[ Page 4941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Canning lids a toxic threat. Mr. Levi –– 4941

Jobs to be created by schools-protection programme. Ms. Brown –– 4941

Functions of Allan Kelly. Mr. Wallace –– 4942

Possibility of Premier meeting with Save-the-VRB committee. Mr. Gibson –– 4942

Federal standards for imported canning lids. Mr. Levi –– 4943

Government lease of office space. Mr. Barnes –– 4943

BCR construction settlement. Mr. Lauk –– 4943

Government lease of office space. Mr. Barnes –– 4944

Presenting petitions

Withdrawal of Bill 65. Mr. Gibson –– 4944

Crown Corporation Reporting Act (Bill 52) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4944

Mr. Barrett –– 4947

Mr. Gibson –– 4949

Mr. Wallace –– 4951

Mr. Veitch –– 4954

Mr. Lauk –– 4955

Mr. Rogers –– 4956

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4956

Division on second reading –– 4959

On Motion 10.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4960

Mr. Lea –– 4960

Mr. Lauk –– 4960

On the amendment

Mr. Gibson –– 4962

On the subamendment

Mr. Lauk –– 4962

Division on the subamendment –– 4962

Division on the amendment –– 4962

On Motion 10.

Mr. Gibson –– 4962

Mr. Wallace –– 4963

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4964

Division on Motion 10 –– 4966

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42) Committee stage-

On section 28.

Mr. Barnes –– 4966

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. E.N. Veitch (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Jean and Mr. Douglas Crosier from San Francisco. Doug is enrolled as a law student. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

Hon. R.S. Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today is a resident of Victoria, Mr. Hudson Blake. Mr. Blake has had several poems printed in Beautiful British Columbia magazine and has been instrumental, through his writings, in making people more aware of the difficulties paraplegics have in getting around the community. A parking spot is set aside near the museum for paraplegics through his efforts, He has also long been associated with Goodwill Enterprises here in this community. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

Mr. G, F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are numerous members of a delegation of the Save the VRB Committee. They represent community resource advisory boards from all parts of Vancouver and such other agencies as the British Columbia Federation of Women, and so on. I would just like to ask the House to welcome the leaders of the delegation, Elgin Ruddell and Libby Davies, and others including Alice Hamilton, Jean Bird, Atiba Gordon, Pat Oram, Sharon Olsen, Marietta Perkin, Debra Lewis, Joe Arnaud, Mark Paul, Collette Murphy, Joan Moreli, Gloria Greenfield, Barbara Edwards, Carl Lehan, Simon Oostehuis, Susan Sanderson, Carol Phifer, Stan Fraser, Dave Pratt, Pat McRae, Peggy Sutherland, Chris Walmsley, Jean Bird, Rod MacRae, Betty Bushing and Craig Turner.

Mr. L.B. Kahl (Esquimalt): Seated in the gallery this afternoon is a constituent of mine, Mr. Baldauf. He's here to watch tile government in action this afternoon and I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): Seated in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, is the past president of the Jamaica Mental Health Association, Mr. Norm Edwards, who is in British Columbia attending the World Federation of Mental Health meetings. He has taken time out from that conference to come and look at democracy in action, we hope, in this Legislature. I would like the House to join me in bidding him welcome.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to associate myself with the comments of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano and welcome the members of the Save the VRB Committee, who are visiting us here in Victoria today.

Oral questions.

CANNING LIDS A TOXIC THREAT

Mr. N. Levi (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Reports today indicate that British Columbia homemakers are being sold canning lids which are tantamount to toxic time bombs, exposing their families to the risk of death by botulism. Has the minister taken any steps yet to have the product taken off the market, at least until further tests have been completed?

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): I'll take the question as notice and report back.

JOBS TO BE CREATED BY

SCHOOLS-PROTECTION PROGRAMME

Ms. Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier. Mr. Premier, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has indicated that there is a need for about 1,500 people in this province to protect the, schools of British Columbia against vandalism. Can you tell us whether you are going to be creating legitimate jobs for these 1,500 people or not?

Hon. W.R. Bennett (Premier) . Mr. Speaker, the question might more properly be asked of the Minister of Human Resources if it's a programme that would be developed by his department. But I do say to the member that during the debates in this House, after questions to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) at various times, he has identified the tremendous loss of personal property and arson in schools in this province. It's a problem we're all aware of and very much concerned with, as it's a tremendous cost both in the loss of facilities on the short term and the educational opportunities for our young, and it's also a tremendous financial loss to the province of British Columbia. Any programme that would guard that property and provide job opportunities for people at the same time is one which I would say I would be most anxious to hear the details of.

Ms. Brown: On a supplemental, Mr. Premier, since the minister has indicated that he has not yet discussed this programme with the Minister of Education, this is the reason why I directed the question to you. I am concerned that it not be just a cheap labour programme, I want your reassurance

[ Page 4942 ]

that they're legitimate jobs and that they are going to go through the usual public service committee.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the consultation will take place between the ministries in what would be a worthwhile objective. I have heard – and accept – the member's concerns and will pass them along to my colleagues in the two ministries involved.

Ms. Brown: I would really like an assurance from the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that this is not going to be a programme which is going to force old-age pensioners and senior citizens to work for their pensions, but that it is going to be a legitimate job programme where people are going to work for a decent salary and not just another cheap labour programme of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take too much issue with the member, but she mentions "another cheap labour programme." There are no cheap labour programmes in this province or by this government. This is a sincere effort to provide job opportunities for people to have a greater opportunity to fulfil themselves and to provide a function in society.

It seems to me that the broad goals outlined by the minister would be Worthy of support from all members of this House. I think it would indeed be getting political to try and presume in advance all the worst for such worthy and noble objectives.

FUNCTIONS OF ALLAN KELLY

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. I notice that order-in-council 2652 has reappointed Mr. Allan Kelly as a special consultant on health care at $2,500 per month. This is the continuation of an appointment that started on January 8,1976. I wonder if the minister could tell the House which special functions Mr. Kelly is providing to the ministry.

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kelly's major jobs at the present time are – in co-ordinating several construction projects which are underway in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the main one of which is the construction of the UBC hospital and the planning for other teaching facilities, as the head of the task force which is looking into all of the teaching facilities which are necessary in the eater Vancouver region.

Mr. Wallace: As a followup, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject of organization of health facilities in Vancouver, is it a fact that the president of the now defunct B.C. Medical Centre is still drawing a salary, pension and fringe benefits? If so, could the minister tell the House what his salary now is in light of the fact that the B.C. Medical Centre is to be phased out?

Hon. Mr. McClelland: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wallace: Just on a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could I ask- the minister when the president of the B.C. Medical Centre officially had his services discontinued, and payments for his work ceased?

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that date off the top of my head, but I can get it and supply it to the member.

POSSIBILITY OF PREMIER MEETING

WITH SAVE-THE-VRB COMMITTEE

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier if he has been able or will be able to clear any time on his agenda today to meet with the Save-the-VRB delegation. He is their last hope, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that he offered time at 6:50 this morning, but by the time the group received word yesterday, it was too late to get over. There was no ferry sailing early enough. So I would ask the Premier if he would be prepared to consider time later on this day.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thank the member for asking the question. I was requested to meet with this Save-the-VRB committee, I would point out to the member, though, that I have already met with the members of the Vancouver Resources Board both privately and in cabinet on this very matter. I feel they have been given a very full and fair hearing on the presentation of their views.

When the VRB board first came over I also met with the committee to save the VRB at that time. We had a short meeting in my office at that time in which they presented their views. I asked them for their written brief to be given to me at that time. I was also available to hear their views.

The request for a meeting came to me by letter to my office late last week while I was in New Brunswick at the Premiers' conference. As such, on being advised on the return to Victoria on Monday, I had my office notify them that Thursday, being cabinet day, was inappropriate for me, That was the only day I turned down. Any other day could possible be easier, but it was a particularly heavy day, both in meetings already scheduled and in cabinet work.

I suggested that if it was just a presentation of a

[ Page 4943 ]

petition, which was suggested to me by my office, it could be received by my office. This was indicated to be unacceptable. I then suggested to my staff, who relayed the message, that there being no other time and always wishing to be accessible – my working day starts with a 7 a.m. cabinet meeting on Thursday and I had other appointments filling the day plus my duties here with legislation this afternoon – I would be prepared to extend my working earlier in the day to accommodate the presentation of the brief or petitions directly to myself. That information was presented both by telephone to one person and personally to another person yesterday afternoon. I would consider that ample time for people to make arrangements to come to Victoria for 6:45 or 6:50 this morning.

Certainly if I were interested in a cause and wanted to see the Premier personally, I would have made myself available. Or, recognizing that the request came late, I would have accepted the invitation of the Premier's office to accommodate me on any other day, when those duties were not already filled.

I recognize that 10 to 7 in the morning is very difficult for the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , but it's not difficult for me to go in to work at 10 to 7 in the morning. If that member had gone to work at any time, he wouldn't have had a $100 million overrun when he was minister!

Mr. Gibson: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to debate with the Premier about the possibility of 10 minutes to 7 this morning, but I would ask him: may I take from his answer his willingness in principle to meet with the group on another day? Not a busy cabinet day like today, but possibly tomorrow? Could he assure the group in the gallery that if they contact his office a meeting will be arranged?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that's the assurance that was transmitted long before this day was picked arbitrarily not by me, but by the group wishing to meet. I would say, however, that I have had a chance to meet with groups representing this proposed legislation and feel that it has been canvassed. I feel that they should appeal to the minister sponsoring the bill.

But I will, if it is their wish, extend as was possibly made known to them before they came over today, that although this day was full, other days are available for meetings with the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR

CANNING LIDS

Mr. Levi: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in regard to the Taiwan canning lids. As the minister knows, there are not yet, at the moment, any federal standards. Is the minister prepared to make immediate and strong representations to the federal government to prevent the importation of the failure-prone Metro brand lids from Taiwan at this time?

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): We have made a number of strong representations over the last 20 months to the federal government concerning this problem with canning lids. I'm not prepared to say that I'm going to make representation concerning any particular product, but I will certainly give my undertaking to the member and the House that I will make another representation, as strong as I know how, to the federal government to set some standards on canning lids, and to see that those standards are enforced.

GOVERNMENT LEASING OFFICE SPACE

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre): To the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Could the minister confirm that his department is leasing space to house the Government Employee Relations Bureau while there is still vacant space owned by the government available?

Hon. A.V. Fraser (Minister of Highways and Public Works): I'll take that question and look into it. I'm not aware of what you just said.

Mr. Speaker: It is taken on notice.

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): Can the Premier confirm that B.C. Rail is presently...?

An Hon. Member: Is that a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. There is no supplementary, hon. member, to a question taken on notice.

BCR CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT

Mr. Lauk: Can the Premier confirm that B.C. Rail and its officials are now negotiating a settlement out of court with KRM Construction and Keen Construction, which are proceeding at this date with an action based on fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the old BCR board?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

[ Page 4944 ]

GOVERNMENT LEASING OFFICE SPACE

Mr. Barnes: Again to the Minister of Highways, I would like to know what part of my question he was taking as notice – the part that the B.C. Government Employee Relations Bureau was not renting space, or whether they were renting space that he didn't know about, or whether the government had space available and he didn't know about that either. I'm not sure what he is taking as notice.

Mr. Speaker: I understand, hon. member, that the hon. minister took your question as notice. I'm fully aware of that and I am sure the minister would be.

Mr. Barnes: Well, let him speak, please, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman: If the minister desires, okay. But the question was taken as notice.

Hon. Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I took the whole question as notice.

Presenting petitions.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of standing order 73, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Mr. Gibson: Thank you, members. The petition I wish to present is non-partisan, and it's believed in and supported, I believe, by members on all sides of the House. In that context, I want to pay a special tribute to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) . It is presented on behalf of a community group – not a Vancouver Resources Board group, I might say, but a community group – the Save the VRB joint committee and the prayer reads as follows:

"To the hon. Legislative Assembly in British Columbia in Legislature assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, support the effective, humanitarian and democratic way the VRB has delivered statutory and other needed social services in our city. We note that Vancouver city council has adopted a resolution urging the continuation of the VRB, as have other public bodies and citizen groups. Therefore, we respectfully urge that Bill 65, which calls for the abolition of the VRB, be withdrawn by your government."

The signatures affixed to this petition are Elgin Ruddell, Elizabeth Davies, Joseph Arnaud and D.W. Pratt. It is signed and dated by myself, as the rules require, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask leave to table as ~well supporting signatures – 24,000 of them – in substantially the same form of prayer; and a further 3,000 in a somewhat different but corollary message. I would ask leave to table these, and I hope and pray that it may give the Premier and government cause for a second look.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Davis (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to submit written replies to questions.

Leave granted.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Before calling the first bill, I would ask leave to withdraw an amendment, standing in my name, to the Evidence Amendment Act, Bill 2.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Second reading of Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN CORPORATION

REPORTING ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill, I think I can speak for not only all members of this House, but for all citizens of B.C. – in fact, all Canadians – who have wrestled with the problem of a growing number of Crown corporations and government corporations. Not only the people of our province and the people of our country, but our Legislatures themselves quite often feel that we dc not have proper access and proper opportunity to question and make these Crown corporations accountable.

