[ Page 337 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Administration Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 337

Incapacitated Voters Act (Bill 35). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 337

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 36). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 337

Oral questions

Audit accountants for ICBC. Mr. Morrison. — 338

Loss reserves re Fruit Growers Mutual. Mr. Wallace — 338

Compensation to ICBC agents for extra workloads.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 339

Future ICBC rates. Mr. Chabot — 339

Highways department actions following Sooke Road flooding. Hon. Mr. Lea — 339

Negotiations with Aske Holdings re purchase of Broca Building. Mr. Curtis — 340

Procedures following car accidents. Mr. Gardom — 340

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 341

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 341

Mr. Smith — 343

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 343

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. McClelland — 343

Mr. Speaker — 343

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 345

Mr. Speaker — 345

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 346

Mr. Phillips — 351

Mr. Gabelmann — 362

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 367

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter should be deferred, if the Hon. Member can restrain his impatience, until we have completed introductions and the other matters. You don't carry that out until just before we enter upon orders of the day.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a large group of members of the Home and School Federation, formerly known as the Parent-Teachers Federation.

They have come from many parts of the province and we're very delighted to have them with us today.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mr. James Deacey, who is the administrator for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who is visiting the House this afternoon.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and to Members of this House, Mr. Rusty Zander, the MLA for Drayton Valley, Alberta, a Member of the Progressive Conservative government in our neighbouring province. He hails from what is known as "oil country," I'm told.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to recognize the colleague who led us in prayer, Rev. Colkins, who is really here representing the Council of Churches. It's the Council of Churches who today are giving this copy of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts to all the aldermen, mayors and MLAs. We welcome him and appreciate this little present to us.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope you gave them to both sides of the House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a delegation from the Peace-Liard Regional District — from my part of the Province of British Columbia. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Framst, chairman of the regional district; Mayor Clarke from Fort Nelson; and Mayor Trew from Hudson Hope.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the House recognize the delegation of Home and School from Sexsmith School. It happens to be their 60th anniversary and they're celebrating it one month from today.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Sims and Mrs. Hobal from this historic community of Yale.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me extreme pleasure today to join with my cohort from North Peace (Mr. Smith) to ask the House to welcome two Victoria members — which I don't get the opportunity to do very much, it's a long way up in the Peace River area — but they are here from the Peace River-Liard Regional District. With the delegation is His Worship, Mayor Hayward from that great and growing town of Chetwynd, coal capital of the world, and his city clerk, a young gentleman by the name of Andy Tesluk.

Also somewhere in the galleries today are: Mayor Ikert from our great town of Pouce Coupe in South Peace River; Mr. Ron O'Jensky, the secretary-manager of the Peace River-Liard Regional District and his lovely wife Doris; and Deiter Holman, the Peace River-Liard planning man who is doing all that great planning for the future expansion of that great area there.

Also, last but not least, a young gentleman from Vernon, by the name of Byron Wilson, who used to be a resident of Dawson Creek, also in that great Peace River area.

I'm sure the House will join with me in giving these gentlemen and lady a warm welcome to the House today.

Introduction of bills.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Administration Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 3 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.

INCAPACITATED VOTERS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 35, Incapacitated Voters Act, 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 36, An Act to

[ Page 338 ]

Amend the Land Registry Act, 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.

AUDIT ACCOUNTANTS FOR ICBC

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: would the Minister advise the House of the form of audit accountants who have been awarded a contract for ICBC operations?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Just a minute. Just a minute.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, it's all right — he wants the answer.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where's that guy with the walkie-talkie?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can either be patient or take it as notice.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's going to take a little time here, but we'll get it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could examine that question and in the meantime we would proceed with other questions so we don't delay the question period.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the same Minister another question.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to leave him alone for a minute so he can look up the first.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. The firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells was selected, on a basis of international reputation. They are a national organization with British Columbia facilities. Incidentally, this was public information, Mr. Speaker, because it was order-in-council 270, made public January 24, 1974. I wish you would do your homework and quit getting lazy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do it yourself.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't remember the name; I knew it had been done. Do your homework!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think every

Member knows that if it's already published in any government document it is not a subject for the question period.

I have already recognized the First Member for Victoria on the first question; he might be permitted to go ahead with a supplementary.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask the same Minister: was this firm chosen by tender or by invitation? If it was by invitation, what other firms were requested to submit work proposals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is my understanding that you don't choose chartered accountant firms by tender; you do it by submission. There were other firms asked to make submissions. I haven't got the names of the other firms or firm — whatever it was. But I know that others were asked to make presentations. I understand that's the usual procedure.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to know the type of presentations they were asked to make. That is really the question I am leading up to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not a chartered accountant, so I can't tell you the presentations that were made. I remember looking at some of them. These come as recommendations from the management group of the corporation. I think that's the proper way in which any administration should be run. You get recommendations from the people who are actually operating, and that keeps politics out of the decision. (Laughter.)

LOSS RESERVES
RE FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL

MR. WALLACE: Would the Minister confirm that when ICBC bought out Fruit Growers Mutual the loss reserves which were stated to be $100,000 have in fact proved to be $400,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member suggesting that this question has been asked in this current session?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he's referring to the present situation. Would you repeat the question? I missed your first figure.

MR. WALLACE: The loss reserves which were assumed in the purchase were stated to be $100,000, and have subsequently proved to be $400,000.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the figure here, but I'm quite sure your figure is wrong. I'll take that as notice and get an answer for you.

[ Page 339 ]

COMPENSATION TO ICBC AGENTS
FOR EXTRA WORKLOADS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the same Minister could advise us whether or not he and his department and ICBC are considering paying anything extra to ICBC agents to compensate them for the extra work involved in handling the complaints and the questions concerning rebates for high premiums and refunds for overpayments which have resulted....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where did you get all that junk?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Proceed with the question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) seems a little concerned about this. I wonder if the Minister of Transport and Communications would inform me whether he's considering any extra payment to the people who are ICBC agents, so that they can be compensated for the extra queries that they must handle due to the changes in regulations of ICBC — the 48 changes that we heard about yesterday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I haven't made any comment on the number of changes as I haven't had time to check the number of changes. They're all public knowledge, so we'll reject that part of your question, if you don't mind.

With regard to the matter of extra compensation, we had a long discussion with the agents about a month ago about compensation. We reached amicable agreement on the compensation, and it is not our intention to pay any more money to the agents than they are now getting.

FUTURE ICBC RATES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. ICBC has indicated there will be a refund to anybody who applies on an overcharge basis prior to March 1 of this year. I am wondering if the Minister could confirm that those adjusted rates — that is, the rate charged less the refund — will be the rate of 1975.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can tell you that that's policy that is yet to be decided. Therefore the question is out of order, if you don't mind. That's policy yet to be decided, and you can't ask a Minister to reveal policy that has not yet even been decided. Now, that's a parliamentary rule that you understand. Come on, now.

MR. CHABOT: There are a lot of people in the country who believe that there's a possibility that this might be only a one-time rate adjustment. In other words, they will be penalized by the insurance rates in 1975. The full rates which they are presently being overcharged on will be applicable in 1975. Is that what ICBC and the Minister are going to apply to penalize the drivers of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Minister has indicated that the decision has not been made, and at this stage it would not be permitted, as you will note if you read your Beauchesne at page 148. The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has been attempting to answer a question for which notice was accepted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before he answers, I would like to ask the Member with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that he stop trying to mislead the people of this province about this issue.

MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense! That Minister has waffled around this House in answering questions. I ask you to have that Minister withdraw that insinuation against me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: And stop interrupting me when I'm trying to make a point!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wild man.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, would the cabinet Minister withdraw that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has been in his own terms passing insults across at the Minister both ways. And now you ask the Speaker to intervene between the two of you. I would ask both of you to remember question period is not a time for speeches.

MR. CHABOT: You're siding with the government!

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Highways wishes to make a statement in reply to a question asked of him.

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ACTIONS
FOLLOWING SOOKE ROAD FLOODING

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I never thought I'd bring calm to this House, but I took a question as notice the other day from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). That question was: "Is it a fact that officials of your department authorized trucks and equipment to clear out a

[ Page 340 ]

culvert on Sooke Road in the region of Ronald Avenue on February 4?" The answer is yes.

MR. WALLACE: When I asked the question a day or two earlier, the Minister denied any responsibility for that flooding problem on the Sooke Road. I now understand that (1) there's a health hazard, and (2) a family is being accommodated in a motel at the expense of the Department of Human Resources. Could I please know who is responsible for this flooding and what is being done about it?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, who is responsible for the flooding is a matter between you and your Maker, I suppose, Mr. Member. As far as my department goes, our responsibility was to clean out a culvert that goes underneath the highway at the request of local citizens, which we did do.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH ASKE HOLDINGS
RE PURCHASE OF BROCA BUILDING

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the province been involved in negotiations with a firm known as Aske Holdings Ltd. with respect to an interim purchase agreement for a building at the address 2586-2590 Cadboro Bay Road in Oak Bay? It is known as the Broca Building.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Personally, I know of no dealings with this firm but I'd be pleased to take the question as notice.

PROCEDURES FOLLOWING CAR
ACCIDENTS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister please advise us as to what steps an ICBC policy holder would have to take should he become involved in an accident at 12:01 on March 1?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a hypothetical question which is not permitted.

MR. GARDOM: I tend to think it's not hypothetical, since we have accidents every day of the year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter of law, is it not?

MR. GARDOM: It's a matter of him telling this assembly exactly what plans the ICBC has to take care of wrecks. And so far there are none. It was in the paper last night — Mr. Bortnick says he didn't know. I am asking the Minister if he knows what plans he's....

MR. SPEAKER: You are assuming that there is a plan in your question.

MR. GARDOM: I'm wondering whether there even is a plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a plan? Would the Hon. Minister answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer, but I'm just going to check and be sure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you want answers to questions or don't you want answers to questions? If you don't want answers to questions, don't ask questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be, prior to March 1, full publicity given to the procedures to be used as of 12:01 a.m. March 1, in the event of anybody being involved in an accident. There will be a publicity campaign for the last week before that date.

It has been decided — the areas, the locations, the way it will be handled. It's already all laid out. We know exactly what's going to be done and the public will be fully informed.

MR. GARDOM: Why not tell them now? Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. How many claims centres will be open by March 1? How many and where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There'll be none, to the best of my knowledge, of the planned claims centres open. But there will be a claims procedure. There will be claims locations.

MR. GARDOM: There won't be one single, solitary claims centre open.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is completely untrue. There will be claims centres to which the people will go. There will be places to phone for information. The whole thing will be made completely public when the time comes. I know you don't want it to happen, my friend, but this thing's going to work. This thing's going to work!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Any more supplementals by other Members?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Minister how many claims centres will be open, and he said none. Now is that correct or incorrect?

[ Page 341 ]

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): You're twisting.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're talking about a completed building....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you mean? I'm answering a question. I'm talking to him. I'm answering a question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I've explained. They don't want the answers, that's obvious. I said there will be none of the architecturally-designed completed buildings finished for a number of reasons; you are familiar with the reasons. But there will be claims centres available. There will be places to go, places to check.

This operation is going to go despite your prayers that it won't go. And I'll have more to say about it in a speech later in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: there are two ways of ruining this question period. We've seen one of them work today, which is total obstruction and stalling by lengthy statements by Ministers.

The question period is a question period and an answer period. It is not a period for statements on motions; we know how to have those. If we are to have an intelligent and useful exchange of information, we had better stop having the type of performance the Minister of Transportation gave today.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to questions in this House for two years now preceded by cheap political speeches from all of those Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They take up the time making stupid statements.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Members, I want to advise you that one of the problems of question period is always that people want to make speeches in preface to their questions. That delays the question period. Then an argument will develop from time to time, as developed between the Hon. Member on this side and the Hon. Minister a few minutes ago. I can interrupt that and take up the time and consume it in wrangling, or I can hope that you'll all co-operate in making quick questions and getting quick answers. I expect co-operation on both sides of the House, not long debates and wrangles. Let's try to work together.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent public importance. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), that the House be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the first thing, before you make any motion, is to state the matter upon which you rise and upon which you want the House to adjourn its normal business. Would you kindly, in brief, give us the matter upon which this is raised?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite happy to. I move that the House be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Namely?

MR. PHILLIPS: As a result of my coming into possession of a record of share transactions which establishes a prima facie case that unreported insider trading took place with respect to the government takeover of Dunhill Corporation, which I will make available to this House, and as these transfers are not recorded under the Securities Act it becomes evident that this House must immediately take action to cause the fullest investigation of stock market activities by this government to take place.

It is more than passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that one Stella Woodbridge, a stenographer for Ladner Downes, a legal firm for Dunhill Developments, purchased 500 shares, certificate No. 00451, on January 10, 1974, the day before this government announced the acquisition of Dunhill in the newspapers. As well, one John Hurst, who is a young barrister with the legal firm of Ladner Downes, transferred into his name 400 shares, certificate No. 00455, on January 17, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):

[ Page 342 ]

The Hon. Member has stated the subject matter. Now I'd like to speak as to whether it's something that should be handled in this way by an adjournment motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I finish my statement, Mr. Attorney-General? It's very short.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it would be better if the Member didn't read into the record a lot of names at this time, and that we decide whether or not....

MR. PHILLIPS: Is he rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or is he just interrupting?

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we should have a ruling on the subject matter now.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the object of stating the matter is to determine whether it is of public importance and whether it is urgent and whether there are no available means at the present time to debate this question that has been raised by the Hon. Member. I think those are the basic points.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, with the indulgence of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've already understood and grasped, I hope, the concept of which you're complaining, a public matter: a corporation was taken over where some inside trading took place; that's your allegation. I don't think the details of it are a subject for which the Speaker has to learn everything. All he has to do is know and grasp the basic essentials of the urgency and public importance of the matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you'd allow the House to indulge with me while I finish my statement, I will prove to you that it is a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to you that the rule in May, at page 366 of the 17th edition, is very clear. If this is a matter that is involving the ordinary administration of law, and it appears to be, you should be properly beating your way to the door of the Attorney-General to lay charges, or have someone do it.

At page 366, item 4, it says: "Matter must involve more than the ordinary administration of the law. Motions have been disallowed because the matter raised by them involves no more than the ordinary administration of the law."

It seems evident here that you would be prejudicing, by this House discussing a matter that if it's correct, what you've been saying, would lead to a prosecution and should properly, I would think, if your facts are correct, lead to a prosecution....

MR. CHABOT: It would lead to an election.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a time for debate, and it's not a time for supplying the intricate details of the matter. You've given me the basic problem and it should, in circumstances outlined here, conform to May's decision on this matter, that it's a matter of ordinary administration of law. If the courts don't deal with it, then you can certainly come back here and complain.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to your decisions in May, I would suggest that when that edition of May was written probably all the business of the government was done within the Legislature. I would suggest to you now, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal of the people's business in this province is carried on outside of this Legislature. I would suggest that May is a little out of order in that instance.

Never before in the history of any province or any country does the government go around buying up corporations without bringing bills into the Legislature, so I say that reference in May is outdated. This legislation was brought into this House last year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The 17th edition is the one just immediately prior to the newest edition of May, and it's a very current one.

MR. PHILLIPS: What year was it printed?

