[ Page 1025 ]

CONTENTS

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 1025

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill 41). Mr. Gardom, Introduction and first reading — 1025

Senior Citizens' Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 42). Mrs. Jordan. Introduction and first reading — 1025

Home Buyers' Protection Act (Bill 43). Mrs. Jordan. Introduction and first reading — 1025

An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information Act (Bill 44). Mr. McClelland. Introduction and first reading — 1025

Oral Questions

Casa Loma project. Mr. Bennett — 1025

Casa Loma lien settlement. Mr. Bennett — 1026

Casa Loma appraisal. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1026

Payment of interest on prior mortgage. Mr. Phillips — 1027

Casa Loma appraisal. Mr. L.A. Williams — 1027

Land purchase planning in Langley area. Hon. Mr. Stupich answers — 1028

VGH abortion study. Mr. Wallace — 1028

Vanderhoof land purchase. Hon. Mr. Nicolson answers — 1028

Correction re Kamloops duplexes. Mr. Morrison — 1028

Division on motion that Mr. Chairman leave the chair — 1038

Committee of Ways and Means Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1050

Supply Act, No. 1, 1975 (Bill 11). Introduction and first, second and third readings — 1050

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie): I ask the House to join me in welcoming 35 students from my home community on beautiful Texada Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ted Ross, Mr. Ron Arnold, Mrs. Downing and Mrs. Wilson.

Also, Mr. Speaker, among the students is my daughter Sylvia. Thank you.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to this assembly today two distinguished members of the Canadian Armed Services, Major Anderson and Major Thorns, who are here to see our Legislature in action. I would ask this assembly to give them a warm welcome.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to introduce to the Members on the floor Mr. Sankey and Mr. Davies and 100 Lord Byng students and bid them a very, very warm welcome and wish them all a happy Easter.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery are some visitors from Toronto, Bob and Barbara Beardsley and their daughter. I would specially like the House to welcome Barbara because she's going to be our NDP candidate in the provincial election in Ontario when it gets called.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): A lost cause.

Presenting reports.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, under section 178(22)(v) of the Protection of Privacy Act, as required by federal law, I file the annual report for the period July 1, 1974, to December 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Is that under provincial law that it is required?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should ask leave because this is a federal statute that requires me to file this in this House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I don't like federal law telling us to file something in this House. That's up to us.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), Bill 10, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975, 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 FOR THE RESTRICTION

OF THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 41, An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps, 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.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOME REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 42, Senior Citizens' Home Repair Assistance 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.

HOME BUYERS' PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Jordan, Bill 43, Home Buyers' Protection 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

PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Public Bodies Information 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.

CASA LOMA PROJECT

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the Minister has taken nine important questions on the Casa Loma affair as notice and has, as yet, not given any answer to any of them, I would like to ask the Minister if the Casa Loma project will proceed under the original terms and conditions that

[ Page 1026 ]

he presented to the House.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I don't believe it is true that I've not answered any of the questions pertaining to the Casa Loma...

Mr. Bennett: It's nine.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: ...senior citizens' housing project.

Mr. Bennett: I'll give you the dates.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: We are planning to proceed with the project. While I am on my feet I'd like to bring out that this thing began in some measure when I was asked to respond to an allegation made by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) on February 20, when he asked me: "Has the Minister commenced an inquiry into the fact" — fact, Mr. Speaker — "that the price Dunhill Development negotiated for the purchase of this property on Kingsway, owned by Casa Loma Motels Ltd., is substantially above, approximate $1 million above, the price asked for the same property a few months before the negotiations with Dunhill commenced?".

The provincial government agreed to purchase the completed project, and I would like leave to table now an affidavit, signed by Mr. Gangji, president of Casa Loma Motels Ltd., which states that at no time has Casa Loma Motels offered the completed project for sale for a purchase price less than that agreed to by the Crown.

I'd be interested to know whether the Member can furnish me with any evidence that contradicts the statement.

Leave granted.

CASA LOMA LIEN SETTLEMENT

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the answer to the question was: yes, the project is proceeding under the original terms and conditions as presented by the Minister. Then could the Minister advise the House, with respect to the purchase agreement between Casa Loma and Dunhill Development tabled in the House, if negotiations leading towards the purchase were begun prior to the settlement of all liens and claims against Casa Loma by the vendor?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I've said that I believe we were first contacted quite some time ago. I don't know what the Member means by negotiations. Certainly nothing was agreed to nor could be agreed to until we had a commitment from Central Mortgage and Housing, which came in late December, and nothing could be done without my approval and my signature.

Mr. Bennett: The question, Mr. Speaker, was: were negotiations leading towards the purchase begun prior to the settlement of all liens and claims?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): It's a very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It's a simple question — no reason to avoid it.

Mr. Bennett: So, what is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I have said that we had been in contact with them....

Mr. Bennett: Would you explain it to him, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member, if he intends to address the House, please stand?

CASA LOMA APPRAISAL

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister at least initially appeared willing to answer something, may I ask him whether the government has got a market value appraisal prior to any offer from Mr. Gangji or anyone else?

May I also ask him — and I repeat the question — on what date did the department's proposal-call screening committee consider the purchase of the Casa Loma property and make recommendations to the government?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: As the Member seems to know something about this, I would ask that he share it with the House. Do you know what date they were talking with them about this? They were talking about it some time ago, I believe, Mr. Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This is a novel experience of Ministers offering to give up their departments to Members of the opposition. I would like to know exactly when the government's proposal-call screening committee started the negotiations, looked at the thing and made the recommendation to the government, and whether or not this was on the basis of an independent market-value appraisal.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: You'll find it out.

An Hon. Member: When?

[ Page 1027 ]

Interjections.

PAYMENT OF INTEREST

ON PRIOR MORTGAGE

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Would the Minister advise the House if any of the $565,000 advanced to Casa Loma is being used to pay interest on a prior mortgage on the property by Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd. In the amount of $1.3 million, the interest of which is to be paid monthly on the first day of each month?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: There has been an advance made, work is proceeding, and the work is being supervised by three different agencies. When a substantial amount of progress has been made, other advances will be made in accordance with the agreement. They're taking this money; they're spending it in various ways, I would imagine.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: They have continuing commitments....

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Read the contract.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: This is like trying to determine.... Read the contract. Really, it's quite clear. I'll tell you this: if they don't satisfy the terms of that agreement, we could end up getting this for $2.5 million. That's how much risk we're taking.

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of the opinion that the mortgage in the right of the Crown in the amount of $3,177,500 is fully secured when it stands second to a first mortgage on the Casa Loma property held by Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd., in the amount of $1,300,000, or an equal amount more than the purchase price of $3,177,500? More than the chattel, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: If the Member would read the agreement, he would see that the Crown would come out of this, if we had to pay off the first mortgage, getting the entire project for approximately $2.5 million if they were to default. That's the risk the Crown is taking. We might even save more money than that.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Is the Minister aware that the government lent money at 10 per cent when Coronation Credit is receiving 12 per cent or 4 per cent over prime, whichever is greater, when the government mortgage is subject to a first mortgage? With leave of the House, I would like to table with the House a copy of the mortgage between Casa Loma and Her Majesty in right of the Queen which states....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that you must not seek information set forth in documents equally accessible to the questioner, such as public documents registered in land registry or in this House.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House to table both of the mortgages....

Mr. Speaker: All these documents are either tabled or public record.

Mr. Phillips: The mortgage between the Crown and Casa Loma has not been tabled in this House.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of public record.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, what was tabled in this House was a memorandum of agreement and not the original mortgage, which states very clearly that the mortgage in right of the Queen is subject to the first mortgage in favour of Coronation Credit Corp. Ltd. registered under No. 1114620. Both of these mortgages....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member has cleared up the matter entirely. It is registered in the land registry office and therefore is a public document and should not really be in question period.

Mr. Phillips: I asked leave of the House to table these mortgages.

Mr. Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It's redundant. That document has already been filed as an appendix to the memorandum of agreement.

CASA LOMA APPRAISAL

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the same subject to the Hon. Minister of Housing. Two weeks ago I asked him, and he took it as notice, whether or not the government or Dunhill had obtained a market-value appraisal of the property before entering into the agreement for purchase. I wonder if the Minister could indicate when he could answer.

[ Page 1028 ]

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Well, I will attempt to answer that in due course.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, come on, you've had weeks.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. D.A. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Is it out of order to change the subject? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: Answers are always in order.

LAND PURCHASE PLANNING

IN LANGLEY AREA

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yesterday I took as notice a question about who was doing the planning for the land purchase in the Langley area. The planning is being done in the house by the Land Commission staff.

The first report I have from them is with respect to the farms in that area which have been used for growing strawberries. The report is to the effect that those should be retained for strawberry production. They're looking now at the rest of the farms.