At one time, in a simpler political climate and a simpler society, there was no need for an Act such as this or a committee such as this, because we did not have the multiplicity or the numbers of Crown corporations, nor those Crown corporations that have grown in size and impact upon our economy and our province. Our province of British Columbia has several such corporations that indeed have an impact every day, not only in an economic way, but in a sociological way. In fact, they have a great impact not

[ Page 4945 ]

only on the present society but on future society, and how this province shall be shaped. They have grown beyond the ability of government within the present restrictions and the present committee system to make them accountable to this chamber or accountable to the people of the province.

This problem, as I say, is not common just to British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Politicians, statesmen and citizens in all parts of our country and in other countries are wrestling with the problem of growing big government and how we shall make it more accountable, especially that part of government that is removed from the legislative process – how we will make it more accountable to the Legislature and to the people.

This bill, in conjunction with its companion motion on the order paper, will, I believe, give such access or such opportunity, to this chamber as representatives of the people of this province, to question those Crown corporations that have so great an impact on their lives and upon this province. It will enshrine not only in legislation but also in the standing orders of this House the authority – the twin authority – then for Crown corporations to be made directly accountable to a committee of this Legislature.

It would be of little purpose, Mr. Speaker, if this committee was simply to take the form of the present standing committees of this House. We already have a public accounts committee that not only during the life of this parliament or this Legislature, but also during preceding governments of various political persuasions, has demonstrated time and time again its inability to properly make accountable those Crown corporations. In fact, quite often in attempting to cover too many areas with a limited opportunity, we haven't had any proper accountability either of Crown corporations or of government itself. I feel that government itself, and the very growth of government and the spending of the ministers here, both during estimates and after the fact, should be made accountable to a public accounts committee.

This committee this Crown corporations reporting committee would have much broader powers and much greater opportunity to deal with these Crown corporations. They could deal with them not in a political way or in the political atmosphere that sometimes gets in the way of an earnest and honest effort of all members of this House, and of this province, to try to get to the root of what's happening in our Crown corporations. I would use, for example, B.C. Hydro, which expands not only into just the provision of energy and hydro in this province, but also into the areas of the distribution of gas, and transit systems.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it has become obvious that a committee of this import must have the research staff and the opportunity to deal, in a very real way, with the problems of those corporations and make accountable those people who direct those corporations. The idea is not to make them fear for getting caught up in the political process, but to make them accountable in a very businesslike way for a job they've undertaken to do for the people of British Columbia. I think that anyone accepting the job of either directing or working within the Crown corporations should be prepared to give such access to this committee and make all information available through this committee to the people of the province.

This committee, Mr. Speaker, would perhaps be the best combination of the committees under the British parliamentary system and the type of committees that we have under the American system of congressional committees. It won't be just the type of committee that we have now, that has a brief few hours once a week in which to bring officials of these Crown corporations over, and then, too quickly, have them leave to return to the corporation. Instead of helping, that type of investigation has only been confusing, not only to the people of this House, but to the people of this province. Instead of getting information, we get confusion where no confusion should exist. There should be nothing sinister, nothing secretive about the operations of a corporation such as B.C. Hydro. It has a very clear, mandate to provide in advance, and do the forward planning for the provision of energy, primarily electrical energy, for the future needs of this province. Governments come in and must deal with

Hydro that is still operating under policies or momentum that have been developed, one, two, five and ten years earlier. Hydro, of all the Crown corporations, has a forward planning policy that goes beyond just year to year. Hydro has a forward planning policy that goes into five and ten years and, as such, that policy should be under constant scrutiny. The day to day administration should be made more available and explained to the people of this province. Hydro is called upon to make difficult decisions based on best estimates from time to time, decisions based on the perhaps erratic growth pattern of a province and a country, growth held back for political reasons because of government policy of no growth, accelerated by government policy of expansion, or that can't be predicted within the political climate of that province and that country, but is affected by the world situation. They are called upon to make these difficult projections, and they must be adjusted from year to year. As such, they should be able to explain to the representatives of the people of this province exactly what they are projecting as future needs and what they intend to do about providing options for the provision of making energy available, when it is needed, to the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 4946 ]

1 know this problem is not unique to British Columbia because just recently I returned from a meeting of Premiers at Saint Andrews at which all of the provinces of Canada identified the same problem: concern, as governments, with the lack of accountability, even to them, of their Hydros and other Crown corporations that may be developed. Depending on the philosophical bent of the provinces and the types of government that are operating or governing those provinces at the particular time, the number of Crown corporations will, of course, vary with the government of the day.

That is why the provision of this committee that these Crown corporations be more accountable is so important. There's been a second principle in this bill that is yet to be brought into the committee system in Canada, and that is the clear separation of the executive branch from the Legislative Assembly, and representation on such an important committee. This bill clearly states, with its companion motion, that no member of the executive branch of government shall serve on this committee. It shall truly be a committee of the members of the Legislature and as such will clearly separate the executive branch from serving on such a committee. I believe this will give the committee a greater opportunity to reflect an earnest and sincere desire and will demonstrate clearly that this House, as a committee, can look directly to making the corporation accountable and perhaps would remove some of the political atmosphere that, from time to time, impairs our ability to clearly question, and quite often allows what limited access we have to committees on public accounts.... Many questions go not only unanswered but unasked.

This committee will have a research staff, and I would hope that later there will be a budget set up for such a committee to provide for such research that the members of this committee can operate and inquire of that committee in as an informed manner as possible. It's clear, not only from this session, but from others when I was in opposition and a member of the public accounts committee, that many times in the committee questions are asked in ignorance. As such there is very little opportunity for them to really ask the type of question that should be asked to elicit the type of information the public would want to receive.

It's not unique, as I say, to this parliament. I was on a public accounts committee when I was first elected to this House in 1973. I too felt frustration in attempting to try to come to grips with Crown corporations whenever that committee was allowed by the members of the day to call.... I can remember the frustration of trying to get B.C. Cellulose called for the committee, and the majority on the committee would never allow them to be called.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Despite the catcalls from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Vancouver Centre, who seldom pay attention in this House but operate with a closed mind and an open mouth....

It was evident to me during all of those meetings, Mr. Speaker, that both on that side as opposition and on this side as government, there should be a greater access for those who sincerely wish to make the corporations accountable. I would expect that all members will accept that challenge, a challenge which the public is waiting for and is most eager to see them accept, rather than continually taking what could be construed as a strictly political route and as such is only confusing the information that should be made available to the public.

This committee of the House, Mr. Speaker, would be the first such committee, not only in Canada, but in North America, to have, as I say, such a great opportunity of not only research staff, but to have its power enshrined both by a bill and in the orders of this House. It will give an opportunity for scrutiny of these Crown corporations that we haven't had before. The history of public accounts in most provinces has been one of restriction and very little opportunity to deal with Crown corporations. I know that at one time many members were not allowed to even question the Crown corporations through public accounts. I know also that the Crown corporations now, with the limited opportunity we had, have not given us the opportunity to give them any sort of scrutiny that would make it possible for us to get the type of information that we see to the public.

I believe this, and in fact I'm very proud that we were able to introduce this bill in the Legislature. I'm proud that we were able to couple it with the companion motion, which hopefully this assembly will give me leave to deal with at conclusion of section reading.

As I say, this bill represents a concern of all political parties. I know that on July 7,1977, the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. T.C. Douglas, said in the House of Commons that Crown corporations must become more accountable to parliament. He was only saying what leaders and politicians and the public have been saying for years in many different assemblies. We must have this mechanism that gives greater scrutiny. We must have this mechanism that gives us the greatest possible scrutiny to make these corporations accountable to the people of B.C.

As I say, it became evident to me when I was a member of the public accounts committee when I was a member of opposition in 1973. At that time we spoke of the need to extend greater scrutiny. It then became part of this party's campaign in the last

[ Page 4947 ]

election that we would bring in this type of scrutiny if we were given the opportunity to govern this province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now, in this second session after being elected, to be able to honour this commitment to bring this bill before this assembly. I'm proud that we have been able to honour this campaign commitment. I only hope that this committee will be the success and will be the beacon that I expect it will, or the searchlight that will give the public the access to information that they desire.

I believe that this bill, with its accompanying motion, coupled with the office of auditor-general, which we brought in in our first session, will give the degree of accountability to the people of the province of British Columbia that's been promised them for years and never before delivered. But it is delivered now in the sessions of 1976 and 1977. I now move second reading.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Premier for his statement in the introduction of the bill. Prior to the bulk of my comments, I would just like to ask briefly a question of the Premier across the floor about a matter that will not alter the agreement in principle of the committee, but certainly its functioning. Will the Premier give an assurance to this House that the chairman of this committee will be a member of the opposition, regardless of what government is in or not? Will he accept that commitment? With leave, Mr. Chairman, I would just like a "yes" or "no" from the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I'll answer it in my windup remarks.

Mr. Barrett: Well, it makes a difference in terms of where we go. If you want to keep the bill....

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: Come on, be fair!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Barrett: There is no doubt that the potential of this bill is significant, and I take in good faith the words of the Premier in terms of the history of this particular Legislative Assembly reaching this point. The Premier is correct in his assessment of the limitations up to now. I said – and I say – honestly that I appreciate the Premier's statements. However, it would be worthwhile knowing whether or not the chairman of this committee will indeed be a member of the opposition, and so enshrined in the legislation itself.

Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile understanding some of the history to the development of this particular legislation. The Premier is correct when he states that years ago the growth of government was not as wide or as broadly based as it became over the years. As a consequence, public focus on public accounts or public scrutiny of Crown corporations was not really a major issue. It did come into focus, however, as a major public issue around the debates that took place in this House over the development of power, as the Premier has outlined, through the acquisition – or should I say "seizure" – of the B.C. Electric Company, a private company that was seized by government – not by us, but by the Social Credit free-enterprise government. They seized B.C. Electric, made it a Crown corporation, and from that day on made the responsibility of this House more clear cut to be involved in scrutinizing the Crown corporations.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of members in this House who have sat in various capacities over the years and have experienced the frustrations under a limited legislative access of information prior to 1972. It's worthwhile to note that we never had a question period in this House before 1972. We did not have a full Hansard in this House before 1971. We did not have a chairman of the public accounts committee who was a member of the opposition before 1972. These were reforms that were long overdue, and a major part of a commitment by my party at that time.

Since the government of the day has taken the initiative to say that Crown corporations need to be scrutinized more closely by the public and by the legislators, there has been discussion around the best method of going to this goal. This bill offers a method. However, there are flaws in the bill that give me very grave concern. When the Premier says that this bill will give the committee more scope, that is, in fact, only because the committee will be given staff and direction for that staff. Any other House committee could be given staff and could be given direction in the same manner. But that has not been the case under Social Credit. As a consequence, the public accounts committee, which has begun to set and – listen, as the Premier, stated in his remarks, to Crown corporations, has been hampered because of the gap. There is no staff or research adjunct to that committee.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that gave the public some sense of security about public accounts was that the chairperson was a member of the opposition. And quite frankly, unless we get the assurance from the Premier that the practice of having a member of the opposition as chairman of this committee will continue, the Premier is allowing a very good idea to be open to the attack that this is an attempt to evade

[ Page 4948 ]

an already more open public accounts committee by having a chairman that's from the opposition. And who has raised this question? It is the press itself which has raised this question, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the press must make evaluations based on the human behaviour and the political behaviour, rather than the high ideals stated by any particular person who wishes to state the high ideals.

I refer the Premier to a July 2,1977, article on the editorial page of The Vancouver Sun. Unfortunately, this article, I think, reflects a tarnished image that this committee may be born with. The article states: "Law Actions Bode Ill For High Promises." It goes on to point out that the actions not by the Premier, but by some of the MLAs on the public accounts committee, and the actions taken, without, I'm sure, the Premier's knowledge or agreement, to even go as far as to suggest that tapes be erased in committee, makes people suspicious about the motivations of moving out of the public accounts into this committee. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that in this article it points out that a member of public accounts attempted to move a motion this very year that tapes of a meeting be erased.

An Hon. Member: Untrue.

Mr. Barrett: Untrue? Well then, why was the Speaker forced, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling, fortunately, on that in the House if it was untrue? It is a matter of record that the Speaker did indeed say that records of meetings are inviolate and sacrosanct. The Speaker had to warn this House and all its members not to mess around with the tapes or records of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the article outlines the regrettable circumstances around the debate of charges that people were interfered with in coming to the committee or that members were trying to boycott a committee of public accounts meeting.

An Hon. Member: Wrong again.

Mr. Barrett: Well, I'm not going to accuse the writer of this article of being wrong, and I'm certainly not going to accuse the record of the fact that there was trouble in the committee. It's not the Premier's doing, and I'm sure it wasn't with the Premier's advice or direction. But it did happen, and it did give the impression that a government majority was attempting to subvert the normal natural work of a committee. Thank goodness the fact that the chairman of that committee was a member of the opposition saved some of the dignity of those mistake adventurers by some members of that committee.

The Premier uses the word that he wants people to understand that there's nothing sinister or nothing secret about the workings of the Crown corporations and I think that's an admirable goal.

But would it not be best to back up that statement by saying, openly and frankly to the citizens of this province, that you mean it to the point that you will carry on the tradition of this kind of committee that has the power to scrutinize public goings on in Crown corporations and you will also have a chairperson from the opposition? It's a step back. Not giving this commitment will be an error, because it will give a flaw that will last on the good purpose of this bill – a purpose that all members of this House and the public would subscribe to.