MR. SPEAKER: This is 1964. The new one was just printed and it exactly says the same statement, if you want me to find the page number and satisfy you that that is the law.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that copy was made in 1964; the legislation which allows the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to go outside the Legislature and purchase companies with taxpayers' funds was just passed in 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the Hon. Member wishes to debate the question in the ordinary debate in the budget speech, he's quite entitled to do so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order: I would merely like to say that this is not an urgent matter for adjournment. It is something that can be discussed in the budget debate.

[ Page 343 ]

It is something properly to be discussed in that debate today or in any continuation of that debate. I would further say that if the Hon. Member has reason to believe that there's been an infraction of the company laws or any other laws of this province, I would very much like having it brought to my attention. I'd be glad to make an appointment with him.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that possible impropriety using taxpayers' money of this province is an urgent matter at any time, just as it is now.

MR. SPEAKER: The question here that is posed by the Hon. Member deals with an infraction of the Securities Act, which he is claiming, by two persons involved in what he claims to be an insider transaction. That is covered by the ordinary law of the province, and this Legislature, made laws to deal with it. Therefore, the proper course in a matter of that kind, under the ordinary administration of law, is that it be dealt with not by a special debate in this House because it's not deemed in those circumstances, according to May, to be urgent.

On the other hand the alternative is, as I pointed out, to debate the question at large, which you are quite free to do under freedom of speech under the budget speech that you are now engaged in, so you have ample opportunity without terminating the ordinary business of the House to deal with it in the normal routine of our budget debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order. I wish to speak upon the matter of urgency in this particular motion that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) wishes to propose.

I submit to you that the matter of urgency is here because of the fact that the corporation involved is now a corporation of the Crown. It is now part and parcel of the assets of the people of the Province of British Columbia in the right of the cabinet to deal with, and we should deal with it, as legislators, because we protect the taxpayers' money.

If there is inside dealing taking place at this particular time, or prior to this time, which has resulted in people making a rip-off profit or anything close to that at the expense of the taxpayers of this province, particularly when a Crown corporation is now involved — a Crown asset — we have every right to ask for an emergency debate right now, at this particular moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out two grounds upon which such a procedure would not be in order, according to May. I cannot see that even if one of the two prevailed that argument that the Hon. Member has made would prevail. I must therefore indicate that, in my opinion, it is not a case for terminating the debate or putting such a motion. I so order and so rule.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege in regard to the decision that you gave the House last evening. I apologize that I wasn't here when that decision was laid down, but as I read it in the blues of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, I can come to only one conclusion: the only two reasons for the provision, or lack of a provision, of a ruling indicating a prima facie case of privilege were first of all that the offending article in the newspaper was not available to you, and that you were unable to identify the Member referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: My job in this House is to deal with the rules as they exist. I gave my ruling, and the ruling is that the Member has to comply with certain formalities in order to bring a matter of privilege before the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. I must also say that I am very sorry that you were unable to take the word of a Member of this assembly in connection with the remarks that I made when I referred to an article in the Vancouver Province.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of my taking the word. There is a formality in every case — it is called natural justice, according to some of the decisions. Natural justice requires that you produce a copy of the newspaper in extenso, that you table it with the House, and that the Clerk read it out. (Laughter.) You may well laugh, but that is the rule set out by every Speaker, that is the rule set out in May, and that is the rule that binds this House. That is the way it is to be done.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not objecting to your.... I'm just speaking to this decision and I'm attempting to comply with some parts of it. Because I rose yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege, I found it a little difficult to understand why you lost sight of which Member was standing in his place at that time. I thought it would be no problem to have you understand which Member was in question.

In order to clarify the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you now take a further opportunity to study this question, in view of the newspaper which I would now like to present, and I would ask that the Clerk read the article in question when I complete my very short presentation.

The person to whom the article refers, Mr. Speaker, in case you still don't understand, is myself.

[ Page 344 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You didn't say so yesterday.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I rose on a matter of personal privilege!

MR. SPEAKER: "A Member of this assembly" is what you said.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, in your remarks to the House last evening you said, and I quote from the blue Hansard: "He neither identifies the Member impugned, nor provides evidence against the person he attacks."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you have compounded the misconduct against myself with those statements, with those recorded remarks, because I attacked no one in this House. I attacked no one. I asked a specific question of what I considered to be of much importance, and I expected only a sensible and reasonable answer from a Minister of this Crown.

Mr. Speaker, you said also that I presented no evidence to support a question of privilege that you could deal with at this stage. Therefore I would like to present briefly further reasons in order that you may support my contention that a breach of personal privilege has, in fact, occurred.

One must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the person to whom I originally referred, Mr. Gordon Root, is a public servant in a very highly placed position in a Crown corporation of the Province of British Columbia. Not only is he a public servant, a servant of the public-at-large, but he is also a servant of this House, and in fact a servant of your high office, Mr. Speaker. His actions in making near-slanderous remarks about a Member of this Legislative Assembly are comparable to a Deputy Minister slandering a Member of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he is not complying with the rule, and I wish he would. If you wish to bring in a matter of privilege, it is not a question of what is called "personal" privilege. I've heard that used several times here. It is a question of privilege, not personal privilege — a question of privilege of this House, not your personal privilege.

The second point is that before you assume statements that you read in the press, the matter has to be gone into, if it is a question of privilege to be examined by a committee, by the committee as to the validity of that press statement, because it may not have been said by the person you are referring to. Therefore you are assuming, as a prima facie matter, the evidence as if it were true without knowing the facts yourself.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I disagree; I'm not assuming anything. You have asked for evidence because you state you don't have enough evidence to deal with it at this time. It's a matter of privilege – all right, I won't use the term "personal privilege" any longer. But all I'm suggesting to you is that one piece of evidence is a newspaper article, and the other evidence is evidence which I am attempting to give to you at this time in a very short statement, and I think that I have the right to give that statement so that I may have the evidence on the record so that you may consider it with all propriety. I don't think you have enough evidence to make your decision at this time.

I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to give you that evidence and I will sit down and wait for your ruling. That is all I want.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First I require the statement that you are complaining about to be read to the House, either by you or by the Clerk. That is the rule, and that's what I am trying to follow as a rule.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be...?

MR. SPEAKER: Then if you have further evidence on the question, bearing on the article as to whether indeed it was said by the person concerned, or you think it was said by the person concerned, then you raise that question and then I have to decide whether it is so urgent that this House....

MR. McCLELLAND: Have it read, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to simplify things for you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of simplifying; it is a question of doing it properly. Would the Hon. Member or the Clerk please read it?

DEPUTY CLERK: Vancouver Province, Tuesday, February 19, 1974, at page 10:

"In comment on McClelland's charge, Root said Monday night that the MLA is a 'cheap, two-bit politician.'

" 'I have nothing to do with the placement of any advertising by ICBC,' Root said. 'I had no knowledge of this advertising being placed until it appeared in the paper.' "

MR. SPEAKER: So that is the gravamen of the statement in the paper to which you complain. I take it further that you think that is applying to you?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, my name is McClelland, Mr. Speaker. I plead guilty to that. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate you identifying yourself.

[ Page 345 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: I assume that it isn't in relation to any of my relations. I imagine it is referring to me.

MR. GARDOM: Do you plead guilty?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Are you an MLA?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, if I may continue briefly, just to give the other evidence that I think will be important in relation to your decision, I have mentioned that I consider the person to whom this article refers to be in a very special situation. I would like you to compare what actions would result if this person had been the vice-president of a Crown corporation of the federal government — for instance, the Canadian National Railways — and if he were to make those same kinds of remarks about a duly-elected Member of Parliament.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the very least that could be expected in that condition would be an immediate public apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no such provision in our rules on privileges for you to ask that this member, this person, whoever he is, apologize. It is a matter outside this House. The only question before this House is: should this House take any steps on your question or your complaint of privilege? I have to decide whether a prima facie case exists when insults are traded by somebody in the public to a Member of this House, whether it is in any way jeopardizing his performance in this House or threatens this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that this person is not an ordinary member of the public.

MR. SPEAKER: That is absolutely irrelevant to the question. If you are asking the government to discipline a person who is employed by them....

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm asking this House to give direction to the Members of this government. You have that power, and so does this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You are confusing the question by saying apparently that you want the government to discipline someone who is employed by it.

MR. McCLELLAND: I asked the House, not the government.

MR. SPEAKER: This House can impose penalties for breach of privilege by the public, but it does not include terminating the employment of a public servant. That is not the duty of the House but of the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this House has the right to ask one of its senior officers, a Minister of the Crown, to take specific action in the case of a breach of privilege? I believe the House has that right. That's all I'm asking for.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, it is my understanding that Mr. Root, on his own initiative, telephoned the Vancouver Province and volunteered this information regarding the phrase in question. The phrase was not therefore one which was thrown out in the heat of an interview, so there can be no excuse, Mr. Speaker, for this kind of impropriety by a senior public official.

I ask that you reconsider your decision of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, so that my question of privilege can be supported by your office and so that some action can be taken. That's as simple as I ask.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would take time to consider the authorities as to whether or not this involves a matter of personal privilege, as suggested by the Hon. Member, or a matter involving the privileges of this Legislative Assembly, as also suggested by the Hon. Member; to what extent this House should consider statements made by citizens outside of this House about Members, whether or not they be employees of a Crown agency, civil service or ordinary citizens; and to what extent, if at all, we should try to restrict the freedom of speech of any or all of those groups.

This is an important matter and I would invite the Speaker to give attention to that and perhaps to bring down some ruling and advice to the House after having had a chance to consider.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Members that I complied precisely with the instructions given in dealing with the complaint of this kind yesterday, so there's no question that I was not concerned about the Hon. Member's complaint. The question I was concerned with was how it was brought up and the fact that the Hon. Member did not identify himself properly as he should in that.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I did. I read the transcript very carefully to see whether he had said this is touching upon his own conduct or someone else's. You can't assume that the Speaker will read the papers with a view to studying out the question. I have to deal with the matter precisely within the four walls of this chamber. That is why the rule requires that you produce the newspaper — so that we may

[ Page 346 ]

have the evidence before the House.

That does not presume prejudging the question of guilt or innocence of any party who may not be in this chamber. That aspect has to be dealt with normally, if a matter of privilege is found to be in question and to be urgent, by a committee appointed to investigate the veracity of the whole question and the newspaper article. There are many articles that are inaccurate; it would be unjust for you to assume from reading a newspaper that somebody has said thus or so. That is for a committee to investigate, providing the matter is so serious that it affects the privilege not just of one Member but actually threatens this House.

I would like again, now that the matter is properly presented, to give it further study. I'm not in any sense saying that you're disadvantaged by the delay because I asked for that time myself. How could I blame you for the delay I took yesterday in considering the matter? Again, I would like to consider most seriously before any instant decisions on the matter.

Would we now proceed to the normal affairs of the House?

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I know that the Home and School Federation came here to hear to talk and listen about education, and I'm not quite sure about the last few moments.... It was an experience for everyone, I'm sure, who sat here. Whether it was an educational experience is something only the public will decide.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, education is under much public and professional scrutiny today, not only here in British Columbia but right across Canada, the United States and other European countries and world nations. There appear to be two basic reasons for this public scrutiny today.

There is a general concern as to whether public education systems are really equipping our young people today with the skills, both functional and social, which they need to live in a rapidly-changing society. This is a concern I found prevalent right across Canada and into Europe. This is a very valid concern for, after all, the whole process of education is a new one. It's a new one for each child in each generation and in each society amid changing environments, goals and priorities.

There is also a general concern expressed over increasing costs in the provision of education services as there are, of course, for other public services. Over the last 10 or 12 years, education in Canada, Britain and the United States generally has expanded rapidly and enjoyed an ever-greater share of resources. Many believe the time has now come to evaluate this process and to decide whether education does deserve a prior claim among social services for any additional resources which should become available. It's quite obvious, with the expenditures in education over the last 10 years, most nations have considered that it should have priority.

However, today people are questioning this.

Education has expanded in response to the increase in the numbers who want it. This expansion has been propped up by high hopes of what education could achieve in furthering economic growth, in promoting social mobility, in developing the individual and in enriching the quality of society as a whole. But experience has now shown that to expect education to fulfil these aims single-handedly is to place too great a burden on it.

Education needs the support of better housing conditions, better homes and family life, and an improved environment, particularly in the cities. I think a very excellent example of this is the Head Start programme in the United States.

Several years ago it was decided to provide equality of opportunity for a number of young people living in the ghettos in New York. They took a group of young black people and started in the early grades. The whole idea was to give them complete equality of educational opportunity within the system which prior to this they had not had. Of course, the idea was that if we give them this same opportunity to educational services which the other children had — in this case, the white children — the end result should mean that these children will have the same success in their lives when they leave school.

The interesting thing is that after these children were exposed to the same educational services, it was found that the success and failure rate had not varied to a great degree. The general opinion has been that, although it is essential to keep up and provide new, expanding educational services, we have to accept the fact that unless the environment which the child comes from is conducive also to his success he still achieves failure in many areas.

What is needed, therefore, is a combined effort to give young people — above all the disadvantaged, who, by the way, come from all income sectors — a more favourable background to help them profit from the educational services at their disposal. The provincial budget brought in by this government reflects the recognition of this combined effort. This is why I'm pleased to see large sums for housing and increased social and health services. These services must not be regarded as being in competition with the education budget but as a reinforcement to it.

As Minister of Education, I accept and I endorse

[ Page 347 ]

the necessity for this combined effort in serving our young people. I also accept the fact as Minister that I have the responsibility to assess the present educational services being provided in our school system, to be cognizant of the demands for new services, and perhaps to reject, I would hope, old ones which are not serving our students today. Certainly I accept the fact that new and additional money must be provided for education. But we must also look at redistribution of our present financial resources. I consider this to be a necessary and responsible approach which we must all take.

This was basically the message I sent out to the school boards of the province. I was asking them to look at their budgets and perhaps there might be a redistribution of some resources. At the same time, however, I accepted the fact that school boards must place in their budgets those services which indeed truly serve children.

This is a decision for the local school boards to make. This assessment must be ongoing in our department, and it must always be done, however, in co-operation with all those involved in education — the public and the educators. This, of course, includes our school boards, our home-school federation and all other interested public groups.

This is one of the reasons we've had a number of parent-student meetings in our schools. An assessment from these meetings as well as from the thousands of letters received in the Department of Education.... By the way, we worked it out: we receive an average of 2,500 letters a month on education in the department. Along with the meetings and the results that would be taken from those — which we're going through now — and along with the many letters which individual citizens send in and which groups come in with, and briefs — all this will serve for the basis of an educational policy paper now being prepared. Hopefully, we will have it ready for release very shortly.

I would like to turn now to some of the very specific activities and programmes in the Department of Education which have taken place during the last year, and to discuss some which will be coming.

First, the Department of Education has been restructured to make its operation more effective and to give the members of the department an opportunity to work together in developing programmes and policies.

Under the Deputy Minister we have at present two Associate Deputies: one responsible for educational programmes in public school and post-secondary; the other responsible for educational operations, mainly in the development of facility planning and administrative relationships with school boards.

The idea here was that we believe very strongly that education must flow right through from the pre-school years right through to post-secondary. We want all members of our department working together in this type of structure so that they're all part of the policies, no matter what area or level we're dealing with.

These Deputies, of course, have a number of people as support staff. We are hoping to add on a support staff — a superintendent of communications and a superintendent of post-secondary — to assist them in the work.

Now the new objective of our Department of Education is for the officials to work very closely with interested public groups and citizens. We want to see our departmental officials move around the province far more than has been done in the past. Of course, this is not going to be possible until there are enough personnel within the department to free up some to travel. I'd like to make the point now that the Department of Education personnel at the moment are less than were in the actual complement when I took office.

