[ Page 2157 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Coal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 27) Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 2157

Motions and adjourned debate an motions

On Motion 16.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2157

Mr. King –– 2157

Mr. Gibson –– 2158

Mr. Stephens –– 2160

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2160

Mr. Lauk –– 2162

Mr. Cocke –– 2163

Mr. Barber –– 2163

Mr. Lea –– 2165

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2166

Division on the motion –– 2171

On Motion 17.

Mr. Barnes –– 2171

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2172

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 2172

Mr. Lauk –– 2173

Ms. Sanford –– 2173

Mr. Barnes –– 2173

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 17) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2174

Mr. Barber –– 2176

Mrs. Dailly –– 2181

Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 20) Hon. Mr. Bawlf.

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

Science Council of British Columbia Act (Bill 23) Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 2183

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today a group of 51 students from North Bend elementary school in my constituency. They are accompanied by their teachers John Wright and Patricia Kelly. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. STRONGMAN: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce one of my oldest friends from Ontario visiting the precincts today. I'd ask the House to make Mr. Malcolm Burwash welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine from the city of Penticton, Mrs. Spaurel and Mrs. Mason, who are visiting Victoria, and Hr. and Mrs. Roy Gilmore of Creston, B.C. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of biIls.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. BROWN: I'm not sure whether this is the correct time to table a document in the House or not.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a document which was raised in question period a couple of days ago. The Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) asked, if I could get my hand on the document, whether I would table it or not.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

On Motion 16.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to move the following motion: that this House instruct the committee of selection appointed on March 30,1978, to name a special committee to decide whether or not the hon. first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , or the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) sat or voted in the Legislative Assembly when he may have been disqualified from so doing in consequence of receiving funds from the province of British Columbia, resulting from his participation in the UBC and provincial housing study instituted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and to decide whether or not the hon. member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has sat or voted in the Legislative Assembly when he may have been disqualified from so doing in consequence of his receiving funds from the province of British Columbia resulting from his participation in a fence-building programme made available under the Grazing Act, and that the special committee commence its sittings forthwith and report during this sitting of the Legislative Assembly and be authorized and required to allow representations of any persons by counsel on examination and cross-examination of witnesses. I so move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion is one that has received some debate in the House previously - at least, a similar motion - and it has been the subject, to some extent at least, of a court proceeding with respect to the status of the former member for Oak Bay. It's my understanding that in that particular case - which the member himself, Dr. Scott Wallace, who was the previous member for Oak Bay, referred to the courts for a decision as to whether or not he had breached the Constitution Act - the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) intervened in that particular court reference on the basis that the courts lack the jurisdiction to hear the question and that the determination was, rather, one solely for the House to make.

That position, Mr. Speaker, is certainly at variance with the position taken by the official opposition in the Legislature at that time. It was, and is, our position that the courts are the appropriate agency to determine whether or not the Constitution Act was breached and, if that determination is made in a positive way, then I would agree that it would be up to this House to determine what penalties, if any, should be assessed; but the facts of the matter certainly should be determined by the courts.

The Constitution Act is a statute passed by this Legislature and, while it governs the conduct of members of this House, it is a

[ Page 2158 ]

statute in the same sense that any other statute passed by this House is a law enforced and interpreted by the courts of the land. I see absolutely no reason why the Constitution Act in this particular case, with respect to the possible breach by certain members of the House, should be treated in any other way.

The motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, is one that I disagree with. I think rather, as I have indicated, the whole question should have been referred to the courts without the intervention of the Attorney-General in a negative way. However, we are confronted with this particular motion and, if there is to be any credibility with respect to the striking of this committee to hear the evidence in the case, then this committee would have to be seen by the public to be a judicious committee, in no way tinted with traditional partisan political lines. It would have to be a committee that was fair in balance and structure, a committee that was structured in a judicious way rather than a partisan way. The motion as it stands now does not allow for that kind of special structure.

It is a matter of public knowledge, I believe, but perhaps one that bears repeating, that standing committees of this House, in their normal context, provide for a heavy majority of government members.

To suggest that a committee to inquire into the conduct of certain members of this House and whether or not they have breached the Constitution Act, and whether or not they have voted in this Legislative Assembly when they were prohibited from doing so by essence of breaching the Constitution Act, can make those kinds of serious determinations when it is composed of a majority of partisan government members is to fly completely in the face of even any appearance of justice, Mr. Speaker. That is the inevitable conclusion the public would have to draw.

Certainly no one is more aware or more sensitive than my friend, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , to the basic and fundamental concept of justice: justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. For that purpose, the courts are structured in a very careful way. Jury selection is structured in a very careful way which precludes any opportunity for partisanship, for favouritism.

I submit to the House, Mr. Speaker, that to constitute a committee heavily loaded with a majority of government members, which has for its purpose the inquiring into and the investigation of conduct of their own government members, is a complete sham and would have no meaning in terms of credibility with the public, and certainly no credibility with the total membership of this House.

If the government is intent on proceeding with this direction through this Motion, Mr. Speaker, the motion should be amended. The motion should provide for an equal number of government and opposition members, with an opposition member as chairman of that committee, so that the House and the public can be assured that all evidence is being elicited, that anyone who has possible knowledge of any of the implications of the inquiry can be subpoenaed and brought before that committee for investigation and cross-examination.

The structure of the committee is gravely important. Mr. Speaker. Accordingly, I ask leave of the House to move the following motion: that Motion 16 be amended to add, after the words "special committee" in line 2, the following words: "composed of an equal number of government and opposition members with an opposition party member as chairman."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, a motion of this nature, of course, would require notice. It is not admissible at this time.

MR. KING: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. GIBSON: I rise to declare myself totally opposed to this motion, within the meaning of standing order 69 (2) and in every other way. It is completely wrong. The question that is to be determined is very simple. Has a law of the province been breached? That, I say to you, sir, is a question for a real court and not a kangaroo court.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) adverted to the decision of Mr. Justice Dryer.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member is not speaking disparagingly of a committee of this House which is not yet formed.

MR. GIBSON: I was using colourful. and descriptive language, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to speak of the court decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all hon. members please remember that temperate language is most acceptable in this House?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan referred to the decision of Mr. Justice Dryer in the case referred to him by the then member for Oak Bay, Dr. Scott Wallace. Mr. Justice Dryer's decision was learned; it was cautious. He declined to enter

[ Page 2159 ]

what some courts have called the political thicket. That is understandable.

I suggest, with great respect, that he did not completely answer question number two posed by counsel for the plaintiff, which is as stated by Mr. Justice Dryer: "If that issue - namely the question of the right or not to sit within the Legislature - did at one time fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, it does not now, in respect, at least, of matters referred to in section 31 of the Constitution Act, because that matter has been embodied in and the privilege defined by the statute."

Mr. Justice Dryer was not able to find sufficient support for that proposition. I believe that there is, but one need not particularly disagree with that to say that this resolution is nevertheless the wrong way to proceed. The question that was asked of Mr. Justice Dryer was not on target for this particular case.

In the Wallace case, the declaration that was sought was that someone was eligible to sit in the Legislature. Mr. Justice Dryer found that that is an exclusive prerogative of the Legislature. The case has not been appealed so that's where it sits at the moment.

But the question that should be asked here is a different one. The question is: what are the facts of the conduct of these four members under the various sections of the Act? I will draw Your Honour's attention to other portions of the Act, which have to do with facts. For example, section 54 deals with circumstances in which a seat is deemed to have been forfeited and it makes reference to a member becoming a bankrupt or attained for treason or other matters of that kind.

Now surely one would not argue that it's up to a committee of this Legislature to decide whether or not a member has become a bankrupt. That is a matter for another forum. That's a determination of fact, rather than a question of whether or not a member may sit in this House. It's a determination pursuant to law. I say that the question of fact under section 23 (1) , which is the main question here, is one that is properly to be settled by the courts. This House may then take such action as it wishes after that kind of settlement.

I say that this question should be pursued by the Attorney-General and by the cabinet and that they have a duty to so do under the authority of the Constitutional Questions Determination Act under which authority the cabinet is empowered to refer to the court of appeal for decision on any matter. It would certainly be entitled to refer the question as to whether, as a matter of fact, any members have fallen within the prohibited terms of section 23 (l) . I say that is the way in which the matter should be proceeded with.

I want to mention certain practicalities and differences of this motion from the previous motion. I think it is very significant that this committee no longer has the power, as did the committee that was established by this House last year but which never sat, to obtain legal advice from the courts. The committee that was to be struck last year did have that power. Why has that been removed? I say it has been removed because it would constitute a danger to the government were it in there. Were that Section 1n there, questions of fact could at least have been sought by minority members of the committee to be determined ' by the courts. I say that should still be in there, if this is to pass at all. But, as I say, I am completely opposed to its passage.

The numbers on the committee will - I entirely concur with the Hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) - make it a whitewash. This will not be a jury of peers; it in essence will be a jury of pals. One need not expect that to yield an adverse result to the friends who are being judged.

The Constitution Act needs changing; there's no question about that. But it must be changed in very careful ways because it has been set up to guard against things of this kind. If it turns out to be competent on a government to establish committees which are looking into matters of a same nature as legislative committees would normally consider, these committees to be composed of only government members, as was the case with the Bawlf committee which started this whole mess, if that is to be established by the case law of this House, then what place will be left for the standing committee system of this House, poor and tenuous as it is in terms of the usage thereof by the government? If it is established that from here on in, any committee the government sets up to investigate a particular issue need comprise only government members, I say to you mat is an enormous step backwards in our parliamentary process.

In summary, I say this Motion 16 is the wrong way to go. The government got itself into a nasty little situation and it's taking the wrong way out.

Earlier on I mentioned the words "kangaroo court." I want to make a definition of that. It is a body, the results of whose deliberations one is morally certain of; they know what the answer is going to be. I say the answer is, without a shadow of a doubt and irrespective of the facts of the case, that

[ Page 2160 ]

these members are going to be whitewashed.

If I'm wrong and these members are found to have been in breach of the Constitution Act by this committee, and as a result they lose their seats, and if as a result of that they repay the salary they have accumulated in the intervening period, and if as a result of that they pay the fines that are eligible to be imposed under the Constitution Act, then I will gladly say I was wrong, that I gave an improper description of this committee. I'll set up a platform at the corner of Georgia and Granville and say to the world: "I was wrong. I misjudged the government." I'll take out ads in the newspapers and say: "I was wrong. I misjudged the government." I'll take out ads on the radio. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will have to do that.

I am giving you a definite prediction today: if this committee goes ahead as proposed with a government majority, it is going to come up with a whitewash. Exactly how that may happen is just a matter for speculation right now, but I will tell you one or two ways it could be done.