The Premier says there should be nothing sinister or nothing secret in dealing with the Crown corporations. I agree. The way to accomplish this, I believe, is to ensure that there is a chairman from the opposition of the day. Because I agree with the Premier – governments come and go, oppositions come and go. But the point that is made in terms of public confidence in the system and public participation should be strengthened by the very wise move of the chairman being a member of the opposition.

I want to point out to the House that the now Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was the first opposition member in the history of this Legislature to be the chairperson of the public accounts committee. I want to say publicly that he did an outstanding job as chairman of that committee.

Mr. Wallace: Let's hear it for Cariboo!

Mr. Barrett: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, like all politicians, because of our human commitment to the political philosophy that we have, we all get a little nervous when the opposition appears to be in a position of gaining some information or having a little authority. In actual fact, there is nothing to be nervous about. The public gains confidence in the working of government when they have the knowledge that the chairman or chairwoman of such a committee is an opposition member.

Mr. Chairman, you've done some good things – all governments can't avoid that. You've done some good things and you've done some bad things. What is bad and good is a matter of my opinion and a matter of your opinion, and a matter of the opinion of the public of British Columbia. But the Premier is talking – and I agree with him – about decisions being made, especially in the energy field, that are going to affect the people of this province for generations far beyond the life of any government.

The Premier is absolutely correct in addressing himself to that very serious question: in a complex, modern society it is difficult to have people understand that the government of the day ultimately is faced with decisions through its Crown

[ Page 4949 ]

corporations on the best information that is available. Whether we agree or not with the decision, someone is charged with making that decision, and ultimately that person is the politician or politicians involved in the cabinet.

So the Premier is correct – absolutely correct – in saying that, as much as possible, the public should have a sense of confidence, a feeling there is nothing sinister or secret going on in the Crown corporations. It is a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that the decisions made by B.C. Hydro in the late 1950s are the decisions that we're living with now, whether we were the government or the opposition, or whether you're the government or the opposition. What the government of the day is forced to do is to modify and change and effect new directions on basic decisions that they can't change and that were made governments ago.

The public has to feel that in this commitment to modifying these changes there is a sense of participation that appears to be, at least for a few moments, non-partisan. I know that it's difficult for all of us to be non-partisan. But one way of appearing to be non-partisan and effecting a non-partisan sense of confidence is to say that the tradition that we have started in this House and this kind of committee is that we will always name a chairman from the official opposition of the day. Much will be gained if the Premier takes that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that I'm concerned about some of the sections, and of course we will have an opportunity to deal with them in detail when we get to committee. The schedule is limited; however, I accept that limited schedule with the Premier's commitment, as he's given today, that the government will add Crown corporations as it goes along.

I would like an understanding from the Premier as to whether or not the Crown corporations that are not listed here will still be under the scrutiny of the public accounts committee, as they presently are, or will there be any attempt to remove from the existing public accounts committee their responsibility to deal with those corporations which are not listed here? I hope that's not the case. I hope that what the Premier is saying is that in setting up this committee we'll start with these five, public accounts will continue with its work, and then we will add with experience as we go along. The Premier mentioned B.C. Cellulose. It's not on this list. That's the reason why I raised the question I did.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill if the Premier will give the public of this province the gesture of the assurance that the chairman of this committee will be drawn from the official opposition. Anything less than that leaves a bad taste about what should be a wholly supportable bill by every single member of this House. It leaves a bad taste that the questions raised in this article in The Vancouver Sun, and the questions raised by the behaviour of some politicians of all parties, will be modified with the knowledge that the chairperson of that committee is from the official opposition.

It would be impossible for me to support the legislation – not the principles of it, the high ideals, but the mechanics of it – unless the Premier gives the House the assurance that it will be a member of the official opposition who is the chairperson. It's a grand idea. It's a bold step forward. It's a small opening to access of information to the public of British Columbia. Let's make it grander, let's make it bolder, and let's truly give confidence to the people of this province that, in the Premier's own words, "they don’t feel there's anything sinister, or manipulative, or to be hidden." Everything is to be gained if the Premier would give the commitment that it will be a member of the official opposition who is the chairperson; everything is to be lost, in terms of the ideals of launching this committee, if we don't have that assurance.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief in second reading. I have specific questions on the sections, but I say again very clearly: reforms come slowly in this House – even reforms on time limits on debate come slowly in this House. Because of political points to be made, reforms come slowly. The Premier has some knowledge of that. Perhaps he even regrets some of the politics around some of the reform issues of the day. Nonetheless, a Hansard was started in this House and we have it. Thank goodness for that. A question period was started and we have it. Thank goodness for that. The chairman of the public accounts committee is an official opposition member. Thank goodness for that. Let's launch this next, much-needed, respected, and happily supported reform with the openness and the frankness to say: "Yes, there will be a chairman from the official opposition." With that, we will support the bill and praise it; without that, we will not lend our name to it because it is open to too many questions that this may be just another political move to remove what little power public accounts has gained over these past few years.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this bill, in my view, is landmark legislation. It's one of the two or three most important in this session. The only possible contenders for equal place might be Bill 63, the Ombudsman Act, or Bill 33, the Independent Schools Support Act, but it's a tremendously important bill. These matters of process and procedure are absolutely basic to the functioning of our democratic system.

In my opinion, the former Premier who just spoke can treat as one of the greatest matters of pride that anyone could possibly have the fact that he and his

[ Page 4950 ]

government introduced a Hansard, a question period and an opposition chairman for the public accounts committee, as he mentioned. I think perhaps in retrospect he might even say those things helped to defeat his government, but that's what the democratic system is all about, I give him great credit for doing that, and credit where it is due. I give the current Premier and the current government credit for introducing this legislation which....

Mr. Lauk: Not premature credit.

Mr. Gibson: No, not premature credit. I will say that it is potentially an extremely notable advance in the parliamentary process. It can potentially lead the way in all of Canada, certainly as far as provincial systems go, and advance even well beyond, in my belief, the practices that currently take place in Ottawa.

The problem of accountability of Crown corporations is a major one, not just for this chamber but for the government as well. These companies listed in the schedule – the Ferry Corporation, particularly B.C. Hydro, the BCR, the Housing Corporation and ICBC – are so enormous that they can very easily get out of control without some kind of full-time watchdog. Yes, there is a minister responsible for each one of them, but that minister has portfolio duties that take up most of his or her time, This committee is an important addition, and in my view it can come to be, in the fullness of time, the major check and balance on these Crown corporations as they go about their business, and in that way deeply affect the lives of every citizen of British Columbia.

There are some notable requirements if this committee is to function successfully, in my opinion. The first is what one might call the attitude of the committee. I hope that the way in which the committee is constituted in the first instance and the way in which it chooses to conduct itself is one which is largely a non-partisan thing. That is a lot to ask in a system that is basically an adversary system, a partisan system, but that's not the work of this committee. The work of this committee is to engage in the non-partisan job of superintending the operation of these Crown corporations, which ought not to be a partisan thing. That ought to be a matter of doing the best kind of public service that can be done.

Thus this committee should well in advance of need be asking B.C. Hydro: "What is your thinking now about the new Peace River sites? What's your thought about the McGregor diversion? What's your thought about the necessity of a Hat Creek development?" It should be asking the B.C. Ferry Corporation: "What research do you have about the impact of your fare schedules on the tourist trade on Vancouver Island?" It should be, on behalf of the people of the province, doing this searching, probing kind of questioning that the public is concerned about every day, that the press is concerned about every day and that we in this Legislature have never had a mechanism to satisfactorily work with.

The question of whether the chairman of this committee should be an opposition person or not is one that I would hope would prove in the fullness of time to be not that important. I would hope that this committee would go about its work in a non-partisan way which would recognize the desire of various members of the committee to call those persons and witnesses that might be necessary, and would recognize the ability of every member of the committee to ask the questions they see fit, and which would institute through the staff the research that they think relevant.

It may well be that in the supercharged, partisan atmosphere that we live in in the day-to-day operation of this Legislature, the appointment of an opposition chairman would give the public and the opposition, certainly, some confidence that the government indeed intended to realize the potential which is inherent in this new committee. I would commend that to the government's attention. I would suggest that in so doing they not lose control over the committee, because presumably there will be a government majority.

The concept of an opposition chairman is a symbolic one, and more than a symbolic one. The chairman does have some power of the initiation of the direction of the business of a committee. He does not have the final word; the final word rests with the majority. But one can at least be certain with an opposition chairman that there is no suggestion that matters which might be an embarrassment to the government are stopped from investigation before they ever have a chance to even see the light of day. As I say, that's a suggestion which I comment to the attention of the government in as mild a way as I can because I hope it won't be a subject of importance as to what particular party the chairman of this committee belongs to. I hope it will operate in a non-partisan fashion. If it doesn't – if it turns out in the fullness of time that it is important as to whether or not there's an opposition chairman – then unfortunately this committee will have substantially failed in its main purpose.

I would ask the Premier a few other questions which I hope he would be able to answer either in committee or in closing second reading. One is an expression of hope on my part that all parties that are represented in this Legislature will have the opportunity to be represented on this committee if they so wish, assuming any given particular party wishes to be represented.

[ Page 4951 ]

Mr. Lauk: You always live in hope, don't you?

Mr. Gibson: Yes, I do.

Next, I want the assurance that it is a part of government philosophy that for planning purposes, this committee will have access to corporate documents normally regarded as internal or confidential of the five corporations listed in the schedule in order to properly understand and audit what the particular corporations are about.

I say this because there is an essential need for complete committee information if they are truly to oversee the operation of the Crown corporations. It's not good enough for the president of corporation X or Y to say to the committee: "I am sorry, that is a matter of policy that hasn't yet been decided by the board of directors. We have planning studies that are underway but you can't see them until we make our decision."

It seems to me it is important that the committee have access to these kinds of internal documents. I say the committee must be completely informed about the goings on of the company and must have the access to documents that are available to the board of directors.

Secondly, through this committee information, there should be available maximum public information flowing out of this documentation – not all of it, certainly, because I recognize the need for confidentiality in certain areas of documentation. The evolution of guidelines with respect to what materials presented to the committee would be retained as confidential to the committee and what would be available in the public domain would be one of the first jobs of this committee, as I see it. It is most important, if this committee is really to be able to do the job for which it is being set up, that it have access to all persons and papers that are accessible to the boards of directors of any of these given corporations.

There is, of course, an absolute need for staff of this committee. I note in the legislation that there is a provision for staff and funding of staff and other expenses of the committee out of the consolidated revenue, year after year without further vote of this House. That is a fit and proper way of financing such an important committee of this Legislature.

In the matter of this staff, as in all the operations of the committee, in the end it is going to come down to the goodwill and relationships among the members of the committee and the willingness of the government majority on the committee to truly see an adequate investigation and overview of these Crown corporations.

As I have said before in this Legislature, we are only 55 elected politicians, elected representatives of the people of the province. There are some 40,000 persons who are working directly from funds voted by this Legislature, and tens of thousands of others in these Crown corporations and so on who are working indirectly out of funds authorized in one way or another by this Legislature. Surely, in the public interest, these few elected people can work together in the enormous task of overseeing what is going on in these multiple areas.

The principle that the Premier noted of the separation of the executive branch from the composition of the committee, I think, is a very good one. Not only the exclusion of cabinet ministers from the committee membership but the separation of the control of the executive branch from the Legislature is advanced one step forward by this particular bill. It gives us back one little bit of authority that legislatures used to exercise before they came to be so completely controlled by governments if, indeed, this committee fulfils its potential.

As I say, it is a piece of landmark legislation if it works that way. I accept the government's intentions on this at their face value from the statement of the Premier and from the wording of the legislation. On that basis I am not only pleased to support it, I am absolutely delighted and consider it one of the finer days in the British Columbia Legislature.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, since this is a bill that incorporates the two basic principles of accountability and open government on which all four parties campaigned in the last election, it would be rather strange and unusual if all parties in the House were riot extremely happy with the provisions of this bill and the outline that the Premier gave when he introduced second reading.

For that very fundamental reason, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this bill.

In trying to set the record straight and in fairness – we so frequently criticize the government of the day for not meeting election commitments – it's only right that we should today use the kind of comments that the Liberal leader has used. This indeed is a tremendous step forward in meeting the kind of commitments which all four parties made at the last election. Reference has already been made to the fact that the government has kept its commitment regarding the creation of an auditor-general, which is another crucial element in the total effort of any government to keep tabs on government spending.

I should say, before I pass on, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to add my comments of credit to the official opposition and to the former Premier, who, in my opinion, did indeed start the governing process of British Columbia in a better direction when he initiated question period in the House and a complete Hansard and established the tradition of having a member of the opposition as chairman of public accounts. I think it is right that he should be given credit for initiating these practices in this House.

[ Page 4952 ]

If I have any regret about this bill, Mr. Speaker, it's that one of its reasons for existence is, as the Premier pointed out, the ever-increasing size, number and scope of authority of Crown corporations. The need for some action by government to bring these problems of size, number and scope of Crown corporations under control is unquestioned. Perhaps, if we had had this committee earlier, we wouldn't be facing the incredible chaos on the B.C. Railway, nor would we have to have a year-long royal commission, if, in fact, some measure of scrutiny such as this bill will initiate had been available in years gone by.

So, Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of regret I have is that while all parties in this House are recognizing the problems which arise from Crown corporations, this government continues to create more new Crown corporations. Again, I suggest that there's something contradictory in the government, which recognizes the problems which arise from proliferating Crown corporations and the increasing size of these Crown corporations ... when I say that I have some regrets, it isn't really as to the principle of this bill, strictly speaking. It is to the fact that the government has created the B.C. Systems Corporation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the B.C. Ferry Corporation since they became government.

So on the one hand, we do have the Premier and the government recognizing the inherent dangers of a large number of Crown corporations, each of which tends to increase in size according to the bureaucratic rules of the society which we are now living in. We have that on one hand – the government recognition of the dangers. On the other hand, we have the government creating new Crown corporations. I find that something of a corollary or a contradiction. The Premier may care to comment on that. In one respect, I couldn't agree more with the Premier about the impact of some of the decisions that are being made by Crown corporations. The BCR situation indicates the kind of mess we can get into. I think it's equally timely to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in the House the other day, when he was questioned about the cabinet committee's decision on the Revelstoke Dam. He gave an answer which completely illustrates the point that I'm trying to make, that without this kind of committee and despite the fact that B.C. Hydro has spent a long time planning the Revelstoke Dam or exploring its feasibility or viability or wisdom for it to be built – despite all that – the matter finally has had to be adjudicated within a committee of cabinet. The reason the minister hasn't come up with an answer yet is because of the complexity and far-reaching ramifications of that decision, whenever it's made. All I think that this bill indicates, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be an ongoing, around-the-year committee that will be involved on a constant, ongoing basis with much of the activity of these giants, such as B.C. Hydro.

Presumably that buffer committee, if I can use that word, will, of its own activity, serve to enlighten the politicians at an earlier date before final decisions are made. It will obviously assist the public of the province – the voters, the citizens of British Columbia – to be better informed and more aware of what some giant like B.C. Hydro is planning. As is the situation now at the eleventh hour there has to be a cabinet committee of ministers who are already heavily committed in meeting the daily responsibilities of their office, without one more additional adjudication of a situation with such potential for long-term impact as is inherent in the Revelstoke Dam project.

One of the best points the Premier made in introducing second reading was that it isn't just a question of spending money by Crown corporations and whether they're spending too much or spending it badly, it is also a question of much earlier, informed, professional scrutiny of some of the decisions that these Crown corporations are now making which will have such enormous impact on the next generation and generations to come in this province.

The Premier implied the limitations of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs which we now have. With respect to all members of the House and the committee, I say that the way it's set up, the time frame within which it functions and the kind of tasks that it's asked to take on are just so impossible that I'm completely disillusioned with the public accounts committee of this Legislature. It is not helped, I admit, by the fact that we tend to be adversarial and partisan when we function on that committee. With the greatest of respect, I don't think that the kind of tasks, such as the scrutiny of B.C. Hydro, that the public accounts committee tries to embark on, can be done in two or three sessions of a couple of hours on three mornings in one 12-month period. The matter is just really a joke. That's an exaggeration; I guess it isn't a joke, because we do make some very preliminary and inadequate surveys of Hydro problems, for example. In regard to what the committee is supposed to or might be expected to accomplish, its present method of functioning makes it very inadequate, in my view. When one adds the adversarial and extremely partisan way in which it currently functions, if it were not for this particular bill creating this new committee, I think we could look forward to the established public accounts committee becoming a complete farce, if it hasn't reached that point.

So I want to support the principle in the bill, which provides substantial powers. I want to acknowledge the Premier's recognition of the fact that if the new committee is to come close to meeting its goal, then there must be adequate research staff, and an

[ Page 4953 ]

adequate budget. I hope that the Premier might respond to my suggestion that if a budget is to be established for this committee, once that annual budget is established in this Legislature if, subsequent to that point, the government introduces any general policy of cutbacks, as they sometimes have to do, this would be one specific area where the budget which had been allocated for the work of this committee would not be interfered with in the ensuing 12 months. I foresee that this kind of committee is where, if the government has a poor year in its provincial revenues and there have to be cutbacks, this would be one very easy and prompt area in which the government might decide to save a few thousand or more dollars.

I think that, again, if this committee is really to come close to achieving its goals, then it not only has to have credibility as to the manner in which it functions but also, most assuredly, will have to have the research staff and the budget to carry out these functions in an efficient and successful manner, I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on that element of guarantee, if I could use that word, that once a budget has been set the chairman of the committee can reasonably assume that that, in fact, will be the money that will be provided. Otherwise, it would damage the credibility of this committee if it had embarked on a certain detailed study of Hydro, or BCR, and halfway through its term of office it finds that simply because of cutbacks in budget the project it was embarked upon suddenly had to be sadly limited.

Just going back a moment to the increasing size of government and the increasing number of Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, I think one fundamental principle which the bill underlines is the greater need for public scrutiny of all kinds of government spending, whether the spending is through ministries of this government or through Crown corporations. Since a Crown corporation is one step removed, at least, from the floor of this chamber, it emphasizes the additional need for scrutiny of Crown corporations and their modus operandi.

I suppose if it didn't sound like too much of a defensive statement I might suggest that since scrutiny of public spending is so all important, members of this opposition should not be unduly criticized by the media, when they are short of news someday, for the particular hours or minutes they speak about financial scrutiny in the Legislature. I take no personal offence, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me that with the.... Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it plain that we are not paid by the hour in this system. There is no incentive financially to lengthen one's speeches, and many people have told me they can't see that I have any political incentive either. (Laughter.)

Be that as it may, the scrutiny element in this bill is very clear, and while at least we in the opposition parties, debating ministerial estimates, have no limit on the degree of time and effort we can take in that scrutiny, it is a very different matter at the present time, in regard to Crown corporations, when we only have the very limited time I have mentioned in public accounts. Of course, in public accounts only the members of the committee have that access to the Crown corporations. I like very much the idea of the committee which functions when the House is not sitting, which again lends greater ease to the committee members to spend more time and to devote more energy to the work that has to be done in interviewing persons who come before the committee.

I also want to agree with the Premier about the advantage of not having cabinet ministers on the committee. In this respect, the system which is creating this committee is indeed breaking now ground, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) pointed out. I think that is excellent.

I would like the Premier to comment when winding up second reading because he was quoted on another important element in this issue which is not included in the bill. The Premier made the statement, and he was quoted in the press on April 7, that Crown corporations would be required in the fall of each year to place before Treasury Board a projection of their proposed revenues and expenditures for the ensuing year. In addition, Crown corporations would be called upon to place before Treasury Board, somewhere in mid-year, a review of the extent by which their revenue and expenditure commitments have been met.

I think that's an excellent idea. I may be stretching a point when I suggest that something of this nature should be in the bill, but it is not in the bill as far as I can determine. It may well be that the minister perceives the proposal that he has articulated publicly as being included in the regulations to the bill, but the idea is such a good one and so very much just a further extension of the basic principle of the bill that I wonder if the minister would care to tell the House by what mechanism he will ensure that this is done.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few words about the way in which the committee will or will not approach the rather high goals that I think we're all setting for it. I don't wish to sound negative or defeatist on this, but regardless of all the sections in this bill or the regulations that might incorporate principle, the committee will only be a success if we can, to a large measure, get rid of the extremely partisan, adversarial atmosphere which pervades everything that's happening with this chamber at the present time, and pervades a great deal of what goes on in existing committees.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you can

[ Page 4954 ]

create the structure and the legislation and all the rules and regulations which make it possible for a committee like this to be a tremendous advance in the way in which open government will prevail and scrutiny of public accounts will be possible. But it's still the 14 members on the committee who either make the committee work or make it fail. If this sounds like a motherhood speech, so be it. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm absolutely convinced that you could bring the best bill that any human could think about or create into this House, with the highest of motives and with all kinds of options to make it work. But if members on this committee go into meetings to try and pry into the financial affairs of, let us say, B.C. Hydro, with the primary motive of scoring political points in the process, then this committee might as well not even get started.

I don't believe that to be an extreme or an exaggerated statement. I think that the other statement that's made so often in this House is that if you don't learn from history, you relive it. While this committee does have a different structure and very many differences in the way in which it is to function, nevertheless, all o our past experience of standing committees of the House shows that the most successful ones are unquestionably those where the partisan element has been minimal. I will always look back with a great sense of satisfaction and a certain element of hope at the functioning of the committee which chose the auditor-general. As a member of that committee, I can literally say that I've never seen the measure of co-operation and the complete absence of politicking than occurred on that committee. I suppose the cynic would say: "Well, of course, there were no political points to be won or gained anyway. Why should you get down to politicking?"

But, Mr. Speaker, all I'm trying to say is that I've depicted two extremes today. I've looked at the public accounts committee of this Legislature, which is highly partisan. I've depicted the selection committee for the auditor-general, , which was totally non-partisan. I would hope that in debating the principle of this bill today, we will see that perhaps the chance of this new committee serving its purpose and attaining its goals will occur if, somewhere between the two extremes that I've pointed out, the atmosphere of the committee can be established. It should be an atmosphere between the strictly partisan and the totally non-partisan, whereby all members on the committee realize that the primary goal is to ensure that the financial functioning of these very large Crown corporations and their impact on the future is subject to the most careful and non-partisan inspection, so that not any one party is likely to lose or gain by the deliberations of the committee, but the whole province stands to gain.

My last comment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , as to having a member of the opposition parties as chairman of the committee. My feeling on that is very clear. I believe it would be just an additional piece of evidence that this government does want this to be a successful, non-partisan committee, if, in fact, it made its policy clear that the chairman would be a member of the opposition.

On the other hand, I do recognize and thoroughly agree with the comments of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that having a member of the opposition as chairman in no way guarantees success of the committee. Nor is the committee likely to succeed if whoever is chairman fails to bring about the kind of atmosphere of positive, constructive functioning to which I've already referred. It's the people on the committee who will make this committee succeed or fail. The idea that having a chairman from an opposition party would add to its credibility, I think, is true, and is a solid proposal. I certainly would not oppose this bill, just because the government chose to have one of its own members as chairman.

Finally, with regard to representation on the committee, I feel again that it would be best if all parties in the House were to be represented on that committee. Some of my less than confident friends have suggested that perhaps one of the parties is about to disappear from the Legislature and not to be replaced. I think that's a very harsh and crude look at the political scene in British Columbia. Whether there are three parties, or four parties, or five parties in the House, it would seem to me that credibility would be added to this committee if there was all-party representation. But frankly, the committee will not rise or fall, succeed or fail, on either the chairman of all-party representation. It will rise or fall, succeed or fail, on the commitment and calibre of the members of the committee serving in as far as is humanly possible within our political system on a non-partisan basis.

MR. VEITCH: This is the reason I ran for government – to have this sort of legislation presented. In looking into government as a layman, Mr. Speaker, I could see that it was huge and myopic. The average citizen – even the legislators – couldn't even begin to comprehend what was going on within government agencies and Crown corporations. I certainly support this bill. I agree with the leader of the Liberal Party that it is landmark legislation, and. probably the most important bill to be introduced at this session. Maybe it's one of the most important bills – I'm sure, it's one of the most important bills – to be introduced by this Legislature.

It's been a long time coming. It's been over 100 years, Mr. Speaker. Governments tend to be very secretive, and government agencies more secretive, because they feed upon secrecy and that's the way

[ Page 4955 ]

they continue to operate. I agree with the Premier – and I certainly express his concern when he speaks of the public accounts committee – as one who spent quite a bit of time on there. When I first became involved in the public accounts committee about two years ago, I was so naive as to think that this might be an auditing committee. I soon found out that it was a very different situation altogether.

It was impossible to audit. It was impossible to delve into the affairs of government to any degree, impossible to really look into Crown corporations or agencies because there was no time, there was no staff, there simply were no facilities, and there are no facilities available today. At the end of the Legislature, the committee is closed down – or sometimes even before – and things are simply left on the table and nothing happens. I think this legislation, sir, will go a long ways towards correcting that obvious deficiency in governments.

One of my great and continuing frustrations, Mr. Speaker, both as a member of this Legislature and as a private citizen, has been the frustration in dealing with big government and huge Crown corporations and agencies. These agencies and corporations, by virtue of their monopolistic nature, tend to be inward-looking and tend to be completely myopic. I believe it was Churchill who said that protected management....

An Hon. Member: Order!

Mr. Veitch: Mr. Speaker, if you could check with the Sergeant-at-Arms, I think someone let a jackal in. He's baying at the moon here.

I believe it was Churchill who said that protected management is disinterested management. I don't really see how we can run such huge corporations as B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and ICBC with people who are not open to scrutiny and who receive no benefits for being right and certainly suffer no penalties for being wrong. I simply don't think that can work.

These corporations move sometimes toward almost adopting the rule of the divine right of kings, in that they feel that their scope of operation is so complex that mere mortals such as members of the Legislative Assembly – sometimes they'll tolerate a cabinet minister – and certainly members of the public, should not be allowed to view anything more than those things which the mandarins who operate these corporations allow them to see.

Governments and legislatures are often forced to approve funds, often in astronomical amounts, to corporations and agencies whose affairs are not dissected. They are not laid open in plain view so that proper discussions and decisions can be made, based on all the facts that can be accumulated and made available to those people making those decisions.

I believe it was the great French journalist and politician Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber who said that closed thoughts are closed systems, and closed systems being the only thing available to legislatures while they vote millions of dollars of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to uncontrollable Crown corporations and agencies, is simply not good enough.

