[ Page 9115 ]

CONTENTS

Appointment of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9115

Appointment of Deputy Speaker

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9115

Constitution Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 80). Hon. Mr. Chabot

Introduction and first reading –– 9115

Oral Questions

Revised budget. Mr. Stupich –– 9129

Mr. Lauk

Cutbacks in Education. Mr. Lauk –– 9130

Interest-free bonds. Mr. Stupich –– 9130

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 69). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On section 2 — 9131

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Williams

On section 3 –– 9135

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Williams

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. CLERK: Hon. members, on August 10, 1982, by letter to His Honour Henry Bell-Irving, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, Hon. H.W. Schroeder, MLA for Chilliwack, resigned as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Clerk, I have the great pleasure to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that Walter K. Davidson, Esq., member for Delta electoral district, do take the Speaker's chair and preside over the meetings of this assembly.

MR. CLERK: Walter Kenneth Davidson, hon. member for Delta, has been duly nominated as Speaker of this assembly. Is there any further nomination? Is there any further nomination? Is there any further nomination?

I declare that Walter Kenneth Davidson, hon. member for Delta, has been duly elected as Speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: I very humbly thank members of this Legislature for the very high honour they have placed upon me this day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to address you for the first time as Mr. Speaker.

I move, again seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that William Bruce Strachan, Esq., member for Prince George South electoral district, be appointed Deputy Speaker for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: Thank you.... Just a little humour I learned from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). You've got to hang loose in this place.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new duties as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. As a former policeman with a background in enforcement, you will keep order here, I am sure.

As you know, it's some months since I was in the Legislature. June 4 was, I believe, the last time I was here, as a result of recurring athletic injuries that kept me in bed for about two months. However, I received some very encouraging support from all members of the Legislature, particularly the members opposite. Despite the apparent mind-sets that we have to get into in order to do our duties — partisan duties, that is — it was very touching to receive a fine letter from those people — to the person, in fact. Every single one of them signed a letter telling me to get better. Can you imagine that? And here I am, back and ready to thank them in as forceful a way as I possibly can. In light of the speculation that we soon will have an opportunity to get on the streets, as it were, I think I'll be expressing that sentiment in the near future.

Seriously, I want to thank the members of the Legislature for their support during a very testy time for me. At 52, going on 53, I've had my life flash before me in a very forceful way. I can no longer do the things I used to do — certainly not physically, You didn't know when you were well off. I think the old Emery was better than the new one. I've had time to think.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be back, and still with a sense of humour. Thank you very much. I didn't introduce anybody, but I did let you know that I'm back on course.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gracing our galleries today is Mrs. Dorothy Hammond-Innes, the wife of that renowned international author. Mr. Ralph Hammond-Innes, who is doing research for another book in our great province of British Columbia. We'd like to bid her a special welcome today.

MR. WOLFE: Visiting us in the gallery are old friends of ours, Warren and Nancy Hansen from Vancouver. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce two visitors to the gallery from my constituency, who happen to be very good personal and also political friends. I would like the House to welcome Martha and Hugo Schaffrott from the city of Kelowna.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like the House to welcome friends and supporters from the great city of Vancouver, Mrs. Tasia Richards and Mrs. Hope Wotherspoon, who are presently in the gallery.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would like the House to welcome an extremely important constituent of the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey who is visiting the House this afternoon: Mrs. Rosemary Dolman, former president of our constituency, who has gone on to higher work for the Social Credit Party. Would the gathering welcome Mrs. Dolman.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us today as well are the mother and father of your newly elected Speaker. I would bid them, and ask you to give them, a very warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the bill accompanying same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rises...

MR. LAUK: ...to debate the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

[ Page 9116 ]

MR. LAUK: If it please the House, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the motion before us is leave to introduce a bill. That motion has no debate attached to it at this particular stage.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) move a different motion. What motion is before the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. LAUK: I want to debate the motion that's before the House, Mr. Speaker. I don't think it's a timely motion. I don't think the committee should be asked to meet at this stage to consider this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Neither under standing orders nor under practice of this House is this particular motion debatable at this particular time.

MR. LAUK: Could Mr. Speaker give me some guidance about when we can debate this motion?

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would refer to the standing orders under section 45, he would see that under no place is there any room for debate at this stage. Debate would certainly be allowed at subsequent stages. Standing order 45 states: "The following motions are debatable: Every motion...(d) For the second reading of a bill; (e) For the third reading of a bill...." Hon. member, this does not include the first reading of a bill.

Further authority would be the seventeenth edition of May, page 532, which again clearly says that when a bill is referred to a committee, it is not a matter for debate.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, standing order 45(1)(k), which, being directly stated in our standing orders, takes precedence over Beauchesne or Sir Erskine May, says: "And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority. the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business. the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records," and so on.

If you read 45(2), Mr. Speaker — I urge upon you the well-known principle de justum generis — it states: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment." It follows that only motions or like motions dealing with adjournments are without debate, not references to committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has made his point. Nonetheless, I am guided by both the practice of this House and the standing orders before us. Practice has long been established that on the introduction of a bill, mainly because we have no idea to debate what we cannot have presented before us....

MR. LAUK: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore could you grant a recess while all hon. member have access to the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Not until a bill is introduced can it be circulated.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has advised members that there is ample opportunity before us. At this stage of debate the bill is introduced without debate. At this stage of proceedings the bill is introduced without debate. That is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think you have made a couple of comments that need to cause Your Honour on this first momentous occasion to reflect about what you said. One of the things you said was "at this stage of debate," indicating that, in Your Honour's opinion, there is a stage of debate at this particular time.

Second, Your Honour pointed out that you do not permit debate upon introduction of a bill, which relates to first reading. The motion before Your Honour, made by the Provincial Secretary, was a motion to refer something to a committee. I think it's clear, as outlined by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), that 45(1)(k) indicates in the broadest possible way that any such motion, other than those enumerated from (a) to (j), which may be required for the observance of our proprieties in the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, its business and everything else is debatable. That clearly says so. Regretfully, Your Honour has, I think, fallen into the trap of assuming that, because on previous occasions there may have been silence upon the referral at this point of a particular bill to a committee, that constitutes that there be no debate. You cannot make such a flagrant ruling, I submit, Mr. Speaker, simply upon the understanding that maybe no debate has taken place on previous occasions.

I want to say to you, with all respect, that Your Honour should not permit the government to have its sleazy way in running rampant over democracy here and in bringing in obviously — unseen, of course.... Taking the declarations of the Premier a year and a half ago, in which he said he was going to have an election on his occasion, that he was going to have redistribution....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members of the standing rule of this House that when the Speaker or the Chairman stands in his place, absolute silence is mandatory. Otherwise, hon. members, there is no way that the rules of this House can be followed and adhered to. I would commend that to each member, especially at this particular time.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I have heard a view from two members on the particular process that is before us. The ruling of the Chair is that the procedure, having been followed to this time and place, that a bill be introduced without debate, is to be upheld in this House. Hon. members, regretfully I so rule.

[ Page 9117 ]

MR. HOWARD: And regretfully that must be appealed. It's preposterous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be upheld?

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

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 26

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, call the Chairman.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the motion as presented by the Provincial Secretary was not voted upon by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion must be read. The point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre is a valid one.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order that needs to be made, Your Honour, is that Your Honour has already taken the step of bypassing that provision of voting on that particular motion and has called the Deputy Speaker to take the chair. I therefore submit to you that you must rule the whole proceedings up to this time invalid because Your Honour has overridden them. Your Honour having passed that point, I submit, cannot go back again now except with the leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The point raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) requires a moment of consultation. Firstly, on the point or order raised by the member for Vancouver Centre that the question would have to be put again and decided upon, the Chair agrees that that is a valid point of order. On the second point of order raised by the member for Skeena, the Chair cannot concur with the findings of that particular form of argument.

The question is, hon. members, that the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 26

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

The House in committee: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, standing order 74 of the Legislative Assembly states: "Proceedings on Public Bills. Every bill shall be introduced upon motion for leave, specifying the title of the bill, or" — as has been done in this case — "upon motion to appoint a committee to prepare and bring it in...." My submission is that the hon. Provincial Secretary rose in his place and was recognized, which the Chair is entitled to do; but the minister is not entitled to ask the committee to rise until we've fulfilled our mandate under the standing orders. We have not prepared the bill and we have not conducted our responsibility to prepare and bring the bill in. That mandate, which we have been assigned by the House and by standing orders, has not been fulfilled by this committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order. One moment, please.

