CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 29.

Mr. Phillips — 2729

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2734

Mr. Phillips — 2735

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2738

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2738

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2739

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2739

Mr. Phillips — 2740

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2741

Mr. Phillips — 2741

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2743

Mr. Phillips — 2743

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2743

Mr. Phillips — 2744

On vote 30.

Mr. Wallace — 2744

Mr. Fraser — 2745

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2745

Mr. Fraser — 2745

Mr. Smith — 2745

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2746

Mr. Smith — 2746

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2746

Mr. Smith — 2747

Mr. Fraser — 2747

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2747

Mr. Fraser — 2747

Mr. McClelland — 2747

Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 34.

Mr. Chabot — 2747

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2751

Mr. Fraser — 2752

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2753

Mr. Chabot — 2753

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2755

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): On the floor of the House this evening I have the pleasure of introducing the Hon. L. Thompson, Member of Parliament in the State of Victoria, Australia, and his wife, Mrs. Thompson. Hon. Mr. Thompson is the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Education and the House Leader and he also happens to be Irish.

Orders of the day.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to permit debate in Committee of Supply for this evening's sitting.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 29: rentalsman, $1,281,644 — continued.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The rentalsman — I wonder why he is the rentalsman, because we have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who really should be in charge of rental accommodation. Yet I can't understand why the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is the Minister of the rentalsman.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Neither can I.

MR. PHILLIPS: I can't understand why he's in charge of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., and I can't understand why he's chairman of the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member speak to vote 29, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I'm doing. Mr. Chairman, I have had a tremendous amount to say about the rentalsman in previous debates. I advised the Attorney-General that he was heading down a path of no return. I told the Attorney-General about the error of his ways. I told him that he was backing himself into a corner. But, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wait a minute now. Either I am going down a path, or I am backing into a corner — which is it?

MR. PHILLIPS: You've done all four.

The Attorney-General would not listen and he appointed a man who made Colin Gabelmann feel like he wished he had lost the election. Here's a man who fought for the NDP, and who was working for $24,000 a year, but the man who lost the election, the Liberal who lost the election to Colin Gabelmann, is getting $43,056 a year.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: He had a bet?

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): He's not a lawyer, either.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but who threw the election to whom? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: So the NDP Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) wishes that he had lost the election, but he sent a note over this afternoon, which said: "I bet you that Mr. Clark doesn't run against me because he is making too much money."

MR. PHILLIPS: One thing that doesn't show up here on this vote is the rentalsman's expense account, Mr. Chairman. But this is all right. We have told the Attorney-General that this whole deal wouldn't work. But now the rentalsman, who must be a tremendous man of stature and not afraid of his job because he has the intestinal fortitude to know that he is not doing a good job, to know that the office of rentalsman is not working. He stood up to the Attorney-General. In Vernon on May 14, 1975, Barrie Clark, pardon the pun, bared it all. He let it all hang out. He told the Attorney-General that it wasn't working. He told the people of British Columbia that it wasn't working — the same thing that we told the Attorney-General when he put this legislation through.

I would like to quote from a speech made in Vernon by the rentalsman — that man who is making $43,000 a year, a very high salary, indeed, for a man with no previous experience as either a landlord or a renter. Now what did he have to say? The title of this article is: "To Freeze Or Not To Freeze." This article is from the Vernon Daily News.

This is quite amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, because this man was given practically a blank cheque to solve the rental accommodation problem in British Columbia. I have to quote from this article because it says: "Rentalsman Barrie Clark said Tuesday that he and Alex Macdonald experienced confusion in transmission" — and this isn't Westcoast Transmission and it isn't cablevision transmission. It is a transmission of ideas — "on statements about the

