matters with which they disagree.

It is the Speaker's responsibility to hear the case which is placed before him, and our Speaker did. It is his responsibility to consider all of the authorities, which this Speaker did. It is his responsibility to bring down his decision as to whether a prima facie case has been established sufficient to have this matter brought before the House, which he did.

It is our responsibility as members to accept that decision or to take the other opportunities which are available to us as members. There are only two. You challenge the Speaker. If you are unsuccessful in the challenge, you place on the orders of this House a substantive motion.

MR. MACDONALD: There are other ways.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are no other ways, Mr. Member, except the one which you chose, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, the results of this debate will not promote the matter which was raised by the member for Nanaimo. This debate can, if the motion is affirmed, only have the result in a criticism of the Speaker. It does not advance the member for Nanaimo's position.

MR. LAUK: Give us time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We have had, throughout the debate from the opposition, the clearest indication, I think, that the motion is without substance. They have gone all over the case - what occurred in committee, letters that were passed, everything but dealing specifically with the motion that is before this House regarding confidence in the Speaker.

Nowhere was it more clearly pointed out than a few moments ago when during the remarks of the hon. Premier, the hon. member for Nanaimo, the man who commenced this problem, rose in his place on a point of order. He said that the matter before the House today was whether or not a member had interfered with a witness. The man who started the whole thing doesn't know what this motion is about.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question as to the way in which members must vote in this House. You support the Speaker. Otherwise you take an action which denigrates that office from which the privileges of all of us stem.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition closes the debate.

[ Page 3964 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be emphasized that my remarks do close the debate. If there is anyone else who cares to speak I will, of course, yield the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, no one else gave any indication of rising and you did hesitate.

MR. MACDONALD: The member for Coquitlam.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond very briefly to some of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who, in my opinion - and we are subject to the advice of our own opinion in this debate - did address himself from his point of view to the debate. It is something that perhaps some members, regardless of what side of the House, did avoid and strayed from.

First of all, one thing I want to make very clear in this debate at the outset is that from my point of view this is a very important debate and is not a waste of time. I do not subscribe to that. I think individually, regardless of party, some of us may nod our heads and understand that what I am saying is correct. This kind of debate, although very rare, must not ever be considered to be a waste of time. The debate touches on our opinions of the very nature of a fragile democratic structure that depends ultimately on the deliberations of the members of this House.

I want to say to the Minister of Labour that I agree with his approach and I certainly disagree with those who say this is a waste of time. For those who say this is a waste of time, with no attempt to lecture them whatsoever, I would advise them to do some reading of the history of the very nature of developing a free democratic society that ultimately is defended and rested right here in Parliament, which is a carbon copy of the House of Commons in Great Britain.

The member who is the Minister of Labour said we must support the Speaker. Nothing could be further from being correct, Mr. Speaker, in that the very right of dissent against every step of authority is written clearly in British Law since Magna Carta. That mentality that says you must support authority, right or wrong, is a mentality that waves the flag in jingoism and says: "My country, right or wrong. My idea, right or wrong. My leadership, right or wrong." Indeed, it has led in history to serious rationalized consequences when people have not had the responsibility, the dignity and, frankly, the guts to stand up as they felt strongly about any issue.

We are the only free nation in the world who has pioneered a concept known as conscientious objection. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have upheld that right of individual citizens, no matter what their view, no matter how opposed the majority was at any time. We have upheld their right - yea, their duty - to stand on the basis of their conscience, their conviction, and their determination to uphold that point of view. Mr. Speaker, the great fight against Nazism was ultimately a determination of free citizens to stand up against totalitarian states and totalitarian ideas that said: "My Fuehrer, right or wrong; my leader, right or wrong; my party, right or wrong." It is true that in history some people have been incorrect in their dissent. No one has claimed to be perfect. But that distant lack of claim of perfection must also apply to the role of Speaker, or to the role of anyone else who is unfortunately placed in a position of judging facts. Let us not make light of the discussion that is taking place today or allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the trivia introduced, disappointingly, by the Premier more than anyone else.