Under section 23 there is a prohibition of accepting any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary. The committee could simply decide that there was no office, commission or employment involved here, and therefore no problem. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of thing which should be decided by a court as a matter of fact under the law, rather than by a partisan committee.

There is a question of fact as to whether a salary, fee, allowance, emolument or profit of any kind might have been obtained. That again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you is a question of judgment of fact by a court and not by a partisan committee of this Legislature. There is a question as to whether section 25 of this Act might in some way excuse the action of one or all of these members. That again is a question of fact and a question of law that should be decided by the courts and not by a partisan committee of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, once these kinds of questions of fact are established by a court, then the Legislature may establish questions of eligibility to sit. But we and the public are entitled to have these questions of fact settled by an impartial, non-partisan forum.

For those many reasons, Mr. Speaker - for the reason that I think the procedure is wrong, for the reason that I fear that this will establish a precedent which will prevent the circumvention of standing committees of this House in the future - I must totally oppose this motion.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I, too, oppose this motion. I don't agree with the judgment of the courts on this matter. I am, however, obliged to accept it. It seems to me that simple, common, ordinary, everyday fair play demands that this government make this committee balanced. Simple fair play - I think that's the point.

If the government is not prepared to recognize the demand for fair play in this society, it's running a great risk, because there is under this Act a rather terrifying section which allows any citizen to commence legal action against one or more of these members. The penalties, if that citizen is successful, are horrendous, absolutely horrendous. That penalty goes to the citizen who institutes the proceedings and succeeds. It seems to me that this government in fairness not only to the people of this province but in fairness to these members who are being questioned should not be pushing the citizens of this province into a position where one or more of them might decide that he or she is going to take the matter into his own hands and demand fair play in the courts. It's bound to happen. I think in recognition of fair play to your own members that you should show this province that you are prepared to treat this matter in a just fashion. In other words, act as justly as the courts could be expected to act.

As an alternative, Mr. Speaker, if the government is not prepared to take that stand, then I would suggest that they at least allow the opposition the courtesy to pick the members from the government who will sit on this committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll make a couple of observations, Mr. Speaker, in response to some of the questions that were raised by the hon. members across the floor.

First of all, I'll emphasize very clearly that the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, of Mr. Justice Victor Dryer, was essentially reiterating the matters that had been discussed in this House and the parliamentary practice, parliamentary custom and parliamentary law back to the days of Elizabeth I. I think, for the record - and I don't wish to be repetitious because most of this was covered in former debate - I would like to say that parliament itself has, since the time of Elizabeth I, asserted that it has the exclusive right to determine its own privileges and to determine the rights of members to sit and vote. It customarily refers questions to a select committee.

Now there's abundant authority on that, Mr. Speaker. May, page 175, says this: "The right

[ Page 2161 ]

of the Commons to determine all matters touching the election of its members has been regularly claimed and exercised since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and probably earlier."

Halsbury says in section 709, page 354: "In addition to possessing a complete control over the regulation of its own proceedings and the conduct of its members, the House of Commons claims the exclusive right of providing as it may deem fit for its own proper constitution." Page 355 states: "Although the House of Commons has resigned its right to be the judge in controverted elections, it retains its right to decide upon the qualification of any of its members to sit and vote in parliament." In Bourinot, page 161: "In the Canadian, as in the English House of Commons, wherever any question is raised affecting the seat of a member and involving matters of doubt, either in law or fact, it is customary to refer it to the consideration of a committee."

And, in carrying on with that quotation on page 162: "A reference to a committee is no doubt the proper procedure in all cases in which there are reasonable doubts as to the facts or the course that should be pursued, especially when it is necessary to examine precedents or witnesses."

Now In 1704, Mr. Speaker, the English House of Commons resolved that it was a breach of privilege to bring court proceedings to determine whether a member has right to sit or not. We can find that in page 157 of May:

" (In 1704) , a Committee of the Whole House to whom it was referred to consider the reports of the Journals of the House of Lords touching the case of Ashby vs. White and the case of Barnardiston vs. Soame, -reported several resolutions, the chief of which was agreed to by the House in the following terms:

" 'Resolved, that whoever shall presume to commence or prosecute an action, indictment, or information, which shall bring the right of electors, or persons elected to serve in parliament, to the determination of any other jurisdiction than that of the House of Commons (except in cases specially provided for by Acts of parliament) ..."

e.g. controverted elections in our country.

" I ... such person and persons ... are guilty of a high breach of the privilege of this House.'

"The House also adopted the resolution that according to the known laws and usage of parliament it is the sole right of the Commons of England ... to examine and determine of matters relating to the right of election of their own members...."

Now the English House, Mr. Speaker, has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in parliament. I quote May at page 172: "it has never expressly abandoned its claim to treat as a breach of privilege the institution of proceedings for the purpose of bringing its privileges into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in parliament-"

So once again, with all respect to the opposition members, Mr. Speaker, they are requesting the very thing that cannot happen, according to parliamentary law, parliamentary custom and the law of the land. This is the proper and correct forum.

MR. LEA: Garde, you know that's not true.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Absolutely correct. My friend can come up with bland statements in the face of a judgment of our own Supreme Court of British Columbia and in the face of historic precedent that goes back to Elizabeth !.Now if they're going to start writing their own law, that's most interesting.

The courts say, Mr. Speaker, that the control of each House over its internal proceedings is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the courts. So, Mr. Speaker, the application of the member for Oak Bay was to once again test the validity of these historic decisions. It went in front of our own supreme court, and our own supreme court followed the law and established it as I've argued today.

My friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) started to refer to the Constitutional Questions Determination Act, which he also did in the other debate. That is not the appropriate forum for any matter such as this. That particular statute concerns itself with intra and ultra vires questions; it's not designed for purposes such as are before this Legislature at the present time. Since the authorities, Mr. Speaker, and contemporary authorities - the decision of our supreme court was handed down in October of last year - have concluded without question that this Legislature, this parliament.... This is applicable, Mr. Speaker, to every Legislature in Canada and also to the House of Commons and also to the House of Commons in England. My friends are putting up an argument, Mr. Speaker, but, with every respect, it is a straw argument, because the authorities have concluded without question that the legislatures and the parlia-

[ Page 2162 ]

ments have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with these kinds of matters. I wish to emphasize that it would be absolutely improper and incorrect, and the court would not hear it if it was directed to the courts.

So it's not possible to proceed, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has suggested, through the auspices of the Constitutional Questions Determination Act to make such a reference to a court. The court would say, as Mr. Justice Dryer has said: "You have no business being here. You are the highest court; you have no business being here. This is a matter for the court of parliament; this is a matter for the court of the Legislature."

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to add to those matters. On the common informer section, I take it that there have not been - and I'm only speaking from memory - any common informer actions taken along the lines of this specific section - I don't have it at my fingertips - for years and years and years. Again, this is not a mandatory decision of the court; the court would have to consider the facts under those circumstances as well.

Correct me if I'm misquoting, but I rather inferred from the remarks of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and also from the remarks of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that we are dealing here with a statute that is archaic. I say amen to that; it is archaic.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise in this debate until the Attorney-General rose in his place. I do not so much find scary his remarks on the substance of this motion as his misrepresentation of the law, inadvertent as it may have been.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the hon. member suggesting that the hon. Attorney-General misrepresented something?

MR. LAUK: Yes, but not deliberately.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I demand an immediate withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It seems to be offensive.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A disgraceful suggestion! Why don't you read the canon of legal ethics? He says "misrepresenting."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. It's apparent that it is offensive, and will the member please withdraw the word?

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General takes my suggestion to mean that he deliberately misrepresented the law, then of course I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Please withdraw the word "misrepresented."

MR. LAUK: No, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General obviously inadvertently misrepresented the law, and I intend to show exactly how he did it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the word "misrepresentation" is not a new word to the House, and it has been found offensive.

MR. LAUK: Well I'll withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker, and say that the hon. gentleman did not know what he was talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as the word is withdrawn, that's all that we require.

MR. LAUK: You see, Mr. Speaker, the reference to the supreme court was a declaration, and the Attorney-General hesitated to refer to that fact. That was the sole basis upon which Mr. Justice Dryer....

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll file it.

MR. LAUK: Run for cover, eh?

HON. R. GARDOM: No. If you don't mind, I'm going....

MR. LAUK: You're going out for Lifesavers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Only one member can have the floor at a time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't have to ask your permission for that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General did not refer to that basic fact. Mr. Justice Dryer was referring to the law in relation to a declaration. The former member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did not bring an informer action; he did not take a specific action under sections of the Constitution Act. He asked for a declaration, to which any citizen of this province is entitled at any time. However, in the course of Mr. Justice Dryer's review, he said in his judgment that unless there is specific legislation that would involve the courts, he had no jurisdiction; the House had jurisdiction. That's always been clear.

[ Page 2163 ]

But the Attorney-General gave a blanket statement this morning that any breach of the constitution or any breach by any member of this House was to be solely judged by this House. Now I ask you to consider this proposition, Mr. Speaker: what if one of the hon. gentlemen breached the Criminal Code?

Does that mean that this House decides whether or not they committed an offence? We know because of a course of events also included within this time frame that that is not so. The breach of the Constitution Act is, I contend, a quasi-criminal situation. It requires a judicial body to determine the facts and it sets out in the legislation what the penalty is. For the Attorney-General to pretend by saying that it goes all the way back to Elizabeth I, there's something else that goes back to Elizabeth I too - the Star Chamber, the thumbscrew, the rack and totalitarian government. Perhaps all of those things go back to Elizabeth I, and all of those things may well characterize this present administration.

I am not impressed with the Attorney-General's argument as to the law, and I'm sure that no one else is either. I don't know whether, if the Attorney-General decided to go into private practice, he could be trusted with a serious case after today's demonstration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Conveyancing.

MR. LAUK: Maybe conveyancing, at greatly reduced tariffs. But clearly the Attorney-General's interpretation is wrong. Clearly he did not understand Mr. Justice Dryer's decision. It's a very limited decision and the supreme court judge narrowed his view to the declaration itself, and he found that the Legislature in ordinary breaches of privilege would deal with the matter. On the other hand, this is a quasi-criminal type of situation where it's alleged that members of this House received money from the Crown in direct contradiction to the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act is not the Criminal Code, but it does provide a penalty and that's why I say it's quasi-criminal. It is an extremely severe penalty, much more severe than many of the penalties provided for in the Criminal Code.

It is therefore my submission to this chamber that because the Attorney-General is wrong, the setting up of this committee may be premature. I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to go right back to square one to bring an action in the court as an informer, have the court properly refer it under the Constitution Act as an informer action, and bring these gentlemen to trial where they could present a full and fair defence, and an independent tribunal will make the decision: guilty or not guilty. What could be fairer than that? But setting up a court made up of one's friends' files, in the face of British jurisprudence going back 600 years to Elizabeth I....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get off the legal aspect - and certainly I'm pleased that my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, said what he did and brought more clarity to what we're looking at at the present time.

