[ Page 1073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways estimates.

On vote 211.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 1073

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 1074

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1075

Mr. Barrett –– 1075

Mr. Mussallem –– 1078

Mr. King –– 1079

Hon. Mr. McGeci –– 1080

Mr. Lauk –– 1081

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1082

Committee of Supply: Auditor-General estimates.

On vote 3.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1082

Supply Act, No. 3, 1979 (Bill 24), Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction, first, second and third readings and report — 1083

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing, Orders and Private Bills. Fourth reading

Mr. Mussallem –– 1084

Routine Proceedings

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. VanderZalin –– 1084

Division on second reading –– 1086

Royal assent to bills –– 1090

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture report on B.C.'s salmon industry.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 1090

Appendix –– 1090

FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today two ladies from my constituency, Mrs. West, and her daughter, Mrs. Tungehaug.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed to the House Leader, you will recall that last evening I expressed some doubt as to whether or not leave was required to present a report from a select standing committee after proceedings in the Committee of Supply had been concluded. I have reviewed the matter, lest the House might be improperly impeded from receiving reports from its various committees which have been empowered to report from time to time.

Ordinarily, when the priority granted to supply has been satisfied, the House, in the absence of a motion under standing order 33, could revert to routine proceedings, which, under standing order 25, includes a provision for presenting reports by standing and special committees. Last evening, however, routine proceedings had been passed over by a motion fixing the hour of the next sitting of the House. The Journals reveal that in the past this has been permitted in the absence of objection taken. However, I am satisfied that the procedure followed last evening was correct. In future, if it is desired to present a report, it should be one after the Committee of Supply has reported, and before other business. Leave will then not be required. Leave will, however, still be required to move adoption of such a report without notice. Thus endeth the lesson.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMMUNICATIONS AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 211: minister's office, $168,872 — continued.

HON. MR. FRASER: A few questions were asked last evening, and I will now attempt to answer the ones that weren't answered last evening.

First of all, I'll deal with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) regarding the highway problems in Nanaimo. You asked about the Transfer Beach walk at Ladysmith, Mr. Member. That was looked at last year and an overhead signal was installed. It appeared to be working well. However, in view of the information regarding the false sense of security, my ministry will take another look at this summer for a better solution.

Regarding the Nanaimo bypass, that's a very long-range plan and our ministry, in conjunction with the city, is advocating a couplet arterial system and we're working with the city on that as a first priority.

Regarding boundary changes of highway districts in the area of your concern, I'm advised that Lantzville maintenance will be done from Parksville. The boundaries between the highway districts are being altered to align with the new boundaries of the extended Nanaimo city limits. If people in Lantzville find Port Alberni too remote for permits, et cetera — which, I suggest, they probably will — we will consider making arrangements at Parksville or Nanaimo regional office to accommodate that.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), expressed concern regarding the road through North Vancouver–Capilano. A feasibility study has been initiated at Lonsdale-Westview, and diamond interchanges are being investigated. I'd comment here that for diamond interchanges the acquisition of property is quite high. There has been a tender called for a pedestrian overpass at Jones Avenue. That tender call is out at the present time.

The same member for North Vancouver–Capilano brought up the subject of highway beautification in North Vancouver. This program is being reviewed in light of extensive works to come in the future at Upper Levels–Westview area, Lonsdale, Mountain Highway and Mount Seymour Provincial Park. We don't want to do a lot of landscaping where reconstruction is imminent.

I'd like to comment on landscaping generally. In 1978-79 we spent $270,000 on landscaping on new construction. In 1979-80 we plan on spending $620,000 in new construction areas. We've had extensive landscaping done in the Victoria area and the Upper Levels; the West Vancouver area is complete. Knight Street is complete, Mr. Chairman. You'll be interested to know about that. The one I'm very happy about is the landscaping and beautification that's been done on the 401 freeway from Barnet Street all the way to Chilliwack. That's certainly made a lot nicer driving atmosphere. North Vancouver is the next one to be done.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) dealt with the largest issue we have: the traffic mess in the lower mainland generally. I'll deal with the specifics the member brought up.

There are no plans for upgrading Kingsway. Left-turn prohibitions are not possible due to poor support street systems in Burnaby.

Marine Way. Sandfill is being dredged now. Construction will start next year on Marine Way.

Highway 1. Extra laning is not advisable, and connection at the west end is improved. The attitude of engineers is, why expand the freeway, which is now four-lane, to six? There's no place for the traffic to go off it. Our main problems are that we have to address those.

The Barnet Highway. Design work is underway to four-lane the remaining two-lane section. Once the design work is completed, we will be in a position to issue a tender call. I certainly consider that a missing link.

Newcombe-Stormont. Burnaby is presently completing its transportation plan. It includes this road. This ministry is doing design work, and there is some debate about the standard of the design. The debate is going on with Burnaby, and we are definitely addressing that with the municipality of Burnaby.

Edmonds Street is a municipal street and the municipality would construct it if it were to be done.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is not here this morning. I wish he was, because he was trying to fight the provincial election. He said he had a lot of people from all sides in his riding, and I was one of them. I appreciate that, and maybe he could appreciate my position. I didn't have anybody in my riding from any side.

[ Page 1074 ]

He did make a point that the Redford Street contract was let just prior to the election. I want to advise him that the Redford Street contract was awarded October 26, 1978 — that's a long time prior to the election call. I believe he said it was outstanding for three years. It is my information that this job had been outstanding for ten years. In any event the job is almost completed, but I didn't quite get his connection in regard to the election.

He also mentioned the Sproat Lake section. I believe there has been a section of that road paved this year.

Another item he brought up, which is certainly of public interest, is uranium, and whether we're using radioactive gravel in the Highways ministry work at Beaverdell. I would just like to report to the House. Mr. Chairman, that all ministry gravel pits and borrow pits, as well as the road service of Highway 33, have been tested with a sensitive radiation meter, and no radioactive material is present. The member's concern about that should have been looked after.

Yes, the high-profile project in that member's riding, as well as that of the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — the road from Cumberland to Port Alberni.... I believe it was estimated last night that it would take 150 years or something to complete it at the rate we're going. All I want to say is we are spending additional funds on that this year — $40,000. I believe last year it was $20,000 and the year before it was $10,000. It is a forestry road, but Highways are contributing to the upgrading. I am aware of the high interest in that in both communities. We will continue to proceed on that but it hasn't got the highest priority that other roads have.

I think that pretty well looks after most of the questions that weren't answered last evening, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 211 approved.

Vote 212: general administration, $6,630,237 — approved.

Vote 213: highway maintenance, $156,326,179 — approved.

Vote 214: highway construction — capital, $160,258,637 — approved.

Vote 215: hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 216: government-owned residences maintenance, $50,000 — approved.

Vote 217: engineering branch, $704,715 — approved.

Vote 218: weighscale branch, $3,186,928 — approved.

Vote 219: motor vehicle branch, $14,209,889 — approved.

Vote 220: motor carrier branch, $1,025,582 — approved.

Vote 221: Motor Carrier Commission, $311,660 — approved.

Vote 222: transportation policy analysis, $1,306,990 — approved.

Vote 223: air services branch, $2,073,585 — approved.

Vote 224: local airport assistance, $2,112,188 approved.

Vote 225: British Columbia Ferries — subsidy, $51,386,950 — approved.

Vote 226: telecommunications service branch, $15,672,054 — approved.

Vote 227: communications system development and regulation branch, $894,798 — approved.

Vote 228: building occupancy charges, $16,750,000 — approved.

Vote 229: computer and consulting charges, $2,646,100 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $4,307,865.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under vote 1 the Speaker cannot speak for himself, and I gather the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Curtis) answers this vote.

Vote 1 includes legislation; it includes the cost of running the caucuses, et cetera. Having dealt with the government for four years on a rather ad hoc basis, as far as the committee and the House is concerned, as Whip, I would like to say a word or two about our democratic process.

One of the ways to see democracy flourish is to see to it that the system under which we work, a system of checks and balances, works well. The American system, as we know, has built-in checks and balances in a different way. Ours is on a party basis, whether we like that or not, and it is on the two-sides-of-the-House basis. One of the ways everyone is represented is by seeing that an opposition is given an opportunity to work on behalf of all the people in the province, as the government is given that opportunity.

The government is in the driver's seat in terms of budget. The government sets the budget for themselves, and for the opposition. To date, over a period of four years, as the person dealing on behalf of the opposition with the government, oftentimes indirectly and sometimes almost directly, I have found very little input has been accepted from the opposition.

The opposition asks for one thing: to be provided with an ability to perform on behalf of the people of our province. That ability is impaired if, in fact, the opposition don't have at their disposal access to research, information and assistance in a huge province with a huge budget, such as we have in British Columbia today.