[ Page 2730 ]

future of rent controls in British Columbia. Mr. Clark said here Tuesday that Mr. Macdonald wants the rent freeze off." The Attorney-General wants the rent freeze off! I have heard the Attorney-General say last spring that he wants the rent freeze off. Yet at that same session of the Legislature he brought in another bill to carry the rent freeze on until September of this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that rent controls or rent freezes are no longer under the jurisdiction of the rentalsman, and are not a part of his duties. Also, it is a matter of legislation; therefore I would ask you to confine your remarks to the present duties and responsibilities of the rentalsman's office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you telling me, Mr. Chairman, that on May 14, Mr. Barrie Clark, who is the rentalsman, is speaking in Vernon about things over which he has no jurisdiction?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: These are things which do not come under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the opinions or the remarks of the person who occupies the position of rentalsman are not a matter specifically for debate under this vote, except as they apply to the administrative responsibilities under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, let's not sort of get everything twisted around, Mr. Chairman, because, after all, the rentalsman is in charge of rent control. In this article he is speaking about the administration of his department. And you are telling me that what the rentalsman says has no bearing on his responsibilities. In that case, I say: fire him immediately! Get rid of him! Get rid of him because he is out making public statements over which he has no jurisdiction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Save that $43,000.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Did he have a long-term contract?

MR. FRASER: Plus his travelling expenses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters of rent control....

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, I am amazed at your statement, Mr. Chairman, I really am. I am really amazed at your statement. Here is a man talking about the jurisdiction in British Columbia, over which he has complete control by legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps it would clarify the matter if the Hon. Member would allow the Attorney-General to outline briefly the duties of the rentalsman's office so that we might both see....

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he doesn't have to outline the duties of the rentalsman's office, Mr. Chairman. I have them right here before me:

"The office of the rentalsman administers the Landlord and Tenant Act which governs the relationship between landlords and tenants who rent residential premises.

"The office of the rentalsman is empowered to mediate, adjudicate and rule on all matters covered by the Act, with the exception of questions of rent increases, to deal with matters of termination of tenancies, possession of premises, redirection of rent, or for repairs and essential services and security deposits, to disseminate information to the general public" — for which he has a vote of over $200,000 in advertising to disseminate this information — "about the rights and responsibilities of the Act."

I feel that is exactly what the rentalsman was doing in Vernon.

The Attorney-General now realizes the error of his ways, because here is a man who is hired.... He is hiding behind one of those pieces of paper which are costing the public of British Columbia $200,000 a year — "The Rentalsman and You."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You are costing the Social Credit Party the vote of every tenant in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: No really because....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bet you are! You're against tenants — let them be soaked, let them be evicted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come on, applaud. This is a farce! Your leader comes out for rent control. What are you doing here?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed at the way the Attorney-General can blow his mind here in a responsible court, the highest court in British Columbia. Absolutely blows his mind. He blows his mind because the man whom he hired to administer this Act has come out and spoken his mind, has had the heart and the guts to stand up against this all-powerful Attorney-General, to tell him that he is wrong. Deep within the Attorney-General's heart, he knows himself that he is wrong. Although it

[ Page 2731 ]

may be politically expedient to bring in the legislation he has brought in, he knows deep down in his heart that it is wrong.

I must continue with this article, Mr. Chairman, because it lays everything out in public. I'm afraid that there wasn't a fair hearing given to Mr. Clark and his speech in Vernon.

He continues: "Mr. Clark said here Tuesday that Mr. Macdonald wants the rent freeze off." He wants the rent freeze off. I have to ask you: did Barrie Clark have a bad dream? Did he see what's going to happen in the future? Was he talking to the Attorney-General? Where did he get this idea that the Attorney-General wanted the rent freeze off?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't even a correct quotation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now he's taking the same route as the Premier. "Oh, I was misquoted." That is the last, last effort of all politicians — when they say they were misquoted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what he says.

MR. PHILLIPS: Am I to call the people who were at this conference, who quoted this article, liars? Not at all. I believe the rentalsman when he said that the Attorney-General wants the rent freeze off.

"In Victoria, Mr. Macdonald said the government has no intention of scrapping existing rent controls, which call for an annual rent increase of 10.6 per cent. He emphasized that he had not heard Mr. Clark's remarks."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I will try again on a slightly different tack in this regard. That is to say, we are considering under this vote the administrative responsibilities of the rentalsman's office. We're not considering whether or not to support rent controls or rent freezes. This is a matter for legislation and is not, strictly speaking, one of the administrative duties of the rentalsman's office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I won't call you naive, but if we didn't have rent controls, we wouldn't need the rentalsman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you are naive to ask that question.