Hon. members, a message bill has been presented to the House and has been referred to committee. The motion is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill. The committee can resolve itself on that matter, and I therefore put the question.

[ Page 9118 ]

MR. LAUK: That motion is surely debatable, Mr. Chairman, and I want to take my place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, the motion is not debatable. We can either pass or defeat the motion at this point. May I quote the Journals for February 22, 1973: "Upon a point of order being raised as to whether or not debate on the motion was permissible, Mr. Speaker observed that no authority had been quoted to displace the long-established practice and usage of this House, namely that there was no debate either in Committee of the Whole House or in the stage of report from the Committee of the Whole House relative to a message bill." I so rule.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is not an ordinary message bill, to which that particular decision by Speaker Dowding applies. I'm well aware of that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is a message bill; the committee has no other knowledge of the bill.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it was introduced as an amendment to the constitution. I refer you to standing order 76: "Any bill affecting the constitution must be introduced by a member of the government" — well, we're somewhat assured of that — "or with the sanction of the government." There has to be proof at least of that presented to Committee of the Whole before the bill can be passed on. This is a constitution bill. It's not an ordinary message bill. That's why we have a reference to Committee of the Whole House. Why would that provision be in standing orders, Mr. Chairman, without the possibility of debating an amendment to the constitution? It took Canada 54 years to amend its constitution. Now they want to do it in five minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair appreciates your citation with respect to standing order 76. Standing order 76 clearly indicates only that a bill affecting the constitution must be introduced by a member of the government, and that is what has transpired. The question before us now is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill. It is a non-debatable motion. The committee can resolve in either the affirmative or the negative. I so rule, and I am therefore....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, proceedings have been undertaken already, presumably with the sanction of Mr. Speaker — or the Deputy Speaker of before — to authorize carpenters in this building, working under the authority of the Speaker, to proceed to build seven new desks for seven new — what the Premier hopes will be — Social Credit members. That's already underway, Mr. Chairman. Once that action has been taken, somebody has to take responsibility for authorizing the spending of public money on building desks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee is now entering into debate on the motion. The motion is not debatable, as stated in our standing orders. I so rule, and I will put the question now that the committee....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I noticed the government House Leader just declaring that I'm out of order. That's the way Nazis operate, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A point of order?

MR. HOWARD: The assumption the Chair was making which was wrong, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman — was that I was engaging in debate. I was drawing to your attention that an authorization has been given to spend public funds by either Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker or maybe even yourself, sir, to spend public funds to build seven new desks. But why? Isn't that a part of what this bill is? And aren't we entitled to have some kind of explanation as to this misuse of public funds before we proceed any further?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there will be....

MR. HOWARD: Surely, Mr. Chairman, sleaze and dishonesty....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will remind the committee that this committee has no other business before it except to pass or defeat the motion that the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill. That is the only business that this committee can conduct at this point. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, could Your Honour then advise the committee who authorized the spending of money to build seven new desks? Was it the Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to take his place. That comment really has no place in the question before us. It is simply that the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill. The motion is before the committee now. I'm prepared to call the question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is my right as a member to ask the Chairman, through an appeal to the House on your ruling, to report what has transpired and that your ruling has been appealed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the first member for Vancouver Centre challenging the ruling of the Chair?

MR. LAUK: The procedure in committee, Mr. Chairman, is to appeal your ruling to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman's ruling has been challenged. And you want me to report it to the House. Fine. That said, you have that undertaking. I will now call the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LAUK: Once a ruling has been appealed, the Chairman must forthwith leave the chair and report to the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Thank you.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee is appealing to the Speaker on the motion that the committee rise,

[ Page 9119 ]

recommending introduction of the bill, and they're appealing the ruling of the Chairman.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Chair is reporting something which did not take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the point of order cannot be raised at this time, because it's from the committee and it has to be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with at this time.

MR. HOWARD: I respect that and I understand that, Mr. Speaker. But what I'm saying is...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...that the matter cannot arise until the Chairman reports, and the Chairman is reporting something which did not take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon member, the Chair is bound to hear the report from the Chairman. Any problem that may arise as a result of that has to be dealt with in committee. It cannot be dealt with this way. It has to be dealt with in the former....

MR. HOWARD: But the report is erroneous and, I submit, not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We have before us a motion that the ruling of the Chair be sustained. The challenge was that the ruling of the Chair was not....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged in committee. That has now been appealed to the House; the Chair will now call the question. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those opposed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The ayes have it. The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.

MR. LAUK: Division!

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is no rule in this House that permits a vote to be taken when a member is on his feet — none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Equally, hon. members, when a question has been called — when a report has been made from the Chairman to the Chair — that report will be heard. That report has been heard. The question has been determined. If further activity is required at this time. It is beyond the understanding of the Chair what that could be, other than the Chair having announced the ruling of the Chairman having been sustained. I now call the Chairman.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order, please. The Chairman will recognize the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the vote taken on your appeal was.... I asked for a division. The Speaker ignored my request for a division in the House. I move, therefore, that the Chairman report that fact to the Speaker so a division can take place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee is not aware of what has transpired in the House. The motion before the committee is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill. No other motion can be accepted, because we have that previous motion before the committee now.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, your appeal is not valid once a division has been called and not taken. We do not know whether your ruling applies or not. Mr. Chairman is not in order by putting this motion. You have to return to the House and take a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Your ruling has not been sustained once challenged by a request for a division. If the newly elected Speaker wishes to overrule our solemn right to ask for a division of this House, then let him say so in person and not rush away from the Chair to try to avoid the debate on this very important issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, I call the committee to order. We are in committee and we have one motion before us....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your statement that we have one motion before us. Your ruling has not been sustained. You cannot proceed with that motion — it's illegal. The Speaker can't just leave the chair and avoid standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair understands that the first member for Vancouver Centre is challenging the Chairman's ruling that we have one motion before us in committee. Is that correct?

MR. LAUK: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been challenged and will report to the Chair.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 9120 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a ruling by your Chairman that the committee had only one motion before it, that ruling was challenged.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like it taken into account immediately — and this is the first opportunity I've had to do it — that when Your Honour was in the chair a moment ago and a vote with respect to another report from the committee was being made, a request was made for a division upon a voice vote, and Your Honour left the chair without putting that division. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot escape the responsibility...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to order. The member for Skeena is on his feet.

MR.HOWARD: ...that out of pique, anger or whatever the emotion at the moment was, Mr. Speaker does not have the privilege of abandoning his responsibilities to this chamber, which I submit Your Honour did, very regretfully.

MR. SPEAKER: Firstly, hon. members, after the division was called the Chair heard no voice request for a division. Secondly, the Chair had been called in only to preside over a division on the ruling of whether or not the Chairman's decision would be upheld. That is the only function the Chair had at that time. It is not the responsibility of hon. members to bring points of order at the particular time that that is taking place. That must be resolved in committee. The only way the Speaker is before you now is at the request of the Chair, to determine whether or not the ruling of tile Chairman should be sustained. To partake of any other debate at this time is totally out of order and beyond the scope of our standing orders.

At this moment, hon. members, we are determining whether or not the ruling of the Chair will be sustained. That is the only question before the House at the present time. The Chair finds it very difficult to acknowledge members who rise on points of order at a place which is clearly set aside for the one specific function we have before us at the present time: that is, simply to determine whether or not the ruling of the Chair should be sustained by this House.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I've been following this fairly carefully. With the greatest respect, the error occurred when you, Mr. Speaker, failed to call for the nays on that motion. I think the record will show that you only called for the yeas.

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members would pay closer attention to what is proceeding in this House, I'm sure they would see that that was not the case.