What I want to look at - and I feel it is very important that the House looks at this particular aspect of this proposition - is that the House Leader for the NDP, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , offered a solution other than a judicial solution, - and that was a fair-play committee from this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind that the decision has been made. If the decision had not been made, then the government wouldn't have sat on its hands for two years. If the verdict went against my hon. friends across the way, they would be looking at a horrendous payback compared to what it would have been had this matter been embarked upon at the outset. That really shows me that the whole case has been prejudged. Therefore we can look forward to hearing a few witnesses and doing a ritual dance in the committee. The government will outnumber the opposition nine members to five or eleven members to five, which is what I would suspect the committee will look like once it is structured. So that's the end of it.

But, Mr. Speaker, it was amusing to me that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) called across the floor that the opposition is prejudging what's about to occur. That's been done for us. It's all prejudged, no question about it. If, for some reason, the government feels that providing this kind of chintz and window-dressing will make them sleep better, well, that's on their heads. But I'll tell you right now that I cannot support this resolution.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we think it is reasonable to ask something about the motivation of the government before we can determine how we vote on this question. It's reasonable to ask what the government wishes to get out of it, what the government's advantage might be and what purposes are served for the government that puts

[ Page 2164 ]

the motion forward before we decide how we are going to vote on the motion itself.

It is reasonable to ask - as has the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) - whether or not the government's best interests will be served by a whitewash, that whitewash to be provided by the committee that will result from this motion, if it is adopted. It's reasonable to ask why they would want a whitewash, and why they would be afraid of an equality of members from the opposition and the government sides.

The very simple reason that they're afraid of an equality of members and a fair hearing is because the facts are clear and the judgment is inevitable. The facts are perfectly obvious and straightforward and they were made so by my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , and in reply, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) - at least in regard to three of the four members whose names and careers are at stake here.

When discussing the motivation on the part of the government for bringing this forward, you have to ask: Why would a whitewash serve them better than a fair hearing? You have to ask: Why would a government majority be more useful to them than an equality of membership between government and opposition? The reason is obvious and clear, and- it is that the government members simply have no defence. They have none at all, and they must rely, of necessity, on a government majority to protect .them.

It's clear that, regarding three of the four members, the joint committee on housing was not a properly authorized committee of this Legislature. Surely no one will dispute that. If anyone cares to, we have memos to make it perfectly obvious that it was not.

Why does the government require this motion? Because the facts are obvious and the judgment is inevitable. The payments were illegal, and we have memos to that effect as well, memos written by the deputy minister to Mr. Gray, within the Ministry of Housing - memos on the instruction of the minister, in which it became perfectly obvious that "it is the intention of the government to seek alternate sources in order to compensate the MLAs for these expenses."

Why does the government require this motion? Why do they require that the committee that they hope will result has a government majority? It is because the facts are obvious and the judgment is inevitable. This was not a committee properly structured of this Legislature. These payments were not proper themselves. The government has made it obvious. Its own memos have made it obvious. That's why they need the whitewash, because we know what a fair judgment would result in.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the government has not, in my opinion, been candid or honest from the beginning. On October 8,1976, Mr. Bell, the Deputy Minister of Housing, wrote to Mr. Gray, the then assistant deputy minister, making it clear that the payments were not to occur. On November 25,1976, Mr. Gray wrote to the Minister of Housing, and he said: "I attach in duplicate a statement of the expenses which were incurred by the three MLAs on the committee, and which the ministry has paid. I await your further instructions in this connection." The first memo, October 6, said no payment; the second memo, November 25, said the payments were made.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, let me just interrupt you on a question of relevance. Is the evidence which the member is now proffering evidence which ought better to be placed before the proposed committee, since the motion now is simply talking about the structuring of the committee?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the argument I am leading is this. We think it fair and reasonable to ask when debating this motion why the government brought the motion forward. In my opinion as a member, the reason they have done it this way is because the facts themselves would, in a fair hearing, lead to a totally different conclusion from that which is already reached, quite obviously, by the Attorney-General.

I will be very brief in these remarks. I appreciate what you have argued, but what I am trying to demonstrate is that from the beginning the government has not been honest or candid in relation to the whole matter.

On October 8,1976, they ordered the money not to be paid. On November 25,1976, they knew the money was paid. It wasn't until July 11,1977, that they admitted something was wrong. Why did they keep their mouth shut for eight months? Why do we have this motion here today? Precisely because they know that a fair hearing will result in an inevitable decision that the payments were illegal and the members should not hold their seats. For eight months, this government knew that the payments were improper. For eight months they kept quiet. They were questioned about it by my colleague from Alberni in February, 1977. It wasn't until July, 1977, that they admitted it was wrong. Why do they bring the motion forward? Because they know that the payments were wrong and for eight months they kept their mouths shut, hoping to get away with it.

They didn't get away with it because my

[ Page 2165 ]

colleague from Alberni found out. They didn't get away with it. After eight months of coverup and eight months of certain knowledge that the payments were illegal - and we have the memos to prove it - they finally admitted that it was wrong. Last year they botched it. They brought in a committee that no one would serve on. This year they're trying to do it again. They have not been candid and the dates of the memos which we will table make it perfectly clear that they knew for eight months, themselves in private, what only eight months later in public they would admit because of the questioning of our colleague from Alberni.

They covered it up for eight months and they're going to cover up the otherwise inevitable verdict through this committee. The reason we cannot support the motion is because the motives of the government are obvious. This government wants a jury whose verdict is known in advance. They want a jury whose verdict is known in advance, and that advance knowledge is guaranteed by a government majority on the committee.

As a matter of personal principle, under standing order 69 (2) , 1 cannot and will not serve on such a committee. , As a matter of principle, this House should not engage in such a subterfuge.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, after the Attorney-General has spoken, Mr. Speaker, I get the impression he is going to support the motion. As a result, because he is the chief law enforcement officer of the province, I fully expect that he will do the correct thing by convention of parliament and either withdraw from the vote or vote against the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see the point of order.

MR. LAUK: The question is that he knows it's not going to be a fair trial and he's the Attorney-General of this province. How can we rely on the administration of justice anywhere in this province if he votes for this motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, each member may seek the floor only one time during this debate and to do so by any other means is not acceptable in this House.

MR. LEA: You know, the irony is that we're discussing this matter on the floor of the House at all. We'r* discussing it because the Provincial Secretary is incompetent. If she were not incompetent....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

Perhaps more temperate language might lead to a sensible debate for the entire motion. I would caution the hon. member.

MR. LEA: But I know of no other word that would describe a minister who has at her fingertips in the Constitution Act the right by order-in-council to have paid those members with no consequence. It would have been legal. Section 73 (a) of the Constitution Act, an amendment to the Constitution Act that we brought in when we were the administration, would have allowed the council to pay those three or four members under the law. But the minister, in her incompetence, didn't know that section 73 (a) provided for just such a circumstance.

Now they find themselves in a jackpot because of the minister's lack of knowledge of the Act that she, as a cabinet minister, should be dispensing justice and jurisdiction under. She didn't know. If the Provincial Secretary had been a competent minister, this would not be under discussion at the moment. That's a fact. If anybody disputes what I'm saying, check your Constitution Act. It could have been handled legally. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I think, agrees with me. It could have been handled legally but because of incompetence it was handled illegally.

I am so sure in advance of what the findings of this committee will be that I am going to make an offer to the Provincial Secretary, who brought in the motion. If any one member who is found guilty under this committee has to leave his seat and run again, I will do the same. I will resign my seat and run again. That is how sure I am, in advance, of the not-guilty verdict.

MR. KEMPF: If I were you I wouldn't do that.

MR. LEA: The member for Omineca says: "If I were you I wouldn't do that." I know that if he were me he wouldn't do that because it takes intestinal fortitude.

Mr. Speaker, I put this challenge to the Provincial Secretary: if any one of those people is found guilty and has to stand for re-election, I will resign my seat and do the same. I challenge the Provincial Secretary to say the same.

We are discussing a motion in this House that two cabinet members may have to resign from their seats in this Legislature. Where is the Premier during this debate? As this debate started, what did the Premier do? Once again he ran for cover. He never faces an issue in this House. Even when two of his executive council may lose their seats, he still runs

[ Page 2166 ]

for cover. That's the size of the situation, Mr. Speaker. We have a Premier who runs away again, who will not face an issue in this House again, who will not speak on an issue in this House again, and a Provincial Secretary through whose incompetence we are facing this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, would you please return to the motion? The remarks just made are hardly relevant to the motion.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, they are highly relevant, because we are talking about the reason that we are talking about the motion at all, which is incompetence. A provision under section 73 (a) of the Constitution Act allowed payment to those members their money by an order-in-council. It would have allowed it. Through incompetence the minister either did not know that that section was in the Act or chose to ignore it. I have to believe she didn't know the Act and she didn't know the law. Now we find that three members may lose their seats in this House not because of action that they did or didn't take, but by an action that the Provincial Secretary did not take. That's what we are talking about; that's why the Provincial Secretary brings in this motion - not to save the members but to save herself. She should have known. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. She was ignorant of the law. In fact, she should be the one who is being investigated for incompetence, not those members.

I make the offer: if any one of those members is found guilty by this committee of government members, then I will resign my seat. If they are found guilty and stand for re-election, I will resign my seat and stand for re-election. That's how sure I am of the verdict, in advance, of this whitewash committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I want to address my remarks to the last speaker. I'd like to say that his remarks really call for no response. Usually that is the case with that member. But I would like to say that I don't want to let those remarks go by before I go on to close the debate. I would like to read to this House section 73 (a) of the Constitution Act, which was referred to by the hon. member for Prince Rupert. His charges that it is because of lack of attention to that section that we are even debating this today are utter hogwash. Let me read section 73 (a):

"Members of the Legislative Assembly who have been designated to act in an official capacity or as delegates for or on behalf of the Legislative- Assembly or the executive council at meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or other inter-parliamentary conferences, or upon visitations to other parliamentary bodies or to inter-governmental or international conferences, upon approval of the Speaker in the case of a member acting by or on behalf of the Legislative Assembly or on approval of the Provincial Secretary, and in the case of a member acting by or on behalf of the executive council shall be paid and shall be entitled to receive reasonable traveling and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them in that capacity, and the receipt of payment by a member under this section does not disqualify him as a member of the Legislative Assembly or disentitle him to sit and vote as a member of the Legislative Assembly."

Mr. Speaker, it clearly identifies the members in a specific area that they would have to be designated in order to have their expenses paid.