Mr. Chairman, we are no longer bush-league. One way to stifle the opposition is to see to it that everything has to be done by the individual, with no assistance provided for that individual. I've been a minister of the Crown. I know the access a minister has to research or to any other kind of information that minister wants. I also know what access an opposition member has. It's grossly inadequate.

The opposition in this House unanimously declares that we have always suffered from inadequate assistance, and

[ Page 1075 ]

that today, in this age of enlightenment, we are no better off proportionately than we have been in the past.

I was shocked when I noted when we first came here there seemed to be an olive-branch approach to the way British Columbia's business would be run in terms of the opposition, vis-à-vis the government — only to find nothing has improved in that respect. Vote 1, Mr. Chairman, has not been improved proportionately for the opposition in British Columbia.

For a long time I've thought about whether or not to say this publicly, but I have no choice but to say that when dealing with the opposite members, as I have done for four years, I found I have not been dealing with anyone with the ability to negotiate — only to carry messages. We have been dealing indirectly with the Premier in every way in terms of our staffing in this building and outside this building.

The only thing I'm discussing is our grossly inadequate staffing. It is proportionately the same as it has been over the past four years. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is totally inadequate and totally insufficient. I'm shocked at the way the Premier has handled this proposition.

Mr. Chairman, I can say nothing more than this: the way the Premier has treated this situation shows it has been handled in the way that only a petty person could do it. He has been nothing less than chippy in the way he's dealt with the opposition. Until this province is placed in the hands of a person with his authority who understands the need for democracy — and that's the only way that democracy can flourish — until the Premier or his successor is blessed with that kind of insight, we will continue to go on the way we have with the recrimination, the bad feeling and the lousy reputation that this province has had — and it has been under Social Credit for lo, these many years.

I object, and will continue to object. I'm asking only one thing: that the people in this province be given a break. And they can only get a break with an opposition that's given their right — nothing less, nothing more.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The statements by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) would perhaps leave an impression in this committee which should not be left without reply. I gather that there is some difference of opinion on two sides of the House with respect to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly as the member for New Westminster spoke.

There is some difference of opinion with respect to the amount of money which is to be allocated for the official opposition caucus activities and staffing. I think that the committee should know that I am informed by my staff that there is a global budget. It's a block budget, and it amounts to some $358,800 for permanent staff within this fiscal year — one-third of a million dollars — plus an annual global budget of up to $16,900 a month for sessional staff, and that's based, as many estimates are, Mr. Chairman, on a five-month estimate at $84,500. That commences in the next session.

I would not want to remain silent after the rather strong statement made by the member for New Westminster, without also reminding the people of British Columbia that the funding for the opposition activities within the building, in session and out of session, is significantly increased over that which applied a year ago. We have $358,800 for permanent staff — one-third of a million dollars — quite apart from the additional sessional allowances which are recognized as being part of an official opposition's duties.

I don't think this government needs to apologize at all for the allocation which has been made. We will disagree over dollar amounts — I suppose that's inevitable — but the government does not accept the statements of the member for New Westminster and does not offer an apology with respect to the amount which has been allocated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: There are two matters at issue here. One is the block vote which I will come to in terms of dollar value, and the other is a matter of a role in this Legislature.

It goes without saying that no legislature can operate unless there is what we have termed in every House in the Commonwealth informal discussion between government and opposition. No House can function unless there is communication between the official opposition and the government of the day, regardless of political party. In my experience, I know of no legislature in the Commonwealth that doesn't have what are known as "gentlemen's agreements."

In this particular debate we have the rare opportunity to discuss our problems in public. Obviously they should be discussed in private, but there has been a breakdown in communication, so this is the one opportunity for us to have some sensible, mature. public discussion to get the private discussion back on track again.

I don't say this as a means to separate the members of the House, but I don't think it's appropriate for members who weren't here in the old Socred era to glibly throw remarks across the floor. They do not remember the conditions we functioned in at that time. If they did, they would remain silent at this particular moment.

The former members of this House will recall that, at one time in this Legislature, we did not have hourly rules that were kept. We did not have offices for MLAs, and we did not have the services that come anything near what we have now. When I first arrived here, the government members had a large caucus room out of which they functioned, and no offices. The opposition had a large caucus room out of which they functioned, and no offices.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We had a phone.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, my good friend, you and I remember what I'm saying. It is worthwhile for the other members just to be gently reminded of the conditions we functioned under: 16 opposition MLAs worked out of one room, and the government backbenchers worked out of a room of similar size. It was no larger than a doubling of the Whips' present quarters. As for the Liberal members at that time, the five of them were jammed into one small office. The working conditions were absolutely primitive. We functioned in that way from the early fifties until 1971. In the last year before the Social Credit government was defeated, we had the first changes, including a telephone for

[ Page 1076 ]

an MLA, a space to sit down for an MLA, and a space to go and take a constituent to talk to them — if you scheduled it. There was a lineup of government members, opposition members and Liberal members to use the same space.

We've come a long way since then, but it's important in the context of this debate to understand what our history was. Sixteen of us functioned in one room; files were piled all over. There was no permanent staff other than temporary sessional staff for backbench MLAs, whether they were Liberal, NDP or Socred. In 1971 I believe that the Liberal members finally won the right to have a permanent secretary for their party. The Leader of the Opposition at that time finally won the right to have an executive assistant. We're not talking about rights; we're talking about things that should have been established in this House 40 years or 50 years ago.

Once the break came in the last year of the Social Credit administration in 1971, and once the backbench MLAs began to realize that they were not talking about privileges but about rights, we moved to discussing whether MLAs should have a full-time secretary. Budgets were reaching billions of dollars every year, and we got around to discussing whether or not an MLA should have a full-time secretary. At that time the MLAs' stipend had gone from the magnificent sum of $5,000 a year, when I arrived here, to the publicly shocking figure of $12,500. Nobody wanted to talk about salaries, and nobody wanted to talk about working conditions. These are the gentle things that we politicians don't like to discuss.

The moves were made in 1971, and in 1972 there was a change of government. In its haste to recall every bit of the working conditions we had functioned under as an opposition, the government moved towards a policy of giving the MLAs an office — is that a revolution? — and giving them their own phones, and beginning to move towards a decent salary, so that people from all walks of life could be attracted to run for office, regardless of party. Is there anything wrong with that? The system depends on every single party having the ability to go out into the general community to say: "Look, we'd like you to run for our party. These are the working conditions. You're even going to have an office; you're even going to have a phone." This is what we're talking about today. We have come a long way in a few short years.

What happened that prompted the Whip to make the statements that he did? When we returned after the election, the Premier and I had a meeting in his office, the way it should be in a normal legislative session. We had a good talk, and the conversation included the mechanical problems of running a legislature. There were no major political overtones, no heavy-duty major debates between government and opposition. What do we need to run the Legislature? Is there anything wrong with that? Is there anything wrong with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition sitting down and saying what the needs are to correct the working conditions?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Who's the leader?

MR. BARRETT: You may throw over all the remarks you want, Mr. Member, but this debate is more important than the present members who sit here. Either we begin to grow up and set working conditions that make this place easier for government members and opposition members to serve in, or we allow petty politics to overcome our responsibility to leave this a better Legislature than when we came here.

We had a discussion and a committee was established. I took the position that once a committee was established to discuss the working conditions of MLAs, it would be the delegated responsibility and authority of those people who negotiated for the official opposition to make decisions. They would have the authority to give commitments and to come to agreements. They were to report back to our caucus with the conditions, the agreements and the commitments that they gave. It was my understanding that the government members on such a committee of mechanics — not of politics, not of matters of state, but purely mechanics in terms of office space, telephones, and working conditions; nothing that would bring a government down — would have the same authority and the same responsibility to make decisions about how many secretaries the opposition could have and how many staff the government backbenchers would have. I thought that this kind of rational administrative decision would be made quickly, firmly, with no hesitation.

What happened? Weeks went by, debates were going on in this House and meetings took place between the persons delegated by our group and the persons delegated by the government. We found — and this is the crux of my argument today — that the person appointed by the government was not delegated the authority and the responsibility to make decisions. This was the major reason why my good friend, my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) got up, and this is why I've entered the debate.

It is not the business of a political leader of the government or of the opposition to decide how many secretaries one should have. It is not a matter of privilege that the opposition or government backbenchers have secretaries. It is a matter of responsibility and right for all MLAs to have proper services to do their job in this House. No MLA should be handicapped.