MR. HOWARD: On a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to you that very close attention was being paid to what was happening in the House a moment ago. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet. Mr. Speaker, I submit that you could not hear the call for a division because you were leaving the chair,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, by any stretch of the imagination, members cannot possibly explain to this Chair that the word "division" cannot be heard clearly. The Chair heard no such call. That is why the proceedings before us — that the Chairman return — were the only proceedings that could take place. Had the word "division" been heard, certainly the Chair would have rung the bells accordingly and a division roll would have been taken.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what you say is correct. However, it is not normal to call for a division when a member is on his feet addressing the Chair. I was on my feet, requesting an address to the Chair. The chair was vacant before an opportunity could take place for the normal procedure. When no one is on his feet, then a division is called. If a division is called while a member is on his feet, it is a form of closure and must be voted on. I was on my feet. The chair was vacated before an opportunity, when no member was on his feet, to call for such a division. Unfortunately, I think the Chair acted in a presumptuous matter in leaving too quickly to allow normal form to take place.

I can understand why the tensions are taking place here under this unscrupulous attempt to manipulate election results. We will use every legal means to stop that manipulation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect to hon. members, will be borne in mind by the Chair very closely and carefully in subsequent events in an effort to make sure that such an incident does not repeat itself and that members have a full opportunity to call for division.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman has merely reported to you that I appealed his ruling that there was only one motion before the committee. The vote on that, either voice or division, has not been taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members, the question is that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

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

YEAS — 28

[ Page 9121 ]

NAYS — 26

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, could we have some explanation before Your Honour leaves the chair as to why the Premier ducked that particular vote and abandoned his troops behind him? Why did he run out?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order at this time, hon. member.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.... I'm in something of a dilemma. We were in committee, and due to a number of interruptions and points of order....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm on a point of privilege. I'd respect it if the member would let me finish my point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you rising on a point of order?

HON. MR. HEWITT: A point of privilege. Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance if I can't rise on a point of privilege. I'd like some advice as to what I could rise on. I sat through a discussion in committee. It was interrupted by points of order, by calling back the Speaker, by going back into committee, by calling back the Speaker and by going back into committee again. This is the first opportunity I've had to rise to bring this point before the House. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in one of his remarks on his feet in this House, raised the issue to our House Leader, and through our House Leader to all members on this side of the House, of Nazism. Mr. Chairman, there are....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. HEWITT: There are many people in this hall and many people throughout this province and this country....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the floor. He is on a point of order. The point of order will be heard uninterrupted. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With many comments made by the member for Skeena I consider their source and live with them. The member for Skeena is very apt on his feet in making remarks and comments. I'm sure if he would reflect on his remarks he would not be asked to withdraw but would offer to withdraw, and I so request that of him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, on the same point, and just before recognizing the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), if that statement was made, your Chairman did not hear it. If an imputation was made to another hon. member, the Chair would have intervened had the Chair heard it, but the Chair did not hear it. The minister has made a point, and now the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to comment upon what the former Minister of Agriculture just said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There can be no debate. To the member for Skeena, is there a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: I thought the minister had a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and the Chair explained to the hon. minister that had the Chair heard that and had the Chair felt that any member was offended by a comment that might have been made or carried, the Chair would have intervened. The Chair did not hear such a comment. I find myself powerless to act on that. However, if someone is asking the Chair for a withdrawal by a member of some statement allegedly attributed to that member, then perhaps the minister could make his point. The point of order has been heard, and the Chair did not hear any offending statement. I don't know what else I can say at this point except to recognize the hon. member for Skeena if there is a further point of order.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to assist the Chair in coming to a conclusion. At the time to which the minister referred, which Your Honour says you did not hear, let me relate to you what happened.

You were in the chair. I had risen before being recognized by the Chair. Before the formal recognition had taken place, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the government House Leader. yelled across the floor: "You're out of order." It, of course, is a function of the Chair to make that kind of determination, not a presumption on the part of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations so to declare. Because the government House Leader usurped the function of the Chair in making that determination, I quipped across to him these words: "That's the way the Nazis operate." That's what I said.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, there's no further point of order. If the hon. member for Skeena has alluded any improper motive to another hon. member, I'm sure that the hon. member for Skeena would withdraw. As I said, that statement was not heard at the time by the Chair. I am powerless to act.

[ Page 9122 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the record will indicate that the member was on his feet in debate when he made, the remark; Hansard will show that. I wish the member would withdraw. These types of remarks are not recognized in this House, I hope.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Chair hears it, any impropriety by any member will be brought to the attention of the committee. I'm sure that every hon. member of the House would withdraw if so requested. If the hon. member for Skeena imputed any improper motive, or reflected improperly upon another hon. member, would the member for Skeena please withdraw or correct the House as to what might have been interpreted.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not sure what the Chair is saying. You said "if I had attributed any motive...." The only improper motive or improper action, if there was an improper action, was the government House Leader usurping the function of the Chair. That's improper. I think you should ask the government House Leader to withdraw his offence against the Chair by making decisions that the Chair should be making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've discussed this quite enough, hon. members. We do have a question before us. It is not debatable.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) rose in his place, he rose on a question of privilege and the Chairman recognized him. This is the first opportunity that I've had to rise on a point of order to suggest to the Chairman that there is no such thing as a question of privilege in committee; only in the House can a question of privilege be raised. The Chairman was wrong in accepting a point of privilege at that stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre makes a good point. The Chair will take that point under reservation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the record will show if the point of privilege was not in the proper form. You indicated a point of order. It is not the system here in regard to how you put the question. It's a remark that many people in this hall do not find acceptable. The member for Skeena should resign or withdraw from this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. during the last five minutes, we have heard much debate about a point of order. With respect to the point of order, the Chair regrets that the Chair did not hear offensive words or offensive language. The hon. member for Skeena has said that that comment was not imputed to another hon. member of the House. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has pointed out a further comment with respect to standing orders in committee and points of privilege and points of order, which the Chair has taken under reservation. Hon. members, the matter is now finished.

We have before the committee a motion that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill.

The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you make an assumption. I'll live up to your assumption, Mr. Chairman.

We are at this stage of the proceedings because leave was denied for introduction of a bill with leave. When one asks for introduction of a bill with leave, that is a modern practice which circumvents the ancient practice of introduction of bills. So in order to find out where we are right now we must go back to very early authorities. I have read Erskine May's thirteenth edition, which points out that "in preparing bills care must be taken that they do not contain provisions not authorized by the order of leave or by the resolutions upon which the bill was ordered to be brought in...."

We have not seen this bill....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The Committee of the Whole cannot fulfil its function unless it is in possession of this bill. Before recommending for or against introduction of the bill, it is our duty to find out if it contains provisions which are not authorized, provisions such as.... I'm quoting from page 383 of Sir Erskine May's thirteenth edition. We must decide whether it perhaps does not follow some of the instructions which would find the bill incompetent. Without being in possession of the bill, we cannot do that. On those same pages it is pointed out that on occasions there must have been debate under this ancient practice, because it was also a practice at times to recommend introduction of several bills at one time, some of which were recommended for introduction and others were recommended against by the same Committee of the Whole in the same sitting.

It is impossible for this committee to proceed without being in possession of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is why we have the motion before us that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill so we may see the bill. The Chair has already ruled, upheld by the House, that the motion is not debatable. The Chair has accepted that point of order. The Chair will accept one more point of order from the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I accept that when we are following the normal practice of the House, which is to expedite proceedings by waiving the ancient practice, we waive all of this right to have access to the bill. But when one follows the ancient practice that we're into now, it's very obvious, by reading the citations in Erskine May, that on March 5, 1911, when the people of Westminster brought in a bill relating to the slave trade and ordered its introduction nemine contradicente, they certainly had some knowledge of the form of the bill being introduced, as they had with the regency bills of 1789 and 1811. They were founded upon resolutions which had been reported from a committee to the whole House, communicated through the House of Lords and then to the House of Commons.

How could these learned parliamentarians have recommended such bills, not having had even knowledge of them? We are now following this ancient practice and I ask the Chairman, what is the rush? Why can we not at least see this bill before we recommend its introduction?

[ Page 9123 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made. However, the House has ruled that the motion is non-debatable. The citations have been given to members of the committee and to the Whole House.