Mr. R. H. McClelland (Langley): It was the understanding of the strawberry growers in the area that they would have first option to purchase on that land. Would the Land Commission consider selling to those strawberry growers in the area if they wish to buy?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the Land Commission will consider anything.

VGH ABORTION STUDY

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. I think it was November of last year that the Minister made a statement that he would initiate a study at the Vancouver General Hospital in regard to the practice of abortion and the question that had been raised about abortions being carried on in the later weeks, or as late as 24 weeks of pregnancy. Has the Minister carried out such a study, and could he tell the House when the results will be available to the public?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): We have had ongoing studies of this particular situation, monitoring it across the province, since the time that the Member outlines. I have a good body of opinion that feels that the kind of work being done in the province is highly responsible. I don't feel that it would serve the public interest to debate the question publicly because of the fact that there are so many biases in this regard. But the law of Canada is being conformed with in every way in the hospitals in B.C., as far as I can see.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. From the studies has the Minister a position or made any decision to make recommendations for presentation at the next meeting of the provincial Ministers of Health on the subject of abortion?

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, I asked that the subject be put on the agenda at the last Ministers' meeting. The subject was on the agenda, unfortunately rather late on the agenda, and was discussed in part. There were no particular decisions definitively made at that time. However, I'm sure that it will be on future agendas. We will be meeting as early as, likely, September this year and I'm quite sure that the question will be discussed again at that time.

Mr. Wallace: A final, quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask if the Ministers at any time have discussed the request to the federal government to rewrite the federal legislation? Was that ever discussed at a former provincial Ministers' meeting?

Hon. Mr. Cocke: That was discussed. It was not totally supported at the Ministers of Health level. I'm on record as having asked that the federal Act be changed to omit abortion from the Criminal Code of Canada. But it has not had full enough discussion yet, nor has it had full enough support from the remainder of the provinces.

VANDERHOOF LAND PURCHASE

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: The other day I took as notice a question from the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) concerning Vanderhoof. He suggested that we were purchasing 30 acres of land at the price of approximately $35,000 an acre. This was an error in the press release, which should have pointed out that this covered both acquisition and servicing. So for a potential 125 lots the actual acquisition cost for the 30 acres is $447,000. Interest costs were estimated at $50,000 and servicing at $962,000. The total cost per serviced lot would be estimated at $8,472.

Mr. Phillips: I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing if he's having trouble with his research staff and with his public relations men who are putting out these false press releases?

CORRECTION RE KAMLOOPS DUPLEXES

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd

[ Page 1029 ]

like to also ask the Minister of Housing if he would also correct the other notice that came out in the housing news concerning 12 side-by-side duplexes being produced in Kamloops. I understand that there are only 12 units, not 24 as the release states.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member did discuss with me outside of the House, I have had a chance to check and verify that, as the Member says.

Mr. Gardom: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in question period today a number of Members stood in their places, used their microphones and asked a number of questions of the Minister of Housing. The Minister, in certain instances, was sitting in his seat and answered a number of questions from his seat without his microphone being raised. My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is: under these circumstances, are all the remarks of the Hon. Minister recorded fully in Hansard, or are they not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the microphone of the Hon. Minister would be on at that time, as I am informed.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that in question period the order is that the Minister either answer the question or take it as notice. I don't believe it's really fair to the House for the Minister of Housing or any other Minister to sit and neither answer the question nor take it as notice. They should do one or the other.

Mr. Speaker: I think that each person in the House has to govern their behaviour by the rules. There's no rule requiring an answer in question period and there's no rule requiring the taking of notice. However, I would think that as a courtesy to the House it would be recognized procedure that Members who are addressing the House stand in their place, which is a rule of the House.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of these questions about the question period, can we be assured by yourself or by Hansard that there'll be a special section in Hansard in the index entitled "Apologies" so we can cover some of the questions from the other side of the House? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Would everybody line up for points of order?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but a request to table documents.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! What is your point of order?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is not a point of order; it's a request to table documents prior to going into committee.

Mr. Speaker: On what subject, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table extracts from proceedings at trial of British Columbia Egg Marketing Board v. Veeken's Poultry Farm Ltd. et al, dated December 16, 1974. I wish to file a document giving the cross-examination testimony of one Mr. Savo Kovachich at the same trial.

Mr. Speaker: Is this relating to some matter raised in committee?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it's related to your statement earlier that documents which are the public record we don't need to table, but documents which are not should be tabled. It was in response to your own ruling earlier today that I wish to table these documents.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member surely knows that all trials and proceedings and transcripts are a matter of public record. Therefore they do not require to be tabled in this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to hear it as I had to pay some $35 to have them transcribed...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh! Pass the hat!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...and I understand I have the only copies of it transcribed. I thought other Members might like to have copies. If it's necessary to table it, I'll be happy to take it as a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member that matters that occur in committee are not known to the House unless they're reported to the House by the Chairman?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, no, you've changed that.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: I think you'd better listen to what I just said. Matters that are in Committee of the

[ Page 1030 ]

Whole House are only known to the House by report from the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. If the Committee of the Whole House decide they wish to table documents, they must ask leave of the House to do so, through the Chairman. But no Member could do it otherwise.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of the committee itself not coming out of committee to table documents. It's a request of a Member wishing to table documents so that the matter can be fully appreciated by all Members of the House when the committee, indeed, comes to discuss it. So I request leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

On motion 1.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Chairman, because the House will meet to consider interim supply due to an agreed-upon recess, I now move that from out of the consolidated revenue fund there be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is a debatable motion. We'd just like to point out that while we have no wish to delay the payment of salaries to civil servants and others, to put these emergency measures down to the Easter recess is to confuse the issue totally.

The fact is that we meet later. The fact is that the government has not provided for having the estimates through in an adequate manner prior to running out of money. The fact is that we started much later than normal and there was no provision made for this by the government. It's only now that they discover that they've made a mistake. It's now March 26 and the Minister of Finance brings in supply until the 31st. As I said, we are willing to agree that this pass through, but in future we want to have supply come and estimates be debated in a realistic manner, which it cannot be once you've already started.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You've wasted a whole week.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against the bill. Don't talk one way and do the other. Vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, if order will be restored, the fact is that we are not having estimates brought forward in the proper manner so that we can indeed debate programmes under those estimates without having to find that interim supply comes in to start these programmes going before even this House gives its approval to the programmes themselves. We, as I said, realize what the stake is. We realize where the fault lies. We understand that we are going to have to do this to pay salaries of civil servants and keep essential programmes going, but we trust that in time we won't have more of this financial bungling of this nature and we will not get feeble excuses that this is in any way related to an Easter recess, which it of course is not.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (South Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I join with the Second Member for Victoria in questioning the reason for this measure being brought before the House at this time, particularly now as the government passed last year regulations that would bring predictable closure to the estimates and debate, where we only have a limited number of hours, and the fact that the session was called later this year, called in February rather than at the end of January. The reason we are passing this supply has nothing to do with the recess. We would be voting temporary supply whether this recess took place or not, but we, too, do not want to stand in the way of the payment of wages for the civil service or the continuation of government services. In no way does this commit us in any way to endorsing a budget which we are opposed to in this province.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I just want to say that I feel that the calling of the session in February made a lot of sense to me, since we had just left this place in November, unless the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wants to sit here 12 months of the year. I think as long as it is clearly understood that in approving and supporting this measure we are in fact simply making it possible for the wheels of government to turn within the law of the province, but making no commitment on my part necessarily to approve the budgets of specific Ministers, such as the one we are debating right now, with that clear understanding — and that is the understanding I have — I feel that this is a reasonable measure.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I find that the remarks

[ Page 1031 ]

made by the official Leader of the Opposition just parrot a wrong opinion held by the leader of the Liberal Party. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition, if he is looking for counsel, not to go to that source. The federal government has interim supply practically every two months in Ottawa. In one instance, they were almost a year behind in their estimates. This is simply a matter of....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, you want to interrupt.

This is simply a matter of keeping the business of government running while we have a recess. If you care to debate that, vote against the bill but don't play cheap politics with what is nothing more than a normal housekeeping method of keeping the wheels of government going. If you really feel hat strongly, Mr. Member, vote against it, but, don't talk both ways.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We are accused of cheap politics, but we point out that this bill is here as a result of mismanagement of the House and the scheduling of the House. What we have stressed to the Premier and Minister of Finance, who perhaps didn't hear, is that we realize the pay of civil servants must be given to them. We realize that certain programmes must continue, but the fact is by putting in two months' supply this way, we are launching programmes, we are undertaking expenditures under the budget when we have not, indeed, approved the estimates of the various Ministers.