Consultation and discussion with interested groups must take place before any evaluation and recommendations are made to me by the department.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the public will realize that we do have an open Department of Education and that the personnel are ready to move throughout the province to listen to people and to work with them.

I'm pleased to announce that since the introduction of the legislation last year making kindergartens a mandatory service for all school boards the enrolment has already increased in kindergartens by 41 per cent. It jumped from a figure of 22,895 to 32,230 five-year-olds who now have this extremely valuable service.

To accommodate this extended service and the classroom space for other grades in the system the government has approved approximately $74 million worth of school construction, site purchase and equipment in the year 1973. This has included 756 classrooms...

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...76 libraries and 90 gymnasiums.

I would like to point out here that we're all aware of the years of the Social Credit's, the former government's, freeze on capital construction. We had members of the PTAs lobbying the hall, and they did a fine job of showing that they were concerned about capital programming.

I think the tragedy of the former government policy on holding back on school construction is not only that those students at that time were denied proper facilities such as libraries and gyms and even classrooms. What we're faced with today, because of the holdback in the former years — we're all aware of

[ Page 348 ]

the great escalation of land and building costs — is that we are now having to pick up enormous sums of money, or the taxpayer is, because of the neglect of the former government and their policies.

We have the example of the district in Nanaimo that asked the former government for approval to build a gymnasium over six years ago, and the price at that time was around $76,000. The former government said, "No, we're putting a freeze on the building of gyms." Today this board has come to me and asked for approval; the price is now up into the $260,000 bracket. That was the government that said they knew how to handle the finances of this province and the people's money.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Ha, ha, ha!

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: In capital construction for community colleges this government has approved $27 million this year — for capital construction of core facilities. We announced that we are prepared to move into a complete capital programme for core facilities for community colleges in this province. The fact that we have already approved $27 million shows that we're on the way to fulfilling this.

I would like to point out that this also, as you know by legislation last year, embarks on the policy of 100 per cent financing by the provincial government. There is no local tax sharing in this.

Now the community college in British Columbia has shown tremendous growth, and there's been a tremendous interest by the citizens of all ages in entering our community colleges. We actually had an average of a 17 per cent enrolment growth this year in community colleges.

This government is committed to the fact that this is an area where many people who formerly could not carry on with higher education now have an opportunity to do so. It also provides the stepping ground to move on to university. It is also providing much-needed technical and vocational skills for our citizens.

There are areas of this province which are not serviced. I know that the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was concerned about the hold-up on the community college for the Fraser Valley. I'm sure he's aware that there's been an extensive study on it. The school boards worked together with the department and we have now approved a plebiscite.

I know that your question formerly was: "Why not just get on with the job?" I'm sure that you've read the school Act, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member, and that you realize that as long as the community colleges are still partly funded and operated by the local taxpayers, we must go through the plebiscite route.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would say with our idea of spreading services, building satellite colleges and using existing facilities, it will come in, probably, at less maybe than that one, massive, large vocational school the former government planned to build.

The universities — compared to the growth of community colleges — enrolments last year went up 0.9 per cent. However, in all fairness to the universities, the projections do show that the universities' population or enrolments will be increasing next fall. It is interesting to note that many young people who are going to the community colleges are moving into the universities. So they're going to be picking up a number of these young people in the third and fourth years.

The university people are delighted to have this opportunity to co-operate with the community colleges. I think that between an expanded community college programme covering this whole province, and integrating these in coordination with the universities, we will provide post-secondary education in this province second to none in Canada.

Last September the Department of Education set up the very first general educational development testing programme or, as we call it, the grade 12 GED. I mentioned this in the throne speech last year. I'd now like to tell the House that we've had our first series of these tests.

Last September 745 people between the ages of 19 and 60 sat down in examination rooms in the nine colleges throughout the province. By the way, this included correctional inmates from the B.C. penitentiary — the Matsqui Correctional Institution. There were 745 people who sat down and wrote these grade 12 equivalent exams. I'm pleased to tell the House that 672 passed, including 127 correctional inmates.

This, of course, is a great opportunity for these young men and women now to be able to show that they've passed this instead of having to go back and struggle with night school and back to high school. They can move on now to their post-secondary education. I'm hoping that the colleges and universities will certainly make sure that this transition is made as easy for them as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the end of an era also occurred in June, 1973, when the last set of regular departmental exams was administered in the Province of British Columbia. I am aware that some parents are concerned now about standards and evaluation of their youngsters' high school performance because the government exams have now gone. I wish to assure them that evaluation will take place.

The change, in essence, simply means that now,

[ Page 349 ]

instead of a formal, infrequent system of examination, the schools will have more informal, less stressful but more frequently applied assessment of the students. This should mean that the quality and standard of education can become daily concerns and not just annual events.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a Dailly concern as well.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We in the department are aware that we must assist the school boards, and we have hired one specific person at this time to help with the evaluation procedures. He will be travelling around to the schools of the province to assist those who wish help.

Mr. Speaker, there have been additional moneys provided this year to assist financially students who are in need of help in moving on to post-secondary education. Not only have additional moneys been provided, but we also have revised the criteria for getting assistance for continuing your education in post-secondary.

We have increased the allowance for married students. Eligibility for single-term semester applicants has been brought about. We have eliminated the course-load prerequisites. Additional programmes have now been made eligible for assistance, and adjustments have been made in parental-contribution tables to assist families. These were the areas that we found were causing problems when young people and married and older people wrote in and asked for financial assistance. So we have broadened our base for giving assistance.

Now I'd like to turn to the public schools and discuss some policies and finance. Last year around this time I announced the removal of the textbook-rental fees for grade 7. I'm very pleased to announce today that this year's budget provides for the elimination of all textbook-rental fees — no matter what grade. This means that no longer will the parents have to provide textbook-rental fees.

We are concerned that today in our educational systems there. are so many added expenses placed upon the parent. We feel that this is one that should not be imposed upon them. I'm sure that when the Members look at this budget they will see that listed in the budget. It will cost several million dollars, but the government feels that this is giving a direct service and relief to the parents.

I would also like to formally mention — as has already been stated, I believe — that all premiums for fire insurance will no longer be borne in any part by local school boards. The Department of Education will be responsible in total for the payment of these premiums. All this, of course, will be of assistance to the school boards in their finances.

In the area of transportation the government during the last year, the Department of Education, has authorized substantial increases in the share of the amount of money that school districts may spend on the purchase of school buses. We've increased the transportation assistance generally. The daily per-pupil allowance for transportation assistance is now set at 25 cents plus 12 cents a mile. It was formerly a straight 10 cents per mile to a maximum of $1.20. These charges will certainly benefit and ease the situation of the school board budgets in the area of transportation.

In the area of special services: I know that many people today feel this is the area that needs the greatest attention. The children who have learning disability problems is an area which comes to my attention daily from groups; and the Home and School Federation has also expressed concern about services for these children.

In this area I would like to point out that since I've assumed office we have increased approvals for special learning services by 25 per cent. Actually, if we take in all these supportive services for children with special problems, we find it amounts to the sum of S20 million.

Frankly, I think, as I said in the beginning of my speech, we really have to examine that sum of money to find out, if we are injecting this amount of money into special services, why we still have children with reading problems and dyslexia, and why children are becoming perhaps disenchanted with some of the school system. So I'm simply trying to say that the money is being put in, but we really must set up a real inquiry, with the help of the citizens, into whether this money is being spent in the right area. Is it truly going to service the child?

In Victoria, we are experimenting with an integrated project of the three departments. I mentioned in the beginning of my speech how important it is to combine our efforts. So the three Ministers — Education, Health and Human Resources — have formed what we call a Children's Committee, and we are trying to combine our services to bring resources to parents and children and schools for the children who do have special learning problems.

We have started a pilot project in Victoria and we are hopeful that this project will pave the way for future integration of resources for the children of this province.

In the area of Indian education there is, of course, so much to be done. We have barely started. However, I would like to point out that some progress has been made. We have increased the amount of money for special approvals to help Indian students from $131,000 in 1971-72 to $742,000 in 1974.

The purpose of these approvals: what are we doing? I suppose again that people would say: "Well, what are you doing with this money?" The purpose is to help the native Indian who has entered the school

[ Page 350 ]

system from a home or another system which left them ill-equipped to function effectively in the regular programme.

We also want to help infuse the native culture into the curriculum. We have been appointing home-school coordinators. We find it is essential to have a good coordinator between the home and the school. We are trying to provide more native teacher assistance and teachers who have their specialty in the native language.

As I said, this is only the beginning. But we are cognizant of the fact that there is much to be done in that area, and we are attempting to do so. We are hoping, of course, to meet, under the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), with an Indian advisory committee to find out from them exactly what areas they want assistance in — where they feel it's needed most.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm on education.

The other point I'd like to bring up here is that the Department of Education has involved itself last year, to the amount of $750,000, for the first time in this province in educational research. Now part of that money — and I'll have the breakdown when we do the estimates — but generally speaking, part of that money has been used for some of our task force studies on the colleges and universities.

We have also opened our door to requests from people who feel that they can do a research project which will assist the development of education in this province. I'd like to give you an example: we have given $40,000 — I mean, the grant has been made from the research fund of $40,000 — to the Vancouver Environmental Education Project. This shows that the Department of Education feels very strongly that we must encourage the development of environmental education in this province.

We have given money — and I don't want to go through the whole list now — to the Children with Learning Disabilities Association and many other strong associations who we feel are going to contribute to the needs of children in this province. If any of the Members are interested, I have the breakdown for you at any time on where the research grants have gone this year.

There is one area in public schools that I'd like to discuss now and that's the whole matter of the pupil-teacher ratio, which has certainly been under much discussion — in the last few months particularly.

First of all, I'd just like to make a few points before I discuss what our policy is and how we intend to enact it. There have been 1,400 teachers added to the school system in British Columbia during the last year — 1,400. This has been done through the grants from the provincial government and, of course, from the local school boards — 1,400 teachers.

I think if you compare that with the number of teachers added during the previous years under the former government and before that, it nowhere reaches that — 1,400.

Interjections,

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The provincial average of the number of students to the number of professional teachers in this province works out to 21.5.

Now I know — particularly the parents in the gallery whose children may be sitting in a class right now with over 30 — they'll say: "What does that average mean to me?" These are the questions that we're all asking. At the moment, if you divide the number of professional teachers by the number of students they have to teach, I want to reiterate that it will work out to 21.5.

Now why you have areas of heavy classes is that certainly you have to have administrators, and some of these people come into the administrative end. But I do think that we have to realize that perhaps there may be some people who are not teaching who perhaps could be back in the classroom. This is something for the school boards and the teachers and the department to have discussions on. But I do think we should be aware of that particular percentage.

However, the fact that I've used that does not mean that I'm intending to throw up that figure and say that's why the government's not going to do anything about smaller classes. We recognize the fact that there are situations in this province that must be helped. There is no question about that.

Before I move on to tell you how we're doing it, I want to reiterate what we were discussing this morning with the Home and School Federation. I don't think any parent in this province should ever think, even if the class sizes right across the province drop down to below 20-to-1, that it would be a panacea to their child achieving full success in their learning career. I think the teachers, above all, recognize that you can drop your class sizes, but along with that must go an adequate instructional style.

The challenge is out, of course, to the teachers of the province to attend in-service training so that their instructional style will be conducive to a good learning environment. Now this does not mean that the teachers of the province are all in need of this. We have many wonderful, fine, exciting situations going on in our classrooms. But the teachers themselves feel that if class sizes are reduced, they also must pick up the challenge of keeping up their in-service training.

The Premier announced in the budget speech.... By the way, before I go on with that I want to point out that not only do the teachers have their work to

[ Page 351 ]

do here, but government has a responsibility to encourage further conferences and meetings and discussions on what goes on in the teacher-training institutions of this province, because it's vital to see that the right programmes are going on in those institutions so that when the young student teachers come out, they are equipped to handle as best as possible their classroom situations.

Well, the Premier announced in the budget speech that supplementary funds would be available to improve the class-size situation in the classrooms of British Columbia. In order to assess the size of the problem, and to develop equitable disbursement techniques, questionnaires are being prepared to be sent out to all school districts asking for detailed information on existing and anticipated pupil enrolment and staffing levels by schools for September of this year, to enable my department to assess where financial assistance will be needed in order to lower the pupil-teacher ratio in the province. This survey material will be mailed to school districts hopefully next week.

Also, the school districts' final budgets are now coming in, and where it is evident that provision has been made for the reduction of pupil-teacher ratios, supplementary grants will be made if this provision raises the level of local taxation beyond a reasonable level in the district.

Where provision has not been made by the board and unreasonable class-size situations exist, the board will be offered supplementary grants.

In other words, in disbursing these supplementary grants we in no way want to penalize the boards of this province who have very courageously said: "We are going to lower these classes." And they have done so, and put the necessary extra load on the taxpayer. We want to take that into consideration when we issue these supplementary grants.

Because this programme of pupil-teacher ratio reduction is intended to be an ongoing one, districts will also be asked for details of their teacher-recruitment plans for September, 1975, so that the government can make financial provision for further orderly reduction in pupil-teacher ratio in that year and gather the necessary data that's needed on the availability of qualified teachers. It is a complex matter, and this is why we find that the route of the supplementary grant is the best way to cope with the situation.

The BCSTA and the BCTF have each been asked to send in a nominee to work with department officials on these surveys. It's the government' intention to bring the provincial average pupil ratio to the professional teacher level down by 1.5 per year for the next three years. In other words, we are aiming for a drop of 1.5 students to the ratio of the professional teacher, on an average, and we intend to carry out this commitment over the next three years

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Will that reflect in class sizes?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It should. Again, of course, it's up to the structure that the school board sets up and the use they make of their professional educators. These are the problems that we're trying to work out right now — that we will be working out with the trustees and the teachers.

I was very pleased yesterday to hear the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) — and I'd really like to close on this — mention the fact that we have met for two days with the Nishga Tribe to discuss the setting up of a new provincial school district in the Nass River Valley. We're very excited about this concept and I know they are also. Really, as their chief councilor said, this will mark a historic date for the Nishga people. This will be an opportunity for them to have an input, as school trustees, in the curriculum and the programme for their own native students.

You know, I just wanted to close with this: I found it, frankly, quite touching, when we were meeting with the Nishga Tribe, to hear them express their concerns about education and their willingness to take on the challenge of running their own district. I just wanted to close with something which one of the members of the Nishga Tribe said when he was asked by one of our people: "Well, what do you really want an educational system to do?"

He answered: "We want our children to know who they are, where they came from, their own language and to respect their own culture. And we want them to be able to take part in the world around them."

I think if we all remember that, no matter whether it's for the Nishga Tribe or for all the children in this province, perhaps we'll all be on the right road to education.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's certainly a pleasure for me to again represent the great riding of South Peace River in this budget debate. There were, Mr. Speaker, a number of very, very important items I wished to discuss in the budget debate with regard to my constituency: subjects arising from agriculture, matters of the civil service, highways, recreation, et cetera.

However, a matter of incompetency and the misuse of public funds has arisen and I must take my time this afternoon in the budget debate to discuss this very important matter.

I'm certainly very pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and Minister of Finance is back from Washington. I certainly hope that he explained to the people in Washington something about the energy policies of the Province of British Columbia. However, I think that he might have been better advised to try and explain to some of the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia some of the

[ Page 352 ]

unanswered questions that are in their minds. Certainly, while chaos reigns in the Province of British Columbia, I think that the Minister of Finance would be better advised to try and enlighten the taxpayers and explain some of the policies.