Parties are not officially recognized by tradition in the British parliamentary system. The groupings we have in this House are purely artificial. They exist in terms of form and tradition, but not in law. Each member is a member in this House by his own right and by that tradition in terms of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. It is the government of the day and the opposition of the day that must say clearly that every member must have the services necessary to do their job to the best of their ability. It appears that in today's modern world it is necessary to have a secretary and a telephone. Lo and behold, we almost accomplished it. We have a telephone, and now the members are asking for a secretary.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Oh, come off it!

MR. BARRETT: "Oh, come off it!" says that member. He wasn't here. He didn't work with 16 in one room. We've made great progress. I'm not saying that we haven't made progress, Mr. Member, through to the Provincial Secretary. I'm not saying that we haven't made progress. I'm not saying that at all. We've made great progress.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I remember those days.

MR. BARRETT: You do remember those days; you know what they were like.

[ Page 1077 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wasn't here, but I remember them.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you were a public official and you were aware. You disagreed, I'm sure, with the conditions that we functioned in.

After the election we had eight more members. We have 15 permanent staff, three of which are on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition. What have we asked for? We asked for 26 staff — 11 more, that's all. We weren't asking that huge amounts of money be thrown out the window; we asked for 26 staff for 26 members. We asked for a one staff per member ratio. In terms of the global budget the negotiations got down to the piddling matter of whether or not you should have $358,000 or $381,000.

Is the province of British Columbia going to collapse on the difference between $358,000 and $381,000? This is the gap that we're at in terms of a minimal pared-down request. We pared down our request from 26 to 23, and when we came back we were told that the person who was negotiating would have to take that figure back and get an answer, and it took a day and a half to get an answer on whether or not the opposition's global budget was going to be $358,000 or $381,000. Did the world come to a stop? Did this place collapse? Should we be put in the humbling position of seeing a cabinet minister not able to make a decision about a difference in cash between $358,000 and $381,000? That's the chippy part that my colleague is talking about; that's the childish part that my colleague is talking about. The opposition and government backbenchers have a right to have staff. No one can take that right away. But to tell us that somebody else has to make a decision over that difference, when we cut our staff and our budget back, was pretty insulting and humiliating.

I sent a note to the Premier of the province saying that I wanted to discuss this with him and he ripped up my note. Oh, you think it's funny. It's not funny at all; it is downright childish. Whether he's the Premier or I'm the Leader of the Opposition is irrelevant. The fact is that there will always be a Leader of the Opposition and will always be a Premier, and there must be communication between the two, and ripping up notes hardly serves for the development of a better atmosphere in this House.

How do you deal with scheduling on debates? How do you deal with that question that every MLA whispers in the corridors, and every staff member picks up toward the end of the session? When are we going to get out of here?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Just take it easy! Every MLA asks that question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You don't run this House — just remember that.

MR. BARRETT: Of course I don't run it, and neither do you. The traditions of parliament run this House, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, exactly the kind of exchange that is taking place now is the barrier to this House growing up. Exactly the kind of exchange....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this place is going to be here a lot longer than any one of us, Understanding that, it is our job to make this place work to the best of its ability, and still allow for the normal range of hostilities which exist between political parties. That's the crux of our system. All that we're talking about here is not infringing upon the rights of members by negotiating such things as whether or not they can have a half-secretary or a full secretary or a quarter-secretary, or 26 or 23.

When the government back bench puts in a request for staff it should be accepted as a responsible request. When the opposition puts in a request for staff, and then pares it back, their pared-back request should be accepted as a responsible request. I don't like this childish pettiness that is returning us to the fifties. I would suggest that when the government negotiates they negotiate on the basis of delegating authority and responsibility.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: In terms of pairing, that, too, must be worked out, but it is never a condition of staff, Mr. Member. If there is any suggestion from the government benches that pairing must take place in this House, based on whether or not you get secretaries, then we will never allow that kind of negotiation to take place. You do not threaten....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It would appear that the Minister of Energy, Mines, Petroleum Resources and Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would want to enter into the debate, but I must remind the minister that only one member is allowed to be talking at one time.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the minister wishes to enter the debate, would he please wait to be recognized by the Chair? Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am saying to you that the working conditions of this House are not negotiable on some needs of pairing or anything else. I am glad my colleague got up and spoke today, and I see the government Whip (Mr. Mussallem) wants to get up and speak. He knows what took place in those negotiations, and I'm not going to repeat private conversations with anybody. I mentioned the parameters of the discussion the Premier and I had.

But it is demeaning to this House and demeaning to the whole tradition of the parliamentary system that we are down to quibbling over how many secretaries an MLA can have. Can we grow up a little bit and have a secretary and a telephone for an MLA, or is that too much to ask? Can we ask that governments, when they send negotiators, give those negotiators the authority to make decisions. Is that too much to ask?

[ Page 1078 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at what we're hearing here today, very amazed. I am also more than amazed at the uncalled-for attack by my opposite number, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), on the Premier of this province — strictly from assumption and not from fact. I never thought I would hear it on the floor of this House.

The facts are very clear and very simple, and it won't take 15 minutes to elucidate them here. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition had a meeting with the Premier. Whatever went on in that meeting, I'm not privy to. But I know that part of what went on was that the House Leaders and the Whips would meet together, and then from them and them alone the House would proceed with their negotiations. We had the meeting and this happened.

The Leader of the Opposition makes a big point of a note he sent to the Premier which he said the Premier tore up. He might well have done so. As every member here knows, the Premier always does tear up notes as they are received, and so do I. I don't throw a note in the basket fully written. Would you want that, Mr. Leader?

MR. BARRETT: If I ask you to meet with me, I expect you to meet with me. Then I tear up the note.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Any note you gave, you'd want torn up. What's all this talk about tearing up a note? It's the right thing and the proper thing to do. Would you want me to keep your notes? If you did, you'd be in real trouble. So we tear the note out of respect for the one who sends it.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell this leader one thing: this Premier would never allow an end-run around the committee that is looking after the House. He would not allow an end-run around our House Leader or your House Leader or your Whips. And that's what you're asking for. You said you wanted to get into his office and say: "Mr. Premier, I made a little mistake. There's a magic number of three in these negotiations. You may notice that — the three more secretaries you won't give." The magic number is also the number of secretaries that's in the Leader's office. It would seem to me by deduction that they forgot to count those when they made the original request. Now that's all right. That's only assumption; it may not be so. But I want to say here very clearly that they received a budget of $358,000 to run that opposition, which in my estimation, by any magic numbers or any other consideration, is more than enough to run any opposition of this size. We have nothing like that in our caucus.

But by this system, I'm supposed to be holding a gun to your heads. I'm not telling any secrets. I wouldn't repeat it on the floor of this House, but the Leader of the Opposition himself said: "We will not negotiate with a gun to our head — no way." And the Whip says to me — and we have heard it on the floor: "Unless we get it, the House stands still." I ask you: is that a responsible proposition?

MR. BARRETT: No way.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They didn't use those words; I'm paraphrasing the statement. [Laughter.] Laugh if you wish, but you have made a demonstration of the breakdown of negotiations. There has been no breakdown. I have been to the office of that opposition almost every day, and I have carried with me the olive branch of peace and consideration.

They said: "Well, all right, give us what we're asking for and all will be peaceful again." Now is that the way? Is that fair? Believe me, if it wasn't so, I wouldn't tell you, and I would never repeat it on the floor, except that they made it known to you here themselves. They said they must have them or else. I'm saying to you there is nothing new. I've been hearing that every day for the last two months. "We must have it or else."

There should be no fights here. This should end on a peaceful note. I have a great respect for my opposite number, the Whip. I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition and for all hon. members on both sides of the House. There is no need for this animosity, but the animosity does not stem from the Premier.

When they say to this House that they will not negotiate, then we say we'll go back and see, it is not that we need to see the Premier. The House Leader has full authority we were told that, and I tell you that, members on both sides. But we will not make a snap decision under pressure, because when you're dealing with a third of a million dollars of public money, when you're dealing with what is plenty and you throw another $40,000 in just to sweeten the pot, just to have peace in the House, then I say there cannot be peace. You do not buy your way to peace; it cannot be done. That's the issue: you cannot buy your way to peace.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition made a great talk about having one telephone and one room. How pitiful! Live in the past if you wish, but let me tell you that in those days the budget of this province was less than $500,000. I was in the House at the time, and it was a different story. It was ample. When I was first elected and I went to that little room that he speaks of, I was told I had one filing cabinet. There was a filing cabinet with three drawers, and I was told I could use that bottom drawer in the filing cabinet, being the lowest member there. I was more than delighted I was given that privilege.

Now I'm a businessman. I had my own office. I had my own secretary. It was not new to me. I didn't suddenly know what a secretary was; I had always had a secretary since I was in business. But I wouldn't expect....