For example, under this we have two months' supply for the Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson's) activities and we really question whether we should give one day's supply in view of his incompetent performance here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against it. If you feel that way, vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I stress to you, which you continue to misunderstand, Mr. Minister of Finance, what our policy is on this.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Vote against it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is for you. If you wish, you can vote against it. You may have proposed it, but if you want to vote against it, you can.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We have made our decision as to what we intend to do, and in terms of bad advice being offered across the floor, yours is generally the worst. We feel that in this area there are a number of questions which might be put to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and to the Minister of Housing, all about programmes which are in their responsibility and all of which will be current in the next two months and all of which will be effected by the interim supply we grant.

As I mentioned, the proposal is that we launch a whole series of government programmes before the people's representatives have approved the money for them. We don't like that in principle. We don't think it should be done. In particular, we find your excuses extremely feeble. The excuse is that we have got an Easter recess of a little over a week coming up, and that is the reason for a two-month interim supply period.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's a $500 million Easter egg.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It's a $500 million Easter egg, as my colleague from North Vancouver pointed out. It just doesn't make sense for the Minister of Finance to get up and make the pious statements that he did.

We are not here debating federal expenditure. The Premier spent most of the last two weeks debating federal issues. He spent much of the last few weeks denouncing Ottawa for things going back as far as the Bonaventure, ignoring totally the $103 million overrun of his own Minister sitting only 10 feet from him. He goes back 10 years to get hold of an issue which I think was only about a third the amount of the overrun of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

I think it's about time he concentrated his mind on problems that we have in British Columbia and on some of the problems within his own government and leave it to the 23 elected British Columbia politicians who represent the province federally to discuss issues there. Heaven knows, there are plenty of opposition Members who are quite capable of doing that from British Columbia in Ottawa at the present time.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Well, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to get up and introduce this bill and then say, "Vote against it, vote against it," is a cheap political manoeuvre by the Premier of the province. Cheap politics.

It's a fact that you incited rebuttal when you got up with a highly political statement that somehow the need for this bill was the Easter recess that we're about to engage upon. That has nothing to do with it at all. It's just a cheap political manoeuvre.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Cheap politics.

Mr. Smith: For you to suggest that the

[ Page 1032 ]

opposition then has no right to reply, when you use those sort of tactics yourself, is beneath the position of your office. It certainly is.

We have had ample opportunity to discuss estimates to a certain degree, but if we had come into session earlier perhaps we would have been all the way through estimates by this time. We've got predictable closure involved in the House now at a total of 135 hours for all the estimates. But for goodness' sake, when we get into a situation where interim supply is a necessity because of the fact that the civil service organization must be paid and accounts should be paid by the government on time if possible, don't tie it to a recess and use that as the excuse for introducing the bill.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I guess debate on this interim supply bill is indeed in order, despite the Premier's challenge to us to vote against it. I don't think any Members of this House would want to vote against interim supply. I certainly wouldn't.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, just talk against it but vote for it.

Mr. McGeer: I think that....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just filibuster it but vote for it.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor.

Mr. McGeer: I don't know how long we've been debating this bill, but if we're into a filibuster after the first 10 minutes I think we've got a peculiar definition of a filibuster.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier conducted a filibuster all last week.

An Hon. Member: Right on!

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: He couldn't answer any questions; all he could do was give speeches. If the Members of the opposition ask questions again today it's only because we've fallen into the habit of that. It's because there are so few answers given by the Members of the Treasury benches.

I remember only a few months ago coming over to Victoria to attend a press conference given by the Minister of Human Resources who was looking for interim supply of $100 million. (Laughter.) He had run out of his budget in a matter of three or four months.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to motion 1 before us, please?

Mr. McGeer: Yes, indeed. I want to know whether there are any clerical errors in this $500 million that we're passing, because clerical errors reach astronomical proportions in British Columbia. I can't think of anything which more characterizes the NDP government in office than the $100 million clerical error. It's an accumulation of little slips of this kind that is adding up to billions of dollars in our budget. This year's expenditures, incurred by the government, are $1.1 billion over those introduced a year ago.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: A 50 per cent increase in one year.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Three times as great an increase as introduced by any other province in Canada. That's the measure of NDP fiscal restraint; that's a measure of the care which the NDP government takes of the taxpayers' dollars. The $100 million that the Minister of Human Resources needed as interim supply, Mr. Chairman, turned out to be a drop in the bucket.

We want to ask just a few questions about the next two months. One of them I would like to ask specifically of the Minister of Human Resources. Has he double-checked his figures this year? Can he assure us that there will be no $100 million clerical errors — or any clerical errors at all?

Will the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) give to the House today, and to that people of British Columbia, a firm commitment that he will stay within his budget? That's an important question, I think, for all the people of British Columbia because we can't have $100 million here and $100 million there.

Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Human Resources respond, please?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we have to have this debate today, but the debate that is taking place is due strictly to the incompetence of the Minister of Finance and Premier of this province — incompetence in not being able to properly budget his expenditures, in not being able to

[ Page 1033 ]

properly budget the money he is going to take in. If this Premier and Minister of Finance had any competence whatsoever as a leader and as an organizer, we wouldn't have to have this measure here today.

Now for the Premier to come out and say that Ottawa does this all the time is just not good enough. That's not good enough. Two wrongs don't make a right, Mr. Chairman. The people of this province are getting sick and tired of having budgets presented to them which mean absolutely nothing, budgets which are brought down and are not even a reasonable guide.

Now it was the Premier and Minister of Finance who brought in closure on this House, who has given us the time periods in which we can properly discuss the very, very important portfolios of the Ministers and their spending.

You know, the Minister can't resist an opportunity to play the clown. He tried it here this afternoon — tried to play the clown, put on an act to tell us that the reason for this interim measure was because we were going for a holiday recess. Every time somebody tries to point out to the Premier the error of his ways, he says that we're against him.

I think before we pass this bill it is reasonable that we should have before us in statute form all the additional spending ideas of the government because we know they're coming. I think, before we pass this interim measure, that if the Premier were responsible to this Legislature, he would bring in all of the statutes he is going to ask us to debate and which will be spending more money on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

So far, Mr. Chairman, we have only two bills tabled in this Legislature to raise taxes on people. We have bills to borrow money from secret sources. We have other bills by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) which seek to clamp down on everybody's insider trading, except the government's trading in the money markets of the world.

I'd like the Premier to explain this to me this afternoon: what other bills are to be brought into this Legislature which will mean additional spending or borrowing by this government? This is an interim measure, and before we pass this $537 million spending this Legislature should be told. The Premier should table in this House all of the bills that mean additional borrowing or additional spending on behalf of the people of the province brought down by that imp competent Minister of Finance. I think he should stand and tell us exactly where it stands.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Here is the Minister of defence.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): I'd like to just say a word or two, since the opposition has taken this opportunity to play politics with a very important bill.

Mr. Phillips: We want to know where you're spending $500 million.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Since the opposition has taken this opportunity to play politics with a very important bill...I have seen the Social Credit government in the past introduce the same interim supply bill, which also goes through the federal House on practically a month-to-month basis.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, it just annoys me a little bit when I hear the Premier of this province insulted by the Member for North Peace River or the Member for South Peace River, who is probably a person who is thought of as the least responsible person in the House. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is just absolutely unacceptable from out standpoint.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think before we proceed any further, in order to rectify this matter, I would ask both the Hon. Member for South Peace River to withdraw the imputation that he made, a personal attack against the Minister of Finance, and also a similar imputation by the Minister of Health.

I will ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to make his withdrawal first.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, will you advise me of what...? I was referring to incompetent government.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Your remark was specifically directed to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Phillips: If I imputed any assassination of the character of the Premier, I'll certainly withdraw. But I was referring to the incompetence of the government, the incompetence of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member did withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to go on to say one other thing. That is just to repeat what I had suggested during the budget debate, and that seems to be the matter in question right now.

I smile inwardly when I hear the opposition and all their criticisms of a larger budget. I smile when I think in terms of the fact that the Health budget has gone from $290 million up to $712 million. I asked the opposition if there was anywhere they liked to cut in Health or, for that matter, in any other area. They would not cut. They wouldn't dare cut! The fact of the matter is that the money is needed for the people in this province, the important people. All

[ Page 1034 ]

that opposition can do is carp and snipe and, Mr. Chairman, I think it's just ridiculous.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up some of the excellent questions of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to the Minister of Human Resources. I hope he'll see fit to listen to them and answer them, because there's a bit of an emergency going on in one of the responsibilities under his purview at the moment. I refer to the question of Indian cut-off lands and the ultimatum which he and the government have received for blockades and other manifestations throughout this province if there's not some kind of a meeting by April 1 with the Indian bands concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that we are debating the advisability of approving this amount of money on the interim supply. It must be strictly relevant to this motion. I think it would be improper to get into the questioning of the Ministers on their estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I had assumed that certain of the moneys coming from this interim supply vote were being asked to approve payment for....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There's no indication in this motion where the money will be used.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, if you're willing to give me an undertaking that the salary of that Minister won't be paid for the next two months out of this estimate, that's just fine. I'll sit down if you give me that undertaking. But I'm suggesting to you that that Minister will be paid out of this estimate and therefore it is my right to question it.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Irresponsible opposition. Irresponsible.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The only power of the committee is either to defeat the resolution or to reduce it. But I think it would....