May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that section was well canvassed. The member says that, if we had acted on that, these members would not be under this cloud at this time. I'd like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that, had we acted on that, the charge of whitewash which has been on the floor of this House this morning in debate would certainly have been brought up, because this would certainly have in every way been contrary to the meaning of the Constitution Act as it was interpreted to me when we were addressing ourselves to that.

It is hardly worth debating with the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) something that is clearly out of the jurisdiction of the executive council, or the purview of the Provincial Secretary to be brought before the executive council as an order-in-council -clearly out of my responsibility. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that very party, the opposition, who make the charge of whitewash, would certainly have made the charge of our government protecting members that they shouldn't have protected, if I had acted in that way.

May I just now address myself then to the debate that we're in today, and that is whether or not this motion, which says that we should address ourselves to the members of the House who have taken some amount of money or some service and have been in contravention of the Constitution Act, should pass. I am really disappointed to know that the motion that was attempted to be brought in last year - this

[ Page 2167 ]

same motion - was not debated and was not cleared last year. The opposition members refused to sit last year.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely different motion. The Provincial Secretary just said it was the same motion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They're always different, Mr. Speaker, in a different year.

MR. LEA: The Provincial Secretary said it is the same and that it's just a different year. It is not the same motion. I want to point that out to the House. The Provincial Secretary is incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We are debating the motion presently before the House, and comparisons between this and any other motion need not be part of the debate at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm pleased to relate to the point of order just made. May 1, rather than refer to the motion of last year, say that the substance of whether or not we should decide in this House whether or not some members should be adjudicated by this House or by the courts was brought up last year. It should be brought to the record, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the opposition refused to sit on that committee. It could be that they were even in contempt of the House, as has been pointed out in Sir Erskine May, 16th edition. And, Mr. Speaker, in this session we have tried to get leave of the House to debate the motion which we....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has insisted this session on making outrageous and unsupportable charges. I ask her to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing on the part of any member of this house by her charge that members of the opposition may have been in contempt.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll be pleased to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The imputation is withdrawn.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In this session, we tried to get leave of the House to debate the motion that we are in today. Leave was denied by the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Barrett) .

I would like now to refer to the points raised by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , and actually raised too by the leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . It was in reference to the committee of selection and to the structure of that committee and whether or not that committee should be structured by the committee of selection. Well, Mr. Speaker, may I just refer you to a like situation in this House in 1974, in which one of the members of our House was charged with wrongdoing, as have the members contained and embodied within this resolution. I refer to a committee of selection which was set up on November 5,1973. At that time, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reference to that motion is clearly wrong and irrelevant during this debate. That reference at that period of time was to do with conduct within the chamber; it had nothing to do with a breach of the Constitution Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the debate hitherto has had some historic references on both sides of the House.

MR. LAUK: On the point of relevancy, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: it's a breach of standing orders to bring in material that is not relevant. The hon. member must be as relevant as anyone else in this chamber. No one can possibly refer to an alleged breach of conduct in this chamber in the same light as a breach of a statute. They're totally different things.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the debate, as I understand it, has to do with the structuring of a committee by the committee of selection. The structuring of this committee will be subsequent to the passing of this motion. The debate on this motion has to do with why the committee should be struck. So far, the debate has been going on very, very well. I think that a reference to precedents in matters referred to in this motion would likely be admissible, unless the House otherwise requires it.

MR. LAUK: That is the very point. It's not a precedent to refer to a committee on privilege meeting on questions of privilege. It's not a

[ Page 2168 ]

question of privilege; it's a question of a breach of a statute, a quasi-criminal proceeding. To pretend that's a precedent is an outrage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is now seeking to debate again the area which he covered previously in his speech.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I feel that you were completely wrong in saying that was a precedent. You are entering into debate yourself. It's not a precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the first member for Vancouver Centre showing contempt for the Chair?

MR. LAUK: No, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully say Mr. Speaker is wrong by referring to the hon. ministers remarks as a precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: It is not a precedent.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker , I refer the House to the motion which was put before this House on November 5,1973, wherein the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, convened under the hon. member for Vancouver East, presently for Vancouver East and at that time for Vancouver East, Mr. Macdonald, a committee which saw in the proceedings of that year and that month, in fact within that day, four opposition members and seven government members take two days to bring in a decision. The decision was handed down on November 7,1973, wherein it was concluded by that committee that the Hon. R.M. Strachan did not lie to the House.

I refer to that not so much as to the conclusion of that committee, Mr. Speaker, but to refer to the two items brought up in the debate today: (a) the time that it would take for a committee; and (b) the structure of the committee.

I would like to remind both the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that they both sit an the committee of selection. This House today is not debating the structure of the committee or the make-up of the committee; this House is debating whether or not a committee should be struck. There is a difference.

I referred to the former committee of this House which was struck and I just find it inconsistent that charges of opposition members about numbers of opposition members versus government members should even be part of the debate. It obviously wasn't in the consideration of the New Democratic Party government at the time that a like situation existed in this House.

I also would like to refer to the references by both the North Vancouver-Capilano member as well as the Revelstoke-Slocan member, because it would appear that both have something in common in their debate in that they say that such a committee would have no credibility of this House. Again I refer you to that same situation of this House where a committee was asked to make some comment and some decision on the ability of a member to sit in this 'House. That is the question that was raised during the time that Mr. Strachan was before the committee.

Again, if there is no credibility for this House, Mr. Speaker, if there is no credibility within the judgment of our members of the House, than this House, with its reputation, with its attention, if you like, for the honourable attitude and the honourable qualities of each member of this House, which none of us would doubt and which all of us would uphold, it suggests to me that if that is in the minds of the hon. members for Revelstoke Slocan and North Vancouver-Capilano, they then feel that the credibility of the decision of that prior committee must be questioned. I'm sure they wouldn't want to do that, and I'm not putting that on them.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same kind of respect for the members of the committee in this House should be extended to this government, just as they expected it to be extended during the time that the opposition was the government in this House.

There is also a suggestion that if a member of this House were.... I think one of the members went so far as to say that if a member would commit murder or whatever.... The hon -first member for Vancouver Centre asked if this House would have the capability. Surely we wouldn't expect this House to make that decision. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that no one knows better than the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, who is a student of law and an honourable member of the legal profession. He knows full well that a criminal charge could be laid in that case and has been laid. If it happens, he has the capability himself of doing it.

It is strange indeed to think that he would question that this House would want to lend to his remarks any credibility that we would meet those sorts of charges. He has that capability. The right of a person to sit in this House would be, of course - and this is the question today - a question of this House. I doubt very

[ Page 2169 ]

much that if all of the arguments around whether it should be put to the court or to the House are even relevant today. I say that because in this judgment of Mr. Justice Dryer of the Supreme Court.... I will just simply read the last words of his judgment: "In my view, that is a matter for the Legislative Assembly to decide, and this court has no jurisdiction." Clearly the judge has given this House the direction. Clearly this judge has given our members the opportunity to say to the members of the House who are now under a cloud whether or not they should sit in this House.

I would like to ask each of the members on both sides of this House to address themselves to the very difficult position of those members, which we are bringing to light through this motion and to give it very, very keen consideration. Is it possible that there are members in this House today that have perhaps inadvertently gone against the Constitution Act? I think we could all say that we have all been concerned that we may have done so.

We have all said every single one of the 55 members in this house, that we are dealing with an archaic piece of legislation. We have all said that these members, who are under a cloud for taking a small amount of money in service to their province, in service to their community.... because they had to leave their homes and stay overnight to serve in a committee in another place and they accepted a motel or a hotel bill being paid in the service of their community, we are saying that they should not serve in this House? Is that the question before us? I suggest it is.

MR. SKELLY: They were not serving the House. They were serving the government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many, many people in this House, including the members who have spoken, who perhaps may be under that same cloud. Do any of these members in this House, for example ... ? Mr. Speaker, I am making this point to support an argument that I wish to bring before the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member obviously does not understand proper conduct in this House.

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please. What is your point of order?

MR. LAUK: I'm aghast that Mr. Speaker would look harshly at me after this minister has accused members of this House of breaching the Constitution Act without a substantive motion or any evidence whatsoever. I demand an unmitigated withdrawal and apology. Withdraw!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: The standing orders provide that if a member has a point of order, he shall stand and state his point of order. If necessary, required by the Speaker, he shall refer by number to the standing order which applies. No member in this House has the right to enter a second time into a debate by rising to his feet and suggesting that he has a point of order when in essence he does not have a point of order.

I have on at least one other occasion today asked the first member for Vancouver Centre whether he is demonstrating a contempt for the Chair in this House. It is obligatory for the Chair to maintain order according to the standing orders and I must do so without regard for any member. When a member abuses the rules of the House, I must draw it to his attention. I do so at this moment for the first member for Vancouver Centre.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I'm sure Mr. Speaker did not mean that I was abusing the rules when I rose on the following point of order: The hon. Provincial Secretary said, "Many members in this House who have spoken, " which is a specific reference, "way have breached the Constitution Act inadvertently." Either she should bring a substantive motion or withdraw that charge immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In order to absolve the matter, I will ask the hon. Provincial Secretary to withdraw any statement which would impute any improper motive to the first member for Vancouver Centre or any other member in this House. Would the Provincial Secretary please withdraw?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw any imputation. I would like to say to the members, however, that I think when you read the Blues you will see that I am supporting the archaic nature of the Constitution Act when I say that we have the opportunity, the possibility and the capability at any time of being in contravention of that particular Constitution Act, because it is archaic, and that was the point I was wishing to make.

The other point I wish to make in conjunction with that is that here we have members of

[ Page 2170 ]

the House who are under that cloud and because of that, as hon. members of this House, and with the respect hon. members have one for the other, no matter which party we represent, we are obliged to meet the responsibility that has been clearly stated in Mr. Justice Dryer's statement and opinion in his decision that this matter is a matter for the Legislative Assembly to decide and that the courts indeed do not have jurisdiction over that. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should now vote on the motion and bring to a decision of this House and take away the cloud that exists over some hon. members of this House, to clear it or to make some decision - one way or the other - as to how these members can conduct themselves in this province and in this House in the future. I so move the motion.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure in my own mind whether this is a question of privilege or a point of order, and maybe the Speaker can decide.

The Attorney-General is the chief law enforcement officer of the province, in charge of the administration of justice. It is clear to everybody in this chamber - whether they say so or not - and outside this chamber that a court composed of a majority of government members who are in support of their colleagues is not a fair trial. I ask that the Attorney-General withdraw from the vote or vote negatively on this motion, and that should be on the record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know either whether that's a point of order or a point of privilege. The hon. Attorney-General on the same point of order. We are no longer debating the motion.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I do not for one second concur with the premise that has been alleged by the hon. member - a most unfair and disgraceful premise that has been raised in this House. He has obviously, in his remarks, inferred that members of this House are not honourable members and he is referring to all members of this House. I cannot accept that premise at all. I would, though, say this, Mr. Speaker, since he has raised the question of my propriety in remaining in this vote, and I think there is absolute propriety for me to remain in this vote. But since he has questioned my propriety to remain here and vote, I would not do p my predecessor, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) did, when he not only voted in the matter, but sat on the committee. I'm quite prepared under these circumstances to ask the leave of the House if I may withdraw. If the House so gives me leave, I shall.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Attorney-General asking leave?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes.