For instance, what is this government's policy with regard to the development of our forests? We have a backbencher who goes off in Penticton and explains one policy. Immediately after, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) gave a major speech in the budget debate. Who is to know who is right?

The young Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says that he withdraws certain amounts of his policies but not all of them, so who is to know who is right?

I would suggest that the Minister of Finance and Premier would be well advised to tell the people of British Columbia what his policies are. While civic governments throughout the province struggle with budgets, he would be well advised to tell them exactly what his policy is going to be, and the same with school budgets.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the budget speech itself: again like the throne speech, the budget speech is really more notable for what it does not tell us than what it actually tells us. Because last year in this Legislature, against critical and stern opposition from the opposition parties, the Minister of Finance took unto himself great powers to invest the taxpayers' dollars in the stockmarket — indeed, to quote myself, in any venture that he sees fit to do so.

We opposed this, Mr. Speaker, because we knew of the problems this power in the hands of one Minister, without coming back to the Legislature, could bring on the people of British Columbia. We opposed it and we fought a losing battle because the government has a crushing majority which they use in times like this.

I would like to quote the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in Hansard, April 12, 1973, where he is talking about the legislation and he says that he will be cautious; he appreciates the warnings that we have given him, and he will be cautious.

No, the Minister of Finance says he has been cautious; he takes our warnings but says he has been cautious. But he still has the legislation passed with his crushing majority. Now we're faced in this province already, Mr. Speaker, with the questioning of some of these deals which our Premier and Minister of Finance has made outside the walls of this Legislature — deals that have been made without bills being brought into this Legislature — under-the-table deals made by the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member, the expression "under-the-table deals" is certainly not parliamentary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw the phrase "under-the-table deals", Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I would suggest that they're deals where all of the dealings have not been on the surface. All of the deals have not been on the surface and bear very close, very close scrutiny indeed. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in some of the deals that our Minister of Finance has made that they're not necessarily in the best interest of the Province of British Columbia, and that there could be some problems and some cases of impropriety arising from them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to order-in-council 178, dated January 17, 1974:

"Pursuant to the Department of Housing Act, the Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council orders that for the purposes of supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving and disposing of housing, consent is given to the Minister of Housing to approve Woodbridge Development Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and to authorize it to exercise, in addition to the powers conferred upon it by and under the Companies Act, the power to purchase for a total sum not to exceed $5,800,000 shares in a corporation or corporations dealing with supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving and disposing of housing."

Mr. Speaker, we now learn that prior to this order-in-council being passed, there could have been leaks of the proposed order-in-council to allow certain persons with privileged information to make windfall profits at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member has suggested that there may have been leaks of information which enabled somebody to make a profit out of a particular transaction. Now, he says there may have been, but I think if he has a charge to make, he should make it in the proper way. If he has, not got a charge to make, he should not leave that kind of an innuendo and false and scurrilous inference.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, what I propose to ask the House this afternoon is: was there indeed a leak of information? Was there incompetence in the hands of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)? Was the Minister of Finance indeed incompetent? Was there dishonesty in this province? That's what I want to know.

[ Page 353 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member cannot by innuendo achieve his purpose if it is to in any way slur a Member of the House. If you have any charges to make, then you must make them, in a substantive way, by a motion. If you have not, then you should not be doing it by indirect means. If there is indeed any question in regard to the comment of officers of the Crown, then the proper place to make them is in the usual way in the administration of law.

The rule requires that any substantive matter be raised by motion, and therefore it must be done in such a fashion, and not by innuendo. I'd ask the Hon. Member to discontinue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we are dealing with a very, very, very serious matter here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree, and therefore you must deal with it properly and not in the way you're doing it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the taxpayers of this great province if indeed this did happen. I intend, this afternoon, to lay before this House certain facts that would lead me to believe that indeed it did happen.

If you would jut allow me to continue on with my speech, I want to outline the facts; I want to give the history behind it. And I think as a Member of the Legislature that I'm well within my rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the Hon. Member, that he's not within his rights to slur the character or the reputation of any other Member of the House. If you intend to do so, do it by motion and the proper notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have no intention.... Why, far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to slur any Member of this House or any Member of this great assembly. I want to keep the honour of this assembly on a very high plane, and I hope that every Member of this House has that same intention. I certainly do, and I would not want any Member, Premier or Attorney-General or anybody else to disrupt or to cast any doubt on the reputations of any Member in this Legislative Assembly.

However, Mr. Speaker, the incompetent actions of a Member is a different matter. We can all make mistakes. What I want to find out is if indeed mistakes were made. That's all I want to find out: if indeed in this instance mistakes were made by Ministers.

Now, this order-in-council was made on January 17, 1974. What happened prior to this date, prior to the actual order-in-council giving the Minister of Housing the right to purchase Dunhill Corporation? I think to fully understand all the circumstances surrounding this that we should go back into history a bit and review the history of this company. In doing that, the Members of the Legislature will have a better idea as to what happened prior to the date of this order-in-council.

The company was formed as a development company in 1969 under the name of United Provincial Investments. Shares went on the market at $6 a share, and the purpose of United Provincial Investments was to build condominiums and apartment buildings in downtown Vancouver. Shares shortly dropped to one-half of the original price. They are down to approximately $3 a share.

In September of 1973, by a backward acquisition, United Provincial Investments became known as Dunhill Developments. Instead of having the right to go out and build just apartment buildings in downtown Vancouver, they were taking on investments and projects, indeed, in many areas in the inland areas of our great province.

During the life of this company, and prior to September 1973, when I understood the government first started dealing, the history of this company has not been what I would necessarily call a history of good corporate management in the Province of British Columbia. I refer to the Kamloops area where the Oakhill subdivision was flooded. This subdivision was built against advice; after the Thompson River flood $10 million of flood disaster was poured into this development to rehabilitate the people living in that area.

Then there is the case of Linmore Village development on the north end of the Second Narrows Bridge in North Vancouver, where from information I have gathered people were actually misled as to what they were buying when they bought property for development in that area. They were given to understand this was going to be a low-rise townhouse development, and indeed it turned out to be a high-rise with very little open area.

All of this was either known, or indeed should have been known, by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and, indeed, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and, indeed, by his two financial advisers before the company entered into negotiations to purchase this company — hardly, Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, the type of corporate citizen with lily-white hands that this government should consider purchasing.

We must remember that those persons in British Columbia who purchased shares in this corporation paid $6 a share. In June, 1973, the shares were worth $1.75. This is approximately three months before the government moved to acquire this company. There

[ Page 354 ]

were approximately 1.35 million shares on the market so the company had a value of approximately $2.36 million in total.

The stocks varied from then until the order-in-council was passed from a low of $1.65 — and get this, Mr. Speaker — to a maximum high of $2.40. But the day before the takeover was announced, which was January 9, the shares traded on the open market at $2.25 apiece. And all of a sudden on January 10 the shares were trading at $4.28 apiece, and this is what the holders of these shares sold to the provincial government — an increase in one day of the value of that company by over $3 million.

I have one question I would like to know; I asked it during the throne speech, and I'm asking it again here, Mr. Speaker. Why did the government pay $5.8 million for a $3 million company?

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Why don't you read Mother Goose?

MR. PHILLIPS: Why did the government give away $2.8 million of the taxpayers' money? Mr. Speaker, 76 per cent of these shares in Dunhill at this date were controlled by a small management group within the company. Only 24 per cent of the shares were held at large.

Now, if you paid originally $6 per share for your shares of Dunhill and the government paid you $4.28 a share, you would have lost money. However, Mr. Speaker, if you had inside information that the government indeed was going to purchase Dunhill Corporation, and indeed that the government was going to pay in the vicinity of $4.28 a share, I would suggest that you would hold onto your shares. However, if you didn't have any shares I would suggest that you rush out and buy some, because it looks like a pretty good deal.

No, Mr. Speaker, there were many shares traded in Dunhill from September 1, 1973, until January 9 — indeed until January 16, 1973. Indeed there were many shares bought, some of them for as low as $1.09 a share.

Now the very, very serious question that I am asking in this House this afternoon is: is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) guilty of incompetence or impropriety? Was there indeed a leak? I want to know and I think the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia indeed are entitled to know.

Mr. Speaker, anybody can make a mistake, and anybody can be guilty of incompetence. If that is the case, that can be forgiven. Was the Minister of Finance, indeed, given bad advice by his two advisers in his department — those highly paid advisers that he has? Or indeed was it the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who advised the Minister incorrectly, if this is the case?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Bring it to me and there will be a full investigation by the RCMP fraud squad, but unless you are prepared to do that, don't make these innuendos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm waiting for any evidence of any substance whatsoever and it will be fairly investigated, without fear or favour. Produce something or don't smear.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared, if necessary, to file documents with this House, but I would suggest to you that 19,800 were sold late last year between September and the time of the announced takeover by the provincial government, and some of these shares were purchased for as low as $1.65 a share.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windfall profits.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I say again, my question is: did these people have access to information? If the people who held these shares had access to this information I'm sure they would not have sold.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I want to point out again that if you are confining your statement to the number of persons involved in a company prior to takeover, that is an entirely different matter than leaving the innuendo, or the allegation, of improper conduct by a Member of this House.

I refer you to the Journals of our House, page 4 of the October 20, 1921, Journals, in which Speaker Manson's decision on a question of this kind was that it is accepted without question that imputations of wrongdoing on the part of Ministers of the Crown or private Members, or improper conduct or wrong motives cannot be made in debate. That is just precisely what you are tending to do by leaving innuendoes in your questions, and that is not permitted in the House.

If you have a charge to make, make it in the proper quarter, but certainly not what you are doing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking information and I am trying to place before this House what has happened — facts. At the same time I am asking this House to determine — indeed, as I want to know — what happened to the taxpayers' dollar bills. That's all I'm trying to find out. I'm not

[ Page 355 ]

trying to leave any innuendo — none whatsoever.

I ask you to bear with me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and realize another fact. Who bought the shares — these 19,800 that were purchased — and who sold them? Now, I'm not going to go into all of the stock transfers, but I'm prepared to table them.

For instance, a Mr. Chilcott, who is the president of the original underwriters of this company, C.M. Oliver and Company, sold his shares at $1.75 apiece. So I would suggest that he certainly didn't have any information.

Who were the purchasers. Mr. Speaker? How many shares were purchased? What is the movement? In June there were 500 shares transferred; in July, 2,100 shares; in August, 1,800 shares; in September, 4,200 shares; in October, 5,900 shares; and in November, 6,800 shares. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, this is a coincidence?

Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. But I have to ask the question: was there corruption in high places?

MR. SPEAKER: My point is that you shouldn't ask that question unless you are prepared to answer it yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can't answer it — I don't know all the facts! I want the facts!

MR. SPEAKER: Then you shouldn't be making it as a statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a question. I'm merely pointing out to the House some facts.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are you prepared to stake your seat on that question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking a question here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you prepared to call an election on the issue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you prepared to stake your seat on it? Are you prepared to call an election, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you saying things you don't believe?

MR. SPEAKER: The problem here, Hon. Members, is that the Member is not saying what he believes or what he doesn't believe, but he is by imputation and implication doing something he shouldn't be doing in debate.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): He's stating a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: He's not stating facts; that's the problem.

MR. McCLELLAND: He is stating facts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Corruption in high places — is that a fact? Do you say that's a fact?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to stake your seat on the whole question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you making the charge that there is this corruption in high places? Yes or no.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am asking the House along with me, Mr. Speaker, to determine just that question.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look....

MR. SPEAKER: If we could just get the Hon. Member to put a motion on the order paper, the government can then decide what to do with it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is the rule of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the information I have to this House. That is the purpose of a legislator, as far as I am concerned and...

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody disputes your right to give facts. The question is....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...I wish that you and the Premier and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would quit interrupting me!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that you are not dealing with facts; you are dealing with innuendoes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not giving innuendoes! If somebody's conscience over there is bothering them and they think I'm giving them an innuendo that's their business. I'm laying before this House questions and I'm asking questions. I'm laying some facts before the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the principle shareholder of Dunhill is a man by the name of Carl Gottenfried Paulus. This gentleman received about $3 million of the $5.8 million that the government paid for this company. He received this personally...

[ Page 356 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Windfall profit.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...from the sale of his shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxpayers' money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Dunhill executive vice-president Allan Bain received $256,800; finance and corporate development vice-president David Howard received $217,124; and marketing vice-president Jerry Dahlberg received $54,206. Howard and Dahlberg had further colleagues with substantial holdings.

The other thing about this deal, Mr. Speaker, is that the four principal officers also negotiated for themselves a two-year management contract to stay with Dunhill under the government ownership — Paulus, Bain, Howard and Dahlbert will split between them salaries amounting to $325,500 over two years. That's an average of just over $40,000 a year each. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they're not a very effective management team because they've missed their first bet already, in trying to purchase a condominium complex in Burnaby.

So we've really got a good management team here. They made a killing in selling their shares to the government at an excessively high price, and now they've negotiated themselves another third of a million dollars to run the corporation for two years.

Who bought the shares? Mr. Speaker, you wanted to know — I'll tell you. On December 7, 1973, 300 shares at $1.65 were bought by Wolvertons through a C.M. Oliver, salesman, Burns Bros. Co. Ltd. We don't know who the actual transferee was — there were 300 shares on certificate No. C1300435; another 200 sold at $1.95 on share certificate No. CB00434.

On December 11, 1973, 1,100 shares changed hands — C.M. Oliver & Co. Ltd., Jerry Dahlberg, 614 Hawstead, West Vancouver. He is vice-president of marketing for Dunhill. He purchased 1,100 shares on December 11. I think you'll understand with me, Mr. Speaker, why I ask these questions. On December 17, another 4,000 shares were purchased — same as above, Jerry Dahlberg. On December 17 another 4,000 shares were purchased by Jerry Dahlberg, who is the vice-president of marketing for Dunhill.

Another 4,000 shares were purchased — and get the date — on January 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: December.

MR. PHILLIPS: On December 17, I'm sorry.

On January 10, 1974,500 shares were purchased by Stella Woodbridge, who is the stenographer for Ladner Downs, which I understand is the legal firm for Dunhill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the name come from?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this where the name Woodbridge Investment Corporation comes from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: On November 16, 1973, a fellow by the name of James Wolstencroft purchased 2,000 shares.

On November 9 he purchased 500 shares. On November 8 he purchased 300 shares. On November 16 another 200 shares.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many of the purchasers of these shares were people who were involved directly, or very closely indirectly, with Dunhill Corporation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that these shares were purchased anywhere in the vicinity of $ 1.75 to $2.40.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the question is, did somebody have inside information? I would suggest to you that trading should have been suspended on Dunhill immediately — immediately that the government entered into the negotiations to purchase this corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Again, I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, are the Minister of Finance's advisers incompetent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister of Housing incompetent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or is there dishonesty somewhere? And that's the question that the taxpayers of British Columbia have got to find out. This question must be answered.

No one would want to insinuate, Mr. Speaker, that there were fraudulent dealings with the taxpayers' dollars. But what I want to know is, where did this leak come from? Why did a select few persons reap windfall profits when the government purchased this public corporation? This is not the only case of incompetence or supposed incompetence in the Department of Finance — if indeed it is. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, were the contents of Bill 41, the new mining legislation, indeed leaked out?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Of course it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you making that as a statement?