MR. PHILLIPS: If we didn't have rent controls, we wouldn't need the rentalsman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! Don't you know what the office does?

MR. PHILLIPS: So I can't really accept your statement. I'm going to continue this article, because this shows the rentalsman and his statements. If they're not relative to this vote, then I don't know what is, Mr. Chairman, really.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not suggesting that the Hon. Member is not going to be relevant. What I am suggesting is that his remarks must deal with the administrative responsibilities or with the details of this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you suggest that statements made by the rentalsman are relative to the rentalsman's vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appeared to the Chair that the Hon. Member was embarking upon the merits of rent control and rent freezes...

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I wouldn't want to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and that is a matter of legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. What I'm trying to bring to the people of British Columbia is the fact that here is a rentalsman, who has a budget of $1,281,644, who doesn't agree with the man who brought in the legislation, the man who hired him. This has got to be a break, you know; there's got to be a crack in the administration. It's got to prove what the opposition said many years ago, in spite of the Attorney-General losing his noggin a few moments ago and going off on that political tangent. Here is a man who is being paid out of the taxpayers' pockets to administer this Act, who says he doesn't agree with it.

The Attorney-General said a provincial task force is studying housing policies, and included in the force's terms of reference is rent controls. He said there will be no further legislation on rent controls until the report has been presented to the Legislature — definitely not during the current session. He added that in view of the housing crisis in British Columbia, controls are essential.

In his statement, Mr. Clark said: "The person affected most by the rent freeze is now the landlord, because he's the one who's feeling the pinch financially at this time."

That is a statement we have made in this House many times before. But he goes on to say the same thing we have been telling the Attorney-General for many years — well, for many sessions: in the long run, it will be the tenant who is most affected because, unless the landlord is encouraged to continue to invest in rental accommodation, there just won't be any. There won't be any more built.

[ Page 2732 ]

If you want to look back through Hansard, you will find that I have said this in the House. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has said this in the House. The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has said this in the House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said this in the House.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm telling you, Mr. Attorney-General, that you can make all the stupid, snide remarks you want. You can get as angry as you want. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is wrong; and he can put on all the acts that he wants to. Here is a man, who he pays $1,281,644 a year, who disagrees with him.

Here's a man who has the stature, the guts and the fortitude to stand up to that socialist government even though they hired him. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have more respect for this rentalsman tonight than I have ever had for him because he is telling the government the error of their ways. What bothers me is that the government will not listen to him.

Here is a man who has a no-cut contract....

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right — a no-cut contract. Here is a man who can be fired at a moment's notice....

MR. FRASER: We'll pay him off and get rid of him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who, your leader?

MR. FRASER: No, the rentalsman. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we've heard in this Legislature this afternoon.... I'm not going to take the time of the House to go through and talk about the rent review commission which, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out very ably in the House, is not even legal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can change your party but not your riding.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's all right. You can go ahead and make fun, Mr. Attorney-General. But the Member pointed out very ably in this House this afternoon that you are paying a commission which is not legal, which was not passed through this House. The whole system of rent control that you have developed is really a farce and working against the betterment of housing and rental accommodation for the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is beginning to embark on the merits of rent control, and this is not really the subject of this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to deal with the administrative aspects of this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there's one thing about you: you have dinner and you automatically change your controls. Before we went to dinner you were allowing a free and wide debate on this subject, then all of a sudden you want controls. You remind me of the Attorney-General — he sort of changes....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the American eagle over there! (Laughter.) The staff sergeant in the USAF, 1953-55, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) who should be protecting the very people that she's fighting against, and there she is spitting fire and venom here in this Legislature tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River, in true northern spirit, not be distracted by these southerners and carry on with the issue under debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: The eagle is an endangered species.

MR. PHILLIPS: May there never be any more like her — we couldn't stand two.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: To continue, Mr. Chairman, I quote Barrie Clark, the man who is being paid $43,056. He never earned that much in his life before and probably will take some time again to earn that. He stood up to the Attorney-General, he stood up to this socialist government and said, "You're all wrong," and put his job on the line. He said: "But in the long run it will be the tenant who is most affected because unless the landlord is encouraged to continue to invest in rental accommodation, there just won't be any more built." Mr. Clark added: "This is the crisis facing the provincial government" — facing the Attorney-General. He didn't say that, those are my words.