MR. BARBER: From them!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Maybe you'd ask it again.

MR. SPEAKER: I distinctly heard a no.

MR. KING: A new point of order on the point of order raised by my colleague for Vancouver Centre. Just as an assistance to the Speaker, I would suggest that the matter is neither a point of order nor a point of privilege, but rather one of principle.

MR. SPEAKER: And therefore inadmissible at this point. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a novel procedure. I think in the 11 years that I've been here I've never run into this before. What's in the rules about it, the good Lord only knows. But if it would make everyone quite a bit happier, Mr. Speaker, I'm just delighted to withdraw, but not an the very scurrilous premise that has been suggested by the member from Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is Motion 16 standing on orders of the day at page 3 under the name of the hon. Provincial Secretary. Shall the motion pass?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is present in his seat. He was involved, as admitted, in the gravamen of the substantive motion. Other members have withdrawn. The minister should have the opportunity to withdraw pursuant to standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think that he would have the opportunity to withdraw, but the onus would be on the hon. minister as to whether or not he does withdraw.

MR. SMITH: On the same point of order, all of the members of the official opposition who voted in a motion to set up a similar committee to investigate circumstances surrounding

[ Page 2171 ]

one member of the Legislature, Mr. Robert Strachan, would like to withdraw as well.

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to be more of an information than a point of order.

Motion 16 approved on the following division:

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

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask leave of the House at this time to debate Motion 17, which is a courtesy resolution on a lighter matter. Unfortunately the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is unable to read the resolution because he has had some treatment on his eyes. But it's just to recognize the 25th anniversary of the B.C. Lions Football Club, and to convey our congratulations to that club. Since the anniversary is on Monday, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that in calling the orders of business, the prerogative again is with the government. I would ask whether or not we should call Motion 17.

Leave granted.

On Motion 17.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm really flabbergasted. Can you imagine getting a resolution through with no notes? However, I don't think I require any notes. This is a very important occasion and, I think, one that we should all be standing up and speaking to. Twenty-five years ago the B.C. Lions were under the able guidance of Mr. Annis Stukas, who was the first football coach. He called me, when I was at the University of Oregon, just before I graduated, and he said: "Look, I would like to have you come up and join the B.C. Lions; this is going to be our first year." I was quite excited about it, but Uncle Sam had other plans for me and I was required to do two years in the services and was only able to get up here in 1956.

However, 1 understand the B.C. Lions will be celebrating their 25th anniversary, starting on Monday, at the Bayshore where there will be a congregation of all the players from below the border in the United States and from all across Canada. As well, they will have a game on Tuesday against Montreal, which will be, I hope, an opportunity for some of the old players to meet again. I understand they will be marched out on the field and introduced. I am hoping to show up again, having retired some 15 years ago - it's amazing how time flies.

It is interesting too for me to reflect on this event, because it had its good days and it had its bad, and I think the game of football carries with it a lot of the ideals and principles that a competitive society relies on to develop character, and certain kinds of object lessons that individuals learn.

I got so much of it that I became quite bitter, I must confess, over the years. In fact, I rebelled against football and everything connected with it - the industry and the whole works - because I found it to be highly politicized. There was a lot of favouritism and all kinds of things were going on. Everybody seemed to be getting rich but me. (Laughter.) In fact, the guy who really got me turned on so much to rebel used to hold this seat that I'm sitting in now, Mr. Herb Capozzi.

However, as the years go on we all mellow and we look back and we can smile. I must say I'm looking forward to seeing Mr. Capozzi again. Of course, this time it will be a little bit different. He was an MLA and the general manager of the B.C. Lions when I played. Now I am going to be returning as the MIA and a former player. That fine gentleman did a very good job, incidentally, as general manager. We managed to win one Grey Cup and were in two during the years that he and Slim Delbridge were at the helm of the B.C. Lions.

I feel that the Provincial Secretary particularly would want to make a few remarks on this resolution because we I re going to see a lot of very special tourists in the city of

[ Page 2172 ]

Vancouver, I'm sure, the next few days. All of them, of course, will be wearing...

MR. BARBER: Football helmets.

MR. BARNES: ... football helmets, as the member for Victoria says.

But I'd like to say that I'm looking forward to meeting some of my relatives. There's Mac Burton, who played for the B.C. Lions and almost set a pass-catching record before he busted his Achilles tendon in a game against Edmonton some years back. I understand he's going to be in town. Of course, Joe Kapp and Willie Fleming and Muncy and all these fellows, I understand, will be returning. I don't know many of the new ones these days, but I'm looking forward to meeting them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weinmeister?

MR. BARNES: I don't remember him. He was before my time.

But it is a very rare opportunity for us to celebrate with this team, and I know Vic Rapp is going to bring things back to the level that they were when Dave Skrein was coach. He seems to be a very efficient and well respected coach, having been named coach of the year last year, and it looks as if he's going to be off to a good start again this year.

I see the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is giving me a little "T for time" sign. Perhaps I should take my time; this is such a rare occasion!

But on the basis of those remarks, I would move, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution standing in my name be now accepted. The one part that was not read by the member for Alberni is that this House send a letter to the B.C. Lions and players wishing them Godspeed or whatever. I wish them all the best on this special occasion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join the member for Vancouver Centre in urging that this House send a message of congratulations to the Lions on their 25th anniversary, and also say that their performance at most times has brought pleasure to most British Columbians, and that they have provided an opportunity for many people to play football, which was not a big game in British Columbia prior to their coming into being. I know some of my sons have played in minor football. I don't think we would have that in our communities if it hadn't been that they had a team with players they could look up to, such as the member for Vancouver Centre. I've looked up to him, all the way up, many times. (Laughter.) I liked it when the member said that he had mellowed over the years in many of the opinions he held about football. Perhaps he will mellow about some other things.

HON. MR. MAIR: He has. He's a capitalist.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It shows that member has the capacity for great growth, Mr. Speaker, and the opinions he held as a callow youth have grown into maturity. I only hope that that maturity that he's exhibiting can be passed on to some of his younger colleagues who sit with him.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Recreation and Conservation minister (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) also will be attending the Lions' game on Tuesday on behalf of the government. This government feels that recreation, whether it be football , or any of these sports, provides an opportunity for good physical health and also the discipline that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) talked about -self-imposed discipline and the discipline to try and reach a level of excellence. That sort of discipline, when it canes in a physical way, can also be applied to the rest of their life, whether it be in their chosen career or in their scholastic studies.

I know we of ten find that many of the young people who take part in sports in school and learn this discipline also are able to transmit that search for excellence to their studies. So sport and what it entails plays a large part in forming the character of our young people. Surely there is no better evidence of that final result than the second member for Vancouver Centre who moved this motion, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I rise on a point of order to make the point that the Premier made a moment ago. It may be perfectly obvious to all members of the House, but I too would like to associate myself with Slow-hands Em (Mr. Barnes) over there, and say to him that today is absolutely full proof, Mr. Speaker, that the best attention he has ever received in his life has been from Social Crediters - first of all Herb Capozzi, and secondly, this government.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in support of an outstanding institution in not only Vancouver but British Columbia, one that all British Columbians, I think, feel pride in.

I just wanted to ask the hon. member oppo-

[ Page 2173 ]

site who moved this motion whether he still thinks he can run 128 yards in front of Neil Beaumont and establish a record. Can you go that far still?

MR. BARNES: I know I've had my speech, and I won't....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot recognize the second member because he will close the debate. I must recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank the Premier for his kind words towards my colleague and. the B.C. Lions. It was so warm and reflective that I thought maybe my colleague would be the first opposition member to sit in the government cabinet. But barring that, I would like to say that it has been a real privilege to work with the second member over the last several years. fie has demonstrated why he was a member of the Grey Cup team in 1964 during those years. He has been a stalwart football player and a first-class MLA who has a lot of time for the ordinary folk in Vancouver Centre, something they hadn't had up until the time lie was elected.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my compliments to the member for Vancouver Centre who has brought forward this resolution recognizing the B.C. Lions.

I would just like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Lions have been training in Courtenay this year, in my constituency, and have provided many of the kids in the area hours of fun, watching the Lions at work.

But I would say to the member for Vancouver Centre that from what I hear, its probably a good thing that he is no longer playing with the Lions. They have suffered through the fine weather, which was a record hot spell in Courtenay, and as a result have been complaining bitterly about the heat. So I think the second member for Vancouver Centre is probably better off sitting here in the Legislature during that period of time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre closes the debate.

MR. BARNES: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , Neil Beaumont and I set a record in a game against Saskatchewan prior to the 1973 Grey Cup year, I believe it was, and the record was 118 yards, not 128. I'll never forget it. I didn't run the full distance; I only ran about 60 yards. Then I fell down blocking somebody and Neil took it the rest of the way. I must say lie did a very good job because there were still two or three other fellows standing on their feet and he had to do a bit of manoeuvring. 1 hope he shows up too. I haven't seen him over the years.

In closing the debate, I would just like to say in all sincerity, when I suggested there were ups and downs in this business, we talk about the pleasure being a star and the opportunities that young people have, and the character building, but it really is quite a test. Sometimes those who do not have the ability have to work twice as hard, and those who do have the ability have to be encouraged to work harder. In my case, I was sort of in between, and I guess it just got the better of me over the years.

Some of you will recall a book, called The Plastic Orgasm, that was written by my former wife. I'd like to raise that because there was a book that culminated some 20 years of pretty hard going and slugging as a football player. The things that were reflected in this book are the kinds of things that happen but are never told. Many times we only look at the pleasant side.

I must say, in all respect, even though I was hot and angry in those days, I do think it has a way of creating somewhat of a microcosm of what really happens in life in that field. I'm sure that in law and medicine and various other fields, people go through very similar experiences in reaching adulthood.

I think young people need to understand that it is not always playing games and winning that counts. In the end it's what happens to you as a person. Quite often our ball players think of the big contracts and of the glory of being stars - and that's really terrific - but somewhere along the line you find that you are looking back and maybe advising other young people. As the Premier pointed out, many of these football players who become stars and who are looked up to by youngsters have a rare opportunity to influence them in a constructive and positive way. Unless they can put together the total experience, quite often they give a distorted view.