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, that's the only power this committee of supply has on any estimate. Obviously we are allowed to discuss all the purposes for which these moneys are to be expended.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Members must surely know that you must stick to the words of the motion and not get into questioning of the Minister's estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, may I read you the motion? I believe that's always in order: "... that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976...." Now surely, Mr. Chairman, one of the several charges...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: ...of the Province of British Columbia is the salary of the Minister of Human Resources who is charged with the co-ordination of the business of Indian affairs.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Chair would rule that the Hon. Member may debate the appropriateness of approving this sum of money or, if necessary, reducing it. However, you may not question individual Ministers on their estimates. This should be done when the vote is called for that particular vote. Otherwise, obviously we could debate every Minister's estimates and we could go on for weeks. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would confine his remarks to the advisability of approving this sum of money.

Mr. Gibson: I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if you will check into the practice on interim supply in other Houses, you will find that, in fact, any subject may be discussed. That is exactly the practice.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is obliged to follow the rules of this House, and the Chair is so ruling.

Mr. Gibson: I would be very glad if the Chair would cite to me the rule of this House — any rule, any precedent — which makes it clear that we are unable to debate the estimates of various parts of the public service under this interim supply which, as I say, covers every department of the public service.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair will gladly oblige. First of all, standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Mr. Gibson: That's right.

Mr. Chairman: Secondly, it has been the precedent of this House for the previous 100 years that the interim supply pass virtually without debate, and that any debate should be confined to this

[ Page 1035 ]

particular motion, not to questioning the individual Ministers on their estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that the fact that there hasn't been debate on this motion in the past is essentially a negative piece of evidence. It isn't positive evidence that proves anything. All it says is that in the past it hasn't been debated, but I think that the Chair is under no illusions that this motion is in fact debatable. The fact that it is debatable, it seems to me, allows us to inquire closely into the several purposes of the disposition of the funds to be here provided.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair must rule on the scope of debate, not on the debatability of something. Therefore, the Chair is making a ruling that the scope of debate must confine itself to this motion and not to questioning individual Ministers on their estimates or on their expenditures.

Mr. Gibson: But, Mr. Chairman, this motion does provide for the salaries of individual Ministers.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion does not indicate this. However, the Chair is making a ruling and I would ask the Member to desist from questioning individual Ministers on their estimates or on their administrative responsibilities when, clearly, this will be provided for by the votes when they are called for these departments.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk about the next two months strictly within the terms of this motion, and I want to talk about an emergency that's coming up in this province next week. This is an opportunity to debate it and to get a statement from that Minister.

What I want is a very simple thing: I just want him to assure this House that he's not going to take the hard line he took yesterday, but that he is going to gently and wisely agree that he will meet with the Indian bands concerned sometime within the next few weeks.

That's an easy enough question. That's an important question, and it could avoid a lot of trouble for this province and that Minister next week.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would rule that discussion out of order under this particular motion, I've stated the reasons again: the debate must be within the scope and intent of this motion, which is to provide money on a short-term basis in order to carry on the business of the various government departments.

However, there is provision for consideration of the administrative responsibilities of each Minister in each department when the votes are called for that area.

Mr. Gibson: Well, if that last phrase is in exculpation of the rules that we now have in this House, you know very well, Mr. Chairman, that there may never be a chance to debate the salaries of some of these Ministers, because there may not be enough time, Mr. Chairman: Order! I was making a ruling. The Hon. Member may now do one of two things: either accept the ruling of the Chair or challenge the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Gibson: I am asking the Chair if the several charges and expenses of the public service of the Province of British Columbia do not include the salary of the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This was not indicated in the motion, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to this motion.

Mr. Gibson: Well, it does include: "... the several charges and expenses of the public service of the Province of British Columbia not otherwise provided for" — and listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "and being substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia."

Now being substantially....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, Is the Hon. Member intending to challenge the ruling of the Chair or is he ... ?

Mr. Gibson: No, I'm seeking the guidance of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, because I'm suggesting to you....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. I would ask the Hon. Member to either move to the consideration of this motion in the general sense or to take his place.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, clearly I'm discussing the terms of the motion when I'm discussing the main estimates, because the main estimates are referred to in the motion. I'm just going on to point out to the Chair that the main estimates of the Province of British Columbia referred to in this motion makes provision in vote 109....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair has made a ruling. Now is the Hon. Member going to

[ Page 1036 ]

obey the Chair or not?

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Chairman, clearly I'm obeying the Chair. I'm discussing this motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have ruled that you may not question the individual Ministers or deal with the estimates of the individual departments, which will be dealt with under the various votes of these departments. We are dealing with the advisability of approving interim supply.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing this motion, and this motion provides for: "...this chamber now to be asked to approve substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976." That is a quote from the motion, Mr. Chairman. Am I correct? That is a quote from the motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Yes. Now I would ask the Hon. Member to continue his speech but to continue within the scope of this motion.

Mr. Gibson: The scope of this motion, of course, provides for substantially one-sixth of the main estimates, and the main estimates include the salary of the Minister of Human Resources, who, I note with some dismay, has left this chamber. I note also that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has left this chamber, and I note that all of the Ministers that the opposition might want to question under this vote have left this chamber. I say it is just a shocking...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: ...evasion of duty.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, apparently he is not accepting the ruling of the Chair. Therefore I will clarify it once more before I ask him to take his place if he isn't going to speak relevant to the motion. I would again refer you to standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

The Hon. Member is enlarging the scope of the motion in order to enable him to debate the estimates of every Minister in this House on a short-term basis for a two-month period.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): It's one-sixth....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That means one-sixth of every Minister's estimates for the....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I am ruling that out of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: Without placing a complete gag on this House you can't rule out of order the plain language of emotion. That's just not possible.

An Hon. Member: You can't rule that out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The discussion must be in a general sense, confined to the advisability of approving the interim supply and the amount that is indicated.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair so he can consult his legal advisers.

An Hon. Member: Count the House right now!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That is not a proper motion.

Mr. Gibson: It is a proper motion. It's always in order.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member state his motion again?

Mr. Gibson: I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Mr. Chairman: The motion is that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On a voice vote the Chair says that the no's have it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion pass?

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Consult the House, Mr. Chairman. That's your responsibility.

[ Page 1037 ]

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Division, division!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is someone calling for a division.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member calling for a division?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm asking if the motion shall pass.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I think the ayes have it. The motion....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The motion No. 1 is passed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Motion No. 1 is now passed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: There is a point of order.

Mr. McGeer: I suggest that a majority of the Members in the House were under the impression, as I was, that the motion we were voting on was that you leave the chair. Now, Mr. Chairman, if there was some other motion, then the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order I took a voice vote and I called the vote "no" and therefore defeated. Then I put the motion — there was no division called, as no one was on their feet — I put motion 1 and it was carried.

Mr. McGeer: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you read the motion that you were putting?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In answer, to verify this, I said: "Shall motion No. 1 pass?"

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid you never said that. Mr. Chairman, I think what we would like to do is to call for a division on the question of whether you should leave the chair. It's all right to call for that division.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We did ask for it before.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The only way that the Chair can reverse itself is....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: By admitting error. Admit it.

Mr. McGeer: By making it quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that you didn't correctly state the motion you were calling. Mr. Chairman, we want a division on the previous motion that you leave the chair. Mr. Chairman, we have called for a division on that motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There's no confusion in the Chair's mind as to what the Chair was doing.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, there was confusion in the minds of the House, and we wish to call for a division.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: You said the nays had it when the ayes had more people in the House, Mr. Chairman. We want a division on that motion.

Mr. Chairman: If the Hon. Member is calling for a division, it's on motion 1.

Mr. Bennett: The Chairman has said that he distinctly named the vote and it's questioned by the Members in this House whether he did. I would suggest a short recess while we check the tape.

An Hon. Member: Sure, let's be fair.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: On a point of order, if there is genuine confusion, as there appears to be, I see no reason why the Chair can't rule, as was requested by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), for a division on the motion. Will you repeat the motion again so we know what we're voting on?

Interjection.

[ Page 1038 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not your motion.

Mr. McGeer: The motion was that the Chairman leave the chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it was that the committee rise.

Mr. McGeer: No, the motion was put by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). There was a voice vote and while the Chairman said the nays had it the Members on this side of the House were under the impression that the ayes had it because there were more ayes in the House than there were nays.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, let's have a division on that then.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would like to repeat the sequence of events before I ask for leave. First there was a motion made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano that the Chairman do now leave the chair. The Chair, responding to this motion, put the motion to a vote. There were ayes and nays and the Chairman said: "Did the nays have it?" There was some dispute about this but no division was called. No one was on their feet so the Chair then put motion 1. However, it appears there seems to be a desire on both sides of the House to return to the point where the vote was taken on the motion that the Chairman do now leave the chair. Shall leave be granted to have a division on this matter?