I want to tell you that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was the one government spokesperson, above the Attorney-General, who did indeed refer to the authorities in this debate. I find it important and necessary for me to review some of those points in understanding that I disagree completely with the Minister of Labour when he says: "We must support the Speaker." Nine hundred years of struggling for freedom; 900 years of developing our system, with its inadequacies, its pitfalls, its drawbacks, have allowed us to develop traditions and rules and understandings in the conduct of our business. As the Minister of Labour rightly said: "We are the only ones who can govern the conduct of our business." That must be built on three things: law, tradition, and the third thing, honour.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we call each other honourable gentlemen. In the final analysis, this is the last place in our democratic society where the honour of a gentleman, the honour of a member, is ultimately the last word in terms of making a decision. This type of debate is rare, but it is, as the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) said correctly, in. my opinion: "This is a debate that is dealing with the protection of this House; not of any member, not of any member's point of view, but the very protection of the function of this House."

To make the point that we came in with a typed motion is to be correct. Yes, we were ready for any contingency. One of the decisions we made was that if the Speaker should so rule in the face of the evidence that we felt was very strong in front of him, then of course we should be ready with that motion. Of course the motion was ready, because I had indeed consulted openly and freely with the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) , which is not a usual

[ Page 3965 ]

practice considering our democratic socialist nature. There is a deep philosophical gap between myself and the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, but the one thing that unites us - and if I may be free enough to speak, based on my contact with those two members - is that our love for the parliamentary system transcends any commitment we have to a political philosophy.

My shared love of this political system with the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party does not diminish my commitment, my understanding, and my point of view to democratic socialism, but it is this very system that allows me to hold my views, to say them, to preach them, to sway people with them, just as it is their right and their duty. The member is saying, Mr. Speaker, that we typed it. I say, yes, we typed it, and one of the strengths of the motion is the fact that I was able to meet freely with those two members, discuss it freely, and confess my love for this system with those two members prior to the Speaker's ruling.

I have no shame for that. This great, diverse British parliamentary system that is much admired and envied by other jurisdictions throughout the world is based on dissent, not approval. The whole concept of developing the adversary system in a democratic society is built on dissent, either by individual, by group, or by members of this Legislative Assembly. It is very important to me.

Having proclaimed those sentiments, Mr. Speaker, I have been a person who has believed in the right of every citizen to dissent to anyone through the strictures of law or the strictures of politics on any given occasion. When I entered public life I found that as soon as I was elected I was criticized. I think that other MLAs have found the same experience. Sometimes the criticism comes from unexpected quarters beyond family ties, but once you enter the political arena and you say you are going to participate in this parliamentary system, then you must be ready for dissent, for disagreement, and for differing points of view, governed by the conditions of this House when that dissent takes place in this House.

I regret, and I admonish those members personally who have suggested that any dissent is a matter of vendetta; any dissent is a matter of bitterness- any dissent is a matter of personal decision, when Qeed, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that the voters go to the I polls is a matter of decision that they make on the basis of dissent.

It would be idle of me not to mention, in terms of i this analogy, that the very government was elected on i a majority of dissent motion. That's correct. It was dissent that actually got them elected. Once having achieved office on the basis of rightfully accumulated i dissent, as they saw it, they wish to stifle that dissent now that they have power.

That's really what's going on here. We have a situation in this committee that we're dealing with where the Premier talks about wasting public time and getting on with public business. What is the atmosphere that has taken place in this committee? It is a matter of record that prior to the election of the New Democratic Party government no one was allowed to be chairman of the public accounts committee unless that person was a member of the government side. That was changed, and rightly so, and wisely so.

Once that was done, what took place? The member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) became the chairman of the public accounts committee, and to the credit of the former government never once was his work interfered with as an opposition member in that committee. As a matter of record and as a matter of fact we respected that job, Mr. Speaker. Not only did we respect that job but we made sure that additional funds were made available.

Now what is the motion in front of us? The motion deals specifically with a prima facie case and an allegation of interference with that committee in terms of doing its work. Never once did anyone go into the public accounts committee and suggest that tapes be erased. Never once was a Nixonesque approach used to say: "We don't like what happened in that committee." Never once did we wipe out the record and use an overwhelming government majority to burn tapes and the record. The essence of this motion is a deliberate decision by the three opposition spokespersons through their leaders to say to the people of British Columbia through the device that is open to us by 900 years of parliament: "We protest the killing of a committee or access to that committee by any kind of interference whatsoever."

Far be it from me to catalogue the series of events that led to the unfortunate experience of Mr. Norris. Far be it from me to catalogue the experience of day-to-day exchanges between the member for Nanaimo and the member for Coquitlam. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there was enough substance in the exchange to lead me to believe, and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) to believe, that something wasn't entirely clean in those exchanges.