MR. PHILLIPS: Before the legislation or....

[ Page 357 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Is the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) making that as a statement? Well, he's making a statement to this House. He said: "Of course it was." Are you prepared to proceed on that statement?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on the point you're raising I strongly suspect it was, because the details...

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, well then you're not saying that. It's an allegation.

MR. CHABOT: ...the details of the royalties were clearly set out in the newspaper article approximately three weeks before the legislation was introduced in this House and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I have to conclude that the information on that mining bill was leaked.

MR. SPEAKER: Then obviously the way the matter should be handled by the Hon. Member would be by a simple motion to the House setting up a select committee to deal with the matter in question, inquire into it, and submit your evidence to the House — not by the means you have selected.

MR. PHILLIPS: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed this information was leaked out because a letter from Bache & Co. (Canada) Ltd., an institutional report, was mailed out approximately three weeks ago. There was information in that letter almost word for word as the terms of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 31.

Again the question is, Mr. Speaker, did mining companies and American corporations rip off the people of British Columbia because of this leak? And who leaked the contents of this bill if indeed they were leaked?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member again is pursuing the same course of conduct that has been disapproved many times. I'll refer to him again and I'll read to him what the rules of the House are in determining a Speaker's decision October 20, 1921. It has been followed and quoted many times. I'll read this to him:

"By a simple motion without preamble for a select committee to inquire into certain matters, as was done in the case of the inquiry into the Kaien Island purchase, (See 1906, House Journals, page 29) or by the Hon. Member declaring from his seat that he is credibly informed and believes that he is able to prove by satisfactory evidence that certain facts are true, followed by a simple motion for select committee, as was done in these cases and is commonly known as the Inquiry in the Canadian House."

Therefore I point out to the Hon. Member that if he wishes to pursue this line of conduct in this House, he should comply with the rules. Otherwise he should desist from that type of innuendo.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I could explain it better by reading you a portion from this letter and let you be the judge.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not the judge. The House is always the judge and it's done by proper procedure. If you have any evidence to provide to this House that is real evidence, and you are able to provide it and willing to comply with the rule I have just given you, then surely proceed. But if you are not prepared to do it in that fashion you should desist.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: So far he has been making allegations without in any way saying that they're true. He says: is this true? I don't think that is proper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we'll ask the question: is it? I'll read from the letter:

"We have recently conducted an in-depth two-week fact-finding mission in British Columbia and can confidentially report that the new legislation will be passed within the current legislative session, probably before April 15, and that significant insights will be afforded in the forthcoming throne speech." This letter is dated January 21, 1974.

This is the letter from Bache and Co. I'm just reading excerpts from this letter regarding a paragraph on mining legislation and mineral resource policy and development. It says, "The forthcoming budget will exhibit a major increase in socially-oriented expenditures,"

Not only did this group who came out here to conduct this survey get facts and figures on proposed mining legislation but they got information on other items which would be in the budget. Either that or they're great soothsayers, Men of vision.

MR. SPEAKER: It's one or the other then, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's one or the other.

MR. SPEAKER: Then make up your mind and put a motion if you wish to do so. Otherwise, let's get on with the debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 358 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We must comply with the rules and I intend to see that we do. It's as simple as that. I read the rule out. It was not my origin; that's the rule of the House. I read it out to you; I don't take credit for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: What else does it say, Mr. Speaker? It says: "The 2.5 per cent royalty on smelted and refined output will accelerate the plans of Cominco, Valley Copper, Bethlehem, Noranda, Placer, Newmount, paralleling the expected thrust of the Japanese effort." I'll tell you, these people.... I don't know who these people were.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: And how close did they get to people in the Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know; maybe they were card-carrying NDP people, Mr. Speaker. I have no way of knowing. But I would say it is more than coincidence. What I am trying to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, is that there seems to be more than one case where one might suspect, in confidence, a leak of information.

And I refer also, Mr. Speaker, to the budget itself. I'm given to understand — and correct me if I'm wrong — that the copy of the budget went on the ferry over to North Vancouver on Sunday before the Monday the budget was to be brought down.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you making a charge here?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this, in my estimation, would seem to be incompetent on the part of the Minister of Finance to allow the budget to be transferred by carrier pigeon or what have you and be printed on a public printing press in a newspaper office before it was tabled in this Legislature. That's a far cry from giving a copy to a Member of the opposition and members of the press gallery with strict orders not to print any part or parcel of it.

Governments have fallen for less than this, governments have fallen. I would like to remind the Speaker of the case of the Hon. Hugh Dalton who just merely spoke to a press reporter on the way to the mother House and the government had to resign. Are we loosening up? Are we not paying the same attention to the finances and the taxpayers' money that we used to?

First we have the Dunhill deal, then we have a possible leak on Bill 31, and then we have somebody sending the budget off by carrier pigeon to be printed in North Vancouver a day before it's tabled in the House with the Legislature. I realize the cabinet has taken unto itself such fantastically sweeping powers that it barely needs to call the Legislature to conduct the business of the Province of British Columbia. However, that portion which is conducted here should at least be done with propriety.

Is there incompetence, Mr. Speaker? What would happen if the investments the Premier takes upon himself without the advice and consent of the Legislature go sour? What happens to the taxpayers' money in that case? What would happen'?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're doing well.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, everything's well now. But I would suggest that the Attorney-General has never looked at the history books.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Very carefully. I remember well.

AN HON. MEMBER: The directors of Dunhill are doing pretty well too.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest there are some shares from Dunhill that went on the market at $6. Now, if the government had invested in those, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened to the taxpayers' dollars when they went to a value of $3? Loss of taxpayers' dollars in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that really concerns me as a legislator about this is that this is just a very small portion of the intention. The Minister of Finance has $500 million plus $500 million in pension funds to invest, and numerous billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to invest.

If one of these great investments of our Minister of Finance fails I can visualize a cutback in the very services to the people of this province such as cutbacks in education, cutbacks in health and welfare, and cutbacks in the budget of Human Resources.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And if they go well they'll be expanded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you consider Dunhill to be a good investment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Downhill, downhill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has a right to invest the pension funds: the security and old age of the teachers, the security and old age of the civil servants, the security and old age of employees of city governments throughout the province. The Premier is going to speculate with this money.

[ Page 359 ]

What happens if the stockmarket goes sour when they come to go on pension? There's no money there. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier might be in for a severe lawsuit. And we have in that great United States of America just that very thing happening.

I'd like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to where the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago has a law suit against it. Mr. Speaker, this is not a young Premier who has no experience in the business place whatsoever, but this is a company who has been investing trust funds for years and years and years.

And what happens? They invested some trust funds, some pension plans, and the investments went sour. The Airline Pilots Association has filed suit in the Federal District Court of Chicago against the Continental Bank seeking reimbursement of $7 million in stock-trading losses incurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the United Airline pilots and other beneficiaries at the United Airlines company, charges this bank with violating the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and regulations of the controller of currency and other federal security laws in the management of the pension fund.

But the sad part of it is that here in British Columbia we will not be able to sue the Minister of Finance because he, with his crushing majority in this Legislature, passed legislation against severe opposition to take unto himself these powers without recourse to the Legislature and without recourse to those whose pensions he may squander. He reigns supreme as an investor in this province. This is what bothers me, Mr. Speaker, when I see what is happening: Dunhill; a leak on Bill 31; a possible leak with the budget.

Now, this Continental Bank invested these funds in what anyone with the limited experience of our Minister of Finance would think to be a good investment. For instance, they were invested in the Penn Central Company, Management Assistance Corporation and Trans World Airlines. This is what concerns me, Mr. Speaker. A company with experience in the marketplace investing pension funds and them going sour.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What? The pilots have the right of recourse?

Here in British Columbia we have one gentleman with no experience in the business world investing teachers' pension funds, civil servants' pension funds, and they have no recourse whatsoever. They have no recourse whatsoever.

What else is happening in British Columbia today? The Premier goes out and probably unbeknown to him as Minister of Finance makes statements which influence the marketplace. And I quote the Premier as saying that Westcoast is paying a high price for that 1960 headline in the Province, but goes on to say that he would buy the shares himself; he thinks it's a good investment. Now since when has the Minister of Finance of this province had the authority to go out and influence the marketplace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bennett used to tell people to go buy parity bonds — B.C. bank bonds. He used to say it all the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: This, Mr. Speaker, is a case of incompetence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Poor old man. How much did he lose on the B.C. Bank?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-five million.

MR. PHILLIPS: But the Premier says on April 12: "Mr. Chairman, I appreciate comments made by Members of the opposition, but I assure you that the idea that there will be reckless investments or investments made with gay abandon is a little bit much. There will be an annual report."

Will there be an annual report as to what happened with the inside trading of Dunhill?

Mr. Speaker, I refer to you also to disposal of assets by this government and by Crown corporations of this government without bids. If you tell me that's a good way of doing business, I say, no. I suggest to you that the awarding of contracts by this government without tender and without asking for bids is not good business. I would suggest that very little of the actions of this government have been good, sound business practices.

Land purchases here there and everywhere. How will we ever know, how will we ever know how many of our tax dollars are being squandered? How will we ever know how much land is being purchased by the Land Commission from friends of this government at exorbitantly high prices? How will we ever know? How will we ever know that the people who are getting these assets without bids are not friends of the government? In a government where today it seems to me you have to be card-carrying NDP before you get a promotion, the government would be capable of anything.

I would also suggest that we require an inquiry into the finances into the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we need a Royal Commission into the operation of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. How many more relatives are there? Who will ever know?

That's the problem with that type of socialist

[ Page 360 ]

government — no one ever knows. It's a bureaucracy unto itself. To break down those walls of secrecy and find out exactly what is happening to the people's business is a monumental task.

Mr. Speaker, what is the entire story behind the purchase of Kootenay Forest Products? What is the entire story? Who will ever know? Who will ever know? I'm sorry that I have to paint this very dismal picture for the taxpayers of British Columbia about their finances here this afternoon.

What is the story behind the purchase of Canadian Cellulose? The average trading of shares in the year 1972 was approximately 30,680 shares per month. What happened in 1973? Again, I must ask was there inside information? Was there indeed a leak, because all of a sudden the shares of Canadian Cellulose jumped from an average of 30,680 shares trading in a month to, in the month of January, 1973, 294,976 shares traded on the market. An increase of over nine times the amount that traded in the average month of 1972.

Shouldn't I question that, Mr. Speaker? You bet your bottom dollar I should. And in the month of February, how many shares of Canadian Cellulose traded on the market? — 1,014,483 shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just a coincidence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a coincidence? Was there inside information? Was there indeed incompetence on the part of the Ministers involved and on the part of the Minister of Finance?

In the month of March, Mr. Speaker, 674,461 shares traded. That was before the final announcement was made. Oh, is indeed, is there corruption in high places?

Two times the number of shares traded in the first quarter.... It's a lot more than two times; I must have my figures wrong. I would suggest it's 20 times the number of shares traded in the first quarter of 1973 than traded in the average quarter in 1972 — 20 times. Who sold the shares; who bought the shares; and why? What was the price the shares sold at? How much money was made by whom? Who were these people who made the money?

Did the cabinet have access to this information? Did the NDP caucus have access to this information? Were people who bought these shares friends of the caucus? These are the questions that every British Columbian is asking. These are the questions that must be answered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I reject completely the innuendo implied by the question of the Member. I ask him to withdraw the innuendo suggesting, by the question, that the cabinet or NDP caucus members were involved in inside trading. It is a clear innuendo by the question and I ask the Member to withdraw or make charges with evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made no innuendo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am merely asking questions based on the evidence of the number of shares traded which I have outlined here this afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He asked the specific question after naming the number of shares traded: "Did the cabinet Ministers, did the NDP caucus members have that information?"

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a clear-cut innuendo in the thread of his speech. Either he makes specific charges or withdraws the question. It is a clear-cut example of innuendo and smear, and I want either charges or withdrawal. One or the other.

MR. SPEAKER: I pointed it out several times, and I asked the Hon. Member to withdraw that statement or absolutely make it clear there is no innuendo against Members of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think that's a matter of interpretation, whether it's an innuendo or not.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased that the Minister of Finance is so concerned. And if he feels that I implied some innuendo — if he feels that way — well, certainly, I'll withdraw.

But, knowing full well that if he is so concerned, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Another piece of chicken little.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of what I feel; it is a question of rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The question really is not a conditional withdrawal. It must be unconditional, as the Hon. Member knows.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is a case of interpretation. If the Premier

[ Page 361 ]

feels that way, if the Minister of Finance feels that way, if he is that concerned, as I am indeed, I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, if he feels there was an innuendo.

But I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance so concerned here this afternoon because when I bring in my motion for a Royal Commission into this matter I am sure he will move swiftly to appoint one so that this whole matter of questions can be cleared up in the minds of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Call an election!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Gutter, gutter, gutter!

MR. PHILLIPS: I ask you to withdraw that, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance to withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw what?

MR. PHILLIPS: You called me filth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did not. I called your speech filth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's filthy speech. It's disorderly behaviour, and it's shocking.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, indeed if my speech is filth....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't prove a word of it. It's just smear, smear, smear.

MR. PHILLIPS: What indeed would you name that action, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Disgusting filth! You can't prove a thing. You smear and that's all. Smear, smear, smear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it outside the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, go ahead!

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say it was dishonesty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you are phony-speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have outlined to the House, Mr. Speaker, the number of shares that started moving in another acquisition — Columbia Cellulose. I think I have pointed out several cases here this afternoon that concern me, or things that I question. Things that I question that are happening in the Department of Finance.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let us get on with the budget speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: The preferred value of these shares of Columbia Cellulose went from $2.95 a share, at the start of the negotiations, to $8.38 a share in three months.

I want to know who made the profit. Who made the profit? How did they make the profit and why did they make the profit? Is it a filthy matter? It sure doesn't smell very good to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Something else I would like to know, Mr. Speaker. We have a great deal of advisers to the government running around the province. I'm not sure whether these advisers, like Mr. John DeWolfe, are sworn to secrecy. I understand he's the man who put the Columbia sale together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBERS: Come on.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're dealing with some pretty high stakes here. We're talking about $5.8 million in Dunhill and we're talking about....

MR. CHABOT: I remember you very well, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I remember you and your smears, Mr. Attorney-General. I remember you and your....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order!

One Member has the floor. Would the other Members please be silent?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: I remember very well, too. I've got

[ Page 362 ]

a good memory, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And you've got a bad record.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this has all happened since this government came to office. Are they buying shares in Block Brothers? This Legislature will never know, not until it appears in the press, because the Minister of Finance has that great, awesome power to take the taxpayers' money and invest it in any portion of the stock market.

The thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker: if there is a continuation of the things that I have outlined here this afternoon, that I have asked about, I think before there are any further purchases made by this government that some of these questions had better be answered.

I would like to know if there were any undisclosed connections with civil servants in the purchase of the Vancouver Coachline deal. You see, this is the problem when the government goes and delves into the marketplace. We warned the Premier of this. He's out there in a very tough market, he's inexperienced, and he's treading on very thin ice; he's over his head, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, incompetent in this particular job.

I'll tell you, there are too many questions left unanswered: When did negotiations start with Dunhill? Who actually bought a lot of the shares that were registered with brokerage firms? And I could go on and on and on. I could ask questions about that deal from now until 6 o'clock.