Secretaries are not what run this parliament. What runs this parliament are the members and their intentions. It is not the words that are written, it's the intent that runs this parliament. It's not the grand offices; it's not the grand numbers; it is the intent of the members. Everything could be done here without a secretary. The business of this parliament could be run right from the floor of this House, and it should be so. Secretaries don't get you anything except more letters, more notes and more time.

We need some secretaries, but we don't need one for every member. I think it is totally ridiculous. It's a waste of public money. I know what secretaries are, I know what they cost, and I tell you no business would run that way. It's impossible. But when this government went out and offered them $350,000, it was really and truly.... I assume again that it's what they asked for, and they got it. But they didn't count that magic number three.

As I say again, I speak with respect. I think that we are so close.... Why should we come to this impasse? There is no need of it. As I have said to my opposite number on many occasions, not privately, not confidentially: "Let it go through. Let us have peace in this House. It'll all work out." I quote my very words: "Let it go through." But no, you have seen this opposition dug in: "You shall not pass

[ Page 1079 ]

until you give in." We cannot negotiate with a gun to our head. It's no way to negotiate; it's no way to run this parliament, and this parliament need not run that way.

My words can be considered to be.... I send them out not in antagonism but in peace. I want them to understand we do not want to fight. I tell them sincerely that our House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and my deputy have met several times, and all we want to do is to get along. But we can't hold the whole business of this House to ransom for three secretaries. That's what it amounts to.

The Whip, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), said that the issue is three secretaries. The whole House has been held to ransom this past month over three secretaries. What kind of a system is that?

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie. Shame!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I could say a lot more, but I will not say anything that went on in your offices that was not already released on this floor. I will respect the confidences that we have, and I know they will do the same. But I only say what they have brought out here now, and the issue....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell it all.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, I will not tell more. No, I will not, because it was confidential and I will not say it. But it was said here on this floor that the issue is three secretaries. This whole House has been held to ransom for the three past weeks over three secretaries, and that's the issue.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! That is a lie!

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the phrase: "That is a lie."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, as an honourable member....

All members of this House know the rules, and he knows the rules as well as anyone, and the Chair cannot allow....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Under what particular standing order does the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) continue to stand while the Chairman is standing? There is no such provision in our standing orders.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the words: "That is a lie."

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if the member withdraws the word "blackmail" I will withdraw the word "lie." I think we can get back to an even temper on that basis. At no time was this House held to blackmail by me or anyone in my group, and I will not withdraw unless the word "blackmail" is withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair proposes to ask for several withdrawals. I'm asking first for the withdrawal from the Leader of the Opposition of the words "that's a lie."

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

I would now ask the member for Dewdney to withdraw the word "blackmail."

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, if I used the word "blackmail," I will withdraw it. It was in the heat of the debate, and I do not remember actually saying the word "blackmail." I remember saying "gun to the head," but if I said "blackmail," I'll withdraw it. But the Blues will prove that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would say, just in the formality of closing my remarks, that I feel that the issue is plain and clear. It was brought up on the floor of this House several times by both members who have spoken. The issue was money and secretaries. Plainly the issue was three secretaries. That's why we have been struggling and fighting and trying to progress in this House, and it means nothing to the progress of this establishment.

I appeal to hon. members of the opposition to bury the hatchet on this small issue. It is nothing. Let us proceed as gentlemen. Let us do this, because we have gone to the precipice and we cannot step over. That's where we stand, and that's why the House Leader asked that we go away and come back. We talked it over, and we could go no further.

The scurrilous attack by the member for New Westminster on the Premier was unfounded and grossly exaggerated. The Premier had nothing to do with it. How could he assume he did? How could he attack the Premier, who had no part in the negotiations? Certainly the Premier is leader of the government; certainly he set the parameters. But we agreed with him that, if we didn't agree, we would go and tell him. We had no cause to tell him.

We stand our ground; the House Leader and the Whip and we are firm that it is more than the public purse can afford. That's all you are going to get, as far as I am concerned.

MR. KING: I thought the Leader of the Opposition made a very rational appeal to the Legislature, one that was not laced with acrimony or personal invective against anyone. Rather, it gave a bit of historical perspective on how we've arrived at a situation, a climate, in here which is not a very healthy one, in my view, either for the business of the province or for the constituents that each and every one of us represent.

I am sorry that the previous speaker, who is one of the senior members of the Legislature, made the kind of speech he did, and then at the end of it pleaded for some sweetness and light and understanding, after giving information to the Legislature that is certainly inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, the House Leader — the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — for the government side and I have met on a number of occasions, as have the two respective Whips. The government House Leader will

[ Page 1080 ]

acknowledge that he, when faced with the question as to whether or not he had authority to make any agreements regarding staffing and the budget therefore, said no. That is the truth of the matter, and I would have thought the government Whip knew that. If he knew that, I can't, for the life of me, understand why he rose in the House and made the kind of statements he did this morning, because they are not correct.

That being the case, the opposition has been faced with a fait accompli. We've been handed an ultimatum from the government: "Here is the global budget you are receiving for staff, and that's the end of it." It is significant that the government Whip ended on that note in his dissertation this morning.

He attacked the opposition for threatening to tie up the Legislature. Now any examination of the records proves that is crass nonsense. We have not tied up the Legislature. We have had a normal pace in debate on the bills that are before the House, and on the estimates that were before the House, representing hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure by government ministers. We have not filibustered those estimates. We have not taken 14 hours to debate a bill in this Legislature, as a member and cabinet minister in that government did. Now why would the government Whip get up and accuse the opposition of saying: "We're going to tie up the House unless we get staff"? Nonsense!

What we do intend to do, Mr. Chairman, and what we commit ourselves to do, is to allow ourselves the opportunity and the time to fill our obligation as opposition critics, and that is to scrutinize government bills and government spending in the most effective manner that we possibly can, because that's what we are elected to do.

I'm disappointed in the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) making the kind of asinine suggestions which he did regarding the Premier tearing up a note. Well, you know, some people do tear up notes after they acknowledge the notes. And as Premier of the province, I would not think that I would have to lecture him with respect to the courtesy of acknowledgement of a note from any member of the public, much less the leader of the official opposition in this Legislature. If that courtesy does not reside in the number one office of this province, if the first minister of the Crown has that kind of disrespect for the office of Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the Legislature, then how can we have other than acrimony? How can we have other than disrespect for the rights of members in this Legislature? That's the unfortunate part of it. And to try to justify that kind of childish conduct by saying he simply demolished the note is an exercise in idiocy that I wouldn't think the member for Dewdney would indulge in.

The member says it's a terrible thing for the opposition to ask for three more staff for our office. We're not dealing just with secretaries. We're dealing with research officers, research people and so on. What the government has not done is reveal to this Legislature what their budget is for their caucus. What is revealed, Mr. Chairman, is the budget that is provided to run the Premier's office, and it shows that the Premier has nine staff to himself. Nine staff for the Premier! That budget comes close to equalling the entire budget to run the offices of 26 opposition members.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Why doesn't the government reveal what the Social Credit caucus budget is? They treat the opposition in a different way then their own office. They don't reveal what the global budget for the Social Credit caucus is. I would like to know. I would certainly like to know, and that should be a matter of public record.

Mr. Chairman, you can't negotiate with people who have no authority. The fact of the matter is that there have been no negotiations because the staff provisions that we are now confronted with are precisely the same provisions that were suggested to us by the Attorney-General, as House Leader, when this session opened. There has been no change, no move, with respect to any staff changes. In response to our queries, the House Leader says that he has no such authority and he'll have to go back. Well, I presume when he says he has to go back, he goes back to his boss, the Premier.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're wrong.

MR. KING: Well, who does he go back to, for goodness' sake? Do you have a cabinet meeting on the opposition's staff? No wonder this government is bogged down if they're down to those kind of asinine deliberations in cabinet. I would assume that somebody over there had some authority.

The problem is that we have 26 elected members, an increase over the last parliament. We have an equal increase in the popular vote in this province, 46 percent of the people, and we have the government quibbling over the provision of three additional staff to provide normal and reasonable services to each and every one of those members of the House. That's what the issue's about. We are not suggesting to the government that unless they provide us with this staff we are going to do anything in retaliation. What we are suggesting and what we are stating publicly in this Legislature is that we feel that their position is irresponsible and childish. That's the only reaction that we, as an official opposition, can come up with, and it's the only reaction that we intend to come up with. But we feel that the public of British Columbia should know that the Legislature has degenerated to this kind of irresponsible and childish debate by a mean government who apparently want to go to these extremes to demonstrate that yes, they are Simon Legree, that they're in control of the purse, and that they're going to punish the official opposition. I say that's very, very regrettable, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) have made some very compelling arguments this morning about the role and duty of the opposition and the importance of their effectiveness to the proper workings of democracy. Those kinds of arguments have to be taken extremely seriously by the people of British Columbia and by the government. I sat in opposition in the House when there were a number of us who had a bullpen. There was a little bullpen for the Liberals and a bigger bullpen for the NDP in those days. There were the bears and the bulls.