Now the Liberal leader spoke of checks and balances. When organizations are accountable to no one except themselves then the factor of checks and balances is unknown. They are even unthinkable because such balances only tend to interfere with the comfortable pew in which the bureaucrats who operate these corporations find themselves. If it is not mandatory, who wants to give out information to someone who might stick their nose into the business? They might just simply have the audacity of asking why their dollars are being spent. It's unthinkable. Can you just imagine the audacity of someone who, just because you are spending his money, wants to know why or where it is being spent?

Mr. Speaker, this bill will let the light shine in. When we turn on the light, things happen. We open the operations of agencies and corporations, and mostly of the people who operate these agencies, to the general scrutiny of the Legislature and that would ten"t make the public more aware of what is going on. When corporations and the people who operate them become aware they become accountable. When they become accountable they tend to become more careful. When they become more careful, they took after the people's money and do a better job so that, Mr. Speaker, all of the people of this province can benefit. I think this is a great bill. It is landmark legislation, and I support it 100 per cent.

Mr. Lauk: I just wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. This bill is an excellent bill. If only it would incorporate an opposition chairman, it would be a perfect bill. It seems to me that the official opposition, by tradition started in 1972, should have the chairmanship of such a committee. I agree with the hon. Premier when he states that it perhaps hasn't worked out well under successive administrations, but traditionally public accounts and, I think, printing was the old name -public accounts and economic affairs currently – was the committee that was charged with the responsibility of inquiring into the affairs of various Crown corporations. From time to time, the Legislature sees fit to refer to it.

I like the aspect of this bill that such a committee would sit when there is no session of the Legislature. A lot of people don't realize that when the Legislature is not sitting, committees of the House are not entitled to sit, by the Constitution Act. If you pass this special statute, the committee will be able to

[ Page 4956 ]

travel around the province even, be mobile and do on-site inspections, make inquiries of chief executive officers, and of middle management as well, so that the committee can assure the public that the Crown corporations are responsibly and efficiently operated.

I wish to reinforce the request of the Leader of the Opposition that this committee will be the crown jewel in this government's crown, if one could use that old analogy, if a chairman from the official opposition is accepted. The entire Legislature could put behind it its consent and its support, and it would be a great jewel in the crown of this government and particularly the first minister.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) , who made a very excellent speech. It was short and so often short speeches are excellent. I would like to congratulate him. I think it would have lacked some of that enthusiasm had he been here when his party was in opposition. Nevertheless, that is one of the advantages of new members to this Legislature. They are not marked by the old wounds and scars and prejudices of the past. I am glad that he took the opportunity to make his speech.

I would like very much to support this bill. I hope that the Premier and his government do not force me into opposing the bill simply because they don't need our votes. It is important that there be goodwill behind such a Crown corporation reporting committee and that the people of this province are confident that such a committee is fully supported by all members of the House. Don't forget, hundreds of thousands of people in this province voted for opposition parties, not for the government party. As a matter of fact, the majority of the people of this province supported the three opposition parties. I think it is important that the government take that into consideration.

If they will allow a member of the official opposition to be chairman of this committee and therefore have the unanimous consent of this House for this bill in second reading, what a feather in the Premier's cap that would be, I really encourage him to take that magnanimous, just, and democratic step today. He will be praised not only in this province but also across the entire country for this kind of democratic attitude. It would certainly dispel all of those terrible rumours spread by the official opposition that this bill is only window dressing.

We want to dispel those rumours, too, so perhaps the Premier, in closing debate, will confirm that he is a democrat and a great leader rather than confirm those terrible rumours that we are spreading about him presently.

Mr. C.S. Rogers (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill but I think it is imperative that we defend some of the people who are on the public accounts committee. Several things have been said today which would lead one to think that the people who are on, the public accounts committee can't delve fully into the matters of the Crown corporations.

When we are elected to this House I think we all come as laymen of some sort or another. I don't think anyone ever came here strictly as a political scientist. As such, we face these....

Interjection.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, hon. member, you're quite right. I think you would probably go back to teaching.

We have in public accounts faced people who are heads of Crown corporations and asked them questions. We have had about four or five days to research them. They have had all year to rehearse the procedure from the time they were at public accounts the year before. That's where the provision in Bill 52 for research staff becomes very important. So often – I wouldn't like to use the word "buffaloed" – I've seen some very glib-talking corporate heads from Crown corporations come before public accounts and they generally leave having rather smug looks on their faces, having convinced the committee that whatever questions we had did not leave them stumbling.

In many respects we have to consider the role of the public accounts committee, as it was originally set up, to look at all the invoices and vouchers from all government departments. The Crown corporations seem to be the one area we look at more than others. When this bill passes we will have the public accounts committee as it stands, of course, but it will be able to get back to its original job of scrutinizing the expenditures of the ministries, department by department. At this point, I think, the Crown corporations' expenditures themselves, in some cases, are going to exceed many of the ministries. In that respect, this committee will be able to serve a more useful purpose.

With the type of research staff that we will be able to attract to the committee I am sure that the executives of the Crown corporations will have to sharpen their minds and their pencils as they come under the scrutiny of the elected representatives.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I would like to take the opportunity to answer a number of questions posed in statements made by members speaking to this bill and offering their suggestions on how they hope this committee could function. These are not necessarily in order, but because the page is in front of me I would like to deal with some of the questions posed by the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Oak Bay. He made the statement that we're increasing the number

[ Page 4957 ]

Of Crown corporations and, in fact, the very growth of bureaucracy that he was concerned about was being accelerated under this government.

I would point out without much comment that there's a bill before this House to reduce some of the Crown corporations and return them to the private sector. I'd also like to point out that there are a large number of Crown corporations, not all of them in the schedule of this list. Some are not in the schedule because they may not continue; others because they do not act independently of the Legislature, as the first Crown corporations that are on this list do.

If we take, for example, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, it really is a tax-gathering vehicle. It does not operate on its own account by making policy and doing things day by day. It's a tax-gathering vehicle for the government, a slick tax-gathering vehicle, and as such is a simplified way of taxing a certain commodity. But it is not a Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has tremendous responsibilities and makes policy decisions that are not the government's decision. It makes policy decisions on its own. It's not like ICBC, which makes policy decisions and day-to-day management decisions on its own.

This bill and this opportunity for scrutiny come at a time when the corporations listed are those corporations which we're trying to de-politicize; for which we're trying to appoint independent boards of directors; from which we're trying to get the broadest possible input from people of ability in the public who are not part of the elective process, but who have an opportunity to give something to this province in directing these corporations. These corporations are not corporations which we can philosophically divide into NDP versus Socred or Liberal or Conservative. Our philosophical differences would have been in the creation of these corporations and perhaps in the introduction of these corporations. But the day-to-day management calls for administrative ability and judgmental decisions based on research that may not be questioned in a political, partisan way, but in a very real way on behalf of the people of B.C.

.As such, these are not political creatures. As such, these are corporations which are there for the betterment of the province and the development of the province in specific areas, whether it is automobile insurance, whether it's the provision of Hydro and the distribution of gas, or whether.... In the future there may be a separate transit corporation, because we now have it bound up in Hydro where it doesn't necessarily belong. It has no compatibility. But the corporations we have within this Act are not primarily political in nature in an Operational way.

That's why I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , who said it isn't necessary to say who would be head of the committee and it wouldn't be necessary to say what the party makeup of the committee would be, because this committee would be dealing with those areas and those corporations that are not caught up in the partisan battles. That will be dealt with, and is dealt with, and will be in the future, and has been in the past, dealt with in the public accounts committee.

There's a clear separation of the two types of investigative opportunity. The public accounts committee deals with the government of the day. We are partisan, and the next government will be partisan, and the last government was partisan. As such, the investigation deals directly with the policies and the administration of that government. It can't help but be partisan, and it always will be.

I don't want anyone to think that.... It can be improved and it can function better, but it will be partisan because the nature of the investigation is to deal with the government that's making decisions and that has been elected on that basis. Corporations and tax-gathering vehicles like the B.C. Petroleum Corporation can then be investigated under public accounts because they really do reflect on the tax policy decisions of the government. They were government decisions, and as such, they can be subject to a partisan approach.

The Liberal leader, the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and others in this debate have expressed a hope that this committee will not be caught up in Politics. The worst politics that this committee could be bound up in is if we selected a committee chairman on a partisan basis and said that it must be opposition, it must be government, or it must – even in the narrowest sense – be official opposition, rather than opposition as a whole. The fact is that this chairman must be, to meet the hopes, the ideals and the aspirations expressed by the Conservative leader and the Liberal leader ' truly a chairman who has the confidence of the committee.

Now I have guaranteed in this bill and this government has guaranteed, that there will not be influence from the executive branch, because the executive branch is specifically prohibited from serving on the committee. This is our commitment. There will not be influence either for or against who shall be chairman, who the committee shall pick as chairman, or how they shall conduct their business, the regulations, or their opportunity to investigate.

The Liberal leader touched on it when he said: "How much can we look at that's confidential and how much can we look at that could be open?" This committee, in setting their regulations, has an opportunity to provide for closed sessions and open sessions to the media. If I was a member of the committee one of the desires I'd have would be to

[ Page 4958 ]

have an opportunity for closed sessions so that we could deal with such confidential areas. I think that the only thing wrong with our Crown corporations is the lack of knowledge, lack of information and distortion of facts that has created all the confusion surrounding these corporations in the past.

We start off a committee that is born out of great hope and with a chance of great disclosures. To start off the debate on this committee with a note of partisanship, that "if I don't get my own way, and I'm not guaranteed the chairmanship of this committee, I'll vote against it, " is to defeat the very aspirations that the Conservative leader and the Liberal leader asked for.

The Conservative leader has quite rightly said that during this Legislature there has been a committee function from last session, without that partisanship. That committee was set up to pick an auditor-general, a very sensitive position, and a position that provides for the information and investigative role of various governments. It was set up without any guarantee of who would be the chairman. It didn't need that type of threat hanging over the formation of the committee in the Legislature and it functioned very well, as the Conservative leader attested today.

Before this Legislature now is other far-reaching legislation and reform legislation, part of the package dealing with an ombudsman, that provides the same opportunity for an all-party committee not formed in a partisan way picking their own chairman, the chairman who can function best and have the confidence of the committee. To make the same type of selection I am hopeful that because these particular Crown corporations do not reflect the government or partisan politics of the day, but are ongoing – dealing with policies developed in the past, policies for the future, judgmental decisions on research – and because they are operational in nature this committee again can be approached in the non-partisan way. The narrow definition of the simple public accounts committee that we have now is asked to deal with government accounts which by nature are partisan, and also with these Crown corporations that really are not under the day to day management or control of the government. Now this is where the separation of these two committees is very important and why you need two instead of one, because you could have an entirely different attitude and atmosphere surrounding this committee that could never be established in the public accounts committee we have now.

On the concern you have for how our public accounts committee operates under this Legislature, let me tell you that it's not going downhill. It is operating exactly as it did when I was a member. I can remember all the concerns you have about the majority out-voting the chairman, no matter who was the chairman, and restricting those who could come.

Those accusations and concerns have always been there. This committee dealing with Crown corporations and those listed on the schedule gives us a chance to have government members as well as opposition members, on behalf of the people of this province, seriously question Crown corporations that are making decisions – not on a political basis; I think the day has gone where government, because they appoint a director to bring information from Hydro, feel that they have to shield it and protect it because they somehow become accountable for it. I would like to see the government stand up to its Crown corporations from time to time, without necessarily saying, "We have no confidence in management, " but having the right, as the opposition have, and as all members have, to question these corporations. The Conservative leader asked me why we brought in the Treasury Board, not by regulation, not in this Act – and not in the motion because it isn't necessary – but by regulation of this government. Crown corporations and agencies, going beyond the short list that is on this bill, must submit budgets to the Treasury Board as government departments do. Those agencies and Crown corporations beyond this short list work on the credit of the government and as such must be accountable to the government because they affect the credit of the people of this province. It is compatible with the wish we have to bring greater accountability in a financial way to Crown corporations and agencies. This bill gives even greater scrutiny than the scrutiny that has been allowed heretofore.

Concern was raised about the budget for the committee and I agree there should be a budget. We should try and work within it but it should never be cut and impair the ability to continue work that is ongoing.

I would make this commitment that it would be allowed the opportunity as are inquiries set up under the Public Inquiries Act to have the same scope to overrun the estimates in search of the truth and in search of answers. It will have that same opportunity. That is my pledge to this Legislature because this, indeed, is a continuing inquiry. It has a continuing staff, Mr. Speaker, and what separates this committee from the public accounts committee of today is that it is for the elected term, not from year to year. We have an established committee that works when the Legislature is not in session. It does not have to be set up from year to year. The members are appointed for the life of a parliament. That is, whether it's three years, four years or five years, depending on how long that parliament sits, this committee will be formed and will sit so that we will have the continuity of membership and the relationship with their researchers with staff. This will guarantee that we're not breaking in new members and losing the continuity that's established from year to year. That's

[ Page 4959 ]

an important part of the way in which this committee was set up.

.Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also mention in summing up that, yes, there is a difference between this committee and the public accounts committee. Public accounts, I repeat, deals with the expenditures of government. The very essence of this House is political in nature and as such will always have an air of partisanship surrounding that committee. That's why I believe the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , recognizing that there always would be an air of partisanship surrounding that committee, made it his own personal tradition – not in legislation because it's not in any legislation or in the orders of the House – that he would always have a member of the opposition as chairman of that committee.

Mr. Barrett: That's our commitment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But the air of partisanship that surrounds that committee is not there with this committee. In fact, the aspirations, dreams and hopes of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and those who commend those things that surrounded the selection of an auditor-general when we didn't have to have those guarantees – those guarantees being an air of partisanship creeping in already – can only be met by saying this committee will not be influenced by the executive branch because it has no membership.

The committee, hopefully, will freely select and elect the best possible chairman as does the committee for auditor-general and the committee that I hope will be set up for an ombudsman. They will be dealing with corporations on their administration, the decisions they make and the research they do, not on political decisions made by the government. As such, the political atmosphere will be removed from that inquiry and the public will be well served, the members will have greater opportunity for investigation and the committee, I hope, can operate as the Conservative leader suggests. We have great hope for this committee, Mr. Speaker; it does break new ground.

All bills are important to the people of this province, but it is particularly important to future parliaments that we have set up such a mechanism for scrutiny. So, yes, it's part of a very important package that we've developed since becoming government.

There are 10 very important areas of scrutiny or controls that the public has surrounding its public business. The most obvious is the debates that take place in this Legislature on legislation and the unlimited questioning that we have in estimates. Second is the filings that are demanded from annual reports of government that must be filed on time.

The third is the written question period that has always been with this Legislature and the modem extension to an oral question period which has been a tradition in parliament. The extension to an oral question period gives a greater chance for questions of immediacy.

Mr. Speaker, the further areas we have are the ones we've brought in to help the scrutiny and the proceedings of government for the people: an Auditor General Act, hopefully an ombudsman and quarterly financial reports which are important information not only of the government of the day but of Crown corporations – information that's now available to the people of this province. Coupled with all of this, we now have the achievement that I think brings it all into focus and gives the greatest accountability of any provincial government of any public business in Canada, and that is this new Crown Corporation Reporting Act.

I said earlier I was proud to be part of a government that could bring in this Act in its first term and within its second year. Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS – 27

NAYS – 13

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

Bill 52, Crown Corporation Reporting Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Levi: Mr. Speaker, could we have an explanation as to what this is?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, hon. members, perhaps you

[ Page 4960 ]

have all noticed that on your desk is a notice of lease by auction, which was distributed while we were debating second reading on Bill 52. What apparently happened is that some hon. members of the House, hearing about an auction of Crown leases in the Clinton area, asked the department of lands to provide them with copies of the lease documents. The department, feeling that it may be of interest to all of the members of the House, submitted 55 copies to be distributed. It would have been more prudent if the staff had distributed the documents to the members' offices, but they put them on the benches in the House.

Mr. Barnes: By way of further comment on your point, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I had preferential treatment because I had this document last week.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member suggest that I should censure him for that? (Laughter.)

Mr. Barnes: No.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: With leave of the House, I would move along to the companion motion relating to the last bill, Motion 10. (See appendix.)

Leave granted.

On Motion 10.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in moving Motion 10, standing in my name on the order paper, I would just say that this is just the companion motion that puts into the standing orders the bill we just debated.

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert): What we are doing here is usually considered by the House to be normal practice. But in this particular instance, what we are saying as the official opposition, is that if this committee that has been approved by the House is going to do work that is reasonable, work that is meaningful and work that will let not only people in this Legislature know what is going on in the province in terms of Crown corporations, but will allow all access to all corporations, then that can only be done when you have an opposition chairman. That's the only time it can be done.

Now what has happened here? What has happened is that a political smokescreen has been put up. The Premier doesn't want anyone to find out what's going on in those Crown corporations. If he did, he would have, since his government has been in office, already had a staff on that public accounts committee.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has made his first speech in this session of the parliament. The old crocodile is over there now and he's not going to say anything, right? He doesn't even answer questions; he takes them all as notice, because he believes that if you say nothing, you don't get into any trouble. It's the old federal civil service maxim.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the debate is on Motion 10, hon. member.

Mr. Lea: Oh, Mr. Attorney-General. Is that the best you can do now that you're in government?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: He's wearing his three-piece suit today.

Mr. Lea: That's right, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) hates suits, especially Senator Ed Lawson's. He gets them second-hand. It costs him money.

We oppose this motion for one reason only, the reason being that in order for democracy to hold fort in this province there must be an opposition member as the chairman of the committee that we're setting up. This committee is designed to emasculate the powers of the public accounts committee. They did not approve of an opposition chairman being the chairman of that committee in the first place or they would have done it when they were government before. That's when they would have done it.

Now, because they're afraid to switch back to the old system of the Premier's father, of having a government member as the chairman of public accounts, they've created this new committee so that public accounts under an opposition chairman will not be allowed to take a look at Crown corporations. That's what it's all about. They're afraid to do through the front door what they're attempting to do through the back door, and that is to emasculate public accounts so that nobody will ever have the faintest idea of what's going on in those Crown corporations.

Is there anybody here who believes that with the majority of government members on that committee, there won't be a little partisan politics played? Is there anybody who believes that? The Premier would try to have us believe that Social Credit backbenchers won't follow the directions or the wishes of the cabinet. How ridiculous! Yes, those backbenchers are going to carry out government policy. Munchkin always does! The Premier hasn't fooled anybody. He never does. The only time he ever fooled anybody was on December 11,1975, and I doubt whether he'll ever do it again.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, it's most unfortunate that the Premier of this province has tarnished the debate with respect to the second reading debate of the bill and also with this motion before the Legislature. The Premier cites as a tremendous

[ Page 4961 ]

example the non-partisan co-operation of the committee to find the ombudsman. Being a member of that committee, I would like to pay tribute to each and every member of that committee for their non-partisan approach.

However, it should be pointed out that the reason there was non-partisan co-operation on that committee was that the committee had to by statute bring its recommendation to the Legislative Assembly by unanimous decision. What kind of windbag nonsense is it to come before the Legislature and hope to dupe the people by saying that that's an example of non-partisan co-operation, and therefore there's no need to put an opposition chairman in charge of this committee before the Legislative Assembly? This is consistently the example of the cheap little tactics on the part of the First Minister of this province. He raises an example of a unanimous-decision committee as to why we don't need a chairman of this committee. His statement in itself is a reason and example of why we do. This Premier knows power very well.

I'm a little disappointed in the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader. The Wizard of Oz, the First Minister of this province, just rocked them to sleep. They get up and stand on their two feet and they support this bill. They think it's just wonderful. They're going to rely on and trust the government. They were not elected by the people of their constituencies to trust any government. They were elected by the people of their constituencies to stand up here and fight for the rights of the little people of the province and not to just give in every two seconds because they think it's poetic and popular.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre return to the principle of this motion?

Mr. Lauk: I am speaking on the principle, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman: It is entirely improper to reflect upon the manner in which other members wish to express their opinion. Every member is equal on the floor of this House, hon. member.

Mr. Lauk: It's not improper to reflect on their opinions; it's improper to reflect on their vote. I won't reflect on their vote, but I do reflect on the opinions expressed – and that I anticipate will be expressed – by the hon. Liberal leader and the Conservative leader of this province.

All right, let's draw the lines carefully. Let the people know who really represents them in this province. We'll watch this committee carefully and we'll see what comments the hon. Liberal leader and the hon. Conservative leader have to make when they see the total cynical partisanship with which this committee will be ruthlessly run by the First Minister and his government. We know that. We know that because we've seen it in this province. We've seen the exercise of raw power in this province by this government. There are little people here today from the Vancouver Resources Board whom you pretend to represent and who have been subjected to the raw power of this government. Still the Liberal leader stands up and says: "We trust you. We have hope and faith." The flowers are blooming and the rain's coming down.

An Hon. Member: No way!

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, the hon. Liberal leader has the right to his own personal opinions. That's fine, but he was elected to represent people, not his own naivete.

Enough of the Liberal leader and the Tory leader. Back to the comments of the First Minister of this province. Now who does he think he is kidding? The national windbag gets up for about an hour, he says nothing, and he misrepresents what the previous auditor-general committee was all about. I couldn't believe my ears. Here was a committee that had to have a unanimous decision and he says this is an example of how we can all act in a non-partisan way. I agree. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we will accept this motion. We will change and vote in favour of the bill in committee stage and on third reading of the bill if the Premier introduces an amendment that will make each and every decision of the committee in question unanimous. If the committee must come to a unanimous decision, as the auditor-general committee had to, then we will accept everything he has to say because what he would then say would be totally honourable. But the opposite must be taken from his remarks this afternoon – a dissembler, Mr. Speaker. This little party is warning this Legislative Assembly today, and the people of this province. Watch this man carefully. We know him and we hope people in this province will find out about him.

Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to this motion by adding after paragraph 1, paragraph l (a) , as follows: "The committee shall have as its chairman a member of the official opposition." Will the Page take this to the table?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment, which would add a new section known as section 1 (a) , would read to the effect: "The committee shall have as its chairman a member of the official opposition." The amendment is duly moved by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. I have examined the amendment and find it to be in order.

[ Page 4962 ]

On the amendment.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I am limited to the amendment at the moment. I will get back to the other remarks of the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre in due course. I think it would be desirable to have an opposition chairman for this committee, but I would wish to move a subamendment striking the word "official" from the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the subamendment move by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano is to delete one word in the amendment so that the amendment, if approved, would read: "The committee shall have as its chairman a member of the opposition." The word to be deleted by the subamendment is "official" opposition. The subamendment would appear to be in order in that is broadens the scope of the original intent so that any or all members of the opposition could be included and would be eligible as chairman, other than only those of the official opposition. Does anyone wish to speak to the subamendment?

On the subamendment.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the subamendment, under the circumstances the official opposition accept the subamendment of the hon. Liberal leader.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand the position of the mover of the amendment as acceptance of the subamendment? Regardless of the position taken by the official opposition, hon. members, I must put the question on the subamendment and then the amendment. If it is the position of the official opposition members to accept the subamendment, then they will have the opportunity to do so by voting on the question.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 14

NAYS – 23

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

Mr. Lauk: Let this clearly non-partisan decision be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I believe there were already three members standing to have it recorded.

Mr. Lauk: Will it be written in that it was non-partisan, like the committee?

Mr. Speaker: It will be recorded as all other divisions are.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 14

NAYS – 23

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

On Motion 10.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the main motion, and returning to some of the arguments made by Hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .... Don't go! I'm going to be very kind to you.

I make no apologies for supporting this bill, although I must confess I was a little surprised at the government's reluctance to accept an opposition chairman. But I support it on the grounds that it can't do. any harm and it may do some good. I expect it will do some good. Public Accounts has not been

[ Page 4963 ]

compromised by this bill. It can still call any of these corporations that it wishes. We must always maintain that.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Yes, that's correct. Public accounts' authority isn't shorn by this, Mr. Member.

Mr. Lauk: It's controlled by this Legislature. They can use that as an excuse for referring the corporations away.

Mr. Gibson: Well, if there's any attempt of that kind, then any member of this House and any member of the media will have not only the opportunity but the duty to get on the rooftops in British Columbia and cry out that the public accounts committee has been stopped in the performance of its duty. I do not expect such a thing to happen, but if it does happen, I will join you on the rooftops.

Mr. Barrett: Well, I won't go to the rooftops, but I'll ask them to go to the people.

Mr. Gibson: You want to go somewhere where there is a microphone. Okay, I'll join you there, too.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: No, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said that I'd been elected to represent people. Yes, that is one of the reasons that I approve of this motion, because my passion while I've been in this Legislature – and it will continue to be – is the parliamentary process and ways and means of improving it, and this does give some chance of doing that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, you have to have some trust and hope in this world, particularly when there is no downside risk, as there is in this motion, so I support it. But I was, as I say, disappointed with the government in rejecting the concept of an opposition chairman, because that could have given it a good, non-partisan start which it does not now have, unfortunately.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier in closing the debate on this motion to respond to two specific questions. The first question is on subsection (2) of the new standing order, which would be established and called 72 (a) . It provides that the committee shall not, without the leave of the House, consist of more than 14 members. I would like the Premier to respond to this specific question as far as the philosophy of the government is concerned in moving this bill, understanding always that it is up to the selection committee to make the actual choice. Is it the philosophy of the government that members of all parties should be represented on this committee if they wish to be? That to me is a very important question, which I trust the Premier will answer in closing debate on this motion.

The next question I have relates to standing order 69 (l) , which, this motion specifically says, "shall apply to the committee except as it may be ruled out of order" by this particular motion, and 69 (l) reads as follows: "No special committee may, without the leave of the House, consist of more than 11 members." That, I presume, is overridden by subsection 2 of the new 72 (a) .It goes on to say. "Such leave shall not be moved without notice and, in the case of members proposed to be added or substituted after the first appointment of the committee, a new notice shall be given including the names of the members proposed to be added or substituted." What I basically wish to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to make a representation. The ways and means that we have of changing committee membership in this House are very cumbersome. This representation relates less to this committee, which will have more continuity than most. But even here, there may be a requirement from time to time – whether to preserve a quorum or whether to reflect the special interests of a particular member – to effect a change in membership.