I will again tell you that it is the practice and usage of this House that there is no debate either in Committee of the Whole House or in a stage of report from the Committee of the Whole House relative to a message bill that is before us. We have a simple question now that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill. That is the motion before us.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you indicated to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston that he was entitled to only one more point of order. Is that a ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that was not a ruling, and it was not intended for the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. HOWARD: Just before you proceed, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who levelled some accusations earlier, has now disappeared from the chamber, therefore absenting himself from any responsibility to this committee for what he said. What he said, which I personally find offensive, is that it's okay for the Premier to label thousands and thousands of people in this province as Nazis, which the Premier did and which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs approved. It's okay for that to happen, but it isn't okay for a member in this chamber to make some oblique reference to the manner in which this bill is being proceeded with.

I find that demand for double standards by this government and that Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be offensive. I wish you would order him back into the House so that he can be challenged for making those kinds of accusations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair dealt with the point of order as stated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and also allowed the point of order and a comment from the hon. member for Skeena. That matter is now finished with. What has happened outside this committee is not known to this committee. I will tell all members of the committee that the only item before us now is a motion that the committee rise and recommend the introduction of this message bill. That is the only item we can accept at this point.

MR. HOWARD: On a further point of order, what is the Chair going to do with the point of order that I've raised?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What point of order? I did not hear a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order that I raised earlier, sir, which you listened to very attentively — or wasn't the Chair listening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the hon. member for Skeena and the committee that the Chair ruled the matter finished, that in the mind of the Chairman the points of order raised by the minister and the hon. member were finished, and we are now dealing with the motion before us.

MR. HOWARD: It was a brand new point of order that I raised. Mr. Chairman. To repeat, it was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs levelled some accusations and a demand for double standards, which I find offensive, and I ask him to withdraw that accusation. I ask the Chair to find out where that minister has absconded to. What is he, a hit-and-run driver, that he can smear people and then run and hide?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please. I'll ask the Provincial Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition to come to order.

Hon. members, the point of order raised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the member for Skeena was dealt with to the satisfaction of the Chair. Following that, a point of order by the hon. member for Nelson Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was heard, and that was dealt with by the Chair We now have only one item before us, and that is the question that the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

On a point of order on the motion, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston — and there is no debate.

MR. NICOLSON: No, I'm not on a point of order. I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion cannot be accepted. We are in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the member for Nelson-Creston moved that the House do now adjourn. The Chair ruled that the committee cannot accept such a motion; that ruling has been challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the ruling of the Chair has been challenged. The question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

[ Page 9124 ]

NAYS — 25

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LAUK: I move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That motion is unacceptable and not allowed, hon. member. There is already a question put.

MR. LAUK: I challenge the ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order before the challenge....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling has already been challenged by the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: On the ruling being challenged, the question is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 26

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: On, a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that today the House has been in a very bad state. I further bring to your attention that the responsibility of your majestic office as Speaker requires you to take action. Standing order 9 says that "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order...." I bring to your attention, sir, that the House has been in disorder, and there has been absolutely no decorum. It's about time the House was brought back to order and to the movement of business, in the interests of the public. We've been held up two hours today by an opposition that's using every means possible to delay the actions of this House. I believe the Speaker has the right. The government stands on what it does. It stands on its policy and the Speaker shall, I hope, make a decision.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, as a member of this House for 14 years, I feel very badly that the Speaker has been insulted by the member for Dewdney, and is being accused of not keeping the House in order. Valid points of order have been raised and I would suggest that the member for Dewdney was totally out of order in making that accusation.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of privilege, it is a clear distortion of the facts when the member for New Westminster says I insulted the Speaker's office. I had no intention to do so, and did not, by any conception. A distortion of the words merely points out the despicable state of the opposition today.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before us, hon. members, is that the House do now adjourn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: On the motion put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston, may I remind members that standing order 44 states:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the Rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

[ Page 9125 ]

The Chair chooses the latter, and proposes not to put the question to the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, page 274 of Erskine May's thirteenth edition says:

"In the midst of the debate upon a question any member may move that this House do now adjourn, not by way of an amendment to the original question, but as a distinct question, which interrupts and supersedes that already under consideration. It need scarcely be explained that such a motion cannot be made while a member is speaking, but can only be offered by a member who, on being called by the Speaker in the course of debate, is in possession of the House. If this second question be resolved...the original question is superseded."

That is a test, I would submit, of the will of the House as to the order of business presented to this House today; that is, to consider, without being in possession of a bill, the introduction of a bill, through the ancient practice of the House. It was not out of frivolousness that I proposed that motion, but with a very deep purpose: that is, to prevent this action. The official opposition — and not one member, but obviously 26 members — wish to see that some sort of justice is done in the introduction of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair stands.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling.

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 25

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. LAUK: Seconded by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I move to amend the motion by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) now before the committee, stating that the motion of the Hon. James Chabot be amended to add, after the last word thereof, the phrase: "six months hence."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the motion is not subject to debate, as the committee is well aware. It is also not subject to amendment, and I so rule.

MR. LAUK: Where does it say that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 45.

MR. LAUK: With respect. Mr. Chairman, you can't make it up as you go along.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I draw the committee's attention to standing order 45(2), which says: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment." We do have a motion before us now. I will now call....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 25

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

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? The member for Nelson-Creston rises on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 9126 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has already been called, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: No, we have a motion before the committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before the committee that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, on a point of order then, Mr. Chairman, a similar circumstance occurs in Committee of Supply when the motion is that supply be granted to Her Majesty in the amount of so many dollars on each vote and each ministry, say in the amount of $1.5 million for the minister's office. That is the motion that's under consideration, but of course the committee can always move that it rise, report progress on that motion and ask leave to sit again. It does not kill the motion. The motion is still active in the committee. Then if we were to report to the Speaker, the Speaker would ask you, I would presume: when shall the committee sit again? Or he would ask the House Leader, or perhaps the minister: when shall the committee sit again? One would presume it would be next sitting, Mr. Speaker. It does not kill the motion that's before us; it simply reports progress of the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In Committee of Supply, hon. member, debate is allowed. On the motion that is presently before this committee debate is not allowed. That has already been established. Therefore we have the motion in front of us that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill, and that is the only motion that can proceed at this point.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, what has been determined so far by way of challenge has been that the committee will not adjourn. This is a committee reporting, which is the practice now advocated by the member. There has been no ruling today, or prior to today, to prevent a committee from entertaining a motion to report. There's been no such motion made today during committee. What the member has pointed out has been the practice of this House ever since I've been here. During committee it is possible for any member to stand up and ask that the committee report. We're not asking the committee to adjourn. It's the normal practice of asking a committee to report, which has never been refused a vote in this House. The member is asking that the committee report, not adjourn. There's a distinction and the member's point is well taken. It is correct that a motion to report from committee has never been rejected at any time in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair cannot accept the point of order as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition.

The motion before us now is clear — that the committee rise and recommend the introduction of the bill — and is not subject to debate or amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the Chair to cite to the House the authorities that demonstrate that a motion for the committee to report is not in order at any time — not to adjourn, but report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, once again I will refer you to our standing order 45 (2), which clearly states: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment."

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston has in essence proposed an amendment to the motion, the motion being that....

MR. NICOLSON: No.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Leader of the Opposition to please come to order.

Progress presupposes debate, hon. members. Therefore clearly under section 45(2) we must move to the question before us, which is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. LEA: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged and will be reported to the Speaker shortly.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the ruling of the Chair under section 45(2) be sustained.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order on the division, when the Chair has been challenged, I submit that the Chairman, being challenged, cannot vote in the House on that challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the long-standing practice and tradition of this House is, has been, and will be that the member may vote in the House. He always has been able to vote, and nothing would preclude him from voting on this particular issue.

We could further address this subject, but I would like to have this division taken at this time, and then we could possibly entertain further discussion on the point if that....

MR. LAUK: Reserving my right to raise it after the division?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

YEAS — 28

[ Page 9127 ]

NAYS — 25

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, as I stated before, was that the Chairman, being challenged in committee, should not be allowed to vote on that appeal to the House. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you are of a different mind; your views may vary from mine on this subject. May I have a ruling?

MR. SPEAKER: For the information of the member, the previous remarks of the Chair will stand.

MR. LAUK: I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. I would also bring to the members' attention that it is most inappropriate to consume any kind of food in the House, particularly when one is addressing the House.

Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) was not counted in the roll.

MR. SPEAKER: He was not in the House, hon. member.