Mr. Clark added: "This is what the rent review commission is looking at at the present time. I

[ Page 2733 ]

haven't found anyone in Victoria who disagrees with what I'm saying."

There is the man who is being paid $43,000 a year to administer this Act, and who disagrees with the Attorney-General. In view of the speeches made this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) about the rent review commission, how it isn't working, and how they have biased people on that commission, how can he justify and how can he carry on when rental accommodation is decreasing by the day?

I've got information and research here by the miles;I don't want to bring it all up, Mr. Chairman, because they might think I've done my research. The Premier glories in the House in saying about how we haven't done our research. I have a file that thick back in my office. I won't take the time of the House to tell you about all the research the Member for Langley has done, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has done and I have done on this rent review commission and on housing in British Columbia. I don't want to embarrass the Premier. We've done our research, and we have the facts.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Minister of Consumer Services who had jet lag and who misled the House on $65,000 worth of salary contingencies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not....

MR. PHILLIPS: And she didn't have the guts...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...to stand up in this House and tell this Legislature how many people she was hiring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the old American eagle, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...ready to pounce.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is obviously out of order. I don't know what rules he is following, but he certainly is not following the rules of this House. I would ask you to observe the rules of the House and to.... The Chair is attempting to allow some latitude, but the rules are the rules.

As long as you are discussing the rentalsman, you're all right. But I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his mind on the vote and not on the Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the Hon. Minister? No, I won't keep my mind on her, Mr. Chairman. You can rest assured of that.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Be a gentleman.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Attorney-General to stand up and tell us where he's going because it is of great concern to those who are wanting rental accommodation in British Columbia. Not only tonight, not only six months ago, but in the future where are we going? Mr. Chairman, we've had many talks in this House about areas that have brought in rent controls, how slum conditions have arrived, about money under the table, key money, to get accommodation, and how this is happening. I've got the statistics here, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to go into them. I don't want to tell you that British Columbia is the lowest in all of Canada in rental accommodations, per thousand of population.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Are you discussing the merits of any part of the Landlord and Tenant Act, or are you discussing this vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. I'm discussing the rentalsman vote. As I say, I don't want to go into telling you all the statistics about how this rentalsman and his jurisdiction over rental accommodation in British Columbia has brought rental accommodation to a point of deterioration to the lowest in Canada. I don't want to tell you that, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to even mention that.

I do want the Attorney-General to stand up, be non-political and outline to us where he intends to go. When you get the No. 1 man working against you and disagreeing with you, then it's time you outlined your policy. If you're going to do away with rent controls in September, if you're going to bring in new legislation, tell the people of British Columbia so that we can get some of that cash flowing back in here to build new rental accommodation in British Columbia.

It is your responsibility, Mr. Attorney-General, and if we had not taken so much time to warn you of the error of your ways.... When you got up and, I remember, you lost your temper....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And I will again if you don't tell the truth.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can lose your temper, but it isn't becoming of you, Mr. Attorney-General. But I remember you losing your temper and saying that we want everybody to be gouged. We want all the tenants in British Columbia to be gouged by the rip-off artists, the landlords.

[ Page 2734 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What are you going to do? You have got yourself into a situation where you don't know where to turn because the landlords are not building new accommodation, the tenants are being ripped off. Where are you going to go? The rentalsman doesn't agree with you. He says you should do away with it. You have a great policy statement to make, Mr. Attorney-General, and I'm going to resume my seat so that tonight you can tell the people of British Columbia.

And the old American eagle flaps her wings and claps the hardest because she hates anybody to zero in on the policies on her great Attorney-General whom she hovers over every day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm taking my seat. I want the Attorney-General to tell us, because he's stuck in his own mucilage. He's the one who brought in this legislation. He's the one who has his feet stuck in the glue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member discussing the legislation? The Hon. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a good chairman: you don't get to your feet; you're called to your feet.

I'll stick to the vote. I'm not going to discuss rental control because it isn't under this vote. I'm not going to discuss the fact, although I guess we can discuss it in some future time, that if the Social Credit Party were returned to power in this province, which heaven forbid, the rents of ordinary people would go up 20 and 30 per cent overnight.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you've got to be....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That in an area of scarce housing units...