I would like to file with the House documents with regard to the purchase of Dunhill Corporation, an interim report for the six-month period from Dunhill Corporation, ended April 30, 1973; an interim report for the three-month period ended January 31, 1973, Dunhill Development Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member should know that in order to table anything with the House, you must ask for leave of the House, and if it is unanimous it will be given.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to file these documents, including...

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be given?

Leave granted.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...including transfer certificates of shares. An interim report for the nine-month period ended July 31, 1973, and the '72 Dunhill Development Corporation Limited Annual Report, and numerous share certificates recording transfers of shares which traded from September, 1973 until January 17, 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I have brought up some very serious matters in this Legislature this afternoon, matters that certainly do not give me any pleasure as a legislator to bring up — matters that raise very serious questions of impropriety in the government.

I would like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday next I shall move the following motion: "That this House is of the opinion that a Royal Commission should be established forthwith to investigate the probability that unreported insider positions have been a characteristic of government initiatives related to the purchase of shares trading on the open market."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out once again to the House the Premier's concern over these very serious matters and I am sure that the Premier, in showing his true concern for the taxpayers of British Columbia, will himself indeed want to proceed forthwith and with all haste to have this matter cleaned up, to see that a Royal Commission is appointed, indeed, into the financial affairs of this province and into the takeovers of private corporations.

Mr. Speaker, if it's been incompetence it can be forgiven, but the people of this province want to know. So I will be tabling my motion on Friday and I would expect the Royal Commission will be appointed forthwith to answer these questions that I have raised in this legislature this afternoon.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I just wish to say to you and to this House that I know John DeWolfe to be a person of unimpeachable integrity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): The anger and the frustration that I felt in my guts this afternoon are probably inexpressible. We've watched several Members of this House perform today in ways that I never expected to see in this Legislature. I don't think that legislatures anywhere else in this country have ever seen the likes of it.

Mr. Speaker, I quite frankly was embarrassed this afternoon to know that there were people in the public gallery who were watching this, and who are going to be going home to their families and to their friends and talk about what happens in this place.

It makes me personally wonder why some of us ever in the first place thought about wanting to get elected to represent constituencies in this Legislature. If the kind of performance that was going on this afternoon is an indication, is a sign of what's going to be happening over the years, then, Mr. Speaker, it's

[ Page 363 ]

something that I personally am not prepared to put up with.

The innuendo, particularly from the Member who last spoke, is innuendo that I find no words to describe how I feel about it. The dragging in of civil servants, particularly as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) just made the point, the name of John DeWolfe, the innuendo that members of this caucus, members of this government and their friends have been involved in insider trading or involved in any activities of that kind in my view warrants drastic action in this House.

I don't think we should tolerate that kind of performance by any Member of this Legislature, and the way I felt, Mr. Speaker, I thought we should kick that guy out for making those kind of statements. I really am disgusted, and I can't tell you how embarrassed and angry I am about the whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent some time in other legislatures in Canada as an observer, watching the way in which they conduct their debates, watching the way they conduct their business and relate to each other across the floor.

Probably in some of those cases they are Members with even more divergent philosophies than we see in some of the exchanges in this House, and you never see that kind of, what one Member referred to as guttersniping, and I can't think of a better term. You never see that kind of thing in other legislatures. And if we're going to continue to see that in this Legislature, then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a great many fine citizens in this province aren't going to be particularly interested in joining us in future years in this Legislature. I think that's disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I listened with a great deal of interest to the maiden speech from the new Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). It was a good speech, and I might say in passing that it is the opposite of the kind of thing we've heard this afternoon and on other occasions from members of the Social Credit Party.

It was well argued. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that the Member's experience and time in Ottawa has served him in good stead because they do conduct their affairs with a great deal of decorum and courtesy in that House and I'm pleased to see that he will be bringing that kind of attitude and approach to this Legislature.

His speech was well argued and well presented and I look forward to working with the Hon. Member representing the residents of the City and District of North Vancouver. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are two municipalities in that area; we represent half of each municipality so we will have a great deal of common interest. Undoubtedly we will differ, he representing a traditional private enterprise solution, and I a philosophically different socialist approach. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, those two approaches see far more common ground than most of us are aware of, or care to admit.

My colleague for North Vancouver–Capilano spoke at length on Monday of the problem of growth. He said it was the single biggest issue facing us, apart from world economic conditions, here in British Columbia, and I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. We must begin in our small way here in B.C. to grapple with the problem of exponential growth, to borrow the jargon made popular by the Club of Rome. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano talked of this problem, "compounded growth", he called it. Mr. Speaker, the kind of destructive growth problems he and I and others are talking about are the result of a capitalist or private enterprise mentality.

Let me give an example to support this comment. Recently, private investors, whether they be insurance companies or individual citizens with money to invest, have switched from investing in housing to investing in office space. No doubt that is a generalization, but it is close to the reality and it will stand up to scrutiny. Simply put, private money has turned away from investing in housing. Why? Because it is more profitable to invest in land, office space, and a variety of other areas.

This switch has had two absolutely devastating results. The first is to extend the housing crisis from something that afflicted only the poor to something that affects nearly all of us.

The other disastrous effect has been to increase the amount of office space in the financially desirable core of Vancouver. Thus, companies such as ICBC are forced to rent space in the heart of Vancouver, a decision that is made, but unavoidable.

Because private money has no other master but profit, it is used in a way totally inconsistent with community needs and desires. One of the reasons I'm a democratic socialist is that I believe the public, through their elected representatives, should have a say in the crucial public policy planning power of capital investment. Allowing private enterprise to make those decisions has led, in the example I've cited, to a major housing crisis and an intolerably rapid growth in the lower mainland.

I agree with the Member for Vancouver–Capilano when he says that growth is a major problem, but I don't think he has the solution to the problem. None of us do until we look at the power of the private investment dollar. We may be debating a budget detailing expenditures of over $32 billion, Mr. Speaker, but the disposition of sums far in excess of this amount are left to private meetings of private persons, many of them not even in this country.

I maintain that the disposition of those private funds has far more to do with the nature of our economy than all the decisions governments have ever made. No one should infer from this that I am opposed to free enterprise, or private ownership of

[ Page 364 ]

money. In fact, I would argue against a dogmatic policy of nationalization of wealth to achieve changes. Absolute public ownership would change nothing and, in fact, be less desirable in my view.

What I am arguing for is a public voice, public participation in the use of our society's disposable private investment money.

To return to my example, we cannot allow private money to decide to forget its responsibility to develop housing, nor can we allow private money to create more job locations in downtown Vancouver.

We are quickly reaching our own limits to growth in the lower mainland. If we begin to slow that growth process now, Mr. Speaker, we may be lucky enough to retain what a GVRD committee has called a liveable region.

We must make two vital decisions in the lower mainland. They are these: no new jobs must be allowed to be created in greater Vancouver if they can be located in Prince George, Terrace, or some other area of B.C., and a decentralization of existing jobs must occur within greater Vancouver. A beginning to that type of policy is evident in the decision to relocate False Creek industries on the Fraser River.

I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn more specifically to the housing situation and to the massive chunk of undeveloped land in my constituency, which has been the centre of a lot of discussion in and out of this House. There is no need to talk of the housing crisis itself. Now that it affects the middle class as well as the poor, it is an issue everyone talks about. We all know and agree about the extent of the problem. What we should do about it divides us.

We've all looked for villains in the housing crisis. I have talked in the past of the high cost of money, the high cost of land and of the private hoarding and speculation of that land. I suspect there are many villains in the piece, and I also suspect there is little value in attempting to attach blame. By the same token, there are many proposed solutions, but, clearly, there is not one sure-fire panacea.

Yes, we must develop the undeveloped land. Yes, we must in-fill those undeveloped lots in the middle of existing housing which could provide approximately 200,000 new units, or perhaps 700,000 people, in greater Vancouver. Yes, we must develop leasing policies. Yes, we must adopt the zero lot line concept. Yes, we must switch from single-detached to multiple-family dwellings. Yes, we must provide mortgage money. Yes...and the list goes on almost endlessly.

Yes, we must do all those things, but we must also begin to develop limits to jobs and to population in the lower mainland. The solution is not to continue to provide more and more housing till suddenly we awaken one day and realize that we have all those undeveloped acres in Stanley Park — and how nice! — right next door to all those jobs. Let's get a grip on ourselves, Mr. Speaker, and start to think about the liveability of our region for the approximately two million people who will inhabit it before long.

In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the land that is available to us east of the Seymour River in North Vancouver. The majority of this land is owned by the District of North Vancouver. A significant portion, about 10 per cent, is owned jointly by Victoria and Ottawa. In all, there are approximately 6,000 acres of land.

It's interesting to note that this is only a small percentage of the total land available for housing in the lower mainland, particularly if a policy of in-filling was pursued vigorously.

Currently, in this area of North Vancouver, which is referred to locally as Seymour, there are approximately 13,000 residents. A number of studies have been conducted to determine how best to develop the area. There have been private studies commissioned by the district and there has been a major study conducted by the North Vancouver Planning Department itself.

During the last year or so something new has been added. We have had in Seymour our own community planning. A group of local residents, funded by LIP grants, decided that it was time that the people in the area did their own planning. So we did, Mr. Speaker, and the results were marvellous. It was and is a very representative group of people from the Seymour area. They called themselves the Seymour Planning Association, and they set to work.

I doubt that there's been a similar project of its kind anywhere in this country. Picture it: 13,000 people live in a semi-wilderness area of around 6,000 or 7,000 acres on the doorstep of a major world port. They must deal with three levels of government plus that super government, the National Harbours Board. They must attempt to persuade people that they are serious but that the residents really should help to plan the area, and they must devise a foolproof system of ascertaining public opinion without letting active political groups determine policy. They did it, Mr. Speaker, and they did a magnificent job.

I'd like to share with the House some conclusions reached by 13,000 people who, if they had their own way, would probably like to restrict the further growth of what is undoubtedly the finest area to live in in the lower mainland. Many of my fellow residents in that area have said to me that there's no doubt at all in their minds that the reason they live there is that there are not very many people in the area and that the best policy for them, of course, would be to restrict and eliminate the possibility of any future immigration into the area. But they've gone beyond that.

[ Page 365 ]

First of all, they agreed they had a responsibility to their less fortunate fellow citizens who were without adequate housing. They agreed that, as nice as it was, they could not continue to live in a semi-wilderness area. It must be opened up.

I would like to deal with the four principles in the report of the Seymour Planning Association, because I think it is instructive, not only to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and this Legislature, but to all citizens in our community who are grappling with the questions of growth.

The first principle is that, unlike the private consultants and apparently the district planning officials, the residents of Seymour wanted identifiable village centres. They did not want, as has been proposed, a massive town centre on or adjacent to the Maplewood mudflats area just east of the Second Narrows Bridge.

Seymour is currently an assembly of villages, the best example of which is Deep Cove. To build a new complex likened to a combination of Park Royal and the Bayshore Inn on the waterfront would destroy the tranquillity and the social value of the village concept. In the words of the Seymour Planning Association:

"In the planning of Seymour, the facilities and amenities in each village now existent should be enhanced and the village centres developed. Every effort should be made to respect and retain the unique qualities represented in each village."

The second principle dealt with by the Seymour residents was that of growth. Let me quote again from the report:

"There is confusion as to what is meant by growth. The Grosvenor International Report states that at the end of the present century, Seymour may expect to be of a size between 70,000 and 100,000 people. The municipal planner writes in terms of 40,000 persons in the next 15 years. Such figures are beyond comprehension to most people. Even to talk of an increase which is fourfold, or tenfold, means little, although to the people who came to Seymour because of the way of life it offered, there is a sense of fear of the future.

"The people of Seymour are anxious that growth be controlled. It is possible that this may be considered under two headings: 1) in-filling growth — that is, within the precincts of an existing village, and 2) the development of new villages. Considering these further:

"A. In-filling growth. Proposals for in-filling growth should not only satisfy the normal legislative procedures — that is, approval by the district — but should also be subject to two further conditions: 1) that the social climate of the village should be preserved or enhanced, and 2) that all necessary public amenities such as schools, health and welfare, shopping, recreation, et cetera, are already provided before development takes place.

"B. New village growth. Any new village is an experiment. It should be borne out of extensive study and terms of reference should be stated before it is designed. All taking part in the process of design, including the public, should be aware of the social objectives, amenities to be provided or shared, the extent to which the natural characteristics are to be changed and the intended aesthetic character. Care should be exercised during building that a balance is maintained between these parts so that a proper way of life is established from the very beginning."

The third principle concerns liveability. Let me extract one short paragraph from the report which, in its own way, indicates the very real understanding that the Seymour residents have of this complex issue:

"If liveability can be understood in its complete sense, it can be used as a planning tool, and the objectives behind man's efforts to produce a purposeful environment can become more real. But further, the search for liveability is a creative search, unleashing new ideas in an effort to satisfy or solve the current problems of man as they affect his way of life."

In its fourth and final principle the Seymour Planning Association argued that consideration be given to reintroducing certain commercial and light industrial buildings into village life.

Mr. Speaker, I have not done justice to the report because it's a massive and a complex document. I've raised the issues in the manner I've done because I believe the process of real and involved community planning should be talked about beyond the boundaries of Seymour. In this instance again, Mr. Speaker, it's the process that is important.

I'm not in full agreement with all of the recommendations of the study, but I certainly am impressed and influenced by them. Where does that leave us today? In my view, the following principles must be adhered to in the coming development of Seymour.

No. 1, Waterfront must remain untouched by commercial or residential development.

Let me expand a moment on that, Mr. Speaker. We have in greater Vancouver the opportunity to make the community one that has some direct access both to the mountains and wilderness areas and, in fact, to the water. The City of Vancouver is taking steps to attempt to, in some way, bring people closer to the water in False Creek. I think we have a major decision to make in the area of Burrard Inlet.

Until now the policy and the planning for Burrard

[ Page 366 ]

Inlet has indicated that its prime use should be that of industrial port facilities. There have been some small park facilities, very few, on the east side, particularly in the easterly regions of the inlet. The area between the Second Narrows Bridge and Deep Cove at the moment provides the only waterfront access for North Vancouver residents in the form of Cates Park and Panorama Park in Deep Cove, both of which are relatively small. But aside from the Indian reservation land, the Burrard band, there's a great deal of land along that Burrard Inlet that can be used for future development.

That leads me to my second principle, and that is that the public access to water must be multi-purpose. Public parks, public boating, and the preservation of an ecological area on the mudflats east of the Second Narrows Bridge are compatible uses of the area between Deep Cove and the Second Narrows Bridge. In my view, the development of town centres, the development of residential areas, the development of commercial facilities or port development, are incompatible uses because I think that if we're going to put the kinds of numbers of people into those areas that we're talking about, then we must make sure those people have access to water from a recreational point of view.

The third principle that I would like to set out, Mr. Speaker, is that corridors of wilderness must be retained between mountain and ocean. I think that in North Vancouver again we have the opportunity to create a unique situation where, in fact, the wildlife, the natural life, of that area can remain uninterrupted as it makes its progression from sea to mountain top. I think that's an important part of any preservation of park area that we keep for the future. It's a different principle than we have in Stanley Park or in other major parks, and I think it's one that's well worth establishing.

The fourth principle is that policy for parks should recognize that Seymour serves as a park area for the entire lower mainland, and there is a unique opportunity to create nature parks featuring semi-wilderness trails and ecological conservation. Mr. Speaker, the normal rules of so many acres of park to so many numbers of people can't be allowed to be used in Seymour because of the fact that it is, in fact, area that can be used by all the residents of the lower mainland.