For the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to stand in this House and say we're dealing with a little squabble shows that he does not view with the seriousness that I do the very structure of this House being attacked by that so-called little squabble. How ironic it was that the absolute proof that indeed interference did take place came from that minister himself when he said: "What's a little phone call between friends? What's a little conversation?" That indeed is the very basis and the foundation for the action that I consciously sought with a sense of pride, duty and obligation in bringing this motion in. That

[ Page 3966 ]

member indicated that he's convinced that there was a conversation between Mac Norris and the member for Coquitlam, even though the member for Coquitlam denied it. That is interference. That is a prima facie case of interfering with a witness who's coming to a committee.

I tell you, the reason I move this motion is because I believe the Speaker was wrong in not ruling it a prima facie case. The Speaker, in my opinion, did not make available to himself - for whatever reasons, sir, I do not know, nor do I intend to judge - all the evidence, as was produced by the member for Nanaimo. Had he, indeed that would have been part of the decision, and it wasn't. There was not one comment by the Speaker about the conversation, but there was comment by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who attempted to dismiss it.

Yes, this day will pass and it will be a happy weekend, I hope, for all citizens in this province. Yes, the moment of this debate in heat will go down in history as a little event in the nature of this House. But let me tell you, I would have left my own party and sat alone had they not insisted that we stand up and demand the rights of members of this House and the rights of every citizen to be heard.

Those who view this as some frivolous exchange or waste of a few hours have no basic understanding of the depth and the feeling of fights that went into establishing a parliamentary democracy. I suggest that those who chip away at the rights and responsibilities of even the smallest minority will eventually bring themselves down, because if you take away the rights of my enemy, in the long run, in our democracy, you remove my rights.

I want to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, through your very own excellent reference with which you introduced the debate with.... I do want to say, sir, that I want to commend the Speaker who has handled most of this debate at a level that I think has been absolutely excellent, considering the length of experience that the member who occupies the chair has. He has demonstrated to many of us a depth of ability that is frankly admirable, and I want that on the record.

MR. MACDONALD: Now you can't sit again.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you quoted - and I thought very well and eloquently - today in opening the debate from page 61, of Laundy's famous book, The Office of the Speaker. It will never make the best-seller list. It is not the type of torrid reading that excites the average citizen over the weekend. It will never be the subject of scrutiny by the porno-fighters, but let me tell you that this book really is important for those of us who would labour in this particular vineyard.

The motion is going to be defeated. We have that evidence. The motion will be an expression of will of this House as to confidence in the Speaker, but the very fact that this is the first time in the history of British Columbia that such a motion was entered upon by this House is something to remember. If anyone thinks this House has had bitter and deep debates, let me tell you, if a curious examination of the limited Journals back in the 1920s, and the 1930s when Mr. Pattullo was government, is made, you will find that debates were far more intense, emotional and evocative than they are today. We're not the best nor the worst. Someone else has done more for that in this House.

Never before was there a motion like this, and it will be defeated. But 1 want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in the last reference that I shall make, along with this, to the Journals, to the strictures and to Beauchesne and May who tell us how to behave, by reading again, clearly, why this motion was brought in. 1 want to read from this book and urge the support of this motion. 1 want to quote from Beauchesne, 4th edition, page 95, again to clearly define the debate in the final moments as to what it is all about.

"It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function and ruling on a claim of breach of privilege 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."

I want to thank the Minister of Labour for making that clear. Only the House itself - that is, all of us here - can decide whether or not there has been a breach. It is the Speaker's job to adjudicate whether or not there had been a prima facie case. In my opinion, sir, the Speaker did not do his job; he did not judge all the material. As a consequence, he is faced with this motion, differently described but purpose the same, by various members of this House.

As official Leader of the Opposition 1 no longer have confidence in the Speaker. Nothing said in this debate changes my position. I want to make it clear on the record as an official part of this particular Parliament, as the official Leader of the Opposition, my vote will go to support my position.

I want to add this in conclusion: in spite of the government majority, let us understand what the tradition is and why this motion is so serious. 1 quote to you, sir, page 102 of Laundy's The Office of the Speaker, the last paragraph on that page. It reads as follows:

"The moving of a resolution of censure against the Chair is necessarily a distasteful procedure, but the right to do so is indispensable to the machinery of a free parliament."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 3967 ]

MR. BARRETT:

"Were such a resolution ever carried, a Speaker would have no alternative but to resign. In fact, in these days. . . ."