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, just prior to taking a vote by a division, could I ask the Chairman for clarification on how he determines whether the ayes or the nays have a vote, when it was clearly evident to those of us sitting here that there were more of us that said "aye" in the House at that particular time?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. On the point of order, I think it's important to point out to the Hon. Member that on a voice vote the Chairman doesn't count everybody to see how many there are. He simply listens to the response on either side and makes a subjective judgment. Then it's up to the individual Members, if they wish to have a standing vote, to call a division.

Shall leave be granted to have a division?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be clearly placed on the record that the ethical procedure for a Chairman in this House is to count the Members in the House if there's a question....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet doing what the Chairman should ethically have done....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If any Hon. Member wishes to attack the Chair, the proper method is by a substantive motion. Now I am asking if leave shall be granted to return to call a division on the procedural motion. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 32

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when you report to the Speaker you mention to him that there was a vote held in committee and ask for leave to have it recorded.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I have now to ask you for a point of clarification. As I mentioned, this motion provides for a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province. I would like to discuss some of the important things

[ Page 1039 ]

that this $500 million Easter egg is going to be expended on, and I would like to ask you what subject it covers that I might discuss.

Mr. Chairman: There are two things that the Hon. Member may address himself to. One is: should an interim supply bill be passed at this time? — the desirability of passing it or not passing it. Secondly, is the amount adequate or should it be reduced? The Member may not suggest that it be increased but, rather, he could move an amendment that it be decreased.

Mr. Gibson: We don't have any information as to its adequacy or not. We simply have a motion by the government, Mr. Chairman. I'll address myself, for a moment, as to whether or not it should be passed.

I would suggest to you, Sir, that as long as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is not in this House to tell us that he is going to agree to meet with the Indian people of British Columbia on the subject of cut-off lands sometime...

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chairman has ruled....

Mr. Gibson: ...this bill should not be passed!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, in deference to your ruling that we should only discuss the two aspects — (1) is it enough? and (2) should it be passed? — I will devote myself to "should it be passed?" To do that, I will have to, of course, indicate how the money is being expended. Obviously, that's very material to whether or not it should be passed.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! As long as the Hon. Member relates his remarks in general terms to the advisability of passing it or not passing it, that's correct.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right! Well, Mr. Chairman, in the next two months what has become known as the Casa Loma project will be substantially proceeded with. It will not be terminated in the next two months, but much of the work will be done in that period and it will be essentially completed in that period, if all goes in accordance with what we've been informed. I wonder whether it would be in order to discuss whether or not this money should be passed, if part of it is used for that particular purpose.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The same principle applies and I would rule, no. The Hon. Member must make the emphasis of his remarks the desirability of passing it or not passing it, and whether or not the amount is adequate. To get into a discussion on something pertaining to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) or something to Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is moving away from the main point of the motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, it may be moving directly to the main point of the motion, in my view, with respect, Mr. Chairman, because to rationally discuss how half-a-billion dollars worth of the public's money should be spent and whether it should be spent requires us to examine some of the proposals and projects on which the money is spent. It would seem to me that this is a....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! There's no indication in the scope of the motion as to what the money will be used for, other than the indication that it will be used to defray expenses for a period of two months.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. There's nothing indicating Ministry by Ministry what will be spent. You're certainly right there. What it does say, and I'll quote from the motion:

"That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied, in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session."

A direct reference to the main estimates which we have, the main estimates book.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member may recall that the Chair has already made a ruling on this matter, and if the Member wishes to challenge the ruling of the Chair....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: I'll repeat the ruling, if you like. It is that the Chair rules you should not get into a detailed discussion about any of the Ministers' administrative responsibilities directly, but rather the advisability of approving this money for distribution by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[ Page 1040 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: My fear is, Mr. Chairman, that your narrow interpretation might lead you to rule this motion out of order — which would indeed be distressing for the government — because there it does talk about: "... substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session." Once more, a direct quote from the last three lines of the motion, which I see you are perusing, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore, as it is clearly indicated in the motion itself, in this piece of paper which I have been presented with, that the money will be spent by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as they determine, and "to defray the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year," and as it is going to take one-sixth of the main estimates which are put before us, it would seem to me appropriate for us to discuss, in the light of your ruling, in the light of your instructions, the immediate expenses of the various government departments which will be met from this money.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw your attention to the line where it says: "applied in such a manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine." Now obviously the motion is concerned with that fact, and this is not within the scope of the motion to discuss departmental activities.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, but it does appear from the motion that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to determine it generally in accordance with the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, and this is what they are suggesting. They have said nothing else to this Legislature. The presumption must be that they are not asking us to buy a pig in a poke. They are not intending to use $537 million in a manner other than they have indicated to us up to now and, therefore, they intend to use it much as indicated. Fair enough?

In which case, we come to the question as to whether or not the money is well spent for the purchase of the Casa Loma project. It's a pity that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is not with us, because much of the expenditure on Casa Loma will occur in the next couple of months.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again, I would mention once more that any consideration of any specific matter dealing with a specific department should not be debated at this time, but rather the advisability of approving this money for distribution by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on an interim basis.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read to the Chairman a citation from May, 18th edition, page 724. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our usages, where not specifically specified in our standing orders or in specific Speaker's rulings or precedents of this House, come from May. This is titled: "Debate on a vote on account," which apparently is the British usage for what we term interim supply. I'll just quote this:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an advance is sought, may be discussed in anticipation, upon the motion for the grant on account...."

And I read this as well:

"... though the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House. A general debate on the vote on account for civil estimates and the Defence (central) estimate, 1968-69, took place on 18 March, 1968."

I think that provides ample precedent, Mr. Chairman, for the suggestion that this could and should be a fairly wide-ranging debate.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is a distinction that has to be made between what the Chair has ruled and what the Hon. Member has drawn the Chair's attention to. The motion that is before us is concerned with the interim supply of money for distribution by the executive council to all the departments of the government, whereas, clearly, the interim supply he is referring to is for a specific department.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member read these words.... At least, I'll read this section which is from the same section:

"Matters which can be discussed upon the grant on which an advance is sought, may be discussed, in anticipation, upon the motion for the grant on account; though the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House."

The Chair is ruling that general remarks may be made. However, getting into a specific discussion, such as the matter of Casa Loma or anything else, should be brought up properly when the estimates of the Minister of Housing are before us.

Mr. Gibson: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, the question, of course, is what is meant by discussing things generally and in detail. I would suggest to you that, first of all, this interim supply and a vote on account are substantially the same

[ Page 1041 ]

thing. The vote on account contemplates all of the departments of government as well. Indeed, I'll read from May, page 703, if further clarification is wanted on that.

The question of having a general debate — and you saw the reference there to a general debate which took place in 1968 in the British House of Commons — clearly calls for the giving of examples and the making of allusions, however slight or possibly deeper into this aspect and that of the public service over the next couple of months. That is the simple case I put, and it seems to me that, within that case, the propriety of discussing briefly and in general such things as the competence of the government in the administration of housing, in the discussions with the Indian bands of....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is sliding away from the point made by May, and that is that general discussion can take place on a motion of this nature but it must be relevant to the advisability of whether or not the money should be approved or not approved. However, any detailed account, as May points out, should take place at the time that the estimates of that Minister and the completion of the amount to be approved is being considered.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I intend to keep my remarks very general. But if the amount of money which we're asked to supply this afternoon is granted, then this covers one-sixth of the total year.

It will be necessary for the government to be able to raise the full amount of money to cover these costs. It will be necessary as well for each department to stay within its spending estimates.

All last week I asked the Premier a fairly simple question with regard to income listed in total revenue. That was: what was the price of natural gas that he was estimating to give us revenue of $230 million? Clearly, if the gas price he actually gets is below what he estimates to get $230 million, he is not going to have sufficient funds available to cover one-sixth of the cost.

I asked that question all last week. I noticed that the leader of the Conservative Party accused me of making the speech three times. I asked the question three times. The Premier gave speeches for a full week without giving the answer once.

Earlier this afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). That question was: will the Minister of Human Resources give an undertaking to the House and to the people of British Columbia that he will stay within his spending estimates? Clearly, if the Minister of Human Resources exceeds those estimates, there won't be enough money available for the other Ministers under this particular vote.

Last year in all good faith the Members of this House passed estimates for the Minister of Human Resources, including a very generous increase to that department, and we had barely gone when the Minister had run out and needed $100 million more because he had made a clerical error.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member relate his remarks to the advisability of approving interim supply?