MR. FRASER: You caused it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and the burgeoning population growth those tenants would be at the mercy of landlords, and time after time the very gouging that you're talking about — that's the word — would be used under a Social Credit government. And that message ought to be taken to every tenant in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also ask the Hon. Attorney-General to confine his remarks to the vote, rather than to discuss....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under the rentalsman, who as I said this afternoon....

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Are you in favour of key money?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I am not. But I'm in favour of some equal justice and equity, and we would not abandon people to the mercies of a marketplace where they have no chance to survive. We'll go into the highrises, and we'll go into the small apartment units, and we'll tell them the story of what Social Credit is up to, tonight. Don't worry, we're talking about hard dollars and hard-earned dollars that would be gouged off from many of the families of British Columbia, from people who can't afford to pay those dollars.

MR. McCLELLAND: Key money! That's what you're in favour of.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of matters that come under this vote. I read from the report of the rentalsman, Barrie Clark, from his office, the statistics for this month — the kinds of things that he's had to deal with, and dealt with, and the number of people he has to deal with: security deposit disputes, 302; rent increases — as to information, he doesn't handle them — 74; essential services, 175; tenant damage, 20; repair disputes, 391; privacy interference, 37; noise and disturbance, 28; abandonment, 97; illegal eviction, 41; distraint, 58; subletting and assigning, 18; locks and access restrictions, 17; attornment, 5; disputed terminations, 1,147; application for order for possession, 1,168; miscellaneous, 627; general information, 186.

So those are the kinds of areas in which this office is being of service to the people of the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is in the first few months of the year. And altogether there have been literally — you know, I mentioned it earlier — 55,000 calls on that office in the first four months of this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Personal or otherwise? Personal calls?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Some of them personal, some of them by phone. So if you don't think there is a great social need out there, there is. And in spite of the clippings that the Hon. Member reads, the rentalsman is doing a good job. The office had only been in operation a relatively short time, and I think it is beginning to win confidence, not with everybody, not with some landlords, not even

[ Page 2735 ]

with some tenants. But it is beginning to win the kind of confidence that is necessary, and I don't just see it disappearing from view under any government, except perhaps the Social Credit government, who do not seem to care for the human needs this office is attending to. I don't see it, because there is going to be a need for that kind of help for the tenants of the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course. And nobody has. It is not under this vote. Why did we form a Housing Ministry?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I want answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: We would like to know, too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For years we asked the Social Credit government to do something about this question. For 20 years we asked in vain, but we are doing something.

MR. FRASER: You weren't here 20 years ago.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell the Attorney-General that I give him credit for more intelligence than he displayed when he just recently stood in the House. It is the Attorney-General, through his Landlord and Tenant Act and rent control, that has created the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is clearly embarking on a discussion on the merits of rent control, which is not part of this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am really trying to bring the Attorney-General back to his senses. He's the one who made these statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General is out of order as well. The Chair calls both Members to order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what would happen. Now he chastised and used all this political...and just about lost his temper a couple of times, which he really doesn't want to do. There is so much pressure on that government, the Premier and the Attorney-General and all the other Ministers, that they are at the boiling point. I don't want them to boil over, and I don't want them to blow, because they are the government and they have a responsibility to the people, Mr. Chairman.

But I will tell you what would happen with a Social Credit government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, what would happen?

MR. PHILLIPS: We would see that there was more rental accommodation needed so that people wouldn't have to live in the slums they are going to have to live in in five years under your legislation, the same as they have everywhere else in the world.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): You never did anything for 20 years.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Member for Kamloops, who has got to have the least brains of anybody in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am fed up with the Hon. Member deliberately being out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote or take his seat.

Now would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, now don't get excited, Mr. Chairman, because you have gone through a couple of hard weeks and I know your nerves are on edge. But I am speaking about the vote. I'm speaking about rental accommodation, and I realize that your nerves are on edge and that you have had a hard couple of weeks and that the Attorney-General has got you all upset by deviating from the vote and that you didn't really want to call him to order. Now I will accept all that.