Those were difficult times. I'm not sure that the brilliance of debate is reflected in the luxury of surroundings that accompany this chamber. So much in setting the course of the province in the future depends upon the

[ Page 1081 ]

quality of the people who are elected and the attitudes they have towards what are the great issues of the day.

Having acknowledged the appropriateness of the points made by the members opposite, it is only fair to include another extremely important aspect of democratic functioning which has been lost so far in the debate today. That is the responsibility that all of us have towards the gathering and expenditure of public funds. As those members opposite who have served in executive council in the past well know, the greatest times of stress, within a government, are those times when a government must prepare its own budget. It then realizes that the expectations of ministers and ministries and those who serve all of the agents of government must be pared down to whatever can be accepted in terms of the taxpayers and the ability of the economy of British Columbia to pay. There is little doubt that the present government takes a more careful view of the spending of the taxpayers' money than does the opposition. That may be one of the reasons why this government is in office and why they are in opposition.

But it is so easy, Mr. Chairman, to regard ourselves as exceptions, particularly for the people in opposition. It's so very easy to set a different set of rules for them or for ourselves. However, if one regards the total budget that is included in this particular vote, it is higher than we have permitted others in British Columbia. It is higher than the total increases that we've permitted in a number of giant public service enterprises in British Columbia.

Therefore, if we are to set ourselves in this chamber by a different set of stars than we ask for others in British Columbia, what we're doing is demeaning the democratic process. We fail to live within the disciplines that are required for the proper development of our economy. What may look like meanness and triviality — argument over 3 percent, 3 secretaries, $20,000, whatever it may be — is merely a reflection of the greater discipline that all of us must exercise in order to move British Columbia ahead. That's not an undermining of democracy. It's accepting responsibility. It's not an act of irresponsibility on the part of the government or the members of the Legislature. It's an act of responsibility. In this chamber we have to accept the same kind of discipline that has to be exercised by every minister of the government when he is drawing up his budget. For example, the Minister of Finance must be disciplined when he goes to the country and asks for taxes in the interest of the better development of the economy of British Columbia. It does have a tumble-down effect, and this chamber is not excluded from that process.

The easiest thing for somebody elected to office to do is to spend somebody else's money and be popular for doing it. The most difficult thing for an elected member to do is to exert the kind of discipline that makes the economy move, to reduce the expectations of consumers of public dollars in the interest of those who produce them. That's really what the bigger exercise is about, Mr. Chairman. While I sympathize with the role that the official opposition describes, and the importance of their place in British Columbia and all future oppositions, I don't think that overrides the greater responsibility that we have to discipline ourselves in the interest of the economy and the respect of the taxpayer.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, while the Minister of Education (Hon Mr. McGeer) is calling for respect for the taxpayers, could he look at the other votes, particularly with respect to his own office and the offices of the Premier and the executive council, totalling $726,000? I'm not talking about ministries, departments and civil servants serving the public, I'm talking about your offices. Your telephones and your staff amount to $726,434. What political hypocrisy I've seen today in this room. "It's a reflection of greater discipline," says the elitist Minister of Education. What absolute nonsense! I wish he would show more discipline in his interference with research grants and other matters involving government affairs in his own pet projects.

Today was a disappointing day, indeed, for me, Mr. Chairman, on this vote, to hear from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), and I hope that is the last time I have to refer to him in this chamber. It was the shabbiest performance of any MLA I've ever seen in this chamber. He's a very polite gentleman, but, as I said earlier in this chamber, politeness is absolutely free and it means nothing, obviously. That facade of politeness means absolutely nothing to that hon. member. When he comes into this chamber and makes the remarks that he does....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know it isn't the truth, Mr. Minister. For any member to come into this chamber and suggest that this Legislature has sat for a extra month because of three secretaries is a total and complete falsehood. It just simply isn't true. I am a member of the opposition caucus, and that was never suggested. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if it ever was suggested in this caucus, I would resign from the caucus. You know it's not true. I am confident and I know that it is not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Resign!

MR. LAUK: Can you prove it? You put a motion in this chamber and I will resign, You all know it is a lie. This phony little game that is going on here, Mr. Chairman, is disgusting.

I remember in 1972, when I was first elected to this Legislature, I was sitting in the back bench, and the member for Columbia River spoke at the first spring session, and very eloquently described the circumstances of the opposition and also very eloquently described his job. He was the veteran and senior member and was able to describe, at least to a new member such as myself, in a very forceful and throughtful manner, the role of an opposition member. However impressed I was, I stood in my place and said to the hon. members of the opposition that I was a new member but I did remember the 20 years of financial arrogance of the government that niggardly squeezed the opposition, hoping very hard that small opposition would not find out too much, not become too efficient, not have any research staff, not have any secretaries. It went on for 20 years, Mr. Chairman, when members such as the one for Vancouver East were in this House.

I told the members of the opposition that day that they would fashion the chains they now wear. I felt at that time that I was opposed to giving them anything, because being a young and inexperienced member I thought that was the way we should go. They put us through the hoop for 20 years; let's put them through the hoop. The Premier of the province of the day, the now first member for Vancouver

[ Page 1082 ]

East, stood in his place and said he agreed with the sentiments of the first member for Vancouver Centre, but he did not agree that we should continue that kind of policy and acrimony in the chamber. A new era came through. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the now Minister of Education, stood in his place and said: "There is a breath of fresh air in this chamber today." Do you forget that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's sure stale now.

MR. LAUK: I agree. It sure is stale now.

The second point I wish to make is about the comments of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who betrayed the kind of attitude that I know isn't shared unanimously by the cabinet members, but, nevertheless, still gives me a chill when I hear it. He shouted over to the Leader of the Opposition: "You don't run this House, and don't forget it." You know what that tells me, Mr. Chairman — a lot of people on that side of the House are upset that there are now 26 members in the opposition.

They are so upset that they have vindictively started the squeeze play on staff and assistants to the opposition. Instead of expanding the help to the 26 members, to reflect the will of the people, they are trying to destroy that will of the people and to keep us understaffed and underresearched. It simply won't work. You have learned nothing from May 10; you didn't learn any lessons. You are as arrogant as you were before. You want to steamroller the opposition, but it won't work, and we won't have it. The people will learn about your arrogance and they will throw you out of office.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are on vote 1. I must say that some of the comments which have been made on the other side have generated far more heat than light, which is unfortunate.

The last speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), referred to the people of British Columbia. I think it's important to quietly and briefly summarize again for the people of British Columbia, who send us here to do their work, regardless of which side of the House we find ourselves on, and who also expect us to work as efficiently and effectively as possible, some very basic figures. On behalf of the government, I categorically and absolutely, without hesitation, reject the inference that the government is attempting to squeeze the opposition.

Members will know that there is to come into effect in the future additional assistance, not from the government but from the people of the province of British Columbia, with respect to how we serve our constituents. Members will know that there is an increase in the number of return flights for those members — not including those in greater Victoria, obviously — who must move from their constituency to the capital. In the future it will be 28 return flights by scheduled public transportation or by car from Victoria to designated airport; or, if by car, from Victoria to their residence. In addition, this heartless, thoughtless, nasty government which we've heard about from the second member for Vancouver Centre has decided, quite properly — and perhaps a little late, but nonetheless has agreed — that 4 of the 28 flights should be for the spouse of the member, because it's very important to permit the spouse to come to Victoria for official functions or for other events which are of some interest and which involve the government or the MLA.

Incurred and vouchered travel expenses within a member's constituency are new. It was not introduced by the former government. It was introduced and offered by this government, to take effect soon: a travel allowance of up to $1,500, excluding accommodation and meals, for use within the member's constituency, in order that members may serve their constituency. We recognize that, while it may not apply in the metropolitan and the urban constituencies, it certainly is an additional cost. If the member is to serve a very large constituency and has to travel long distances by car or by whatever means, it is available and appropriate.

In addition, members know that it is proposed that the constituency office allowance is to be increased by some $300 per month. Again, this is for all members of the assembly, opposition and government, in order that we may more effectively serve the people who send us here and who expect more of us than what we heard today from the opposition side of the House.