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House, if they care to, to listen to this, and the choice is theirs - I go on:

"In fact, in these days he would probably feel compelled to do so. If the motion received the support of a substantial majority, he would find it difficult to fulfil the functions of the Chair, knowing that he lacked the confidence of a sizeable body of opinion in the House."

My statements rest, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will now read the motion and then we'll have the vote. The motion is:

"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."

Motion 13 negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 16

NAYS - 27

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time before 1 o'clock to debate the other motion. I propose we move to Committee of Supply,

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 158: minister's office, $133,168 -continued.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we're debating the conduct of the Minister of Education in his office. I want to say one or two things about a volley of statements he's been making in the last few days about stolen documents.

It has happened before in this House that when something of public importance comes to light, this government, instead of addressing itself to a correction of the evil that has been revealed, attacks the messenger instead of investigating the allegation. In the case of ICBC, the allegations are very deep and grave. The minister says, "Let's investigate the leak."

Now all hon. members in this House, whether they sit on the government ranks or the ranks of the opposition, have public duties. It seems to me that when information comes from any source in our modern society to a member of this Legislature, he has a very clear public duty, if he is satisfied with the authenticity of that information and if he is satisfied whether there is something that the public has a right to know and if he is satisfied that it involves grave matters....

MR. BARRETT: He did it himself when he was in opposition.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I would hope he did. He has a duty ...

MR. BARRETT: What changed his mind?

MR.MACDONALD: ... to bring that information forward on the floor of this House and on the hustings throughout the province of British Columbia. We are sadly in need of a freedom of information Act in this province, Mr. Chairman,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that requires legislation and is not permissible under Committee of Supply.

MR. MACDONALD: I leave out the word "Act." We need freedom of information within government in this province.

MR. BARNES: And they must act! (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: If it's all right, for example, for a member of the Legislature to interfere in a decision being made by ICBC adjusters - and I

[ Page 3968 ]

personally don't think it is.... Even if the member didn't have a personal interest, I think this business of intercession, which the Premier defends, is totally wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. MACDONALD: I think it's a crime. I think it's a shame that the government has accepted the proposition that ICBC should be subject to political pressure and intercession when they have what is really almost a judicial function to perform. They have to determine under their regulations. After their investigation as qualified adjusters with appeal within that system, they have to determine almost in a judicial way whether or not a claim should be allowed and whether or not the amount of that claim has been properly adjusted.

For the Premier of the province to say publicly as he has, and as he has said in this House - we're talking about ICBC, Mr. Chairman - that: "I consider it perfectly proper for me to go to ICBC on behalf of a constituent, as the Premier of the province, and as a politician, to sit down to discuss a particular case." I think that's totally wrong.

We now have ICBC sort of crawling with political intervention. The Minister of Education said 300 inquiries or intercessions from MLAs. Now I think that's wrong, and I think it's particularly wrong when the member of the Legislative Assembly who intervenes in a case has a personal financial interest in that case. Now that kind of intercession is totally unacceptable in a democratic society.

The government, Mr. Chairman, made a big point, as the Minister of Education did, that they would remove ICBC from politics. Yet they have remaining on the board of ICBC two cabinet ministers. As I understand it, both the Minister of Education and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) are members of the board of ICBC. They have allowed this kind of intercession and political interference to take place. I think it is totally reprehensible.

MR. LEA: They've encouraged it!

MR. MACDONALD: In this case, we are not complaining as much about the member for Coquitlam as we're complaining about the government that has allowed that kind of intervention to take place in both the Surrey Dodge case and in the Leslie Woods case and then defend it indignantly on the floor of this House. It's condoned that kind of political intervention in a case where the member was definitely interested financially in the one case; and it's condemned the opposition for bringing the matter to light, saying that we have stolen documents. Did you say, Mr. Minister of Education, that we stole documents?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you address the Chair, please, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: Is this what you are saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair, please, hon. member? Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: I say you deal in stolen documents.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, that's not what you said before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, hon. member. Will you kindly address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, no. You know, I have the floor, but I'm not objecting to these interruptions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am objecting, hon. member. Will you kindly address the Chair? The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, this is what I'm complaining about. Instead of the minister addressing himself to the very grave allegations that have been made, he charges the opposition first with stealing documents - which he did - and now he says, "dealing in stolen documents."