But what I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that it has been the fallacy of this socialist regime that has brought about the problems we have today. The Attorney-General knows it and the rentalsman knows it. He can make flippant remarks about press statements, but he knows that the rentalsman doesn't agree with him. I think we have backed ourselves into a very, very dark corner, and the Attorney-General will go about the province in the next election saying: "Let the Social Credit in and they'll have land gougers, they'll have rental gougers."

I'll tell you what we'd do. We would give the rentalsman the authority to basically start at the very top, the $600 apartments, and take the limit off. And we would go to those people who would build rental accommodation and we would say: "How long will it take you to meet the need?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Attorney-General on a point of order.

[ Page 2736 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, the Member is out of order. There is no control over $500. So your policy is to take it off over S600?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is well taken. It appears that the Hon. Member has no intention of discussing the vote. I would ask the Hon. Member, if he is not intending....

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't you read my mind! I am certainly discussing the vote. You better believe I'm discussing the vote!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to hear it for the first time. Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: You better believe I'm discussing the vote! We're discussing the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member read an article about the rentalsman. It would appear that he was interested in two possible courses of action: either the fact that the rentalsman shouldn't be in the job or else that the legislation should be changed. Both of these are out of order. I fail to see any relevance to this vote.

MR. FRASER: Oh, come now!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll sit down, Mr. Chairman, and you tell me what the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying $1,281,644 a year for.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want to know.

MR. PHILLIPS: They want to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is precisely what we would like the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: Because what is the purpose of all this...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right, they want to know it. You don't.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...if it doesn't have anything to do with rental accommodation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The rentalsman's office clearly has certain charged administrative responsibilities. The Hon. Member would be in order if he would ask questions or discuss those particular duties or responsibilities of the rentalsman. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly have always agreed with you, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by your decision tonight. What I will go on to say is that the rentalsman should bring in a new theory and say to the people who would provide rental accommodation in British Columbia: "We will do away with the $400 to $500 apartments over a period of years, providing that you who provide the accommodation will provide that accommodation." Then, over another period of years, we will do away with the $200 to $300.... And you phase it out over a period of years, Mr. Chairman; you phase it out.

The rentalsman should be responsible for bringing this new policy to the Attorney-General who, by his completely dictatorial, unilateral decisions, based upon caucus discussions by the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown).... I think the Member for Vancouver Centre actually threatened the Attorney-General at caucus meetings and said: "Bring in rent controls or else I'll lose my seat." It was a political decision, and chaos has developed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member wish to discuss rent controls and nothing else? Is this his subject?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am discussing rent controls!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then, he is out of order. The Hon. Member should be discussing the administrative duties of the rentalsman's office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you telling me, Mr. Chairman, that rent controls do not come under the rentalsman's vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is getting the message. The merits of whether we should have rent control or not have rent control are matters of policy and legislation and are not, strictly speaking, considering the administrative duties or the functions of the rentalsman's office in applying the policies.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. What you are telling me is that the rentalsman is just a puppet who is stuck with the decree of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows full well that all Crown agencies...

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see...are puppets. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...have to follow the policies

[ Page 2737 ]

and the legislation....

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the rentalsman, who costs the taxpayers of British Columbia one-and-a-quarter-million dollars a year, spoke out against the government. Maybe you should fire him, because...

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you fire him?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...he was out of order when he spoke out. He had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this dictatorial, stone-hearted Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is seeking to charge the rentalsman with misconduct of any description, he should do so on a substantive motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not charging him. I think he is a great guy. I think he is a man who should be given a gold medal because he told the people of British Columbia. He threw politics aside, he threw his job aside, and he waded into the Attorney-General and said: "You are wrong, Mr. Attorney-General." But what we are asking tonight, Mr. Chairman, is that we want the Attorney-General to quit being political.

I have in my office a complete survey of the results of rent controls in Canberra, Australia, a complete book. If you provoke me enough, I will go into my office and I'll get that book and I will read you the results of how rent control did not work in Canberra, Australia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, the Hon. Member is discussing a matter which can only be dealt with by legislation. This is not part of the vote. I would again ask, plead, with the Hon. Member to try to be in order.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are a difficult Chairman. You are a difficult Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is very patient, I think.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I mean you are a good Chairman. You are a good Chairman, and I know that you are trying to abide by the rules. I will abide by the rules, Mr. Chairman. But I want the Attorney-General, before he gets this vote through, to stand in this Legislature and tell us where he is going with his rentalsman who disagrees with him and who is causing hardship to all of those poor citizens in British Columbia tonight who are looking for rental accommodation.