Many parents have a distorted view of what should be happening to their youngsters. I see it in hockey, Little League baseball and various other activities where the parent wants to relive his own life through the youngster. That is not quite what we mean when we go to a ball game to enjoy an experience with these athletes. When the game is over, I

[ Page 2174 ]

think there is always a lot of life involved. There are always a lot of things going on which we don't always see and which the press doesn't always report. I am concerned about these things. I think that life doesn't begin and end with any one event. It's a continuum of various events.

With those remarks, I will say again that I am looking forward to meeting the players, though I found it to be traumatic - again, I must be candid - on occasion. I recall that when I went back to a high school reunion and saw some of those fellows whom I hadn't seen for 20 years, it was frightening. In fact, I was afraid to look in the mirror and realize what had happened to myself. This, I hope, will be a very pleasant and enjoyable occasion. Certainly one has to be prepared for some interesting experiences with people you haven't seen for 10 or 15 years coming back and telling you about what has happened. It's going to be great fun, in any event.

I suppose the government is going to be thinking twice about giving the opposition an opportunity in the future to speak. But, Mr. Speaker, you must admit that I haven't been offensive and I haven't used this opportunity to stab the government in the back. I've been most appreciative. I still appreciate everything that has been happening.

I will now move that my resolution be read a final time.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall Motion 17 pass?

Motion 17 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, if we could stray back to public bills and orders, it would be appreciated.

Bill 17, Mr. Speaker. Municipal Amendment Act, 1978.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, before making a few remarks with respect to Bill 17, which is now presented for second reading, I wonder if I might note the presence in the House of students from Claremont Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. Would the House please make them welcome?

MR. MUSSALLEM: With leave, I'd like to make an important introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We have with us today the mayor of Harrison Hot Springs, Mr. John Allen. I request you make him welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As my colleague the Attorney-General said: if we could stray back to the business of the House, after a most delightful and refreshing interlude. I'm pleased that the students in particular were present for that occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Act, as we know is an evolving instrument of policy in British Columbia or, indeed, in any other jurisdiction. Each year experience and changing circumstances necessitate reforms in the legislative mandate under which local governments operate. This year is no exception. Accordingly, Bill 17, the Municipal Amendment Art, 1978, contains a variety of useful and necessary amendments. The three members opposite may want to discuss this in second reading or in greater detail in committee or both. That, of course, is their option.

We have a series of amendments, some of which are related and some of which are not. The 1978 Municipal Amendment Act echoes its ancestors by presenting a mix of substantive and technical clauses. The topics they cover this year fall into three broad categories: regional district boards, municipal finance and land use.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

With your permission, I would deal with each in turn. The first major group of reforms will affect the composition of regional district boards. This government has become increasingly aware of the dissatisfaction associated with the present method of selecting municipal, directors to sit on a regional board.

Under the existing system, as you will know, municipal directors are simultaneously elected from among the successful candidates for council. The paradox of the existing system is that while municipal directors are not directly accountable to the councils on which they serve, their selection is basically a low profile byproduct of municipal elections. We believed that we had to do something about that paradox because it created friction and some confusion among councils, boards and indeed among some citizens.

In developing a solution, we were therefore guided by two principles. Firstly, that regional boards continue to be composed entirely of elected persons. I wish to repeat for emphasis, Mr. Speaker, that regional boards continue to be composed entirely of elected persons. Secondly, that stronger links be established between regions and municipali-

[ Page 2175 ]

ties. The resulting solution is embodied in this bill because it requires each council on an annual basis to appoint the appropriate number of regional board directors from among its own ranks. Electoral area directors will continue to be elected directly. This is, we feel, a compromise solution in that it corrects an accountability gap without drastically altering the underlying structure of municipal or regional government. Indeed, I'm satisfied with that compromise because it confers the twin advantages of providing an increased measure of accountability without undermining the integrity of regional boards.

Accompanying the reform of regional board representative selection is an improved method for filling vacancies. This new policy has several elements. Where the seat of either a municipal director, or an electoral area director as the case may be, becomes vacant, an alternate director who is the respective appointee either of the municipal council or the original electoral area director takes his or her place.

In the municipal case, the alternate director may in turn be replaced by a further council appointee. In the electoral area case, a new election takes place if the vacancy occurs before July I of the original director's final year of two years. Otherwise the alternate director serves out the unexpired term.

The present rule with respect to a vacancy of an electoral area directorship is that the alternate director hold the seat for the entire balance of the term regardless of the length of time that term has to run.

Taken together, these measures will improve the formation and functioning of regional boards. In particular, they should promote greater harmony between regional districts and municipalities. That benefit is well worth pursuing, Mr. Speaker, and is of concern to a number of people in British Columbia as we have discussed in this assembly before.

The second group of topics addressed by this bill might be classified as financial. In this group, members will find that both the problems and solutions are primarily technical. Last year this house adopted essential but complex assessment legislation. The government introduced major reforms aimed at making assessment a uniform and a rational process. One of the consequences of these reforms was a virtual remeasurement of the municipal tax base. We feel that local government is adjusting well to this system, and this ministry is facilitating the transition. Accordingly Bill 17 proposes amendments designed to ensure that municipal debt limits specified in the Municipal Act are defined in terms of the remeasured municipal tax base. Technical adjustments have also proven necessary to accommodate the effects of metric conversion. Municipalities are facing and will eventually have to complete the task of converting their frontage tax assessment rolls to metric measure. This year's amendment bill will allow them to do so without reference to the court of revision, which we feel has no logical role in so purely mechanical a process.

Also as hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, this ministry is actively involved in providing financial support for housing-related service installations. We operate a vigorous programme of front-end lending under section 215A of the municipal Act. The proposed amendment of this Section 1n Bill 17 will rationalize the approval of these loans and treat them as debenture debt for debt-limitation and credit-rating purposes.

In the land-use category the bill introduces some important amendments. Last year the power of municipalities to control the quality of development, to recover off-site costs and to exempt themselves from provincial approvals was significantly augmented. This year we're carrying the process one step further by placing major land-use decisions on what we know to be - and there will be a philosophical difference here - a more genuinely democratic basis. Amendments in this bill will change the approval requirement for zoning and official plan bylaws from two-thirds to a simple majority of the council or jurisdiction concerned. This reform will apply both to municipal councils and to regional boards. By introducing it, we seek to implement the principle that major land-use decisions of enduring significance should reflect a broad community consensus rather than the veto power of small factions. The land-use category also contains a technical clarification, Mr. Speaker. This bill confirms that development permit applications need not be submitted to the technical planning committee prior to consideration by a regional board. This, we suggest, is the logical consequence of existing legislative authority which already empowers a technical planning committee to review the basic land-use and density factors underlying any development permit at the time of zoning.

Mr. Speaker, you'll note also that the amendments this year, while perhaps likely to provoke debate, are certainly more brief than last year, as is the speech. Therefore I look forward to discussing the detail and the substance of this bill, to listening to comments by members of the House in second reading debate, and with confidence in the merit of

[ Page 2176 ]

the changes that we propose. I move second reading of Bill 17.

MR. BARBER: It sounds like the minister has just received as much applause for his speech as I'm going to for mine. Where is everyone on a Friday at 12:15 pm?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Charles, you know we're not likely to win a popularity contest.

MR. BARBER: Apparently not.

I was quite surprised to hear the minister in his opening remarks indicate that he feels that municipalities are, if I've quoted him properly, adjusting well to the new assessment procedures. A most unusual compliment. I wonder if the minister could right now tell the House when that speech was written. Have you got a date on the cover of it there? No, apparently not.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to close the debate?

MR. BARBER: Not yet, but you could whisper across the aisle. I'll listen. When was that note written?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, yesterday.

MR. BARBER: Let me repeat it. The minister said that he thought municipalities were adjusting well to the new assessment procedures. But, Mr. Speaker, you and I both remember yesterday's somewhat bizarre performance on the part of the minister and the Premier, who have now decided to attack the municipalities for sneaky practices and deceptive attitudes and who indeed yesterday told us that they were perhaps not adjusting at all well to the new assessment procedures and, indeed, in a sneaky and deceptive way, taking advantage of them to cover up their own practice. How ever, today in his introductory remarks -presumably written a week ago by the deputy minister - we see the minister congratulating the municipalities for doing what yesterday he criticized them for doing. That's one of the problems with a coalition government, Mr. Speaker, and it's one of the problems with this bill. You never quite know where they're at from day to day. One of the advantages for the opposition is that that's just fine by us; it makes it all the more difficult for them to get re-elected next time.

So we have to presume that the minister's speech notes were written before his somewhat bizarre attack yesterday on local government and, indeed, it's generally a pleasure to be able to stand up this year, after such an attack, because I think it has made it very clear whose side this government is on.

The Municipal Amendment Act we have this year makes it clearer than in any year previous just whose arguments they believe and whose interest they serve. It's extremely important to us when examining this bill -when you examine any bill that controls land use - that you ask the first and principal question: who stands to benefit? It's an extremely important philosophic point, Mr. Speaker, to ask the question whenever the rules surrounding control of land use and land benefits and development rights are altered: who stands to profit?

When you examine a bill that in fact reduces local control of land use, you have to ask the obvious question: who's going to benefit? And when you examine a bill that makes it easier to increase the value of land by making it easier to obtain rezoning, you have to ask: who stands to profit? These are reasonable questions that derive properly and logically from the bill presented here by the minister. This bill will make it easier for developers to take profits from the land that will now be easier to rezone. This bill makes it necessary for the minister to answer the questions we pose: who stands to benefit from these changes?

Well, I would argue, without any worry of contradiction, that no municipality in British Columbia stands to benefit from this change. No municipality, seeing the former provision of a two-thirds vote of those present now being reduced to a simple majority, stands to benefit. The point is, only developers and speculators will benefit from the Municipal Amendment Act brought in by this coalition.

Now it is, at least in this regard, a consistent action on the part of the coalition. They have always favoured developers from beginning to end - and in making my case I know you'll bear with me as I review for a moment the history of other changes made by this coalition to the Municipal Act since they took office.

When you ask the general question - who stands to profit? - you should also remember who has profited before under the coalition. Now what have they done before? First of all, they gave corporations the right to vote, and that includes development corporations and speculative corporations.

Does a corporation exist in human form? Of course not; a corporation is a legal entity. But no, they gave it the right to vote, and whose interests are served by that right? The interests of developers and the interests of

[ Page 2177 ]

speculators. But they did more. In 1976 they changed the Act to require that year that only two-thirds of those members of council present should be required to vote in favour of a zoning bylaw before that zoning bylaw became law. The previous provision was that two thirds of all of the members were required.

Who stood to profit from that halfway house that they set up at that time? No municipality, to my knowledge, asked for that provision. No neighbourhood group, I'm certain, ever wanted it. Only developers and speculators who take profit from the greater ease with which land can be rezoned for their profit stood to benefit from that provision. That's the second thing that they did in favour of developers.