Does the minister, Mr. Chairman, really believe that we should not have made this information public, that it should all have been suppressed? Should we say: "Oh, we can't have that! This is something that should not come to public notice."? That is what the minister is saying. I have to disagree with him. Is the minister saying that when he was a member of the opposition that if this information had come to his attention, he would have said: "I don't know the origin of this information; maybe it was stolen; I'm going to return it; I'm going to make sure it goes back and that the public never knows what is going on within ICBC."? Is that his position? Well, that is a position of suppression of information that the public is entitled to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he never dealt in stolen documents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Premier, then.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I happen to be one of those who believe that for democratic government to function . . .

[ Page 3969 ]

MR. LAUK: Old sticky-finger Pat.

MR. MACDONALD: ... in the interests of the public.... Mr. Chairman, I'm getting help, but I'm not resenting it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, only one member may speak at a time, and the hon. first member for Vancouver East does have the floor.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I am one of those who happen to believe that for democratic government to function effectively, there should be freedom of information with respect to public matters. I regard a claim, particularly a claim in which a member of the Legislature has intervened, as a public matter. I don't see there is anything shameful about it. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, the claim went to court, because before the end of the one-year time limit for action to be brought against ICBC, there was a disagreement, either as to the amount of the claim or whether it should be paid and the matter went to court. Then the whole thing is out in the public where it should be.

T here should be freedom of information. Secondly, Mr. Chairman - I hate to say this - when we don't have freedom of information in this province, sometimes a leak of information is necessary for the health of the body politic.

I have no doubt that within the ranks of ICBC at the present time, the adjusters who were supposed to be performing a professional function must feel that their morale has been shattered, particularly with these two cases.

I would like to think that some of them are public spirited enough to try to get past these political appointees to the board of ICBC who want to suppress all this from coming to public attention, and somehow get it out to public attention.

I'm not saying that they should have a medal, but I am saying that they have a case that should be brought into the light of day. Otherwise, how can they defend themselves when orders come down, you know, right from the vice-president and general manager's office: "Mr. Bortnick, in spite of your opinion, settle this claim and pay so much."? In the Surrey Dodge case, they paid $1,850, which happened to be $400 more than the car was worth. It's too late in the day to go into the details of that.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): They claimed $2,900.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. The first report of the adjuster said that this claim was worth $1,500 at the most, because that was all a 1969 Mustang could possibly be worth if it was totally demolished, and ICBC should pay out no more than $1,500 less the salvage. They would then have the benefit of the salvage car, which might be $100, so the liability at the most was $1,400, and yet $1,850 was paid out.

Now when adjusters with a sort of a professional role to play find that kind of thing is happening to them - that suddenly, in spite of their opinion, after the year has gone by, in breach of the regulations, they're ordered to settle that claim - they have reason to see that somehow this matter should be brought to public attention. That's what they did, and 1 resent very much the attitude of this government that time after time, when there has been a leak of information or something has come to public light which is unfavourable to them, has said: "Investigate the leak; don't investigate the offence."

AN HON. MEMBER: Witch hunt!

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you want to reply? Well, the minister wants to reply, but the minister, Mr. Chairman, has been replying in the corridors, and on the radio and TV, and charging us with dealing in stolen documents.

MR. LAUK: The minister of coverup.

MR. MACDONALD: 1 suppose he should have a right to reply, but 1 hope, Mr. Chairman, that this minister will direct himself to what's wrong in ICBC, and to the seamy politics or gross incompetence within that organization under his administration, instead of attacking this opposition for exposing it. That's what we're faced with in this province - a businessman's government, eh? The bottom line is paying out $1,850 for a car that at the most was worth $1 ' 500 less salvage - $1,400 - after intervention by a Socred backbencher. That's a businessman's government - raising the rates to the people of the province out there and seeing the money go out the back door by this kind of political interference. Now instead of attacking the opposition, Mr. Chairman, it's time that minister addressed himself to this kind of mismanagement and gross incompetence that we've seen since the advent of this government in connection with ICBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to express my thanks to the Attorney-General for permitting me to give some brief answers to his charges before the clock runs out.

First of all, I'll just say a word or two about the management of ICBC and the record of the past year.

[ Page 3970 ]

The rates which the member refers to were established on the basis of the actuarial records for the first two years of the ICBC operation, which was under the NDP. During this past year, management ran roughly $91 million ahead of the budget and a substantial part of that represents improved management.