Mr. McGeer: Yes. I don't think, looking at the budget this year, looking at this $500 million — plus a few million — that constitutes interim supply, there is room for slack or carelessness. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) got up and made a very fine speech; he answered questions he wasn't asked. Had we had a similar kind of speech from the Minister of Human Resources, I am certain this bill would have passed. But the fact remains that the wrong Minister answered questions that weren't put to him. The Ministers who should be answering questions...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member...?

Mr. McGeer: ...for the people, who should be giving reassurance to the people of British Columbia...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: ...are silent.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is clearly not relating his remarks to the matter before us. I would ask him again to relate his remarks to the interim supply before us.

Mr. McGeer: I don't see what is more relevant in this particular debate than trying to judge on the one hand whether money is available and, on the other hand, whether the money that is available is going to be properly apportioned. If one Minister overspends, there won't be money for the others.

It's clear, Mr. Chairman, in looking at the estimates from last year, that a lot of Ministers overspent by a great deal. When we got the interim estimates of expenditures, do you know they were nearly $500 million more than what the Premier presented in the House? $500 million. If that hadn't happened last year, I am sure it wouldn't be necessary for us to stand up during this debate and ask these questions. It used to be in the House when you got spending estimates placed before you, they had some meaning. The government stuck to spending estimates. Then when it came to adding up the special warrants at the end of the year and passing them, the

[ Page 1042 ]

amounts of money were really quite reasonable in comparison with the total budget.

This past year we were given something which is ridiculous and absurd. What it indicates is that the government has no common sense at all about money. It has no regard for what figures it presents in this House. It has no intention of sticking by them. More than that, we have Ministers of the Crown who have absolutely no ability or experience in an administrative sense, who have no regard for the taxpayers' dollar, who come in and admit to things like $100 million clerical errors, and who give a demonstration of carelessness in the Treasury benches like we have never had before in British Columbia. If there is one thing that can be characteristic of this New Democratic Party government, it is disrespect for the taxpayers' dollars.

Our job here in the opposition is to ask questions — perhaps not penetrating ones, because we are not permitted to do that. We've got to keep it vague and general, But I find it rather interesting that when this huge interim supply bill is before the House we have exactly three Members of the Treasury benches here to pay attention to the spending estimates that apply directly to them. They are not here to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: They are not here to listen to the debate. They are showing the same kind of contempt to this House that they show to the general public.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I've been listening to the Hon. Member carefully but I fail to see the relevance of what he's been saying to the points that I've mentioned from the chair, and that is the advisability of approving the interim supply and the amount contained therein.

I would repeat again the fact that in May it says: "Though the proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed in the House...." Now that's the time to debate the administrative aspects of what's happening in the various departments and also the budget as it applies to the various departments. We're considering the advisability of approving this sum of money on an interim basis.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I have already heard, unless there is a decision by the Members to change their minds, that they will be voting for this interim measure and for the supply bill. After having heard that, I've taken some notes about some of the things that they claim they will be voting for.

They have said that there is a "shocking dereliction of duty" by the Ministers — that was said by one Member of the opposition. That is an opinion that you share, obviously. There is incompetence, there are errors, they should have all the legislation in front of them before they pass this, the bill shouldn't be passed because all of the estimates or all of the Ministers that they want to ask questions of aren't here, there's no common sense on money, no ability in administration, no regard for the taxpayers and various other sundry accusations against the government and the Ministers — saying all of these things and at the same time saying that they're going to vote for the bill.

I find it puzzling that such statements can be made for whatever reason, of course, they wish to make them. Certainly it's a matter of deep principle with the opposition Members to make statements. I don't think that they would make statements making all of these accusations as bona fide opinions and then still say that they will vote for this bill.

Certainly that's a matter of reflection for them to make. This bill deals with the interim funds to carry on with all the necessary work of government. It is not unusual in the British parliamentary system. It deals with money to carry on the work of hospitals, schools, highways and every other commitment we have as government. If they care to vote against it, certainly no one will reflect upon the vote here in the House, but we'll have to discuss it outside. If they care to vote for it, then they become subject to the question: what are they doing? What are they doing today? They're prepared to make all of these statements — all of these accusations — but they're already on record saying that they're going to vote for the bill in any event, Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If you believe all of these things that you said, then you must vote against this bill. you cannot....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, they don't like to listen, they just like to make attacks on individual Ministers and on the government. But when their own lack of logic comes back to haunt them, then they get huffy, then they get touchy, then they get upset. The arrogance in opposition begins to

[ Page 1043 ]

appear because the logic of their argument disappears. If you don't want work to go ahead, if you hate us politically so much, and if it is a matter of great principle with you, don't vote for the bill. But by all British parliamentary tradition, whether you hate or love a government, interim supply is just exactly that — funds to carry on with the work of any government in any period of time.

If you do not wish to be objective, so be it. But don't play with this House or don't play with the idea that somehow you are attaching your opinion of government to the performance of work that must be done by civil servants. You cannot have it both ways.

The question is this: if you don't want interim supply, say so. If that's what you want, stand up and say: "We don't wish to approve interim supply." Say so. But don't give a list of all the accusations that you care to make about the government with the caveat, as I understand you lawyers use, that you can vote for it in any event. Don't talk both ways.

I understand that you people are very knowledgeable in the works of parliament, that you know that this is not an unusual bill and know that this is standard practice in every jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. If you don't care to vote for it, say so. But I find it not only wasteful of time but somewhat hypocritical to sit here and listen to attacks against Ministers and attacks against the government all predicated on the argument that you're going to vote for the bill anyway.

Now if you really believe this, stand up and tell us that you are going to vote against the bill. Stand up and say that you really believe every accusation you have made and you are not going to vote for the bill and you won't go for interim supply. You cannot have two positions.

You can argue any way you want. You can fancy-dance and skin around and play all over the Ministers and the departments, but the ultimate analysis will be whether or not you support interim supply. If you don't, say so. If you do, say so, But don't try and leave the impression that you have some kind of deep, overriding concern about the government, but you are going to vote for the bill anyway. It is a phony argument.

Mr. Gardom: Shame on you! Shame on you!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! Shame on me! I've listened to an hour and a half of nonsense, and now....

Mr. Gardom: A vicious attack.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A vicious attack? I certainly hope so. I certainly hope so.

Mr. Chairman, I sat through it all quietly. When I try and give them something back, they are all jumping and screaming, yelling: "Shame! It's not so. We don't mean this. It's not this." Then vote against the bill! If you believe what you are saying, vote against the bill. I challenge you to vote against the bill!

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, but before the Member proceeds, I just want to make a point again: this resolution has not requested supply for a particular service. It has been requested for the entire government. Therefore, the remarks must be relevant to the motion. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's a pretty interesting observation.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has given us one of his speeches whereby if you are not in favour of trains running on time, well then, vote against Mussolini, but if you are in favour of trains running on time, obviously Mussolini is your man. That's the way he's rapped up the whole of this argument, and that's about how stupidly he's done it.

The fact is, we have said right from the outset, and I happen to have been the first speaker speaking for our party, that we would support this because it is necessary for the work of government to continue and we understand it is necessary for hospital salaries to be paid, school salaries to be paid, highways to be constructed, civil servants to be paid, and the general work of government to continue. We have no wish whatsoever to be obstructionists...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ....and simply adopt the obstructionist tactics of the Premier who says that if you are not in favour of any aspect of our government, any aspect of the way this money will be spent in the next two months, vote against it and vote against everything else as well.

We have stated our policy right from the beginning. If anyone is attempting to simplify this argument and put it in the most stupid terms, it has to be the Premier himself.

There are Ministers who will be spending money under this motion we have whom we think we should question. There are departments which we think we should question. There are departments which we feel don't have proper financial control, and the Department of Human Resources is one which we feel we should question at this time.

So far we have spent approximately $7 million a minute, and we haven't spent much time on this. For every minute spent so far it works out to about $7 million. We are asking for half-a-billion dollars, and the Premier would have us pass this without a murmur, without any reference to the way some of

[ Page 1044 ]

this money will be spent, or indeed how similar sums in the past have been mis-spent.

We feel that the people of British Columbia sent us here in opposition to ask questions of him, to point out that there are areas where we feel there should be more careful control. We feel there are areas where the money could be better spent, and on interim supply we have every right to do so.

It's fine to reduce this to the Premier's simplistic formula whereby if you favour trains running on time you must vote for Mussolini, but if you don't, obviously you don't favour trains running on time. This simplistic approach of his is simply unacceptable.

May makes it perfectly clear that we can discuss a number of subjects under this general heading. It is fine to make the distinction that this money is for general purposes, as you do, Mr. Chairman. You have rightly said that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine how the money is going to be spent, but all the more reason for questioning members of the executive council who instruct the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as to how the money should be spent, because we have no documents before us....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is clearly out of order on the last point — that is that you may not question the Ministers on specifics. There is no indication of specifics in this motion. The motion is general supply.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well then, we'll have to go after the Minister of Finance, who is generally in charge.