No. 5, small villages must be the focus instead of a large commercial centre, and I've talked of that before.

No. 6, housing should not be limited to single-family, but must include the full range of options open to us.

No. 7, provision must be made for at least 10 per cent low-income housing. By that, I certainly do not mean low-cost housing. Just in parentheses, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it bothers me quite considerably to hear people talk about low-cost housing? I think we should all try and remember that what we are talking about in those situations is low-income housing.

No. 8, the provincial and federal governments should participate in the purchase of additional acreage in Seymour, so that through a subsidization programme an income mix will exist throughout the area. Currently, we have the situation where the provincial and federal authorities own 10 per cent of the area, approximately, but it's all in one chunk right in the middle. If we're to achieve the principle of 10 per cent low-income housing, it would mean that it would all be in one area unless we were able to purchase land throughout the remainder of that area. I think that must be an important principle.

No. 9, and finally, Mr. Speaker, transportation services should be designed with public transit rather than the auto as the prime mover of people. A major concern when discussing massive housing development is that of transportation. I have talked before in this House of the need for all of us to rethink our attitudes and approaches to moving people and goods. I believe that people can best be moved by public transit. If we can develop the systems and people can develop the attitudes, then a third crossing of Burrard Inlet for automobiles will not be needed. I believe that we can develop the system and I'm absolutely convinced that the people will be glad to take advantage of it.

One of the things I'm happiest about with this government, Mr. Speaker, is its absolute commitment to public transit. The introduction of bus service into Seymour has been magnificent and has been adopted overwhelmingly by the residents. The old axiom is true: the more buses there are, the more people use them.

A well-integrated system of ferries, buses, light-rail transit and rapid transit, with side features such as dial-a-bus, will eliminate the need for a $1 billion third crossing for cars with its attendant freeway links. We cannot afford that kind of third crossing socially as we have seen in so many American cities. We might find ways to afford the financial costs, but greater Vancouver would never overcome the social costs.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for public officials to plan properly for transit when so much of the needed components are held privately. It is clear when you look at a map of greater Vancouver, with all of the rail lines and rights-of-way clearly outlined, that our system is almost all there. If only we could put it together. I have an idea, Mr. Speaker, which might solve two problems at once.

First the problems. No. 1 is that we require routes for light rapid transit, and No. 2, we have an incredibly slow movement of rail cars from one area and one company to another in the lower mainland.

[ Page 367 ]

The solution to these problems might well be to set up a Crown corporation which would purchase all rights-of-way in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. This rail authority would then be able to move all cars swiftly through the area with no regard as to who owned which track and which company's engine was pulling which company's cars. Obviously and, in my mind, more importantly, this rail authority could plan for the full integration of both light and rapid transit on these rights-of-way. I believe it is a possible solution and one well worth studying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak in the budget debate. We had a new budget, the first full budget of the Premier and Minister of Finance. It starts off traditionally with a picture of the Legislative Assembly. Last year there were people in the seats, but this year there are empty chairs. That's the first significant difference. The fact is that all those bills we passed and turned into law have given the cabinet power to substantially reduce our rights as Members, I feel, and our ability to effectively comment upon financial matters until after the moneys have been spent. I think that's rather a significant feature of the first page.

Mr. Speaker, we were told that this is a Robin Hood budget, a budget which would take from the rich and give to the poor. But I checked on this and I looked into who Robin Hood was and what he did. I had my childhood memories of stories of Robin Hood. And I found that the half-historical, half-mythical character was an outlaw who stole from everyone; but, of course, he stole more particularly from the rich, since they had more to steal, and returned to the poor just enough to keep them from turning him in to the authorities.

In fact, when the Premier mentioned that he was going to act like Robin Hood, I thought of the modern equivalent of Robin Hood, the Mafia, which adopts essentially the same practice and who again return just enough in the way of protection and services to the poor, or indeed to the rest of the ordinary citizens of the society, for them not to turn in the Mafia. I think that, indeed, the Premier wasn't too far off.

I looked into the Encyclopaedia Britannica and this is what the writer there had to say: "The theme of the free but persecuted outlaw enjoying the forbidden hunting of the forest and outwitting or taking the forces of law and order would naturally appeal to those urban and rural lower classes, free or serf, and even to unruly elements among the landed gentry."

It's clear that the Premier, through his self — description, would have this sort of appeal, but I might also add that a little later in the same volume, the writer noted that banditry of the sort practised by Robin Hood "flourished almost as a byproduct of dissolute public behaviour in wars and in times of great economic, political and administrative injustices."

I think the Premier perhaps tried to tell us more than he is willing to admit when he stated that he was going to adopt a Robin Hood approach. We have, we feel, plenty of economic, political and administrative injustices at the present time. We had plenty before and we have plenty now, and perhaps that's rather appropriate that it's described as a Robin Hood budget.

I realized I was on the right track, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who's looking very interested in this. I realized I was on the right track when the first bill brought in by your Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was the Outlawries Act which would, of course, mean that a person like Robin Hood could be put to death on sight by any citizen, and I realized that in your own ranks you perhaps have an ambitious man there arranging to do away with the modern Robin Hood. Perhaps not. In any event, it was interesting that the Outlawries Act, which would do away with such people as Robin Hood, was introduced even before the budget came forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's not my objective this afternoon to carry on a detailed, line-by-line examination of the budget. It's not my intention to indicate to you where the expenditures could better be put to use, where the shifts could be made between departments, where indeed the government could do a better job of forecasting, a better job of spending, within the general limits of the tax system that we have.

That job was done and it was done with tremendous success, I feel, by the Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who, as is traditional with him, gave a detailed and lucid account of the financial picture of the Province of British Columbia. I think that once again, as has happened so often before, he'll be proved to be right not only in his estimates, but also in his indications of where the changes and expenditures should be made.

I'm not going to try and do that. I believe genuinely that there should be an important distinction which should be preserved between the party leadership and the finance critic — and, of course, the party leadership in the NDP, the Premier, and the Ministry of Finance. I will leave that role to the First Member for Point Grey, who indeed did a very fine job earlier in this debate.

What I would like to do is make a few observations of a more general nature — a few comments indicating the trends that I see developing and the fears that I have because of some of these trends.

First, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of budget size. Now, I have heard budgets brought down in another Legislature and I remember in particular

[ Page 368 ]

1969, the last and, in fact, only year of balanced budget of the government which I was supporting when I was a Member in Ottawa, and I remember the groan which came up, in particular from the opposition benches, but also from the government backbench, when these massive increases in expenditure were announced.

There is a curious philosophical difference between the cheers that went up here when the $2 billion mark was achieved and the concern that was expressed back in '69 and, indeed, in other years when I was there during a budget when increases were announced at that time. We obviously have been told that the tax rates are not being changed, but we know full well that the burden of taxation is being changed this year as opposed to last year. We know full well that the average citizen will be paying a great deal more, probably averaging something like $230 apiece for every man, woman and child extra over last year for a total of somewhat under $1,000 per head, and instead of expressing the concern which I thought we should have been expressing, this House gave a general indication that it was happy to see that there was this increase, that another landmark had been reached, that somehow or another size of budget was equated with the public good, with the benefit to the public.

I was distressed because I don't believe it. I do not believe that you can measure the effectiveness of government in terms of the total amount it spends. I think that it is entirely the wrong yardstick.

In this regard I feel that I could quote a columnist from the Vancouver Sun who says:

"Governments, and not just the social democratic government, would be more justified in applauding themselves if they administered the province efficiently and took care of all the needs at the lowest total possible cost. The government has forgotten what they are there for. They think they are in a contest with General Motors for the highest sales figures. They have got the whole thing ...backwards."

Now, whether that particular columnist is right or not, I think we will have to determine in the estimates and in this budget debate. But in terms of attitude I think an enormous increase in expenditure such as we have had has to be very carefully justified.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quickly go through a few quotes that would indicate better than my own words why there is this concern about size, why we should really be worrying about the overall effect and look at the whole wood and not just the particular tree in terms of the Minister and the expenditures.

I'm quoting from the Economic Council of Canada report for the years to 1980, page 101: "In our opinion, a reasonable stance over the next few years would be to keep direct and indirect taxation rates at their present levels, if not reduce them." So, of course, the tax rates are the same, but we know full well that in the coming year more taxation will be taken from the people, more money will be taken from the people, and therefore I think that very fine report of the Economic Council indicating long-term trends and dangers in government spending has been overlooked.

The report went on, on page 95: "To be consistent with the overall patterns the current government expenditure in goods and services should increase in real terms by not more than 5 per cent per year." Now we have in this budget, Mr. Speaker, allowance for growth, we have in this budget an allowance for inflation, but in real terms we are making very, very much greater increases in expenditure than the 5 per cent per year talked of by the Economic Council. And if we continue in this way there is no question that the future of British Columbia, and the rest of Canada, I might add it is not a problem restricted to British Columbia will not be as good as we would like it to be.

Mr. Speaker, the concern that I expressed last year I can repeat this year. There was one reference in the budget speech to consultation with Ottawa, and I think the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) very correctly pointed out that the federal Minister should have consulted with the provinces before making an alteration in the income-tax base. He made that point. He pointed out that he himself did not disagree with the proposal, but he indicated that there should have been consultation.

He's right, because it is the total tax burden that hits our citizens which is important. It is not the individual tax by each particular level of government. It's overall that hurts. It's fine for us to say, as provincial Members, "Oh, well, it's not that bad." But if you add it up — federal, provincial, municipal — it is the citizen who knows he is paying the whole shot and he's not particularly impressed with our buck passing, our tax passing, or whatever it might be, to try and pretend that we are not taking a major bite.

There are great grounds, I feel, for greater consultation between the federal and provincial governments, and I am pleased that the Premier did indicate that he had concern, at least, that the federal government was not consulting him. The concern, I'm sure, is mutual, because I was very interested to note that despite that statement he gave no indication that he, in turn, had consulted with the federal authorities on the effects of his budget.

Last year, for example, you had an expansionary situation where there was an attempt by one level of government, through its budgetary measures, to provide jobs that we had to convert provincially, and the two effects probably cancelled one another out. They have to work together because the impact now of total taxation is extremely high.

[ Page 369 ]

Now I would like to give a few examples of the size here. In the last two years of the provincial administration the budget went up 27 per cent. I think it was $135 million, and the next year about $150 million. But in the first two years of this administration we've had an increase of $267 million or something of that nature, and then this year something over $500 million — a total increase of virtually 50 per cent in a two-year period. So the rate of increase is critical. In the first two years, the two budgets of this government have doubled over previous budgets,

Looked at in other terms, the budget this year took 14 per cent of our Gross Provincial Product; the year before last year it took but 12. We are in a situation where the actual total take of the earnings of all the citizens of British Columbia is going up, and this is something which we can only look at with tremendous concern.

In terms of individuals, I mentioned that we're approximately $1,000 per man, woman and child; we're up approximately $230 per man, woman and child over last year, and let nobody be fooled that this somehow is not going to be paid by the citizens of this province. I won't go into the detailed figures, as my colleague for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) did, but they are right there in the budget. They are right there in the tables. There is going to be an increased bite.

The reason is simple: we have a progressive taxation system, we have inflation at the present time, and the tax bite per citizen is going up substantially.

Mr. Speaker, all three levels of government, shortly after the end of the war, took about 22 per cent of the Gross National Product. It took 16 years to get it up to 31 per cent, and yet in the next six years it went up to 39 per cent. If we are not concerned about this trend I think it is time that we were, because this trend is taking place and the type of budget that we have had this year really increases that rate of increase substantially.

It is not just corporations that pay taxes. Essentially it is the individual citizen. Even corporation taxes, which are not substantial in the Province of British Columbia in terms of the overall budget, are passed on to the individual citizen in terms of increased cost of the product that he buys, and we know full well that increases of this nature are borne by the citizen and not by others.

So this budget, Mr. Speaker, is going to have to be looked at from the point of view of what it provides to the citizens in terms of the overall take.

Now, there are new programmes, there are improvements on previous programmes, and many of these we applaud. The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has listed these in detail. There is no question that we agree that Mincome should be increased. We agree with some incentives and improvements in conditions in the north, such as were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). There are many things in this budget which we agree with, but in so many cases do we simply find, Mr. Speaker, that we are increasing the fat and the cost of government and there is no real increase in services.

I have four Ministers' offices as examples of this substantial increase in costs without any compensating increase in benefits. Last year we gave the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) $ 11,000 to run his office. This year he gets virtually three times as much — $32,500. Sure, in the overall terms of $500 million increase in the budget, that's not a substantial amount. I'm using these as indicators of fat and of increased costs which probably are not matched in any way with increased services.

The Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is in the room, and I would like to say that I think he's not doing a bad job. I think he's one of the better Ministers. I was amazed to find that two Members of his own party attacked him so sharply, but perhaps they are right too. The Minister is doing a great deal better job than previously, but he's certainly going to have to lose a lot of weight and put on some track shoes because he's not moving fast enough for me or for them.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) has got a lot of fat not only around his waist and under his belt, he's got a lot in his office. Last year his office ran on $19,294, according to the budget figures. This year it goes up to more than triple that — to $77,072. Now he's going to have to justify very well, I hope eloquently, not only to me, but the backbench Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the reason for this tremendous increase in his own office, and this excludes all the decorations which comes under the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). He's pumping money into his office, and as the member from Atlin pointed out, there aren't people in the field.

Now, that's the type of problem we're faced with with this budget. There is an increase in fat in the Minister's office and his surroundings. There is not necessarily a corresponding increase down the line at the level where services are provided to people. So it's fine to talk about increased budgets for various departments, but the real critical, decisive test is going to be: does this or does this not increase the services to people. And I wonder whether a more than tripling of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's office expenses is going to make such a substantial difference to the Indian — perhaps a member of the Hon. Member for Atlin's tribe who was concerned about the destruction of the moose population in a much more remote part of the

[ Page 370 ]

province than the Minister of Recreation and Conservation comes from.

Transportation and communications: You know, last year it ran on $9,500. This year it's gone up 10 times to $100,716.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is in the room because he made a very sensible suggestion the other day. He talked about...well, it was interpreted as empire building, but he talked about the need for government departments being more all-embracing than they are now. In other words, a single government department responsible, not just for highways but also for the other transportation and communications areas. He's right on in his comments, and I commend him for it, without necessarily knowing the exact details of his department.

The fact is: at the moment we have too many Ministers setting up too many offices, setting up new bureaus, new departments and the services to people are not coming through. And that's where there is a substantial increase in the expenses of this government, It is not necessarily going to make one whit of difference down the line.

I asked the Premier the other day in the House whether the Minister of Highways' views were government policy. I was distressed when the Premier tried to pass it off with a flippant comment. That's the type of thing the government should now be looking at.

I followed up that question with another one asking whether there had been a proper evaluation, efficiency study, of these new departments. Again, I didn't get a reply from the Premier worth a great deal. But I would like to think that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Minister of Highways and some other people, who I know have put some time thinking about this business of structures of government, will start thinking in terms of reducing the number of Ministers, Ministries, Deputy Ministers, new bureaus, new departments — just the general people who run around pushing paper at one another — and start thinking in terms of function; start thinking in terms of role; start thinking in terms of government bureaus.