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

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, if the member for Coquitlam-Moody was not in the House during the vote, how did he get into the House during the roll? Did he come through the gallery and climb down? If the doors are not secure, then there was no division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is very capable of explaining the situation to himself if he feels he has been wronged. He is conspicuously staying in his place. I think that should speak in itself.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, standing order 16(2) says: "Upon a division being called the division-bell shall be rung.... No member shall enter or leave the House during the stating of the question, nor leave the House after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every member present shall vote." It's not up to the hon. members to know when a vote is being taken as they enter the House, but it is up to the Speaker to control the situation and make sure that standing order 16 is adhered to.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will look into the matter. In any case, the member referred to was not in his place when the division was called.

The House in committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, in order to assist the committee I have been diligently reading "Procedures in Committees of the Whole House," on page 453 of Sir Erskine May's thirteenth edition, the paragraph just above the bottom. It says: "A message from the Crown which has been referred to a Committee of the Whole House and resolutions which regulate its proceedings are read by a Clerk at the table so soon as the committee has been entered upon."

I therefore submit that the committee cannot proceed until the Clerk at the table has read the resolutions and message from the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not the practice of the House. Nothing can be read with respect to the bill until it is introduced. The bill has not yet been introduced. That is the stage we are at now, with a motion before this committee that the committee rise. recommending introduction of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, standing order I says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House." Certainly this is quite applicable. Surely there must be some bill written down somewhere, and surely the Clerk can read the message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to the House. So it is applicable. It is not covered by other usages in this House. It is the usage in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple request for a conformation to the forms of parliamentary practice.

[ Page 9128 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with respect to your comment that the Clerk should read the bill, the Speaker has already introduced the message bill. With respect to your comments about practice, in summary: "B.C. Speakers' rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and officers may be guided. Such precedents are collected, and in the course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, what is the authority that is being quoted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The authority is Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by MacMinn.

We are on a motion. The committee sees no other reason to accept any other point of order.

The hon. member for Okanagan North (Mrs. Jordan) rises on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I really seek your advice, using standing order 43 as a possible reference, where it addresses itself to the tedious and repetitious use of arguments either by an individual member or by other people. In relation to this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, my concern is on behalf of the public and the taxpayers of British Columbia. They're not concerned about whether it's a matter of pronouncing it "clerk" or "clark" or of the parliamentary rules of Ireland and Great Britain a hundred years ago. They sent us here this afternoon to deal with some of the very serious economic and job problems of this province. [Applause.] Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the applauding and the misunderstanding of the omission here by the opposition members only further enhances the concern of the public of British Columbia that in fact there is a responsibility in this House, that the members' conduct this afternoon is totally preoccupied with technicalities, and that they are proving themselves....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. member to come to order. Standing order 43 has been stated by the hon. member for Okanagan North. The point is well made. The point of order will be accepted in the House by the committee. The committee is well aware of standing order 43. I would commend it to all members of the committee.

Hon. members, we have before us now a motion....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, is the Chair suggesting that one can be too tedious or too repetitious in the defence of parliamentary practices and procedures which have served very well throughout the British Commonwealth, going back to the 1200s? Is that what the Chair is suggesting? If he is, I suggest that he resign his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The record will show — and I would commend this to all members of the committee — that the member for Okanagan North and the statement made by her with respect to standing order 43 were well taken by the House. The hon. members may look at standing order 43 and they will see that the Chairman or the Speaker, from time to time, may embark upon one action or another. The Chair's only comment was that that point of order was well taken by the Chair from the member for Okanagan North. I'm sure standing order 43 is explicit to all those who wish to read it.

Are you ready for the question? The question is that the committee rise, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 23

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the report be adopted.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, that's not the proper motion, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is that the proper motion? I see three nodding heads. I withdraw my objection.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 9129 ]

NAYS — 23

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

Bill 80, Constitution Amendment Act, 1982, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REVISED BUDGET

MR. STUPICH: The moment we've all been waiting for.

A question to the Minister of Finance. Late in July the Minister of Finance, when he presented the report for the first quarter, told us that there was a possibility of a shortfall of some three-quarters of a billion dollars. Early in August, the Conference Board of Canada predicted....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It's very difficult for the Chair to hear the member for Nanaimo, who is placing a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Early in August the Conference Board of Canada predicted that the B.C. deficit could be $1.5 billion, and speaking in the same month — early in August — the Premier said that it could be as much as $1.7 billion. In view of the shocking variation between these figures and the figures presented in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance on April 5, does he intend to bring in a revised budget for 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo, no, I do not intend to bring in a revised budget for the 1982-83 fiscal year. That was an indication that I gave to this House some months ago, and that still stands.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, does the same minister admit now that when he introduced the budget on April 5 it bore little relation to what he actually expected would be the results for this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the question from the hon. member for Nanaimo suggests that I produced a budget which I did not expect would survive the year, I would refer him to earlier questions and answers and debate in my estimates, I believe. Certainly Hansard shows quite clearly that the budget which was presented some months ago to this House for this fiscal year — was a budget which we believed would survive the full fiscal year. Perhaps in another question or at another moment I could expand on that. I trust the member is not inferring that the budget was not produced with the greatest of care in view of what forecasts were available to us at that particular time. I think while the member served briefly as the Minister of Finance he did not produce a budget for the socialist government, but the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the House at the present time, did produce budgets during the socialist administration, He would know, if he were here, that you prepare a budget on the basis of the best possible forecasts you have available to you plus, on the expenditure side, the necessary expenditure restrictions which clearly are in place at this time.

MR. STUPICH: Is the Minister of Finance telling the House that the deterioration in the first quarter was of such a magnitude that he was $1.5 billion out in his estimates?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member will be relieved to know that unlike the socialist government from 1972-1975, notwithstanding deterioration in revenues, this government and all members of the treasury benches and Treasury Board itself have continued to work cooperatively to reduce expenditures. to continue the program of restraint announced by the Premier on February 18. We are achieving considerable success in reducing the projected shortfall which would be the case if we had decided to simply sit back and let events run without any interference whatsoever by the government. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the member must know, in asking the question — and I think this House should know — that we continue to examine every possible area of restraint throughout government in order to close the gap between revenue and expenditure for this fiscal year.

MR. STUPICH: One final supplementary. What is the minister's current estimate of the shortfall for 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will be in a position to report more fully on that on another occasion. This government, as the members know, introduced quarterly reporting. I can tell this House and the member who has asked this question, as well as others, that our savings thus far this year are in the area of some hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister, when the Minister of Finance prepared the budget for the spring, he ignored the forecasts being made throughout North America and in trade publications about the downturn in our British Columbia economy. Has the minister decided to direct the $500 million that the government is not paying the British Columbia Railway for the northeast coal project toward saving Education and Health programs?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It will be difficult to resist commenting on a forecast that was referred to by that member in particular, one which we all remember with a degree of....

I feel that the question is based on an incorrect assumption. It assumes that health care and education in this province are in jeopardy, and they are not. The care with which this government, and particularly the ministers responsible for those areas, have worked not only within their own ministries but with other ministers suggests that the question is based on a completely incorrect political assumption.

[ Page 9130 ]

MR. LAUK: I don't want to belabour the point, but I wonder if the minister can direct his mind to the question. It's based on our information that the government has decided not to pay the $500 million to the BCR, as promised. Are they going to take that money to save Education and Health programs that are presently being cut? In Education all 75 districts, and in Health most of the hospitals, are suffering from these cuts. This is widely known, and documented in detail. Is the minister deciding to take that saving" If he's going to renege on the BCR, can he not use that money for health and education?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The three items are not interrelated — that is, BCR, Health and Education.

MR. LAUK: I see. Well, $500 million is good currency for hospitals and schools, just as much as for railroads.

CUTBACKS IN EDUCATION

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Some predictions indicate that Education programs cut now will create a generation of unemployed. Has the minister calculated the welfare costs to government in the long run as a result of current Education cutbacks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: School boards across the province on average have 18 percent more money now than in 1981. That's the increase in moneys available to school boards.

Granted, school boards will need to make adjustments in certain programs. We've already heard from a number of school boards that they've been able to meet the challenge of making those changes in a way whereby the educational process is not affected, and there are no layoffs or rollbacks in teacher salaries. We've heard from the school boards of Kamloops, the Gulf Islands and several others that have complied and done well. We're looking to all school boards to act likewise. I expect that education in British Columbia will not only continue to flourish, but will get better still and offer more opportunities than ever before.