The representation I am making to the Premier at this time is that we should give study to our procedures for effecting changes of memberships in committee so that they may be done with greater facility, making it easier for all of the parties in this House to reflect their needs on any given committee.

I would particularly ask him to answer the question with respect to what I would hope would be his statement on behalf of the government – that it is his intention that the committee should be an all-party committee to the extent that all parties wish to be represented thereon.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, as the other recipient of the kind remarks of the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , I think I should comment briefly.

The member talked about the responsibility of the Liberal and Conservative leaders to represent the people of British Columbia. As far as I am concerned, in supporting the bill this afternoon and in supporting this motion, that is exactly what I was doing. We may have an honest difference of opinion about the chairmanship of the committee. Actually, that difference is not as great as it might appear, because I also made it plain in debating the bill that I would have preferred to follow the now-established pattern in this House, whereby the chairman of the public accounts committee is a member of the official opposition.

I recognize the criticisms that have been raised as to the possibility that this new committee could be politicized. Of course it could. Anybody in their right

[ Page 4964 ]

mind can see that.

But my conclusion, Mr., Speaker, is that even in this dog-eat-dog world of politics, sometime, somewhere down the line, you have to have just a little bit of faith in what a person says or what a government says its motives are on introducing legislation or motions. If it is naive of me, as the first member for Vancouver Centre stated, to have accepted the government's position today at face value, then I am naive.

It is my feeling – and I say this without meaning to be uncharitable – that this motion and the bill presented by this Premier is not the kind that we would have seen from the former Social Credit Premier. Of that I am absolutely certain. Maybe the comment I am now making is a reflection of my years in this House and some of the wounds the member for Vancouver Centre referred to earlier on this afternoon. But I think that whether it is on this issue or any other issue, some progress is better than no progress.

The democratic system allows parties and members to amend and subamend and to express their views on the floor of this House, and long may that continue. That has been done this afternoon. I wish that the chairmanship were to be occupied by a member of the opposition. But to vote against the whole principle of the new bill in this motion because that one part of it has not been satisfied by the government, I think, only accentuates two things; the fact that the system in British Columbia seems to allow no sense of confidence or trust in each other and each other's opinions or stated motives. If that is to be the case, then this committee is doomed from the start, regardless of who the chairman is.

Secondly, I just repeat again, maybe this bill and this motion are not all that we would have liked on this side of the House. But I say that it is a big leap forward compared with anything we could have expected under the former Social Credit government. I say that no with disrespect to personalities, but to philosophies. The former Social Credit Premier would never have brought a bill like this within 100 miles of the Legislature. I am sure he is sitting at home wondering what kind of trouble his son is busy getting himself into. But that, Mr. Speaker, is said not with disrespect but with a sincere wish to contrast the changes that have occurred in the last several years in this chamber, during the last administration and the present administration.

When things start to improve and good progress is being made, there is always more that can be made. I am sure that if I sat here another eight years I would never be satisfied with even the progressive things eve that the government does. So if it is a matter of being naive or not seeing through the alleged smokescreen by supporting this bill, all I am saying is that I believe, and I will take the position today, that time will prove that this legislation and this motion have the potential to create a much more accountable, progressive system of government in this province.

If everyone on the committee, regardless of which party the chairman belongs to, tackles the work of the committee in the spirit that it is in the best interests of all the people of the province in regard to accountability and the spending of public money, then I think this day will mark a very great step forward in the political history of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: The Premier closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on the motion, I think we have an example of some of the silliness and some of the politics that are played in this Legislature that I had hoped – we had all hoped – would be eliminated by this committee.

It has never been necessary in setting up a standing committee of the House or in any legislation to set up in motion in standing orders whether the government should provide a chairman, whether the narrow definition of the official opposition should provide a chairman or whether the broader definition that they had should be followed, because all three definitions would have been narrow.

What the government has done is brought in the opportunity for a member of the Legislature to be a member of the committee and to be chairman, and we haven't defined it in the narrow political terms asked for by the official opposition. They have said in the most political note that I've seen and that I hoped would never enter this debate: "Make me chairman or we will oppose the whole good idea."

We talk about reform and we talk about a great opportunity to remove some of the partisanship and get on with the people's business. Nowhere in this debate did we expect that this type of silly, stupid action would take place. I expected it, yes, from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . But it is stupid and silly because never in standing orders has government, opposition or the official opposition asked to be designated chairman. These are committees of the Legislature. They can stand and act very piously but, Mr. Speaker, it shows their contempt for the Legislature as a body by demanding for any small group, this side or that side, that sort of position in advance.

I would have hoped that the record would have been spared, the galleries would have been spared and we would have been spared the type of silly, stupid debate that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) always brings into this House. Here we have a chance to speak on high purpose, great goals, better public information and a goal that should be the goal

[ Page 4965 ]

of all members. Instead we end up in the cheap, political theatrics for which he has become famous. He has crawled and risen to new depths. At a time when the people are looking upwards for leadership, he continues to crawl down and tries to drag this Legislature with him. I will tell that member as I tell this House, Mr. Speaker, we will not let them destroy the good intentions of this committee.

I would never be a part of subverting the Legislature as the ultimate authority in saying in the standing orders that we were so narrow that we demanded that this little group . . . or we are going to take our ball and our bat and run home. We won't support this forward legislation because you won't guarantee, for the first time anywhere, that some narrow group could bargain their political power right in front of the public and say: "We demand this or we won't vote for it."

The government never asked for guarantees for a chairman. We say this is a committee of the Legislature. The executive branch shall not be a member. . .

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Prince Rupert called me a "dunce, " Mr. Speaker. I shall not ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Lea: You agree. That's why.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No. I ask the galleries and the people to judge him for what he is by his conduct.

Mr. Lauk: If it weren't for your Dad you wouldn't be Premier.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, they have been caught in their silly tactics and they're hurt. They have struck out again and now they lash out with the only type of anger they know – shouting insults from their chairs. It's what drives this Legislature down in the public mind. Unfortunately, the same two members consistently lead that type of debate. I want to make some further comments because the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader asked for some assurances, once we got past the silliness of the official opposition.

They asked if all parties could be represented on this committee. I say, yes, that same opportunity exists when the standing committee appoints members at the beginning of each session, but this would be at the beginning of a parliament. When a member chooses to be on at that time and gets on, then he or she is on a committee. These are all legislative committees and, as such, it is difficult for other members that some members my wish to change their mind halfway through a session or halfway through a parliament because that committee seems to be getting more headlines or has a greater opportunity at any particular moment.

I would be hopeful that members who want to serve on this committee would certainly make it known at the beginning of a parliament, and those who didn't wouldn't halfway through say. "Let me on. It seems to be a good vehicle for personal publicity." This committee is there to do a job and, as such, it will be available for all parties.

I believe in the committee system and I believe the legislative committee system is the best. It shouldn't be hampered by the narrow partisanship that asks for things to be written in standing orders that aren't asked for in any legislature or parliament in this country. The legislative committees shouldn't be up to selective boycott or selective representation after the committees have been struck. The selective boycott that some members might impose on committees is not in the best traditions of the parliamentary system or why we are sent here to conduct the public's business.

Today, as I say, I was hoping that we could have this debate in a spirit of looking forward to something better. As I say, I regret the stands that were taken, the manoeuvres and the games that were played.

This government has moved in areas, Mr. Speaker, that complement this motion, both with the bill and with things that were never passed by the last government, or the government before. That is, legislation for an ombudsman has been introduced and the legislation for an auditor-general has been passed. There were long campaign commitments but never became reality during the three and a half years that that group that acts so piously today was government.

This motion and this bill today, Mr. Speaker, set up a committee that is not anywhere in Canada. It is not in the NDP provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is not in the Conservative provinces of Alberta and Ontario. It is not in the Liberal provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This is a first and I think all members should be proud to be part of this assembly and to support this legislation, not just because we brought it in, but because you are part of history today, You had a chance to do something worthwhile and to say it with dignity. Unfortunately, this opposition chose their usual route to mark this historic occasion with the type of low, foolish, silly action that has characterized their total performance in this Legislature.

I move the motion.

Motion 10 approved on the following division.

[ Page 4966 ]

NAYS – 13

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

On section 28 – continued.

Mr. Barnes: Perhaps the minister would like to save us some time and indicate whether or not section 28 will be withdrawn. If so, then I'll take my seat.

Mr. Chairman: I've recognized you, hon. member.

Mr. Barnes: However, if he has no intention of doing it, as he indicated last night.... In fact, he indicated that he was prepared to spend as long debating this section as necessary.

This is Bill 42, Mr. Chairman. I suppose it is no coincidence that it would also be parallel legislation to the one they considered so outrageous and dictatorial in 1973 when the government of the day introduced the Land Commission Act, also Bill 42.

Section 28 is suggesting that where a bylaw has been enacted by a council or by a regional board:

" . . . and the minister is of the opinion that all or part of the bylaw is contrary to the public interest of the province, the minister may notify the council or the regional board, as the case may be, (c) of his objections to the bylaw or ... plan, and (d) that the council or the regional board, as the case may be, shall within 90 days after receipt of the notice alter the bylaw or plan accordingly. (2) The minister may, on the refusal or failure of the council or regional board to alter the bylaw or plan following notice under subsection (1) , order the bylaw or plan altered according to notice, and the bylaw or plan shall be deemed for all purposes to be so altered."

That's quite a mouthful.

I'm hoping that the minister, after I've finished my remarks, Mr. Chairman, will rise in his place and do a little reflecting on some of his own remarks when he was, at that time and in the past, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and, I understand, also a member of Action Canada. I'm not sure what other affiliations he had politically.

But he has on occasion indicated that he was a man of integrity, with concern for the protection of the democratic process, and he is a very eloquent speaker, as you know, having spent many years as mayor of Saanich and as a council-person as well. I believe he's also had courses in elocution, having such a beautiful voice and having done some work on radio....

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Never.

Mr. Barnes: Well, you wouldn't believe that he hadn't. This man is absolutely eloquent.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I believe you should return to the principle of section 28.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, I agree that that's the question, but I think we need also to try to create some kind of scene of what's happening, because section 28 is a pretty profound statement. It is asking for what we've been just talking about recently, Mr. Chairman – the new Crown Corporation Reporting Act, in which we were suggesting that the best way to have stewardship and control over the acts of elected members is to ensure that mechanisms are built into legislation that will protect the public.

Section 28 is asking elected officials, public representatives who have gone through the process of campaigning and making promises and giving the opinions of the public which they hope to represent.... The minister is suggesting that notwithstanding any commitments on behalf of these public officials to their constituents, he would like bestowed upon him the right, in his judgment and opinion, to overturn, overrule, correct, alter, or whatever he may deem necessary, the changes that he feels might be not in the interests of the public.

Obviously we all want to make sure that what is in the best interests of the public prevails, but how can this minister feel that he should have that power

[ Page 4967 ]

alone? How can the public interest be served if any one individual has the power to change decisions that were democratically arrived at, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I must caution you that yesterday I cited standing order 43 and I had my staff prepare a list of the things which have been canvassed time and time again. One of these was the item you just mentioned, and that could be construed as repetitious debate. It has been mentioned, as a matter of fact, seven times by other speakers.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you are trying to frustrate....

Mr. Chairman: I'm not trying to frustrate you, hon. member; I am merely trying to abide by the rules of the House.

Mr. Barnes: I would remind the Chairman that the minister himself wants powers just for those reasons that you are suggesting I am out of order in using.

Mr. Chairman: Order, hon. member. I brought this to the attention of the Chair and my ruling is that repetitious debate will not be allowed. We have had sufficient time to canvass these things; we have had sufficient debate. If something has been mentioned seven times, that in itself should be a sign of repetition.

Mr. Barnes: I have tried to be quite reasonable – as you, I am sure, will observe – in listening to you give me instructions on how I should make my address.

Mr. Chairman: Not at all, hon. member. I am merely giving you some guidance.

Mr. Barnes: You seem to be quite observant in keeping close tabs on what has been said and what hasn't been said. I hope that you will be as good in reminding us of some of the things that the minister has said, because I am now going to go back to some of the things that the minister has said. I think that you will find that there is very good reason for me to be concerned about this minister's integrity, despite the things that he has said in the last few days on this amendment bill.

Hon. H.A. Curtis (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has impugned my integrity in the last few seconds of his remarks. I ask him to withdraw unconditionally,

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Barnes: I certainly will withdraw. Any impugning of his integrity on my part is not necessary. I am sure that his record will stand for itself. I don't need to . . .

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we must withdraw these sorts of things unconditionally.

Mr. Barnes: I withdraw, unconditionally. Anything that I might say or introduce of which I am the architect that has offended the minister, I withdraw. But anything that he has been the architect of or has introduced or created himself, he has to stand and be responsible for. That is what I am going to talk about now. This minister, when he was debating ....

In the spring of 1973, we introduced the bill.

An Hon. Member: Order!

Mr. Barnes: He talked about the need for public hearings.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) keeps yelling, "order, order."

Do you want us to debate the bill or not? Do you want to use your big opposition to just run over everybody? The Attorney-General is one of those guys who invented the expression "selective ethics." That's "Mr. Selective Ethics" over there, the guy who believes in some for some and none for the others.

Mr. Chairman: All right, we are not discussing the Attorney-General.

Mr. Barnes: Tell him to stop interjecting.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, please return to the principle of the bill. Only one member can speak at a time. I would ask all members to ....