May is perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman. You've read one or two little excerpts. I want to read a longer one so that we deal with these quotations at some length. Page 723; you'll find it at the bottom of the page. I believe someone is putting a finger on the words — yes, and not moving his lips. Anyway, "On Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes" is the heading: "Debate on supplementary and excess votes is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates on which those grants are sought." And here we have a general request.

Clearly, if it was for one Ministry, we would discuss that Ministry, but here we have every single Ministry — a general request for one-sixth of the total amount of money which is asked for in this document, in this book, which goes on page after page after page.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just to supplement the Hon. Member's point and to make a point from the Chair, I'll repeat this line on the bottom of page 724, May, 18th edition: "The proper occasion to examine the grants in detail is when the final grant to complete the sum demanded is proposed to the House." That is the time to question the Ministers on the specifics of their estimates, not during an interim supply bill.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: But, Mr. Chairman, you've ignored the whole page of material before, which, if you allow me to continue, talks about: "The debate cannot touch upon policy of...."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please; The Chair has made a ruling.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You can't quote, selectively, certain sentences and certain paragraphs.

Mr. Chairman: Order! If the Hon. Member wishes to challenge the Chair he may do so, but I rule any remarks on specifics of the individual Ministers out of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, you allow the Premier to instruct you, you read a note which apparently came from the Speaker, you're able to take instruction, but when we try and quote May to you, you say you'll only accept selective quotes, and you will not take the whole statement in the whole context. Why not?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! First of all, the Chair makes a ruling and the Member has the recourse of either challenging the ruling or desisting from disobeying the Chair. The Chair has ruled on the basis of the information contained in May and advice from counsel, and the ruling stands. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine himself to a general discussion of this motion or to take his place.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, in the normal legislative process we are allowed to bring to the attention of the Chair and to their counsel quotations which apparently have escaped them, because they've not yet been made. I refer to page 724 of May where it talks about the practice and it talks about the certain limitation which has been enforced in the case of supplementary estimates. It says: "As a general rule, on the supplementary estimates it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the supplementary estimates."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! First of all, the Hon. Member was in the House of Commons in Ottawa and I think he's familiar with standing order 18 in the House of Commons. This particular standing order, of course, varies somewhat from the practice and advice in the British House of Commons, and also from the practice that's been followed in this House. The Chair is making a ruling applying to this

[ Page 1045 ]

House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right. We follow May where there's variation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member doesn't seem to understand that the Chair makes a ruling and that's the ruling of this House. Now the Hon. Member may challenge the ruling if he wishes or he may obey it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of having references and the whole purpose of quoting May is to prevent arbitrary rulings, which of course will become contradictory to one another as time goes on and the winds of government interests blow stronger or weaker. We want to make sure that there's consistent policy and that all future generations looking back upon your judgment say: "My goodness, that was a sound, sensible judgment based upon the best evidence possible at the time and on the best authority." Therefore I just wish to quote to you May, chapter 18....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Chair has made a ruling and I would ask the Hon. Member either to follow it or to desist. By way of clarification, the Chair is ruling on the basis of the fact that this is a general interim supply bill and it does not deal specifically with any department. Therefore under the strict rules of the House — standing order 61(2) — your speech must be relevant to the words of this motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, we've always assumed, Mr. Chairman, what is relevant to the particulars is relevant to the general. It makes sense that....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, he's getting a note from the Speaker. Right — we'll wait. Could we table these notes from the Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, certainly it's our intention, in debating this motion, to keep the remarks appropriately general, and the Members in our party are endeavouring to do that. It's not our intention, Mr. Chairman, to vote against supply — we made that clear. Nor is it our intention to filibuster for several days, as frequently is done in the House of Commons in Ottawa and the House of Commons in Britain. The New Democratic Party understands very well the device of filibuster in the House of Commons because that's one of the very best plays that the NDP has federally — filibustering interim supply.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Is that where you learned it?

Mr. McGeer: It's where the precedent was set, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General asked if we learned it there, and we said that wasn't our intention, But that's where the precedent was set.

The Premier entered into one of his tirades against the opposition in which he threatened the opposition, accused the opposition of cheap politics, insisted that we not debate, that we not ask questions, but that we vote for or against it.

Mr. Lewis: Right on! Show us some responsibility.

Mr. McGeer: That's the style of the Member for Shuswap: never ask any questions, at least not in the House, Mr. Chairman. But there's a different responsibility of an elected Member and that's to be certain that public business is indeed public. I think if the Premier reflects just a little bit, he'll decide that maybe it's just a wee bit on the arrogant side to suggest that it's improper for Members in this House to ask questions or to suggest that it's improper that public business be public.

If $516 million, or whatever this sum is, is to be spent — and it's the public's money; the government doesn't have any money of its own — then questions as to how that money is going to be spent are appropriate.

We are only asking general questions about how the public's money is to be spent. We don't want to be accused of cheap politics; we don't want to be accused of disliking the Members of the Treasury benches. I have no dislike for them. Like the Premier, I have nothing but love in my heart for those Members of the Treasury benches. I don't think they're going to set any records for competency; they'll certainly set no records for restraint, none at all. But, Mr. Chairman, before we give them this record amount of money for a two-month supply period, I think it only appropriate — in fact, only a minimum requirement, really, of people elected to this House — to ask the big spenders....

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member knows that the Chair has ruled that particular matter out of order, and I would ask him to....

Mr. McGeer: What matter is that?

[ Page 1046 ]

Mr. Chairman: He's indicating that he would like to question the individual cabinet Ministers, the big spenders, on how they intend to spend the money, when that is not part of this motion.

Mr. McGeer: No, no, no, no. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask him how he is going to spend the money and I am not going to ask every Minister — just one Minister, Mr. Chairman, who is a notorious spender.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member get on with the discussion of this motion and make his remarks relevant to this motion, which is the advisability of approving an interim supply?

Mr. McGeer: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is the big spender. We didn't ask the Minister of Health any questions at all but he's got EPS. He got up and answered questions that he wasn't even asked. You didn't rule him out of order for answering questions he wasn't asked. (Laughter.) You only ruled me out of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Member is a scientist. I think it's ESP, but I hate to correct a university graduate like yourself.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. Extra Perception Sensory — EPS. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: If it's appropriate for the Minister of Health to answer those questions without being ruled out of order....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is totally out of order. The Chair has ruled, and continues to rule, that discussion must be confined to this motion. I would ask the Hon. Member to discuss the motion and not discuss what the Minister of Health said or anyone else. Just discuss the motion.

Mr. McGeer: I just want to know whether the Minister in question has enough. Maybe if he's going....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he may move an amendment to reduce the amount but he cannot move an amendment to increase it. Therefore, he should discuss the advisability of having this amount.

Mr. McGeer: But the Treasury benches could. If the Minister were to insist that he couldn't stay within that spending and it wouldn't be enough....

After all, Mr. Chairman, that was the case a year ago. We never asked him that question last year. We should have, because he couldn't stay within that amount. He went to Treasury Board and had to confess he had spent all the money and he needed $100 million more.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is nothing in this motion....

Mr. McGeer: If we'd only asked that question....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is totally out of order again. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the advisability of approving interim supply. The motion states that the money is to be given to the executive council to be applied in such a manner and at such times as they shall decide. There's nothing to indicate which department and how much is going to it. There is to be no consideration of that because the motion doesn't state it.

Mr. McGeer: You said that we could put in a motion to reduce the amount, and you agreed with me that the Treasury benches, if necessary, could bring in an amendment to increase the amount. They might have to do it by....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is intending to propose an amendment, would he propose the amendment? Otherwise, would he confine his remarks to the main motion?

Mr. McGeer: I am not absolutely certain yet. That's why I was asking a question or two, through you, Sir, because if the amount provided for in this motion.... If the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for example, were not to be able to stay within his spending estimates, then we would have to recommend — though we wouldn't actually be able to make the amendment ourselves — to the Minister of Finance to increase it. If, on the other hand....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member is irrelevant. Under standing order 43, I just caution the Hon. Member that he is persisting in irrelevance. I would ask him to try to relate his remarks to the same motion.

Mr. McGeer: I think it's very important to know whether this is the correct amount.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The amount that's in the motion is what we are discussing. Any proposals to increase the amount of money is out of

[ Page 1047 ]

order. Any suggestion of recommending an increase is out of order. If he wishes to reduce it, he can do it by moving an amendment. But otherwise he is to discuss the advisability of this amount.

Mr. McGeer: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman, and that's what I'm trying to determine — whether it's advisable and whether the amount is correct.

One of the ways of determining that is to ask: is the amount correct? Is it fair to ask whether this amount is correct, Mr. Chairman, or is that out of order, too?