MR. LAUK: School boards today, this year, have about 16,000 percent more money than they got in 1910.

In any event, the minister has suggested that the 18 percent is an increase that was gratis, given by the government. That is to pay the fixed costs and user charges, many of which are imposed by this government on the very school system. The school board budgets were first approved by the minister in January of this year. They were cut back in April. Schools suffered further cuts in July. Over half of the 1982 budget had already been spent by July. Is it now government policy that the education system will be funded on a month-to-month basis rather than on an annual basis?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Responsible governments are required to take certain actions during a fiscal year, and responsible local governments respond accordingly. It was a responsibility of this government and my ministry to ensure that school boards respond to the economic conditions in the province and the country and make certain changes to their budgets. I expect responsible school boards will act accordingly. I not only expect this, but the evidence we are receiving in the office now would indicate that they can.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister advise the House whether he thinks it is fair to cut back programs to our children in our school system and at the same time pour money down the drain in the northeast coal project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think our young people in school today can be very grateful for living in British Columbia, where there are still a number of economic activities taking place which will offer them a future after they get out of school.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister not agree, as most educators and industrialists today agree, that even to obtain an ordinary job the average British Columbia young person has to receive grade 12 and subsequent training and that, therefore, education cuts will preclude our children and our British Columbia kids from getting those very jobs that he's talking about?

INTEREST-FREE BONDS

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance, has the government decided on the interest rate it will be offering to attract investors to the interest-free bonds which the government has announced they will be floating in the marketplace?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is in the negative. We have not decided on the rate.

MR. STUPICH: Has the government decided to recommend purchase of these bonds in the same way that the Premier endorsed and recommended purchase of BCRIC shares?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I assume that the member knows the difference between stock and bonds; perhaps he does not.

MR. STUPICH: Our concern is whether or not the government and the Premier recognize the difference.

Has the government decided to respond positively to those British Columbians who have offered to buy the new government bonds if the government will accept as consideration their BCRIC shares at original face value?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not aware of any discussion relative to that matter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the depression-level state of the economy brought about by the Premier's endorsement of high interest rates, with the resulting 126 percent increase in unemployment in one year, bringing the number of officially recognized unemployed in British Columbia to 181,000, plus an additional hidden number of 85,000, for a total of 266,000, the highest number ever in the history of the province, thus giving an 18.1 percent rate of unemployment, as announced last Friday, and resulting in 228 businesses driven into either receivership or bankruptcy in the past month alone.

Knowing that there is a limit on this introduction and that I must confine my remarks very closely to the motion, I had expected, Mr. Speaker, that the House would have been called back today with the first order of business being to deal

[ Page 9131 ]

with those British Colombians who are losing their homes and possessions because of unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As the hon. member is well aware, the provisions of standing order 35 do not give us an opportunity to canvass the merits of the resolution presented to the Chair. It is up to the Chair to make that decision at this time. The member has already briefly explained the context of his standing order 35 motion. No further debate can be allowed, in accordance with those guidelines.

MR. BARRETT: That is why I kept the motion brief. But the urgency is just as stark as the motion. Just surviving in office is not what you were elected for, and you had better remember that, to your peril.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake to bring back a decision on this at the earliest opportunity, without prejudice to the motion put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to take a few moments, as minister responsible for ICBC, to make a comment under section 2.

Probably more than most people in this House, because of the responsibilities I have with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, I get involved in the problems that result because of those who drive a car after they have consumed alcohol. We in this province have some of the most difficult roads and terrain to travel. That, mixed with alcohol, can cause some pretty serious problems.

The statistics that I have indicate that in 1981 approximately 37 percent of all the deaths incurred in automobile accidents were alcohol-related. I've heard figures that have been used by the task force that was put into place by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), and ICBC to deal with the problem of motor vehicle legislation and the stiffening of the penalties that are in place now. The one area that I think is most important deals with section 2, where we have people driving with over .08 blood-alcohol content. If I read the section properly, if the blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.... Not being a person conversant with metric, I deem that to be .08; but I do sometimes get confused with the metric language.

The concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if people are going to drink, we all hope they drink in moderation. If they drink and consume alcohol that takes their blood count above that .08, they are driving a lethal weapon. They are of no benefit to society and themselves, and the results of their action can be devastating. A lot of people seem to think that it's nice to say to your guests: "Have one for the road." It's nice to be a big shot and say you can handle it, that you can drive the car, even though you've consumed several beers or cocktails. You stagger out of the cocktail lounge, beer parlour or neighbour's home, get in your car and step on the gas. Everybody in that traffic line, or lane, from that point until you arrive home is in danger.

This section, Mr. Chairman, deals with the fines involved in this. You commit an offence if you've been found to have over .08 blood-alcohol content. You're now liable to receive a fine of not less than $100 or not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment of not less than seven days and not more than six months, or both. I think that as time goes on and as this legislation is enacted and is carried out, there'll be the odd individual who complains bitterly that by being put in jail because they've committed this offence, because they've been impaired, it impacts on themselves, on their family, on their job, and there'll be some "bleeding hearts" who will say, "Well, let's forgive them this time" or "Let's not be quite so severe." Mr. Chairman, we've tried that. Governments have tried that for years and it just hasn't worked. It comes to pass now where the laws have to be severe and people have to recognize their responsibility and the privilege they have in driving a car. They cannot mix alcohol and driving. They cannot do that, because they do not have that right. If they do, they are subject to the penalties that are laid down, and in this particular case, those penalties are severe and will get more severe in the future if we can't control the carnage on our highway and the carnage that is involved where alcohol is involved.

I spoke on this bill during second reading and I probably am repeating myself to a certain extent. But I wanted to bring home to the members present that in my role as minister responsible for lCBC, the statistics that we see, the letters, the stories. the scenes that are brought home to us indicate that we must have severe penalties and we must have legislation like this to ensure that loved ones are protected, and that in some cases we are protected against ourselves. I just wanted to make that comment with regard to section 2, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the blood alcohol count and the penalties that are stated under section 2 of this legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I, too, like many other members of this House, have spoken at some length on second reading of this bill. We don't want to go through that again. The opposia tion of course supports this bill. The previous speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, discussed statistics. I want to tell you that as our transportation critic, I do have the opportunity of going over these statistics at some length. They are horrifying.

However, penalties will help alleviate the problem, and this bill deals primarily with penalties if people don't do certain things and submit to blood tests and that kind of thing. But penalties are not the whole answer to this problem. I know that penalties in some countries and some states are much more severe than they are here in British Columbia. Nonetheless. that hasn't solved the problem there either.

The Crown corporations committee just recently submitted what I consider to be a fairly good report — short, concise and readable. In the State of Washington, since they've gone into different ways of dealing with drinking drivers and traffic violations, their rate of accidents due to alcohol on the

[ Page 9132 ]

highways has actually dropped, according to the Crown corporations committee report. I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions on this section. Would he tell this House, if he's looked at those recommendations — I'm sure the minister has — whether he intends to eventually implement some of those recommendations — of course, if the people over there are still in government after the next month or two.

There is a series of nine recommendations contained in this Crown corporations committee report, and perhaps the minister could indicate.... More specifically to section 2 of this bill which were now discussing, part 5 provides that a "defendant may with leave of the court require the attendance of a person who made the certificate for cross-examination." We think that leave of the court ought not to be necessary. It would certainly create additional delay in the justice system, which is already overloaded, as you well know. The context suggests that you have to appear first to seek leave to get the author of the certificate into court on a subsequent occasion; and I wonder if the minister could explain why that was done. I'm told by legal counsel on our side of the House that in other areas this type of manoeuvre or procedure is not allowed in the justice system. Perhaps the minister could explain that situation.

Ordinarily I'd sit down right now, but I do want to say one more word on this whole matter while we're discussing this particular bill. In reading the Crown corporations committee report, it's really quite horrifying to see the figures put to us in the way they are. The committee reports that from 1978 to 1981, motor vehicle accidents. Injuries and fatalities increased at an annual rate of 10 percent. If this trend continues, in each week of 1982, 18 people will die, 930 people will be injured and 5,680 automobiles will suffer property damage.