An annual global budget of up to $358,800 for permanent staff has been offered to the official opposition. When the House is in session up to five months, there is an additional $16,900 per month, which is estimated on the basis of a five-month session at $84,500. That totals $442,300, by my calculation — in round figures, $442,000. We are informed by the comptrollers that the official opposition in the last fiscal year, 1978-79, spent approximately $252,000. Vote 1 shows that the actual estimate was $206,360. That is shown on page 16 of the blue-book estimates of expenditure. The estimate for 1979-80 is $235,000, and if we are to compare apples with apples, that $235,000 becomes $365,300. That is a 21 percent increase in the allowance for 1978-79 over 1979-80, as printed in the book.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we step back from the heat of the moment and realize, to the very best of our ability, to the very best of our recognition, the responsibility we carry as government. We have offered the block funding, which has been debated today. We have said: "Here it is. Spend it within the parameters of legislative activity, as you will. " It is a significant increase. Again, the government does not intend to apologize for the amount of that increase this year over last.

Vote 1 approved.

Vote 2: Crown corporation reporting committee, $405,300 — approved.

ESTIMATES: AUDITOR-GENERAL

On vote 3: auditor-general, $2,466,906.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to raise three points on this particular vote. First of all, I notice the vote has increased by some $400,000 from last year's estimate. Yet when I look at the auditor's report it seems that, for the portion of the year the auditor-general was here, the expenditures were only $344,000 — say, $345,000 — which for a year on that basis would work out at something like $563,000. That's quite a small amount compared to what is actually included in this estimate. It seems the

[ Page 1083 ]

auditor-general did a very credible job last year with the staff and the time she had. I'm wondering why, in view of that financial statement and the auditor's report, the estimate is as large as it is this year. The last thing I would want to do is handicap the auditor-general in her activities, but it does seem a bit out of line with the actual ratio of expenditures for the current year.

The other points I want to raise deal with the report itself that came from the auditor-general. Certainly the auditor general keyed in on a great many points in her report, and made a great many recommendations. There's no point in having an auditor-general if a government doesn't act on the recommendations of that auditor-general. The report has outlined various shortcomings in the management of the finances of the province, and has made some very specific recommendations. I think that before this vote is passed we should have some assurance from the government that those recommendations are being carried out, are being fulfilled, and that the recommendations she has made are receiving consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the time for debate on the office of the auditor-general is the time of the adoption of the report. This particular vote deals with the administration of the office of the auditor-general rather than on the global report of the auditor-general.

MRS. WALLACE: My point is that if we're spending this money and getting this kind of report — I wasn't intending to deal too greatly with the report — I believe there should be some assurance to this House from whomever is responsible for this vote that we're going to get value for our money, and that the recommendations that have been presented will be followed through and instituted. There's no point in having an auditor-general if those demands are not fulfilled. That was the point I wished to make, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 3 approved.

MR. LAUK: Could I have leave of the committee to introduce a distinguished guest in the gallery?

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, between 1972 and 1975 one of the greatest chicken-farmers in the history of the province of British Columbia sat in this chamber. It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the gallery, on the side facing the loyal opposition, Don Lewis, former member for Shuswap.

Vote 4: building occupancy charges, $266,369 — approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

Vote 5: ombudsman, $300,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: SCHEDULE A

Schedule A: $360,560 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on June 25, 27 and 28, and on July 3, 5, 9, 11, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $360,560 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978; (2) $4,628,090,738 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1979, and section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1979.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 3, 1979

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 24, intituled Supply Act, No. 3, 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this juncture we ordinarily pause for a few moments for the distribution of the bill. Is it the will of the House that this happen? No? Then we'll carry on.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 1084 ]

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report to the House, recommending the introduction of Bill 24.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Mussallem, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was read as follows and received.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report 4, Legislative Committee Room, July 25, 1979.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, except for late filing. But with respect thereto, the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98(3), and except for advertising; advertisements were placed prior to the close of the last preceding session. But with respect thereto, the advertising in all other respects complies to the standing orders. Your committee recommends the petitioners be allowed to proceed with the said bill. All of which is respectfully submitted, George Mussallem, Chairman."

MR. MUSSALLEM: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 34.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a great deal was said and I've kept a lot of notes, so I would like to provide some information and clarification, particularly for the many comments made by the members of the opposition.

Certainly I can appreciate that this is somewhat unique for them, because this is a bill which provides opportunity and initiative, and perhaps that is a little strange for them to comprehend. I am very proud of this bill and I think it is going to be a great, progressive piece of legislation which will provide great opportunities, especially for tourism in that area.

The member for Coquitlam made mention of the fact that there was a difference of approach here, and I agree.

[ Page 1085 ]

We are allowing people to do things for themselves, and certainly that is where we differ in approach.

Much mention was made particularly of the so-called weighted vote. There is no mention in the legislation of a weighted vote, but granted, such might be asked for, as I have mentioned myself, particularly by those who have a greater investment, and I can appreciate their reasoning for such. They will undoubtedly refer to a number of existing statutes, particularly, and other measures which we have seen over a number of years which would give them some basis of argument.

They will refer, I am sure, to the 1974 Strata Titles Act, which was introduced by the NDP, and which reads: "In respect of a strata plan that is not entirely for residential use…have endorsed upon it a schedule that is acceptable to the superintendent of insurance at the time of filing the prospectus." It allows for a rate to be established for those commercial enterprises which would permit a vote upon the basis of square footage within that commercial development. I use as an example, too, a situation — and I'm sure there are many others — in Vancouver, and I think the member for Vancouver Centre said it would be familiar with this.... It is a strata plan which has two floors, and to exemplify this principle that I've just mentioned, let me outline the voting structure there.

The main floor is 6,510 square feet. It is one strata lot and carried 90 votes. The second floor contains nine strata lots, with each strata lot carrying ten votes. It seems strange that the weighted vote system is such an issue, as it has been raised time and time again as a possibility. The opposition complains as well that the Companies Act does not apply. Yet under that Act a shareholder votes the number of shares he holds. That is, he votes according to the proportion of his interest. So I am sure as these people come forth they will make these arguments, and I'm sure — particularly as the Leader of the Opposition continually referred to this — many things that he attempted to initiate over a number of years, especially when he was in government, will be held forth as examples.

He spoke of a special deal, and I guess they — or at least some of them — will be seeking special deals, and they will refer to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to make some special deal with mining companies. Or they will refer to the deal which was prepared or proposed for British Petroleum in Surrey, where they would get tax concessions so as to establish there. That will certainly be brought up.

I am sure that reference might be made, by those proponents of the weighted-vote system, of the Sterling Properties arrangement in the Fraser Valley — or, as it is sometimes called by the people of Matsqui, the Sterling commune. That's a strata title corporation where the former NDP government allowed half-acre lots of former farmland in the agricultural land reserve to be divided. The people who live on these half-acre properties, on the edge of this farm, use the farm buildings in the common farm area. They have votes according to the number of lots that they own. So if a fellow has three lots he has three votes, and if he has one lot he has one vote. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition is very well aware of that little arrangement with Sterling Properties, or the Sterling commune, in the Matsqui area.

Then there is the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who stood up for the best part of 20 minutes and spoke about how terrible this was, and how we ought to be looking at examples, instead, in parts of Europe — and I suspect he was referring largely to eastern Europe as well. That is the same man that says people should no more own the land they live on than the air they breathe. I don't think his argument was too credible. He would have commercial developers rent from the government, and perhaps every homeowner as well.

True, this is no ordinary bill, Mr. Speaker. It's somewhat out of the ordinary in that, with the influence of socialism throughout the world. we're not accustomed to people coming forth and wanting to do their own thing. Here we have a group of people who are prepared to pay their own bills, people who don't want to tax the residents who are there for their particular efforts. These people don't want a government handout; they are not looking for some particular government grant on an annual basis. They are people who, unfortunately, unlike what we see these days, have come forth and said: "Let us do it for ourselves."

"But, ah," says the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), "the private owners will benefit. and that's terrible for people to make a profit." That member forgets that the prosperity he and we enjoy today — his indemnity here, his income as a lawyer, his other income, his home, his Mercedes Benz, all the things we enjoy and he enjoys — is due to people having made profits which gave them the initiative and the drive to build and build more, and build better.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of these people make a profit, small and large alike. I hope they have profitable ventures, because that profit will mean more tourist dollars to help pay for our good social programs and more expansion to create thousands of jobs. When the opposition talks about jobs, they mean government jobs or make-work programs subsidized by the taxpayers. Here is a chance for thousands of jobs at no cost to the taxpayers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would remind the hon. minister not to wander beyond the scope of the bill itself. Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, these items were all raised during the debate, and certainly a great many things were put forth which, I would suggest, and I'm sure most members would agree, were utter nonsense. But I think those questions need to be answered.

The opposition said that this is so different, it will be a fiefdom, a principality, a kingdom. Yes, it will be different. It was made different. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), when he established the resort municipality of Whistler, recognized the difference. The then real leader of socialism in the province, Mr. Bob Williams, was there many times, speaking to the mayor and those who were very interested in promoting the Whistler community. He said: "Ah, we'll help you. " I'm sure he meant that somehow it would be a government partnership, or the government would become involved, and all of the people there would be public servants. But he supported and recognized then, as did the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the resort municipality of Whistler was different.