Mr. Barnes: I am trying to be as rational as the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On many occasions, he has been very courteous; he has sat there and listened. When he is speaking, people interject and he always reminds them that he always listens and he is a very courteous person. I am trying to do the same thing. Mr. Chairman, you have had more to say than I have since I've been talking.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it is only the duty of the Chair to draw to your attention certain points of order and that is all that the Chair is attempting to do. Please continue.

Mr. Barnes: I hope that when the minister stands he will explain to the House why he was so

[ Page 4968 ]

interested in public hearings in 1973, why he was opposed to government by order-in-council – and I'll be reading some of those quotes – why he was concerned about the protection of municipalities and the small people in the community who had the right to self-government and why he was so concerned about state interference. He talked about extremes and totalitarianism when the Land Commission Act was being introduced. He talked about the possibility of pressure being put on the elected representatives if they had too much power, making reference to the Land Commission.

Mr. Chairman, let me just read to you some of the kinds of things that this minister believed in at one time, when he was a Progressive Conservative. He now wants to have all of those powers that he stood in his seat over here and tried to fight. And we listened; the government of the day listened. In fact, there were many amendments made to the bill that the opposition at the time felt were contentious. This is why I am hoping he will do the same here, because of his character and because of his proven tendency to resist pressure as he proved he could when he moved from Progressive Conservative to coalition as a Social Crediter. He was bending with the times and he has shown that he is flexible and capable of changing his mind.

He said at that time, and he was speaking as a Social Crediter: "We object to government by order-in-council. We would have objected when it was employed so often by the previous government, " meaning at that time the Social Credit government before the New Democratic Party, "and there must be no doubt in this House that we object to it again tonight."

The only appeal to his decision, once he overrules any decision made by a regional board or a council, Mr. Chairman, is by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the very thing that he is saying should not happen.

He has made no reference at any time in the debate on Bill 42 that we should have public hearings on issues that involve a major change in a democratic process that would, in fact, wipe out the hard work of politicians who have made commitments to constituents, who have gone out and campaigned in respect to the planning of their areas, who have set up their tax base or done a number of things on the basis of the local situation.

He can come in and say that if it is not in the interest of the minister or the government, the interest of the people or whatever, he has the power to change it. I am asking you: is that in the best interests of the public for the minister to want that power? He has said himself that there is no way that you can trust any one with that power. The wheels of time erode, they just work and work, and if you have that power in your hands you're going to use it sooner or later.

I would like the minister to explain to us why he feels that he needs the power. If he can do that, I am sure that we will be able to get along, because we would like to see the best things happening for the public. We are not opposed to having him make amendments from time to time to improve the good government within this province. We realize also that there are times when you have to go back and consult and communicate and avoid trying to be dictatorial.

It is at that point that we have to have a mechanism where this can happen without having the pressure placed upon any elected person, be he the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or anyone else, to have locked himself into a situation where he has to do things which, I am sure, go against his conscience.

It makes one wonder how this happened. What really brought this about? Was it the minister, his colleagues, the Premier or someone else who put pressure on him? What is he going to do with the power?

He has not given sufficient examples of what kinds of situations would happen, Mr. Chairman, that would indicate the need for him to be able to overturn decisions that were made by the various municipalities in this province.

An Hon. Member: Emery, that's the Bill 33 speech.

Mr. Barnes: No, that's not the Bill 33 speech.

Ms. Brown: What would you know? You weren't here.

Mr. Barnes: You haven't been around that much, Mr. Minister. You should call that member to order, Mr. Chairman.

An Hon. Member: Who gave him the right?

Mr. Barnes: I would like to make reference to some of the things that I mentioned earlier in detail.

Here is another one in which the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing talked about us as a government "which has moved not in the assembly, but through order-in-council in a vicious" – he was speaking again about how it was when the NDP was trying to bring forward some protection for land – "manner against a group of men and women who deserve far better consideration and greater appreciation of their problems, the many problems that they face." That was on February 19,1973.

At that time he was talking about us. We were trying to bring in amendments. The Minister of Agriculture was introducing amendments at the time and trying to get co-operation from the opposition. They were suggesting that no amendments would do, that the bill was a monster and that it was something

[ Page 4969 ]

that should be destroyed and that it was going to be an irrevocable situation for the people of British Columbia, eroding their freedoms and their rights to land ownership. Democracy was down the drain. How can this minister turn around and want to do exactly the same thing?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member ....

Mr. Barnes: Now please don't, Mr. Chairman. I know you feel that I am swaying from the principle of this section, but I'm not. What I am trying to say is: just where does the minister stand?

Mr. Lea: Anywhere!

Mr. Barnes: What are his real commitments? Perhaps the minister is not really the person who is the architect of this section. Perhaps it is his friend; perhaps it has something to do with some plan that we haven't heard about. Last night someone suggested that maybe it has got to do with their plans for the north or something to do with pipelines, or some new construction....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, that has also been canvassed on several occasions. I would ask you to' move on to new material. I know of no standing order that says he must give answers.

Mr. Barnes: You'll have no problem with me. I don't have the strength to argue with you today. But you really are pressing me. Maybe some other day I will have the strength to argue, but I'm in a good mood today. I am only trying to get information. I'm not here to argue with the Chair and take issue with you, but I would like you to let me try and make my points.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, as long as you stay within the rules of the House, I would be most happy to do that. That is the job of the Chair. Please continue.

Mr. Barnes: That's fine. In this House we all have our own way or projecting, and that's our right. The Premier stood in this House just a few moments ago and suggested that all of us had the right to stand and speak responsibly. This is what I am attempting to do in my own way. I'm quoting the minister's own words.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is over there chirping: "You're just blabbing. You have nothing to say." Well, I would like to have him stand up. I also recall some of the things he had to say about the Land Commission, he and the Minister of ....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It was all constructive.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we are not dealing with the Land Commission. We are dealing with section 28.

Mr. Barnes: Well, call that minister to order. I am not the one who is interjecting. He is the one who is interjecting, Mr. Chairman. It's not me.

Mr. Chairman: Only one member may speak at a time. At this point in time, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Mr. Barnes: Well, we're going to run out of time. I'll be back tomorrow, that's for sure. So you either let me speak now or....

At another point, he was talking about faults. He had something to say about the Minister of Agriculture in those days. Mr. Chairman, he even went so far as to quote an MP, Mark Rose. He said that Mark Rose had written in The Langley Advance....

Interjection.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, it's very relevant. These are the minister's words in arguing a similar situation on the same principle about awesome powers-, about dictatorialism and totalitarianism; about the kinds of erosions that would happen if the NDP continued unchecked to bring in all of this legislation that was destroying people's rights to ownership of land. We're now trying to ask him what rights he has to tell municipalities that he is going to take away decisions that they have made. Now you're telling me that what I have to say is not relevant?

We listened to that NDP MP, who was constructively commenting on some of the tenets of that particular legislation. He suggested that maybe some changes were in order, and we listened. He was at that time trying to argue on behalf of Mark Rose, trying to embarrass us, the government of the day. Now he is not standing for those very same things that he was quoting that member as saying. All I'm saying is that he's got two standards. Now that he's the government, he wants the power. When he wasn't in government, he tried to indicate that he was concerned about the people. I don't think this minister is anything other than an opportunist and a very weak one at that, because the things that he said, he might have believed in, but he didn't have the strength to fight it in cabinet. Somebody is pulling some strings and he's stuck in a situation. He has been getting high marks from certain people in various parts of the province for his performance in certain aspects of housing, and he hasn't been in too much hot water. In fact, I think Alderman Michael

[ Page 4970 ]

Harcourt gave him some pretty high marks among all of the various ministers, suggesting that he had finished with a high C-plus on his performance as minister.

Now we find....

Interjection.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, those were his grades. But now we find, Mr. Chairman, that he has a hidden agenda; that he too wants power, that he too would like to move in with the heavy hand of state ownership, state control and state power. The very things that he tried to suggest the NDP was doing are the things that I feel this minister is doing. I don't know why. I think we are going to have to know why, the same as we're going to have to know why they want to take away the rights of those people who are making decisions at the local level on the Vancouver Resources Board.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, the Vancouver Resources Board has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Mr. Barnes: It has everything to do with it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm tired of you interrupting me and telling me it hasn't anything to do with this and hasn't anything to do with that.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Take your seat, hon. member.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I'm asking you to take your seat. Bill 65 is before this House. We are debating Bill 42. I have no wish to interrupt you, but you must remain in order. Section 28 of Bill 42.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Barnes: How can you tell me that section 28 is not related, Mr. Chairman, to the VRB? How can you tell me that there is not a conspiracy... ?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, Bill 65 is not in debate before this committee at this time. I must ask you to stick to the specifics of this section.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Barnes: Okay, we won't mention Bill 65. We'll talk about the principle of this government, the hidden agenda of this government. We'll talk about the hidden agenda. We'll talk about the kind of things that this government intends to do very slowly to those people who rely on the democratic system to protect themselves from what may happen when we get a power-hungry, dictatorial type of regime that we're faced with right now in this province.

We have a group of people who have introduced ...

Mr. Lea: Socio-fascist.

Mr. Barnes: . . . a reverse to state decision-making, who have suggested that people who have fallen prey to exploitism in this province by media advertising, by the other subtleties of capitalism and exploitism such as the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) concern for the drug addicts.... Can you tell me that that is not popular politics? He's got everybody rounded up and so now we're going to go and lock them all up. It's the same thing here.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, that also is irrelevant, and not part of this section.

Mr. Barnes: Then we've got the vandal situation, taking away people's rights, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry, hon. member, you are completely out of order.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, there's nothing that this government has done that's not part of their plan. What we're trying to do is expose it. Now the minister wants this power. You know yourself. If he doesn't need it, what's he taking it for?

Mr. Lea: He loves it.

Mr. Barnes: I mean, there is a plan that's underway. They are trying to tell the people of British Columbia that we will have to pull up the strings. First of all, in the throne speech and in the throne debate they suggested that we would have to have restraint and they convinced everybody that times were tough. They set up a fiscal programme that permitted them to stockpile their tax dollars and now we have a surplus so they can go out and campaign....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, you are out of order and unless you return to the specifics of this particular section, I must ask you to take your seat.

Mr. Lea: On a point of order, is the Chairman saying that analogies cannot be used in debate?

[ Page 4971 ]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I am not saying analogies cannot be used in debate. What the Chair is saying is that you cannot mention other specific debates, specific bills, specific circumstances. The member has the ability to use all of the analogies he wishes as long as they relate to the specifics of this particular section.

Mr. Lea: Right, and that's what he's doing.

Mr. Barnes: What kind of things do you think have come out of this man's mouth in the past? That minister once said:

"In its present form, it represents the worst kind of state interference and centralized control. Even if it is amended, a number of us in the opposition wonder how any major and meaningful revisions could be introduced to something which is so overwhelming and so all-embracing. Even if it is amended, I doubt that any of us in the opposition will find it possible to give our full endorsation. The measures proposed under this bill as it has been presented to us are extreme and, I suggest, smack of collectivization policies of a totalitarian government."

Now these are just remarks made by a person who appears to be concerned about protecting democratic rights, who seems to be concerned about a free society.

All I'm saying is: what happened to him? How could he want permission to overrule decisions that were made by regional districts and councils, and perhaps even others that we don't know about? He wants this power which, he claims, will only be used where he, in his opinion, feels there has been something adverse to the public interest.

Mr. Lea: He sacrificed his career in a bid for power.

Mr. Barnes: I think that is pretty frightening, Mr. Chairman. I don't see how anyone who cares about a democratic society would not be concerned.

In fact, when I think how I would feel if I were on a council or on a regional district board and this minister was threatening me by telling me he disapproved of something that I had campaigned for and had passed through that council and he was going to overturn, I would say: "What's the point of having a council? What's the point of having elections? What's the point of having a charter or any kind of system of elections whatsoever?" If this minister is going to step in and say, "I deem it contrary to plans of the government and so we are going to overrule your decision unless you change it within 90 days, " what kind of a situation is that? You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure, would want to stand up and oppose this amendment to the Municipal Act.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 4972 ]

APPENDIX

10 The Hon. W. R. Bennett to move –

Be it Resolved:

That the Standing Orders of the House be amended by inserting after Chapter VIII the following as Chapter VIIIA:

CHAPTER VIIIA

Committee on Crown Corporations

Establishment of Committee.

72A. (1) At the commencement of the first Session of each Legislative Assembly, the Special Committee appointed under Standing Order 68 shall appoint a Committee on Crown Corporations as a Select Standing Committee of the House.

(2) The Committee shall not, without the leave of the House, consist of more than 14 members.

(3) No member of the Executive Council shall be appointed as a member of the Committee.

(4) The Committee shall continue in existence until the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly during which it is appointed.

(5) Unless otherwise provided in the Crown Corporations Reporting Act or this Order, section 79A of the Constitution Act and Standing Orders 69 (1) , 71, and 72 apply to the Committee.

(6) A vacancy in the members of the Committee shall be promptly filled by the Special Committee appointed under Standing Order 68.

Notwithstanding any other Order or Rule of practice of the House, the Chairman of the Committee shall file reports of the

And be it further Resolved:

That in respect of the Thirty-first Legislative Assembly, the appointments of the Committee on Crown Corporations shall be made pursuant to Standing Order 72A as soon as possible in the second Session after the passing of this Resolution.