Further, previously this government abandoned land-use contracts and instead instituted a system of what they called development permits. Just like we ask this morning of this bill, so we ask the committee to remember when making the case that this government is taking a servile attitude to the interests of development. So too, when they abandoned land-use contracts, did they do it for the developers, because no one else wanted it. The municipal councils didn't ask for it. I am not aware that the resolved in favour of it. Only the developers stood to benefit from that previous Act, just like this morning only the developers stand to benefit from the proposed reduction of two-thirds to a simple majority on council.

How else have the developers been served by this coalition? Well, the coalition abandoned impost fees. Before you cut me off, Mr. Speaker, hear me out. The argument I'm trying to make is that this amendment to the Municipal Act is part and parcel of a deliberate strategy by this coalition to serve the interests of developers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we must remember the rule of relevance in debate, and you are straying on this point.

MR. BARBER: I don't think I'm straying at all from the essential argument, Mr. Speaker, with respect. If we are to examine this change and to ask who profits now, it is only reasonable to ask who has also profited since this group came to power. Because there is a trend, there is a theme, there is a pattern and it is simply this: wherever developers' interests have come first and Municipal Act interests have come second in legislation, we know who votes for it and who votes against it. This side votes in favour of more local control; this side votes in favour of neighbourhood interests. That side votes in favour of developers and speculators. This morning, once again, we see the choice being made as it has been made so many times before. What we're concerned about is that this coalition, when ever asked to, gives in to developer interests.

In a moment I'll be referring to the Bawlf committee transcripts. It reveals with stunning clarity who wanted what out of this coalition. This bill this morning reveals with stunning clarity who gets what from this coalition. They will do anything and introduce any bill to pay back their election debts to developers and speculators in this province, and that's what we're doing with this bill this morning.

Finally, having abandoned impost fees, which also serve the interests of developers, you may remember from last year an amendment to the Municipal Act of grave consequence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have advised you that previous legislation is not to be discussed at this time. I would ask you again to come back to the bill presently before the House.

MR. BARBER: I am. I'm discussing the whole intent of this coalition as represented in this bill and, as an aside, other actions they have taken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that does not entitle a member to discuss previous legislation. We are discussing at this time the bill before the House.

MR. BARBER: I quite appreciate that. I respect and honour your advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then will you consider that advice, hon. member?

MR. BARBER: I'm considering it, indeed even following it, because that was the last point I was going to make about previous action when they amended the Municipal Act last year, section 879, to permit the minister himself to amend the bylaw that developers couldn't get the councils to amend for themselves.

I want to reiterate that it is an important matter when controls of land use are altered. Land is itself one of the fundamental generators of profit in a system like our own. Those who manage to persuade local government to allow you to do more with your land are those who manage to profit from the land that you own.

If that is done fairly and honourably, if there is no speculation that in an inflatio-

[ Page 2178 ]

nary way drives the price of land up out of sight, then there is perhaps no problem with it. However, when it's done this way you have to ask whose interests are being served. The only case to my knowledge that has ever been made by anyone in this province to reduce the two-thirds provision to a simple majority has been made not by developers publicly - although they made it to the Bawlf committee -but rather by those who are concerned about social housing. The only cases that have ever dealt in an honourable way - not concerned about private profit, but concerned about public gain, which would suggest that the two thirds vote be reduced to a simple majority -are those who have run up against the obstacle of others who would prefer that social housing not exist at all. If it has to exist, it exists only in some area of town where no one objects and no one cares.

Apart from that, this opposition contends that only developers and speculators stand to benefit from a provision that will make it simple and easier for them to obtain rezoning of their land for the sole purpose of profit. No one else benefits, no one else wanted it, no one else has asked for it.

Our opposition takes a very conservative approach to the question of land use. We recognize that when land has been rezoned and when a massive building has gone up on that now rezoned land, people in cities, people in towns who have to live with that will be so living for many years. It is our position that the more conservative and the more prudent approach to land rezoning and land control is the better one. We are not prepared to give away the interests of a whole community to serve those of a few developers as is this government. The conservative, cautious, prudent approach is one that we are proud to take and defend, and when we get back into government we'll reintroduce it, I promise you.

When rezoning is to be considered, that rezoning may only be approved by a significant number of people in that community, as reflected in the makeup of their municipal council or regional district. For a long time, the previous Social Credit government, which at least had principles, objectionable though some of them may have been, at least they were principles and they stuck by them.... That previous Socred government honoured the provision that two-thirds of all members of council shall be required to vote in favour of a zoning bylaw before that bylaw became law itself. Why did they do it? Well, perhaps because they shared with this opposition the fundamental conviction that prudence and conservatism and caution should be the order of the day when it comes to making significant rezoning changes that cannot be undone until the building is torn down half a century or a century later.

I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a problem that occurred in another Canadian province, which I think is most relevant indeed to this bill this morning. It shows what can happen when a municipal council is not prudent, not cautious, and not conservative. It shows what can happen when a government like the one opposite provincially or locally gets into power and gives the developers whatever they want, no matter what. It shows what happens when prudence and caution are not exercised.

In the town of Hull in the province of Quebec, across the river from Ottawa, several years back that council decided to authorize, under somewhat questionable circumstances, the building in a neighbourhood that did not want it, if I recall it properly, an 18-storey highrise apartment. The township of Hull, against the wishes of the neighbourhood, bullied through its council, the mayor leading the way, a provision which would have allowed the destruction of the family fabric of that neighbourhood for as long as that 18-storey building stood. Once again, let me make the case that when you rezone and allow that kind of massive construction in the heart of a family neighbourhood, you are doing to that neighbourhood what cannot be undone until 50 or 100 years later when the building is torn down.

Well, the township of Hull, foolishly, like the government of British Columbia, decided to give in to the speculators and the developers and they allowed the building permit. Sure enough, the building went up. But happily for the people of that family neighbourhood, they had on their side a neighbourhood action committee that chose to protest from the beginning this unwarranted and socially unprofitable ruining of their neighbourhood. They were particularly lucky in that the chairman of their committee is a brilliant lawyer, a woman who had studied and learned law from beginning to end. What happened in Hull and what will happen in British Columbia? The building went up and no one wanted it but the developers. The building went up in the heart of a neighbourhood which would have been ruined had the people not won what they finally won.

The neighbourhood action committee read the law a little more carefully than the town did and discovered a provision and a mistake. They discovered that the zoning bylaw had been

[ Page 2179 ]

written and the land itself had been surveyed just slightly incorrectly. They took it to court. They determined in court that because of those errors, the zoning bylaw was itself wrongful and the building permit should not have been issued.

Do you know what happened in Hull almost unbelievably? The developer was forced to tear the brand new building down. It had never been occupied; it was never occupied. Six months after the building went up, the cranes came back and knocked the building down. The developer went bankrupt and is now suing the town of Hull. It was, in my judgment, a great victory for local government that should have been won in the first place. It was a great victory for the families and the neighbourhood that did not want to and should not have had to suffer the intrusion in their neighbourhood of an ugly, damaging, to say the least, unwelcome intruder - this idiot proposal for a highrise in the heart of their family neighbourhood.

Is it going to be necessary - and if this bill passes, it might be - for other neighbourhood action groups in British Columbia to try and find other legal solutions to a remedy that should be fundamentally social? If this passes, we will see neighbourhood after neighbourhood suffer what the people of Hull suffered. If this passes, it will be even easier than before for developers and speculators to use all of the soft words, the quick money, the offers of support and help to win their way wherever they decide to build their buildings. If this passes, it will be all the more difficult for neighbours to defend the integrity of their neighbourhoods. It will be all the more difficult for families to move somewhere, intent on staying put and discover, in fact, that the developers are after them to build the unwanted highrises, the unwanted apartments, the unwanted cracker boxes that have ruined neighbourhood after neighbourhood across this province.

Who stands to benefit from a provision that makes it easier to rezone land? Do the neighbourhoods stand to benefit? Are they protected? The answer is clearly and obviously no.

Do the families who move into those neighbourhoods hoping the neighbourhoods will remain the same, largely and humanly, so that they can bring their families up in a green and pleasant place, stand to benefit from this provision? The answer is simply and obviously no.

Does a municipal council, already beset with nothing but pressure, leverage and advice in the front room and the back room from developers, stand to benefit from the inevitably greater pressures that will now result from this change? The answer is clearly and obviously no.

Who alone benefits from making it easier to rezone land? Obviously only those people who wish to use land for private profit against what may be the public interest. Again, the only case that has ever been made for doing what the government wants to do is in the case of those who are in favour of social housing and have seen it occasionally obstructed by the two-thirds provision. Apart from that, no one else has ever made a case.

Where do we find the roots of this? Who in fact wanted this to come down? Well, to find that answer we have to look at the documents that the government has received. One of them is the transcript of the now notorious Bawlf committee on housing, the one which, because of the mishandling of it by the government, may see three government members lose their seats.

In July, 1977 - I have it in Hansard - the minister assured us that it would only be a matter of days before the transcripts of the Bawlf committee were made public. The minister said that was all that would be required before we could find out who had given what advice to the secret hearings of the Bawlf committee.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't a matter of days at all, it was a matter of years - more than a year. Why did the government choose to delay as long as they possibly could making public the otherwise secret advice they had received from developers and speculators across the province? Clearly and simply the reason was this: those developers and those speculators are the real authors of the bill we are debating this morning. They are the ones who asked the government for privileges. They are the ones who demanded of the committee even more rights and even more benefits. They're the ones who ca with the famous tin cup and asked that it be filled up by the speculators' government.

One of the reasons they delayed so long in making those transcripts available to the public is because we see revealed in them the obvious intention of privilege to maintain and improve itself in the province of British Columbia. It is only privilege that wants more privilege and gets it under this bill. It is only the major landowners, the major developers and the major speculators who stand to benefit from making it easier to rezone land and easier to take profit from it. Where do we find the proof of this? In the Bawlf committee transcripts which the government sat on for years.

[ Page 2180 ]

This government stands condemned by its own committee whose hearings result this morning in Bill 17. That committee never went public, the consequence of which we see this morning. It never allowed people in open hearing to decide what was happening.

I have a memo here, a memo signed by Mr. Thomas Dykes, then the co-ordinator of the Joint Committee on Housing, the real author of this bill, dated August 27,1976. That's how long they've been hiding it, Mr. Member. The committee is addressed to a municipal administrator in the province of British Columbia. The letter says:

"Re: Joint Committee on Housing.

"Further to my letter to you dated earlier this week, please find attached a schedule of presentations. Hearings in Prince George will be held in the city council chambers on September 22. The Vernon hearings will be held on the afternoon of September 23 and all day September 24 in the North Okanagan Regional District offices. These hearings will not be open to the general public. The time allotted to specific hearings is detailed on the attached schedule.