[ Page 1086 ]

The council members have worked very hard, and they can remember those words. They've certainly been encouraged since then, but proposals to have the government involved are very negative. I think we ought to be very grateful that the council has worked so hard and so ardently with potential developers, or those that might develop in the area, to ensure that we will have a unique, progressive approach which will provide for initiative in a freeenterprise way and have people do their own thing.

It is also mentioned by the member for Vancouver, I believe, that the people now resident in Whistler will be forced to join the association. I doubt if he's read the bill. Certainly the people now living in Whistler will not be forced to join that association. Nor will anyone who has a business outside that small area at the base be forced to join the association unless he or she desires to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been to Whistler?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've been to Whistler. I had lunch in a restaurant not too far from the small area at the base where the restaurant owner would like to join the association because he realizes that without tourism, without people coming from other parts of North America, Japan or Europe, he can neither exist nor continue to exist. They need tourist dollars.

The municipality has designated that town centre with an official community plan. That plan cannot be changed except through the council, with the approval of the inspector. The bylaws for the association will be developed by the council, approved by the council, and must then again be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Yes, there can be classes of members. Mention was made of this by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). There can be classes of members, and I think that if the man who has the restaurant away from the area at the base of the mountain wants to join the association, he should not necessarily pay what the members pay within the resort lands at the base of the mountain. He will not get the exact same benefits, and thus he should not perhaps have to pay the exact same rate.

I'm just going through the notes here to see if I've covered most of the points but I think I should answer those as well which were raised by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). Actually, he made more of a personal attack during the whole of it than raise matters of interest with respect to the bill. He did ask some questions that must be answered. I think, possibly, the best way to approach it is to give him some quick lessons in those matters he raised.

1) He was concerned about the Municipal Act, or the amendments to the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, and he said all this should have been a private bill. Every time we add anything to the Municipal Act it's an amendment to the Municipal Act. You couldn't have 100 different Municipal Acts. That's why I think, too, we should have one bill dealing with Whistler, and this was initiated by the Whistler council as an amendment to the Municipality of Whistler Act.

2) The practice of excluding the Companies Act and allowing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to specify provisions for incorporating companies was started in 1974.

3) The association will be a reporting society under the Societies Act.

4) The resort area will still be a part of the municipality, subject to municipal bylaws and municipal taxes, as well as getting municipal services. The services they want to pay for are those over and above the services otherwise provided by the taxpayers at large.

5) Why not a private bill? I think I've answered that, but let me reiterate: the municipality requested the change.

6) He mentioned a whole lot about affidavits. There are no affidavits. I don't know of any affidavits. The deputy minister doesn't know of any affidavits. There are no affidavits. Gary Watson doesn't know about affidavits, Al Raine doesn't know about affidavits. All the people involved do not....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. minister, may I interrupt long enough to ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) under what standing order he presumes to interrupt the speaker? Please proceed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. 7 is the so-called turnover for private gain. The bill merely allows for the establishment of a resort association. It doesn't turn over anything to anyone.

8) Fortress Mountain Resorts is 50 percent-owned by Aspen Skiing Corporation and 50 percent by the Federal Business Development Bank. Fortress operates a ski lift in Alberta — a ski lift; one, Mr. Member. They could not have possibly built another two, for a total of three, in the last several days, as you suggested.

9) Stick to the issues. Get the facts straight. I'm very proud that we have this bill. I'm sure that it will be a very positive thing for all British Columbians, not just for those in greater Vancouver or in the Whistler area. All will benefit from the jobs and all will benefit from the tourism. It will be a tremendous year-round attraction. This bill will make it happen in a unique way, with people doing their own thing with a little bit of good old free enterprise.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 20

[ Page 1087 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know if it's a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to standing order 18, which says: "No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested shall be disallowed." I rise pursuant to that standing order to put forward the thought, with a substantive motion, seconded by the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound be admonished by the Speaker for breach of privilege, and that his vote on second reading of Bill 34 be disallowed. I'd like to put forward some supporting rationale for that.

In the bill in question, as listed on Schedule B, there are a number of parcels of land identified as "resort land." One of those under the numerical heading of 3 is called block A, district lot 5316, group 1 in the New Westminster district. Checking that parcel of land at the New Westminster land registry office, we find that the registered owner is a company called Garibaldi Lifts Limited. Under the numerical heading 4 it mentions district lot 4751 and, excepting certain parts, the New Westminster land registry office shows that the registered holder of that piece of land, again, Garibaldi Lifts Limited. Heading 5 refers to lands leased under Crown leases issued pursuant to the Land Act, and Nos. 27918 and 29848 are both shown to be owned by Garibaldi Lifts Limited.

Garibaldi Lifts Limited, affected by this bill, is a subsidiary of a company called TIW Industries Limited. Montreal Trust Company, the transfer office of Garibaldi Lifts, indicates that as of May 1, 1979, TIW Industries owned approximately 82 percent of the common shares of Garibaldi Lifts Limited.

With respect to TIW Industries, the Financial Post Survey of Industrials for 1978, under a heading called "Amalgamation" on page 578, says in part as follows:

"Effective January 1, 1978, the company and its subsidiaries, International Bronze Powders Limited,
Toronto Iron Works Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries amalgamated to form the present company, TIW Industries Limited. The name of the company was changed from Warnock Hersey International Limited to its present form."

It's on the books in any event, and as a result of that there was a share exchange, which may not in all instances have actually been consummated. That depends on the particular shareholder.

Further pursuant to the motion, there is to be filed, as we know, pursuant to the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, a declaration by provincial officials and public employees — which includes MLAs — about a variety of things. Pursuant to section 31(a) of that Act, an MLA is to disclose the name of every corporation in which "the provincial official or public employee or a trustee on his behalf holds one or more shares."

The declaration so filed by Louis Allan Williams of 2060 Gisby Street, West Vancouver, signed by him, and dated July 3, 1979, attested by the disclosure clerk on July 4, 1979, indicates that the said Louis Allan Williams is the holder of one or more shares of Warnock Hersey International Limited, which as we have indicated, is the parent company of Garibaldi Lifts Limited. I think therefore this indicates that the holder of those particular shares has a direct pecuniary interest, at least as of July 3, and if he does he should have disclosed that.

Now it may be, and this we don't know, that since this declaration was filed on July 3, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has made some alterations. He may have disposed of or sold the shares. If that is the case, I think it was encumbent upon him during the debate he entered into on second reading of the bill to have indicated and reported that to the House. If he is in fact not a holder of these particular shares, then of course there is no foundation for the motion, and it should naturally be withdrawn.

But if that is in fact the case, as has been enumerated, I think the motion quite properly syould be put, because there is a direct pecuniary interest on the part of the member in Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, I wish to cornmend the member for following the right procedure. The proper procedure for a member who wishes to draw a matter of this nature to the attention of the House is for him to stand on a point of order. No motion, of course, can be entertained until the point of order itself can be determined. In trying quickly, so that the House would not be delayed, to establish whether the point of order itself is in order, the Chair has to determine not just whether an interest can be established, but whether a pecuniary interest, under the definitions of the authorities, can be established. In trying to do that I have referred to page 435 of the seventeenth edition of May, and would like to, for the instruction of the House, cite several instances where Speakers of the past have ruled suggestions such as the one raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) out of order.

The following examples of Speakers' rulings to this effect may be given: A member of a corporation, where there are petitions against the bill, or moving an instruction for the protection of that corporation.... When a matter of this nature was raised the Speaker or the Chairman has overruled the objection, and has decided that a motion to disallow the vote would be out of order. May I cite a couple of other examples: a minister voting against a reduction of his official salary; members being owners of land in Ireland on a clause providing for payment out of public money of landlords' shares of rates; members who were landowners or farmers; or members having interest in advertising, in the manufacturing of wireless apparatus, on a motion to approve the government's policy on television development.

You see, it is not a matter of only establishing an interest. It is a matter of establishing a pecuniary interest under the definition of our authorities. In this matter I must find the matter too remote in order to qualify in this regard.

The member for Nelson-Creston, on the same point?