Quite frankly, this trend simply cannot continue in this province. I'm stressing to the minister, although I know I'm a bit out of order when I'm saying this, Mr. Chairman, to read this report and to consider bringing in, at some future legislative session — presumably the next one — legislation to follow at least some of the recommendations brought in by the Crown corporations committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm fully supportive, as I hope all members of this assembly are, of this particular measure. I think the message we have to articulate to the driving community in British Columbia is a simple one. This is a warning, a very strong warning to all drivers in our province. If they wish to drink, fine. If they want to drive, fine. But if they wish to drink and drive, that cannot be permitted in British Columbia, because doing both is a crime. This has to be recognized as a criminal act.

This bill is essentially proposing, in my view, to do four things. Because of its very strong message, it's proposing to save lives — and it can, if the message is heeded. It is proposing to prevent injury — and it can, if the message is heeded. It is proposing to lessen damage — and it can do that as well, if the message is heeded. And it also provides a mechanism for society for those of us who do not wish to be killed or maimed, or to suffer damage, as the result of the criminal activity of a drunken driver. It gives those people in society an opportunity to better prosecute and bring to strong sanction that kind of criminal activity. I think that is the message we have to herald across the province.

MR. LEGGATT: Needless to say, we on this side of the House endorse the sentiments that the government House Leader has just expressed. However, I want to raise a concern. I'd like to see this bill be effective; I want it to work. I'm very concerned with a section of the new Canadian charter of human rights which says, under section 7 (c), that no person shall be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence. I'm afraid this legislation is going to be challenged. Just as the breathalyser section has been challenged in Ontario, I think we're going to face a legal challenge with respect to the bill. We support the bill and we want the bill to work.

I want to suggest to the Attorney-General that there be a provision under the Motor Vehicles Act that all persons applying for a licence or licence renewals provide the necessary consent at that time that a sample of their blood be taken so as to avoid the problem of whether the bill in fact violates the Canadian charter. I don't want to see this bill struck down on a legal argument based upon the old principle of self incrimination. It seems to me we have a route around it. I'm sorry, I haven't prepared an amendment. I'm only making a suggestion to the Attorney-General. He may have some legal opinions that he's satisfied with, and I certainly respect that. But I have some concern that there will be a serious challenge to both the existing breathalyser legislation and this new legislation under blood sampling, which I don't want to see succeed. I happen to agree with the government House Leader and with the sentiments expressed here that we've got to be serious about drinking and driving, and that blood is the best way to test alcohol content. It's better than the Borkenstein breathalyser. It's always been the right answer in terms of producing cogent evidence at trial.

I make the suggestion that serious consideration must be given to amending the Motor Vehicle Act in terms of licence application. Every person who applies for a licence should at that time provide consent for a sample of his blood to be taken, so that the challenge can be met. I think it will come: defence lawyers will challenge this on the old principle of self-incrimination. I think the public of British Columbia would be very happy to say: "Yes, you can take a sample of my blood. I don't mind that at all if it's going to save any lives in this province." I just raise that as a suggestion. I suspect a lot of this legislation is going to be challenged under the new charter. This is one way to get around it.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I rise to support this bill. I don't pretend that I'm going to support it on technicalities. I've spent seven years dealing with technicalities from the chair. I would like to discuss this bill not from the point of view of whether $100 is too much or too little for a minimum fine. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not $2,000 is too much or too little for a maximum fine. I don't think I'm so concerned about whether seven days of penalty in jail is the right amount or whether it is too much or too little. I'd like to discuss the bill from its necessity in the first place.

I have a brother who has served in the emergency vehicle road services. The stark truth is this: you have imbibers, you have those who imbibe to excess and you have those who have a blood-alcohol content of beyond .08. They aim their vehicles down the road and disaster occurs, damage is done, bodily injury occurs and lives are taken. The sad part of it is that it's not the person with the blood-alcohol content who suffers alone because, according to my brother, each time

[ Page 9133 ]

there is a more-than-single-vehicle accident there is an innocent bystander who pays a supreme price, sometimes with his life and at other times dismemberment.

Therefore we have to discuss the importance of the bill in the first instance. This particular section 1s the one that is going to provide the deterrent if there is to be one. Those who have worked in my profession — the one when I wear the other hat — have to deal with people who do not understand why they as innocent individuals should have this great indiscretion heaped upon them. Those who stand at the graveside of an innocent victim don't understand why. They would be the first to say that .08 may not be low enough. They are the first to say that roadside suspensions at .05 might not be low enough.

I think that in supporting the bill we need to say: "Let's try these measures and see if they provide a strong enough deterrent." If they do not, then let's have the courage of our convictions to change them to even more stringent levels. To believe that all men would be responsible enough that they would subscribe to the ideal and that each one in turn, having consumed enough alcohol so that he himself might be suspicious as to what level his blood-alcohol content were, would then refrain from driving, would be great. But human nature being what it is, a deterrent is going to be necessary. I hope that this deterrent in section 2 is going to be the deterrent that is required for 1982. If it's not good enough for 1983, I say let's change it. I hope that every member in this House sees the importance of this bill and this particular section and will support it.

MR. MITCHELL: I too want to join the government in supporting this bill. Like the previous speaker, whom I was happy to follow, I talk with another hat at times.

I think it's important that we look at what we are embarking on. Changing the evidence.... Really this is what you are doing: enabling the law-enforcement authorities to gather real evidence that will be presented in court. Maybe the minister can answer this later on. For those who have studied the operation of the breathalyser machine, the figure of .08 was derived from what type of reaction a person would have from a breathalyser. They will find from actual tests that the .08 level of alcohol in the blood will give a lot higher breathalyser reading. So actually what you are getting is higher evidence with less consumption.

This is the important part. None of this legislation is of any value unless it is advertised and the people really understand it. I know that this side of the House has condemned this government for wasting a lot of money on propaganda. But I think that this is an opportunity that police have always used. All accidents are caused by what we call the three E's: lack of education, lack of enforcement and poor engineering. A lot of drunken driving is caused by the lack of the three E's — lack of education for people understanding how little alcohol being drunk at a party can affect the blood-alcohol level in their body. There are a lot of people who really don't understand that a slightly built person of 130 pounds drinking three or four drinks will have a far higher blood-alcohol level than the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I think this is the type of education that should be sold to the public so that people understand that the effect of alcohol is based on the size of the person and the volume of blood in the body — that a 150-pound athletic person will have more blood than a 150-pound person who is a fat slob and an officer worker.

These are the actual facts. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can drink far more than some of his colleagues because he is in excellent shape; he is healthy, muscular and has a lot of blood. The volume of alcohol that he may drink would give him a lower alcohol content in his blood.

This is the type of education and information, like the breathalyser van, that should be given out to the public so people really understand what is happening to them when they drink, so they can analyze their own physical condition. These figures are all based on the healthy, 150-pound person. But there are a lot of wives of 100 pounds and 110 pounds who go out with their husbands, and they think they can drink along with a husband who is working hard in construction, and they can't. They get mad at the old man; they stomp out of the pub; they take the car, and they wonder why they blow some of the ridiculous figures they blow. As they are small in stature, they have far less volume of alcohol and they have a higher reading. This is the type of information that the government should promote in a positive manner so people understand that you are now bringing in a piece of legislation that will help the law enforcement authorities get proper, solid evidence to stop drunken driving, so that the public understand what is going to happen when they start giving a few samples of blood. I think that in supporting the legislation there is a real challenge for the government to explain again. The only type of education that has any value is repetition of positive facts, not scare tactics, given out in a constructive manner in such a way that people understand how little alcohol for a lightly built person can affect them when they get on the road. I think the education needed is there.

I know the minister would have this side of the House support that type of education — I don't say propaganda — of what is going to happen. Again, from one who has been actively, involved in the problems of drunken driving, I welcome it.

MR. LEVI: I have some trouble only with the sanction side of this bill. This is the best nonpartisan issue we can deal with in this House. Even on the subcommittee of the Crown corporations we had some very excellent meetings and good exchange and produced a good report. We were a little apprehensive at the time we issued the report because there was no coverage on it. However, subsequent to our concerns. about three weeks ago there were three or four very excellent articles in the press.