"The committee is looking forward to meeting with you and we thank you for your participation.

"Yours sincerely, Thomas M. Dykes, co-ordinator, Joint Committee on Housing.

The letter is written on letterhead of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated August 27,1976.

This memo and others which we've seen make it perfectly clear that the notorious Bawlf committee operated in secrecy from beginning to end. It wasn't until we found out that illegal payments had been made that we were able to force the government Lo reveal its hand, and after years, literally years, after the committee held its hearings were we able to obtain the transcripts of just what went on behind those closed doors.

The evidence is clear and the evidence is damning: only those who have privilege and want more privilege can be satisfied with the bill like the one we're debating this morning. In the Bawlf committee they were the ones who asked behind closed doors for more. In this bill they're getting more.

Do they deserve it? In the opinion of this opposition the answer Lo that is no, they don't; they've already got quite enough. Already municipal councils are under enough pressure to give in to developers; already we've seen too many neighbourhoods ruined by unwanted and unwarranted intrusion of developments that the neighbours and the families in them simply don't desire or wish or, had they any real power in the matter, would vote for.

I want to say for the third time, because I want the message to be very clearly understood, this opposition takes a cautious, conservative and prudent approach to land use and land control.

We believe that if these changes are to be made, they must be made by the great will of the people of that community in which the changes are to take place. If they are not, that community has the right to say: "No, thank you, we don't want this." Otherwise they are going to have to live with it for a long time. It's only occasionally, as we see in the township of Hull, that they are in fact able to reverse a decision and tear a building down - God bless them - that no one wanted except the developers, that no one wanted except a few of the developers' friends on that council.

We take a cautious approach. We demand two-thirds. The previous Social Credit government demanded two-thirds. For years in this province that has been the rule, and everyone knows it. For years in this province it has been the requirement that no person wanting land rezoned for their profit and their benefit should be able to do so without a significant element of that community and that council approving the matter. This year the developers have now got everything they wanted. Years ago Social Credit wouldn't have given it to them. During our administration we didn't give it to them. Under this one, step by step, they've been getting everything they wanted.

I cannot say strongly enough how much we are opposed to this provision. I cannot predict often enough the ruin that will result in neighbourhood after neighbourhood when this bill is passed. We cannot argue powerfully enough how dangerous a provision this is to the integrity of councils, to the integrity of their decision-making, and to the more special integrity of the communities and the neighbourhoods they serve. This is a bad bill. It is a dangerous precedent. The only people who profit are developers, who have profited quite enough.

There is one other aspect of the bill that we also find objectionable. The objection we take is of a different order, however. The government last year established a regional district review committee. The government gave that committee the power to inquire into virtually all matters concerned with the governing of regional government itself in the province of British Columbia. That committee has done a lot of work. That committee has met

[ Page 2181 ]

with a lot of people. That committee, unlike the notorious Bawlf committee, has met in public. That committee's results will be made public. The transcripts, if any, will also be made public not years later, but days later.

The regional district review committee established by the government was mandated to inquire into, among other things, voting representation in regional districts, because that is part of the whole question assigned to them, which was: what is the power and what should the power be of regional government in British Columbia?

When you ask about the power of regional government, you must ask about the assigned power of regional government. When you do that, you must ask about voting rights. When you do that, you ask who gets to vote and who doesn't, and how they shall be elected to manage that vote.

This government has deliberately, for God knows what purpose, undermined and subverted its own regional district review committee. This government has taken back part of the task of that committee, for God knows what purpose, and, having taken it, has made its own decision about the composition of voting rights by regional government in British Columbia. Why have they done this?

Again you must ask whose interest is being served. In this case we conclude that just like the Premier and so many others, they have panicked. They have panicked because they see regional government under attack. They have panicked because the interim solution they provided the regional district review committee has not been providing the answers they wanted to hear. For short-term political gain, subverting and undermining their own committee, they have brought in this amendment which makes profound changes to the voting rights and the makeup of regional government in this province. They have panicked again. Even before their own report comes down, they have panicked and rewritten the law. I don't understand why they have done that, unless they think there is some short-term political advantage to be gained.

As I have argued as Municipal Affairs critic, there is a long-term advantage to be gained by a scientific and thoughtful study of the whole of local government in this province, including regional government. That study surely must include voting rights of regional government.

Part of that study was initiated by the minister, after we called for it. That study is called the regional district review committee. It has, in fact, been examining the question to which this bill is addressed this morning. So in a very special sense, this bill is totally premature. It anticipates advice from the government's own committee, but it does so without real knowledge, and it does so without any respect for that committee at all. It has, in fact, subverted and undermined that committee. When we get to that particular section of the bill, we will be making that point again in a somewhat different way, and I hope the government respects it at the time.

Why the minister himself has undercut his own appointed committee is a remarkable question to which the minister has provided no answer - not in the speech that was written a week ago and delivered this morning, and not in the answers that he will provide as the debate goes on.

This opposition will vote against Bill 17. We will vote against it on the two principal grounds that the change from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority requirement is offensive to neighbourhood and family interests, and serves only the interest of developers. We will also vote against it on the ground that the government itself has undermined the efforts of its own committee in a premature and foolish way.

I, for one, don't wish to make long-term decisions about regional government until we've seen their report. The report is not yet ready. This amendment should not yet be in place, if ever. On those two grounds alone, we oppose the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , the MLA for the Cariboo, who is absent from the House due to illness, in the gallery today are 24 students from Quesnel junior secondary, grades 9 and 10, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Calderwood, Mr. Cunningham and Miss Snow. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. DAILLY: I take my place in this debate just in the waning hours of this morning session, Mr. Speaker, because not only do I personally feel very strongly about these amendments and wish to register my opposition as a member of the opposition, but I'm really wanting to speak to the minister in representing the municipality of Burnaby, for which I am one of the MLAs. I'm pleased to see there's one Burnaby MLA here along with myself. The other one, unfortunately, is not here. So I hope they will have a chance to take part in

[ Page 2182 ]

this debate.

The other two Burnaby MLAs I'm sure have received what I've received from the Burnaby municipal council, which is a statement completely in opposition to the two main amendments this minister has brought before this House today. They are the one on the changes of the percentage required for the zoning bylaw changes and, of course, the change of no more elections for regional districts.

Mr. Speaker, I know you're aware that the Municipality of Burnaby is a large one, which actually, as far as population goes, is larger than Prince Edward Island. Now I'm not saying size alone should require that minister to pay more attention to the Municipality of Burnaby, but I think that the minister, who has visited Burnaby and met with the council, is quite aware that it's a very responsible council, representing a great number of citizens in the lower mainland, and should be listened to. The council, as I say, Mr. Speaker, is not made up of a majority of members of the New Democratic Party, which was referred to in those terms when I spoke against some other amendments in last year's session. I think the minister is aware of that, and I hope that we don't have to listen to that sort of comment to destroy the arguments that are being posed on this side. Even if it were, Mr. Chairman, it would be rather a weak defence of amendments which certainly should be scrutinized very carefully.

The majority of the council members are opposed to these amendments. Now the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has elaborated very well and very clearly the reasons for the objections. But I would like to put into the record very specifically what the Burnaby council members actually approved and passed in session in Burnaby, and what they sent on to the minister - and, I believe, also to the Premier.

One thing we do not understand is why the minister - as the member for Victoria pointed out - is persisting in pushing through changes in reference to regional districts, when he already has a study underway. That is hardly what one would call consultation; and yet this minister, from the time he assumed his office, has made a great point of saying - because he's been a former alderman himself and mayor - that he believes in and understands the necessity of consultation.

So I believe that the minister has much to explain to the councils of this province, who are very concerned over this move. Why set up a major study and then turn around, before the study is completed, and bring in a major amendment? It certainly doesn't give much confidence out there to those people who sit on councils, work very hard, give their input to these studies, and then find that the minister has moved ahead with complete disregard for the representations and concerns of the councillors and aldermen of this province.

Basically the Burnaby council has stated: "Whereas the regional district review committee is conducting a public inquiry into the role, function and election procedures of the regional districts of British Columbia, and whereas the provincial government is proposing a major amendment in section 771" - which we are discussing now - " before the findings of the regional district review committee are completed and made public, and whereas this major amendment will disenfranchise" - this is the point which we in the official opposition are objecting to and which the Burnaby council is objecting to - "municipal electors from directly electing the regional board municipal director of their choice, in that municipal directors will now be appointed annually by resolution...."

Now in a large municipality like Burnaby, surely the citizens have the right to elect who they want to represent them on a board as important as the regional board for that lower mainland area. We do not understand why this right has been taken away from them. We listened to the minister in his opening remarks. There is nothing in his arguments that would give any reason whatsoever for the removal of this. Has he had pressure? From what group? From where?

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think the minister has to tell us if there has been a widespread demand for this change. To our knowledge, there has not been. One of the largest councils in the whole province is asking the minister to stop, to not do it, to hold back on it. They also are very concerned, of course, about the whole matter of changing the zoning percentage when it comes to voting on changes in zoning bylaws.

The member for Victoria went through major points in our concern, and as time is going past, I just want to briefly read into the record the Burnaby council's main objection to this. I hope that the two other Burnaby MLAs, who seem to be talking about other things, will get up in due time and explain to this House and later to the Burnaby council whether they are going to support this or vote against it for the good of the municipality of Burnaby.

What Burnaby municipality says, Mr. Chair-

[ Page 2183 ]

man, is that:

"Whereas there has been no public outcry to amend the voting procedures related to official community plans, land-use contracts and zoning bylaws.

"And whereas the adoption of official community plans, land-use contracts and zoning bylaws have the potential to drastically change the character and population density of municipal neighbourhoods;

"And whereas in section 704 (l) of the 1973 edition of the Municipal Act, an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the council was required to adopt, amend or repeal a zoning bylaw.

"And Whereas this procedure is considered superior to the current provisions recommended by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and provides even greater insurance that unsuitable official community plans, land-use contracts and zoning bylaws will not be enacted;

"Therefore be it resolved that the Burnaby council write to the minister, to the Premier and to the three Burnaby MLAs and all members of the Legislature, recommending that the minister does not proceed with this change."

Mr. Speaker, I see by the clock that time is getting on, so I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Bawlf presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Libraries Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SCIENCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Science Council of British Columbia Act.

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

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with us this afternoon are two guests from the Bay area of San Francisco, whom I'm sorry to say were not here earlier to hear my remarks about the B.C. Lions. Mac Burton, who is a cousin of mine, was on the team during the Grey Cup years. He is in the gallery with his friend, Gloria Franklin. I'm hoping that they will enjoy their stay. Will you join me in making them welcome?

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.