MR. NICOLSON: I would point out some rather interesting, and, I think, very pertinent facts, with respect. In Sir Erskine May, on page 410, at the very top of the nineteenth edition, it says: "As the Speaker stated on May 12, 1885, there is no rule in the House on the subject." That is, in the House of Commons, Westminster, there is no rule. In this Legislature there is a rule: standing order 18. I think,

[ Page 1088 ]

then, that since the rule exists here, and since rulings in the House of Commons have been rulings based upon practice which has evolved, I note that on many, many instances, while the motion was lost, it was nonetheless put to the House for a vote, and debate was allowed. Also, I note that in Beauchesne, the fifth edition, point 232 on page 77 comments that the question is a matter "to be decided by the House and not by the Speaker." Matters of pecuniary interest...." "....personal interest of a member is a subject before the House, must be a direct pecuniary interest and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, not in common with the rest of the subject...."

On point 232, it says: "A member's right to vote on a question in which he is personally interested is one of those matters that must be decided by the House and not by the Speaker." That is in the House of Commons Journals, Ottawa, March 1, 1966, pages 203 and 204.

So with respect, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that while such motions have often failed in the House of Commons in Westminster, those motions have been allowed to go forward, and it was the wisdom of the House which decided on the matter of pecuniary interest.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to your ruling, and none of the quotations, with respect, that you gave to the House from Sir Erskine May embraced this case. This is a case dealing with 325 acres of land, and the member has a direct pecuniary interest — is alleged to have, if the shares have not been sold — in one of those parcels.

Now surely nothing could be closer and more exactly defined in terms of direct pecuniary interest than that. The examples you gave about advertising generally, and farmers and so forth, are certainly not germane to this. If that kind of a ruling prevails, then it's wide open, and anybody with a direct-share interest in some special kind of legislation like this, in terms of this House, and not general legislation, can vote and not declare the interest. I would say that would be a grave departure from parliamentary integrity.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing debate on the point of order. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the second member for Vancouver East and also support the member for Nelson-Creston. All of our readings of Sir Erskine May and recent decisions indicate to us that the Speaker does not rule on a motion of privilege with respect to pecuniary interest, but that the House rules on it and the House debates it.

There is a serious problem. We seek no penalty. We seek only to draw to the House's attention this problem, and it should be canvassed in open debate. The hon. member, whom we all know very well would prefer that it be debated, the hon. member whom we know also has been consistently an honourable member, would prefer that all of this information be brought forward and that there be a debate ensured.

I don't think that it is appropriate to take the motion of the hon. member for Skeena and dismiss it as being not in order.

The other point that is the most compelling reason is that if there ever was a case of pecuniary interest, this is it. This is a bill directly related to a company that owns land, all of which is described in the bill. It is not a remote shareholder who may be remotely affected by it. It's not a situation where, if we voted on the bill concerning railways generally and one of us owns shares in the railway, we could be described as having a pecuniary interest. It's not anywhere near that kind of remoteness. But for the Speaker to say that this case is remote is for the Speaker to say that there is no such case as pecuniary interest, that there never can be and that the House will never deal with one.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the same point of order, I think it requires that there be some further clarification from this side of the House. For the previous speaker to say that the motion seeks no penalty is really spurious and incorrect because the motion certainly does seek a very serious penalty in that the mover of the motion suggested to the Speaker not only that the member be admonished but that he be charged with a breach of privilege, which is a most serious penalty in this House.

The Speaker's responsibility is quite clear in this House and always has been. He has the responsibility to rule on the eligibility of motions. In this case, that eligibility must be based, as the Speaker has pointed out, in my opinion, not only on the narrow confines of the motion, but actually on the establishment of a pecuniary interest. The Speaker has indicated that interest and correspondence has not been established in the opening remarks and the point of order by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

While the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) could seek to have the opposition members run for cover in his remarks that he made, the fact remains that we cannot allow such remote possibilities to impair the opportunity for members of this House to do their business. The member who raised the point of order originally, as I understand it from his disclosure, owns shares in Dome Petroleum. Yet he voted in this House on a number of amendments to the Energy Act. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) owns shares in MacMillan Bloedel, and yet, Mr. Speaker, that member voted in this House on amendments to the Forest Act, which directly affect the operations and the profitability of MacMillan Bloedel. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the initial comments by you were correct and must be allowed to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will accept the opinions of those two gentlemen standing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think if you check back through Speakers' Decisions in this House and others, you will find that the definitions of direct pecuniary interest are related only to questions where the members concerned have controlling interest in private or public corporations. This question has arisen before in this House, when attempts were made to implicate people in the wildest kinds of remote connections. We've had several examples cited already on the floor of the House today. But it would be not difficult at all to think of other connections that might be raised in imaginary situations where some corporation, which perhaps didn't even do business in British Columbia, was indirectly related to some law that was passed in the House that would affect what they bought or sold in some remote jurisdiction. Clearly, if we allow ourselves to become enmeshed in these theoretical considerations, we would spend all our time on disclaimers. This is clearly an absurd conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1089 ]

MR. KING: Rather than debate the point of order at this point, as the minister has tried to do, I would rather leave that for the normal debate which will follow acceptance of my colleague's and my motion. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a previous decision of this Legislature taken on April 2, 1969, when Mr. Capozzi rose on a matter of privilege and moved the following motion: "That the member for Burnaby-Edmonds be admonished by the Speaker for breach of privilege, and be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session." The breach that was alleged in that particular case, Mr. Speaker, was a fee to his law firm, which had flowed incidental to the presentation of a private member's bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would like to hear the opinion.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in that case there was no direct benefit to the member involved — rather, his firm. And on that basis the Speaker ruled at 3:12 p.m. that afternoon. Upon Mr. Speaker resuming the chair he quoted the authority of May, seventeenth edition, at page 115, which states: "It has also been declared contrary to the law and usage of Parliament for any member to be engaged, either by himself or any partner, in the management of private bills before either House of Parliament for pecuniary reward." And he observed that — and here is the cogent part, Mr. Speaker — "While extenuating circumstances may exist, nevertheless a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established." Accordingly, Mr. Speaker ruled the motion in order.

Mr. Speaker, I commend a study of that particular motion to you, sir, before making your decision and submit that the question as to whether or not there is pecuniary interest should be the subject of debate. The motion certainly appears to be in order, and establishes a prima facie case.

. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. I think we have sufficient opinions on this point of order.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested quite rightly that the Speaker of a House does not involve himself in the vote of a motion, because in order for a motion to be taken, the point of order must first be ruled in order. Having it ruled in order, it would then go to a motion before the House, which would be debatable. So the issue that the member raises does not apply in this case because we have not yet proceeded to that stage where we are going to call for a vote or we would call for a vote.

The member for Vancouver East suggests that some of the examples that were given were not germane to this case, and I must say that they were not intended to be so, but only to give the hon. members some insight into what Sir Erskine May suggests are examples of matters that were not allowed, two of them having to do with land ownership.

Some of the other opinions that we're taking were well accepted and well received, and I appreciate the contribution of each. If it should fall that the members do not accept the ruling of the Chair, of course, as members know, it is subject to the appeal to the House in any instance.

But with great respect, hon. members, having given the matter quiet consideration, in the quietness of a very good chamber today, I must find the whole matter too remote, in my opinion, to qualify for the motion, and I so rule.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition challenges the ruling. Shall the ruling of the Chair…? On a point of order, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you called the question. In the circumstances, I would wish to be excused from the chamber during the taking of this vote.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, inasmuch as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made an allusion to my possession of some common shares of Dome Petroleum and a vote that was supposed to have taken place with respect to the Energy Amendment Act, 1979, should I withdraw?

MR, SPEAKER: Hon. members, with great respect, I find that even more remote. [Laughter.] Hon. members, may we have your attention? The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

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

Bill 34, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I am advised that His Honour the Administrator will be here shortly. I would ask hon. members to remain in their seats until such time as he appears at the door, at which time we will stand, as we customarily do.

The House took recess at 1 p.m.

[ Page 1090 ]

The House resumed at 1:06 p.m.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979

Medical Amendment Act, 1979

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979

Provincial Homeowner Grant Amendment Act, 1979

New Westminster Development Act, 1979

Forest Amendment Act, 1979

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 3, 1979.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Hewitt, from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, presented the committee's report on the salmon industries in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:11 p.m.

APPENDIX

12 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of the British Columbia Development Corporation receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) in what form and in what amount and (b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

" 1. Yes.

"2. (a) Fee of $2,000 per annum to Directors of the Corporation, plus $200 per meeting, plus travel expenses.¹

(b)

[ Page 1091 ]

"¹ Effective January 18, 1974

"² Executive Committee."

26 Mr. Gabelmann asked the Hon. the Minister of Health the following question:

What is the total cost of the advertising campaign on pre-natal care being sponsored by the Government during the Year of the Child?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"The total budget is $350,000, of which $342,315 has been spent or committed.

"The spring campaign, which included radio, television, newspapers, magazines, posters, and transit advertising, cost $193,689.

"The proposed fall campaign will cost $60,126 for radio and $88,500 for television — a total of $148,626."