Mr. Chairman: Responding to the Hon. Member, yes, it is out of order to ask if the amount is correct. The amount is stated in the motion. What you are to decide is whether you support the motion or do not support the motion. If you do not support the motion, perhaps you could support a lesser amount, in which case you can move an amendment. But the thing is that you cannot ask if they should have more or recommend that they should have more.

Mr. McGeer: What we're trying to determine is what would be the best amount. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) feels that...and I agree, he's probably got the right amount. He stood right up and declared that that was what he needed — no more, no less. (Laughter.) We've asked for a similar declaration from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) because he's....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member insists on persisting in irrelevance, I'll ask the Hon. Member to take his seat.

Mr. McGeer: I don't think it is irrelevant, Mr. Chairman. I thought that it was right on.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion before us is for a specific amount. The Hon. Member must decide whether he's recommending the approval of this amount or whether he opposes this amount.

Mr. McGeer: I'm trying to learn. I don't know how I can do that, Mr. Chairman, except by asking questions.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): You're a slow learner.

Mr. McGeer: I can't ask questions of you, but I surely can ask questions of people who know. They're all entitled to take part in the debate. They're certainly entitled to answer questions — they've already established that. You've established it — you didn't prevent them from answering questions.

Mr. Chairman, I really wish, before this vote were passed — or if we even decided that this was the appropriate amount — that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) could give us his reassurance....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to say any more in this debate, but then when that Premier over there stood up and gave the opposition a lecture on what the rights of the opposition are in this debate, it just occurred to me that he's been president of the BCR too long. He's trying to railroad this House, too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the motion?

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: I'm replying to what the Premier said, Mr. Chairman. What he was asking for was a 10-second rubber stamp in this House on a $500 million blank cheque. We're not talking now about the $500 million that's blank — what's blank is the payee. What's blank is who this money's going to. You're suggesting, and I gather the Premier's suggesting, that we're not allowed to ask why that cheque is blank.

The Premier said: "What are you doing today?" He asked us what we were doing today as if there is something wrong with us. He talked about the tradition of parliament. The tradition of parliament has been that Members have the right to bring the grievances of the people before the executive in parliament before they grant that executive supply — that's the tradition of parliament.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gibson: That's a tradition that he should know as well as any man in this House.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gibson: He sought to deny that today.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Mr. Gibson: I brought a grievance before the executive today. I said that the rights of the Indian people in this province are being trampled on.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: I demanded that the executive meet with them....

[ Page 1048 ]

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chairman rose because the Hon. Member refused to obey the Chair. I ruled discussion of any administrative responsibility of any of the specific Ministers out of order under this motion because it's not strictly relevant to this motion. That's the reason.

I would ask the Hon. Member to continue but not to persist in disobeying the Chair.

Mr. Gibson: I wasn't disobeying the Chair and I wasn't commenting about the work of any Minister. What I was doing, I thought I made clear, was to bring before the Ministers as representatives of the Crown a grievance of British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows enough about parliamentary procedure to know that you can't bring a grievance up at any time. It must be brought up at the appropriate time.

Mr. Gibson: Which includes interim supply.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member may discuss this motion and remarks relevant to this motion, but he should confine his remarks to the advisability or inadvisability of approving this amount of money.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that one of the times in the tradition of parliament for the bringing up of grievances is during interim supply. I have brought up that grievance and I think it is a disgrace that the Minister is not here to answer it and that he is not here to give some assurance to the Indian people that he'll meet with them on cut-off lands over the next month.

Mr. Gardom: On a point of clarification and order, Mr. Chairman, would you mind explaining to the House what the process of electronic censoring is that we're having from the Chair? I see on a number of occasions Members are standing up and making points and suddenly their microphones become dead....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm sure that the Hon. Member could receive guidance on this matter from the Speaker when we meet as the House.

Mr. Gardom: It's not within your domain to turn off the...?

Mr. Chairman: This was not a decision made in committee; and in this committee, certainly not.

Mr. Gardom: Well, who's doing it, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This question should be addressed to the Speaker.

Mr. Gardom: Is the Hon. Chairman prepared to tell me who's doing it when the Speaker is not in the chair?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. For the advice of the Hon. Member, he may recall that there was a decision made last year that the buttons would be removed. This was done. However, when the Chairman is on his feet, then any other Hon. Members must be seated. So there's no problem. Would the Hon. Member continue?

Mr. Gibson: Who cuts the microphones off?

Mr. Gardom: Why did the microphones suddenly stop?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have nothing to do with the microphones. The Hon. Member knows that when the Chairman rises to his feet, there must be no other Hon. Members standing or speaking, so there's no problem. Will the Hon. Member continue with his speech?

Mr. Gardom: Well, the problem seems to be one of electronics, because, Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Gardom: ...it has happened all afternoon.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair is not concerned with the matter of electronics. The Chair is concerned with the matter of order and the rules of the House.

Mr. Gibson: Now we have electronic closure, too.

Mr. Gardom: Well, Mr. Chairman, when a Member is addressing himself to his microphone and the microphone becomes dead, are his remarks still being transcribed in Hansard?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is only concerned with whether the Members obey the Chair. When the Chairman rises, then the person who is at his place must sit down and not speak.

Mr. Gardom: It is also the responsibility of the

[ Page 1049 ]

Chair to ensure full and free report of debate, I think, in the House, Mr. Chairman. My question is pretty simple: is there being full and complete report of debate when the microphones are turned off?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The matter has been dealt with adequately. Does the Hon. Member wish to speak to the motion?

Mr. Gardom: No, I don't intend to speak to the motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe that any matter to do with the lights or TV or electronics should be directed to the Speaker, not to the Chairman. This is not a matter before the committee.

Mr. Gardom: But it seems to happen in committee, and the Speaker is not here.

Mr. Chairman: I know nothing about it. Would the Hon. Member continue?

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: You're in committee.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct a couple of questions on this motion to the Hon. Minister of Finance, if I have his attention. The amount that we're dealing with, $537 million, is suggested in the motion to be one-sixth of the total of the main estimates. It would lead one to the conclusion that the interim supply which is now being sought might perhaps carry the government for the two-month period commencing April 1, in just a week or so.

However, if you consider the several individual amounts that are involved in the main estimates, we recognize that there is something like $91 million in salary contingencies, which may never be spent at all, and there are vast sums for capital grants. But also there are vast sums which must be paid commencing about April 1 to the school districts of the province and to the municipalities. I wonder if the Hon Minister of Finance could indicate to me whether or not the money he is today seeking by way of interim supply will carry us for two months when, perhaps, we will have the main estimates completed. Or can we anticipate that there may be a further motion for interim supply? That's my question.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: On the advice I received from the Department of Finance, upon request, there were not sufficient funds, in their estimation, and I asked them to come up with a figure of what would carry us to the completion, within two months, of our estimates. This was the advice given to me by the department itself, which covers the substance of your question. I hope that their conclusion is correct, but it's on the best advice in terms of the patterns of expenditure.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Then the committee may assume that it is only a coincidence that it's one-sixth of the total amount, that the Department of Finance has looked at the amount they will be required to expend over the next two months, and it comes to about $537 million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, this is a maximum figure, Mr. Member. The possibility exists that the House may go three months. What I asked them was to give me a figure that would certainly cover two months and give us a cushion as well. Now I can't give you the exact time, as you know, when we will finish the debate. But the idea was to give us some cushion period in which we could reasonably expect to have the normal business of estimates done.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the resolution of the Committee of Supply on the 26th day of March, 1975, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the resolution be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid out, applied in such manner and at such time as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia at the present session.

The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

[ Page 1050 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move that out of the consolidated revenue fund there be paid and applied, in such manner and at such time as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine, a sum not exceeding in the whole $537 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, not otherwise provided for; and being substantially one-sixth of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1976, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present time.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Mr. Chairman: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the resolution be reported as considered?

Mr. Chairman: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that the resolution as reported be considered now.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means of March 26, 1975, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1975

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill No. 11, intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move the bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

[ Page 1051 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is customary, I believe, that bills be distributed so that we know what we are voting on in committee. I haven't received a copy of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Could we ask the Chair, with leave, to have the Members stay in the chamber while the bill is distributed?

Mr. Chairman: There will be a brief pause while the bill is distributed.

The committee will come to order. Shall section 1 pass?

On section 1.

Mr. Chabot: Point of order. I'm on section 2. I was just about finished reading it. Could you wait for just one-quarter of a second?

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question is that Bill 11 be read a third time now. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Supply Act No. 1, 1975, read a third time and passed.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I understand that we are just awaiting the arrival of the Lieutenant-Governor. I think if all the Members will remain in their seats.... He will be here very shortly.

The House took recess at 4:28 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:34 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk: Supply Act, No. 1, 1975. In her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:36 p.m.

Note: The House adjourned until Monday, April 7,1975.