Mr. Speaker, the United States, the entire federal government in the United States has a cabinet smaller than this one. It's astonishing that we, one per cent of their population dealing with only, of course, provincial matters not the federal ones, seem to need more Ministers than they do. I think this is where there is a great deal of waste, fat and inefficiency.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, they are in more trouble than you are. But after today's performance by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, I'm not too sure of that statement the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) made.

Mr. Speaker, another, the fourth and last example I'll give, is Industrial Development: increasing the expenditures — in the Minister's office from $19,406 to $75,000. Again more than a three-fold increase.

That $75,976 is not going to increase necessarily the efficiency of that department or the amount of dollars down the line which are going to help develop industry and trade in the province of British Columbia. Trips by Ministers, whether they be to Japan or elsewhere, are not necessarily going to do that job either.

We've got a situation, Mr. Speaker, where we're faced with an enormous increase in budgetary expenditure and no indication from the government as to whether or not we are going to get the equivalent increases in services to people. Sure, in some areas, we are going to have some improvements. Certainly there are going to be certain grants paid back to citizens, and more pension money — things of that nature. No question.

But if you take the overall of those expenditures, and you take the overall which is simply pumped into government departments to pay higher salaries to hire more assistants, to redecorate Ministerial offices.... I mentioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. His office is apparently going to cost $80,000 to decorate. If we're going to pump money into that, there will not be money for people services in this budget.

This will come up later in the debates on estimates, on the line by line, and I'll appreciate discussing this with the Minister of Public Works at that time.

The subject, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to turn to now is that of housing. We've heard a fair bit about this. We've had a combative, I thought ill-prepared speech by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) not so long ago. We had this speech which indicated that at long last that Minister in the government finally discovered the National Housing Act. And there was much talk of how things could be done under that Act, without ever mentioning the name of the Act itself.

The fact is that when the Minister takes credit on those housing starts for senior citizens, he should remember that the bulk of that was done under the National Housing Act, Section 15, and done because voluntary agencies — churches, service clubs, groups of that nature — got out and did things. I trust that in any new government housing policy we will continue to stress the involvement of citizen groups such as that.

He mentioned decentralization. He mentioned the distance CMHC and federal urban affairs people are from Vancouver. I doubt whether he knew that, of

[ Page 371 ]

course, the federal Minister is from Vancouver, and on the board of CMHC we had three members from British Columbia — one of whom I'm happy to say is in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. Murray Glazier.

There has been a tremendous amount of decentralization in CMHC. It is not the situation as he described it. I was surprised indeed that a speech which is meant to define his policy, a speech which required such enormous amounts of federal money to make the thing work, was so deficient in its recognition of this particular fact.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the question of Dunhill Developments and the purchase of that company. I have no wish to discuss the insider trading, except to point out that this is a problem which I think will arise again and again with government purchases of companies.

I would like, however, to ask this question of government Ministers: If that company was so good, as we've been told, if it was so effective in building houses and getting housing starts going, why on earth did the government spend its money taking it over? Surely if that company was operating as effectively as the Minister of Housing told us, surely then that company would have continued in the private sector, continued putting out new housing in the province of British Columbia and would have been a net asset rather than simply a bookkeeping transaction in the Minister's department, which in turn creates not one new house for the dollars they are spending on that company.

It's the strangest thing. I listened to his speech; we all listened to his speech trying to find out what it was that would come from government ownership of Dunhill. He even indicated that it was not going to be the vehicle for a new corporation. It was not going to be expanded. He said he wanted to keep it much the same size, with much the same management team.

In other words he said that "I'm buying a company because some other government departments are buying companies. I'm spending money on it, spending a fair chunk of money on it. I'm taking the shares at $4.28 when they're going at the marketplace at that time for $2.20. I'm doing that, and it won't increase the number of houses in British Columbia by one — by that purchase." That amount of provincial taxpayers' money will be spent and it will not result in a single increase in housing starts.

Well, I listened to him. I couldn't really find out what he wanted, There was a question, Mr. Speaker, of land leasing. I gather that's a pet project of the Minister of Housing. Well, if he's serious about introducing leasing systems, I trust that he will start looking at other jurisdictions. The fact is that creating a leasing system has real problems and could place people who are in public housing at a substantial disadvantage when they have to move. Let's not forget that the average Canadian moves every five years.

Say, for example, I purchased a home — or some citizen purchased a home for $20,000 several years ago and it's value had increased to $30,000 at the present time. If I had to move because of my employment, then, of course, I would need that $30,000 to purchase another house in the community to which I move. If the Minister is going to introduce a penalty system whereby government housing is concerned, I would be forced — the person would be forced to sell his interest in the house at the original price and then go elsewhere and have to spend double for the accommodation. Now, that's the type of situation I think should be looked at very carefully indeed.

The fact is, if you set up a system, if you introduce a system of this nature into the existing market structure, you are likely simply to put the people who built on the leased land at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with other people elsewhere. The fact is that if they don't own the land they may not be willing to make improvements in the house, for one thing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The second thing is that if they don't own the land and they try to move and they try to sell their house and realize some sort of capital gain, the Minister is apparently going to take it away from them, regardless of the fact that they are going to have to use that extra money that they generated through their capital gain to relocate.

We are talking a lot today in this budget speech about relocation. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) made some very interesting remarks on that, the need for people to relocate. Yet we have the Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson's) programmes which, in my mind, will create a substantial bar to move among the people who attempt to take advantage of it.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, and on the subject of housing, I would like to suggest that the Minister stop throwing out these meaningless suggestions and raising false expectations. One of the greatest difficulties we have at the present time is not in the provision of money for housing, or the availability of construction firms or materials; it is in the lack of coordination and in the lack of government planning.

If housing can be provided by private enterprise, then for heaven's sake let's harness private enterprise, in conjunction, perhaps, with government, to provide it. Let's use private initiative, which has been successful previously. Let's change some directions if necessary, but let's essentially not shoot the horse that has carried us fairly well over the last few years.

[ Page 372 ]

We just have to look at the problems of urban sprawl in British Columbia to realize that the Municipal Affairs Department which, by the way, has got a smaller amount of the budget than it did in the days of the previous administration.... We only have to look at that department, and look at the urban sprawl, to realize the tremendous need there is for some sort of planning and assistance in planning, which the government could provide to municipalities. Unfortunately, it appears that this will not be their major role, and they are going to get involved in what I think are wild goose chases of buying up companies, buying up existing profitable, successful companies, which are already putting forward good housing.

Mr. Speaker, some people think that the future of housing lies in the multi-family dwelling: the condominium, the duplex, the apartment building. Now this is an emotional subject, and many people have a strong attachment to a single-family home. I don't, and I have never owned one. I live in an apartment, or at least half an old house, which may constitute a duplex — sliced this way. It's legal, Mr. former Mayor of Saanich.

Anyway, other people have different views. (If it is not legal, a member of the Attorney General's department is in trouble.) (Laughter.)

I know that others have different views, and they have strong attachments to the single-family dwelling. But if we face a land shortage, let's provide some sort of incentive for the family to live in a multi-family dwelling. If we are to provide these incentives, let us also assure that they are attractive and well-located and have adequate recreational land.

You know, Mr. Minister, there is no necessity, and no sense, in putting up multi-family buildings, apartment buildings, condominiums and the rest, and then taking up the land that you have saved by so doing, and slapping up another development of the same nature. You can see this throughout the lower mainland, and also on Vancouver Island.

If we are to get some advantage in having the multi-family dwelling using less land, then let's make sure that there is adequate provision on some of the land that has been saved for recreational purposes.

I think that in this way, with this type of incentive perhaps, we can encourage people to take up the type of residency that the Minister of Housing talks about. Some prefer to live on the 60-ft. lot. Others prefer the apartment. Some indeed prefer the 30-ft. lot.

That's fine. But if you are to change them, if you are to give them some indication that you want them to live elsewhere, as the Minister apparently does, for heaven's sake let's make sure that the new development is not simply something that is substantially less attractive than previously.

These are policy questions for the Minister. We will be commenting at some length on his views. In actual fact I was disappointed by his speech, because it indicated to me that we are going to spend a large amount of money, mostly in areas which will not increase the amount of housing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if this government really wanted to do something about housing — and the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) mentioned earlier some of the problems, the problems of apartments not being built and housing not being built — you know, the first thing they could do is to say flatly that they are not putting on rent controls.

The reason for this is fairly simple. If they will indicate that the person who invested substantial amounts of money, many millions of dollars, in housing is not going to be suddenly caught in some sort of freeze afterwards, they will encourage that money to flow back into housing — which, the Hon. Member pointed out, is now flowing into office space and other areas.

That is the first and most sensible step that this government could take to encourage housing in B.C. We know what — the situation is in Vancouver. It is, at this point, virtually impossible to find an empty apartment. The vacancy rate has gone so low that you have to wait.

I will tell you what happens in a situation such as this, Mr. Minister. I have lived in a jurisdiction where this actually happened. When you have no apartments or condominiums available — for rental, I am talking of — and you are on a waiting list, the obvious incentive, of course, is for these landlords to bounce people out; then he can bring in new people, and he can probably get away with some sort of increase in rent. If he can't get away with an increase in his rent, he can get away with something which would probably be illegal, but is impossible to track down; it is called "key money."

I will give you an example of this. An apartment building, where there are perhaps 15, maybe 500, people waiting to get in, maybe has a vacancy every three months. If you want to get in, you slip your landlord $500, $3,000, $5,000; he will bounce you up on the list and you'll get in. The rent will be the same because the rent will be controlled, but you are paying him straight key money to get in. I know it happens, because it has happened to friends of mine in jurisdictions where this controlled situation with respect to rents was brought in by the government.

So you are in a situation where there will be a great black market in apartments. Sure, they will be turning over. Landlords will be trying hard to encourage people to move out, and any excuse will do. There will be tremendous problems between landlords and tenants, because every time he turns over an apartment he picks up $4,000 or $5,000 — maybe even $20,000 if the situation really gets bad. You will create a situation where this type of key

[ Page 373 ]

money must be paid. Of course, the people who will suffer most will be the people who don't have the funds to pay such key money.

The situation is made even worse, of course, by so many moves which are now being paid for by companies or by government departments. If you want to have a person working in a certain area, if you have to pay his moving expenses anyway, you don't want to have that person running around for months looking for accommodation when he should be doing the type of work that you have in mind. I hope the Ministers who are expanding their departments think of this. If he goes in there, you know full well that you will be quite willing to spend an extra $1,000 or $2,000 to make sure that that person has accommodation, and gets it early.

So as a recommendation to the government at this stage, if you want to bring back more money — which as the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour pointed out is not going into housing at this time — you will start stating your policy, and you will state it in such a positive way, free of ideological hang-ups, that money will once more go into the private housing field.

It is a fairly simple proposition, and it is something which holds true elsewhere in the government's plans as well. End uncertainty and you will restore confidence sufficiently to get the private sector moving again.

Mr. Speaker, we have got a renters' grant programme which, in my mind, won't do very much. It will signal, I think, to landlords who built their buildings in the 50s or the 60s that they can now raise rents across the board. I think that undoubtedly senior citizens of Victoria, many of whom have had troubles with increases of rent in past years, and their landlords, many of whom have tried very honestly and hard to keep the rents down to a reasonable level.... I think in that situation the $30 will almost go to the landlord within minutes. I think he will bounce it up the extra $2.50 a month, which isn't a great deal, and take that away in no time at all.

I just don't think that this renter's grant is going to be successful; I think it is going to pass straight to the landlord. I don't think it will really make any effect whatsoever upon real costs to people, and certainly it will have no effect upon the real problem, which is this constriction in supply of housing in British Columbia.

The main problem we have with respect to housing, in my mind, in British Columbia is the difficulty with serviced lots. You have got a fundamental problem where the demand keeps on going up and supply is constricted. The building industry may well wish to build houses. But if the builder doesn't own land he is going to have to pay an extravagant price for the ordinary serviced lot. I need not point out to the Minister how much this has gone up in Vancouver and Victoria and other urban centres in the province, and the rural areas, over the past 18 months, since this government brought in some of its less-considered legislation.

If a builder does have raw land he is going to have to wait a tremendous length of time, even if he is willing to pay for the installation of the underground services for the subdivision, for the municipal trunk services to extend out to his particular subdivision. It is that delay plus this demand, which results in the high prices and the high profits and almost the incentive for people to hold land off the market today because prices, in all probability, will be better tomorrow.

But probably more critical is the tax structure that we have at the present time. We have really no incentive for municipalities to hurry up in their programmes of extending trunk services to subdividable land. With new subdivisions you have new families; new families mean children; children mean schools, lighting, hospitals, police services. The whole problem of municipal financing comes when you start developing your subdivision or subdividable land.

Municipalities are naturally reluctant because they have such a poor financial position at the present time that they are trying hard to keep down the demand for recreational facilities, for the lighting for the streets, for the storm sewers — for instance, the storm sewers in Richmond and Surrey, where even now we have open ditches. The municipalities may well have to borrow; they're unwilling to do so. The other residents of that community know full well that developing a subdivision will increase their tax burden, not decrease it, and the citizens of the area are very reluctant to get involved in such things.

So you have a public policy with respect to the municipalities which is causing this constriction on land, and thus on housing. Certainly this budget, in my view, does very little, very little indeed, to rectify some of the more fundamental problems of municipal financing.

Things could be done. We could take off the five per cent provincial sales tax on lumber — the 11 per cent federal tax. But I think those are minor in comparison with increasing the amounts of serviced land. There's plenty of land available in municipalities in British Columbia which could be used. You don't have to go into the University Endowment Lands, which would be the next potential park in the Vancouver area that could be similar to Stanley Park. There's no need; land exists. But because of government policies with respect to municipalities, this land is not serviced and is not available on the market for housing starts.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would put forward to the Minister a few suggestions. First, I would say: offer to loan money to municipalities at no interest for five

[ Page 374 ]

years to subdivide and service land within their boundaries that they own or could buy and let them keep the profits from that development — that's the municipalities keep the profits. Obviously, such development should be straightforward, not the gold-plated one with curbing, sidewalks or excessive street lighting. On that basis I believe you could get a tremendous amount of incentive before the municipalities to do the work that I suggest.

I think the provincial government should re-examine its financial deal with municipalities, offer to pick up the cost, or a substantial portion thereof, of new recreational facilities, new arterial roads to service subdivisions, and underwrite on a 50-year finance basis the cost of storm sewer construction in the areas where this is necessary. In that way, the cost would be borne by the general taxpayer over a period of 50 years and the interest rate would be lower.

What we have at the present time is quite rightly, the municipalities are strapped for cash. They say to the developer: "Shove on all the cost you can on the homeowner. Push all the cost of developing and servicing that land on the homeowner". And the homeowner gets stuck with the mortgage at a very high rate when the government could quite likely borrow the money at one, two or sometimes even more than two percentage points less if they had a proper system of assisting the municipalities. The extra cost tied up in the mortgage could be borne more generally by the municipality. If that was done, the total overall cost would be substantially lower.

The third point is perfectly simple. I just do not see how this government can take any pride whatsoever in its $2 increase to municipalities, bringing it up from $32 to $34 for the per capita grant. It's a six per cent increase. It was six per cent last year, then there were three years previously which were blank, and the municipalities, of course, simply cannot operate on this basis.

I have some clippings here; really they're quite interesting. One is from the Province of April 18, 1969. It's entitled: "Mr. Bennett's $3 insult." Apparently when Mr. Bennett gave $3 in 1969, it was an insult, but when Mr. Barrett gives $2 in 1974, it's okay.

Mr. D. A. Anderson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.