As for the rates which the member referred to as being so outrageous, we've done a comparative analysis between ICBC's rates and those recommended by the insurance advisory committee of Canada, representing the average rates charged in other provinces. ICBC's rates on the average are about 60 per cent of those in Alberta, about 55-58 per cent of those in Ontario and roughly 40 per cent of those in Quebec.

So far, performance is excellent for this year. 1 anticipate that the spread between ICBC and the rest of Canada will grow in the future. In other words, the spread will become even larger and 1 think that testifies to the sound management of the corporation at the senior level.

With respect to the Automobile Insurance Act, 1 agree with the member that there should be a freedom-of-information Act. We don't have that. What we do have, Mr. Member, is the Automobile Insurance Act, which was sponsored by yourself. I'd like to read the relevant section to that Act to you because this was your Act. If you thought it was wrong, Mr. Member, you shouldn't have brought it in and sponsored it and your members shouldn't have supported it. It's your own Act that you're violating.

The reason why this particular section was written into the Act was to prevent the very thing that is happening on the floor of the House today. Information is being dribbled out day by day from you from stolen files, which unfortunately are only partial files. What I'm obliged to do every day after you put a new stolen document on the floor of the House is to go to the senior officials of the corporation who have the complete records and who have been responsible for reviewing the case to find out what the truth is. Now 1 haven't read what you have and I haven't read what the senior officials of the corporation have. I'm not going to read a file nor am I going to make judgments on the worthiness of the files.

1 can tell you that there are MLAs who are putting pressure on - and the member for Vancouver-Burrard knows that - to have claims settled with cases that they raise. 1 don't expect that to go away because 1 happen to think MLAs are ombudsmen, and this kind of thing always took place. No one, Mr. Speaker, made more passionate appeals on behalf of individuals behind the scenes and in public than the members of the NDP with respect to workers' compensation cases and with respect to insurance cases. We always used to have them on the floor of the House. "How terrible the bureaucracy was!"

Well, Mr. Chairman, people have to be employed to make these decisions. If there is disagreement with the decisions, the place to go is to court. We have senior officials of the corporation who are reviewing all of the appeals that come forward, whether they come through MLAs or not. Some of them come through MLAs. I'm satisfied that politics plays no part in the decisions that are made. But it's always going to be that there will be disagreement as to what the individual settlement will be. Adjusters in the corporation may disagree with the senior officials. I suppose if the case goes to court, some judges might give a different decision than others. But ultimately a decision has to be made by somebody. Whereas you may disagree with the decision, you have to decide in the final analysis whether the people should be fired.

Now I take it that what the member has suggested is that the claims review committee, which is set up by the corporation to review these things and which happened to review this case and make the decision, should be dismissed.

It was the member himself who asked for that review committee. It's a good procedure and the corporation has it. The claims review committee reviews the case. And who's the first person to bring a complaint on the floor of the House but the member? Who's the first person to violate his own Act but the member? Who's the person who champions freedom of rights? The member. But who is the person who abuses those rights? That same member.

When you bring partial truth to the floor of the House, such as the fact that the member for Coquitlam.... The case he raises was, in fact, a premium that wasn't paid, and it was paid. What you've done is you have slandered that member in public. If you said these things in the corridor instead of the House where you have immunity - if you had the courage to say these things in the corridor - you would have a libel case on your hands.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has misquoted me. The premium was paid by the agent nine months after the accident, one month before the claim was made, and we stated that publicly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair rules that that is not a point of order. Take your seat, please.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been called to order on several occasions with respect to his statements....

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order,

[ Page 3971 ]

please.

MR. LAUK: The fact is that the statement charging the member for Coquitlam was made in the hall. So you can advise the member for Coquitlam....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. Would you kindly take your seat?

MR. LAUK: Yes, it is. Advise the member for Coquitlam ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: ... to please bring in an action of libel.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, take your seat, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Education.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: 1 can tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it were me there would be an action ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MeGEER: ... and there may be. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman: the member for Vancouver East isn't championing human rights. The member for Vancouver East is violating the laws that he himself brought into this chamber. It's the utmost in hypocrisy and 1 think it's disgraceful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister should sit down on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take your seat, please, hon. minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I have been charged with violating the laws. I reply that if the minister means that he must put down a proper motion in this House ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: ... and we will then debate the duty of an elected member of this Legislature to expose public wrongdoing wherever it may be found, it is no breach of law at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, hon. minister. If you are to bring allegations against the member, it must be done on a substantive motion.

Attention has been drawn to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I beg leave to file a document referred to in question period yesterday.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.