I am not one who believes in the deterrent principal, because I don't think it works. I spent many years in the criminal justice system, and was always concerned about that. However, what I am concerned about is that if you're going to deal with individuals who are thoughtless and undisciplined, and will go out and create deaths — they are really murderers — then we should be looking at sanctions much more Draconian even than those in this bill.

It amazes me that we have not gotten to the stage.... The unfortunate part about this bill is that it's the second piece of legislation we've had around this question. Alongside that, we had a committee of the Crown corporations looking at the whole safety question. But unfortunately we've done little bits of sticking-plaster with it. Had we been able to put it all together, we probably would have then looked at the whole

[ Page 9134 ]

question of sanctions. I'm talking now about Draconian sanctions. I'm not talking about whether somebody should pay $100 or $2,000.

About six weeks ago the Province had an editorial which to me was a great attention-getting editorial. It said it's amazing that in this province we, unfortunately, have the worst drivers, the worst accident rate, and such a high death rate — last year §some 780 people. And they put it in a different way. They said, what kind of public reaction would there be if there was an airplane crash in which 780 people were killed? That's a rather Draconian example, but when you think about the number of people that are killed, we may have come to the time when we have to treat people who drive while they're drunk in the same way as we treat people who are charged with attempted murder. In some states in the United States, they're using the mechanism of confiscation of the vehicle. If you are convicted, you forfeit the vehicle. In many states in the United States legislation is such that you go to jail. The question of fines is inequitable anyway, because if you make a good enough living you can pay the fine. If you can't, you go to jail.

The only shortcoming in the bill, unfortunately, is first, that we don't have the Draconian measures that are needed to deal with this, and secondly, one of the better recommendations from that Crown corporations report is the creation of a safety commission. One thing that needs to be done is that the whole question has to get much more focus. From time to time it gets a great deal of focus, when the BATmobiles are going around, and it's great. Unfortunately, we were told in some of the hearings that there isn't enough money to allow the BATmobiles to go out as often as they should go out. If we can't do the enforcement in that way, then we should be looking at much more Draconian measures.

It's a great pity that we tend to do this kind of legislation in a piecemeal way. It's a start and it certainly has to be supported, but somewhere down the line, I hope in the not too distant future, we can put all of this together and come up with much better enforcement and preventive legislation. I am not optimistic. A sober person does okay. They get into a car if they're not drinking, and they drive carefully. Everybody should drive carefully, whether they drink or not. The trouble is that when you get into the use of a drug, you are no longer responsible. That's the great tragedy. We have not got that across. We simply have not got that across to the people who drink. A great tragedy, one which is always shocking, is that every time we have somebody killed and we look at the record of the driver involved, my God, it's terrible. I was in New York last week and there was a report on those two actresses who were involved in an accident in San Francisco. A truck driver hit them, and my God, that fellow had 19 convictions and he's back on the street again because his bail was only $1,500.

I keep emphasizing the word "Draconian," because I think this is what it really needs. We cannot be that easy with people about this. We deal with people who are convicted of attempted murder in a very, very serious way, but we tend to make a distinction when the weapon is a car. I personally feel that we should be looking at offences of the nature of motor manslaughter, that kind of thing, because then we put the seriousness of the problem in the right order. It's as serious as committing capital murder, in my opinion. The attitudinal thing is the whole process of education, and that means a lot of exposure through the media, in the schools.

Nevertheless, I am just emphasizing that we tend to need much more Draconian measures than we have. We can't expect to put into a bill that if you don't conform and take a blood test, you might have to pay a thousand dollars. That to me is not a Draconian measure. There are many people who are bright enough to know that it's better to pay a thousand bucks than take the chance of having a blood test and finding that you were impaired. That's the unfortunate part about it. It's a way out for some people. However, it's a beginning. I hope we can put it all together in a much better form than we have now.

MR. COCKE: I too support the bill. As a matter of fact, I spoke at some length in second reading of the bill. I think the most important aspect of the section that we're talking about is the fact that peace officers can make a demand for a blood sample. I think that is a real breakthrough. The fact of the matter is, until now, many people who are in the habit of drinking and over-drinking and driving have a pact among themselves that the way to obviate any kind of problem with respect to disclosing their blood alcohol is to say that they've had a head injury and ask to be taken to the hospital. Once in the hospital, they're totally protected by virtue of the fact that the hospital would be charged with assault if in fact it took blood against the patient's will.

I think this is an excellent situation. I'm very pleased to endorse it. I would also like to know, however, when the government proposes to proclaim it. I know that's the next section and I don't want to speak on too many sections, but does the government plan to proclaim this bill immediately? If not, why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't wish to repeat the debate on second reading, but I would like to say that I support the comments which have been made on all sides of the House. Some interesting aspects were raised, and I would like to respond to them because some of them touch upon my ministry.

The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked why it was that the court, by leave, could permit the examination of the person who produces the certificate of the taking of the blood or analysis thereof. The answer to that question is that we could have deemed the certificate to be evidence beyond question; but in our experience that is inappropriate because it excludes proper questions which may be asked by persons who are resisting charges brought under this legislation. I think it is fair and just that cross- examination of persons who can give fundamental evidence should be permitted.

The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised the question of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no question that we will receive a challenge to this legislation, either under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the BNA Act, as to whether or not this is criminal legislation and therefore solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government. We are satisfied, based upon our constitutional experts' opinions, that this legislation does fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces in the matter of traffic safety and that we can successfully meet such a challenge. Indeed, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Multiple Access v. McCutcheon goes a long way to confirming the accuracy of that opinion. But we will certainly have questions out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the self-incrimination concept. That is a challenge

[ Page 9135 ]

which has presently been raised with regard to the breathalyser legislation. This legislation will not escape. However, likewise, we believe that we can successfully resist that challenge.

The member suggested that when applying for a driver's licence the person should be obliged at that time to consent to the taking of a sample of blood in circumstances such as those described in this bill. I know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and members of his staff are considering that aspect, as are the governments in other provinces that are looking at this legislation. In a subsequent amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, at the next session, I trust that members will see that change as well, which will remove part of this problem.

It should be clearly understood that this legislation is narrowly cast, We are trying to close that last gap that exists for a person who is injured or — as the member for New Westminster says — alleges injury and therefore escapes taking the breathalyser test. This will give us this opportunity.

Questions have been raised about whether this is an inappropriate approach to be taken by our police officers. I just want to assure the members of the House that with the range of opportunities that police officers will have available to them, this legislation would be usable only in those cases when other means of dealing with drinking drivers are not available, namely when the person has been injured and is in the hospital and therefore the taking of a breathalyser test is not possible.

There are sufficient safeguards, we believe, in this legislation to overcome many of the concerns which have been expressed. I think that when it has had a fair test it will be seen to withstand any of the challenges made to it.

HON. MR. FRASER: I thank the members of the committee for their remarks and observations. There are just a couple of comments I'd like to make.

The Crown corporations committee report. We're looking at it and studying it. I think they made some good observations. Basically, they are recommending that a permanent board or commission be set up, as I understand it. The government is still looking at that. While we're talking about that, I would say that the government has an existing committee. It was the task force committee, instituted in 1978, that this bill and a lot of this legislation came out of earlier this year. That committee is still in place and is continuing, so we aren't at a complete standstill because we haven't jumped and formed a board or commission. That committee comprises staff from the Attorney-General's ministry, Health, ICBC and this ministry.

The other observation I'd like to make is on a message to the public that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) referred to. It is our intention.... I think we all have a responsibility, but the government certainly does. to advertise the fact of the seriousness of drinking and driving. We certainly intend to pursue that in that manner. With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, but we would have to pass the section first. Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. COCKE: When does the government propose to proclaim the bill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The bill is in the hands of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but this problem of proclamation is one that is arising from the Ministry of Attorney-General. Members will note in the new Section 220.2 that we have the problem of defining classes of persons who may take the blood sample and the method by which it is analyzed. We have had discussions with the medical fraternity with respect to this, and we believe we have almost solved the problem as to which class of persons, other than medical practitioners, can take the blood sample and the appropriate test to designate for the making of the analysis. We want to be sure that we have practitioners who are in all parts of the province so that this legislation will work in all parts. We believe that we will have this problem resolved very shortly and that legislation could be proclaimed.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.