Those are the people he is really hurting, the people who are looking for rental accommodation in the lower mainland where we have 1 per cent of the land mass housing 80 per cent of the population. They are the people who are being hurt; they are the people who are having to hand in the key money. They are the people who stand to be gouged.

Who can afford it? Who can afford it and who doesn't go to the rentalsman? It's the people with the dollars in their back pocket who can pay that key money, who can pay for blackmail rental accommodation; those are the people who aren't being hurt. But the very people whom the Attorney-General wants to help are the people who are being hurt. They are the people who are being gouged by this socialist government.

I have to agree with the rentalsman. I want the Attorney-General to tell me what he is going to do in the fall. Is he going to continue? You don't want me to say that, do you? No, I won't. But what's going to happen to the office of rentalsman if there are no more rent controls to enforce?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: What job is he going to have?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Attorney-General on a point of order..

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Surely the Hon. Member knows that there is a rent review commission which....

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not supposed to discuss that under this vote. I have been told that by the Chairman several times. Now sit down; you're out of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know. That's right; it's not under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River finish his remarks? Before you proceed, though, on the point of order raised by the Hon. Attorney-General, perhaps the Hon. Member doesn't appreciate the fine point that the Chair is trying to make.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do; I understand your fine point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is resisting the temptation to lecture the Hon. Member, but the Hon. Member doesn't seem to understand the point. Now the point is that any change of policy or a change which would require legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply the Hon. Member is to discuss only those administrative

[ Page 2738 ]

responsibilities which presently exist under the legislation. You are not to discuss the merits of the legislation or possible changes to the legislation but, rather, only the way in which the responsibilities are being carried out by the rentalsman's office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want you to understand that the way these estimates have been jockeyed around, we've never had the opportunity to discuss the vote of the Attorney-General, which gives us wide ranging latitude because it was forced through. You recall, Mr. Chairman; you were in the chair. I wasn't in the House, but it was forced through. This is why sometimes the Members have to deviate just a little bit because we didn't have the opportunity to discuss these....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think you would find the Chair most co-operative and would allow certain latitude if the Hon. Member somehow could show some relevance to the vote in terms of his remarks. I am sure it could be done if the Hon. Member tried.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think I have. I am going to resume my seat, and I want the Attorney-General to stand up and tell us where he is going in this situation. But I think you have to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the estimates have been so jockeyed around backward and forward, and we never did have the opportunity to discuss the salary vote under which we would have brought a lot of these things out.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, we didn't get a change...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're fabricating.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am not fabricating at all. They were crushed through this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's an absolute liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to withdraw the remark that he's an absolute liar.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I withdraw the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. An unconditional withdrawal on the part of the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. COCKE: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: So I'd like the Attorney-General to stand in this Legislature and advise us tonight where we are going on this deal. If he doesn't, well, I will just have to continue on my course through questioning.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The rentalsman in the forthcoming year is going to carry out the duties that are set out in this vote and with the funds voted by the Legislature under this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I gather from the previous speaker that Liberal candidates who are successful earn $24,000 and, if unsuccessful, earn $44,000. I am not going to ask the Attorney-General for a legal opinion as to whether I can now ask for a recount. I would just like to say that I am very pleased with where I am.

I have a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General on this particular vote. First, would the Attorney-General like to give us some indication as to building of apartments at the present time? I realize that he may not have the facts entirely at his fingertips because sometimes they allow the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) to make trivial decisions dealing with housing. But he is normally the man who handles these things and I think the effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act which the rentalsman applies and attempts to interpret and which set up his office has had an effect upon building rates. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the Attorney-General would give some suggestions as to why we now have close to zero building rate for apartments. I think that as this particular Act and as the rentalsman deals with questions of rent increases to a certain degree, I wonder if he would like to give some suggestion as to the possibility of phasing out this whole piece of legislation.

Will we continue to have to vote money for it in future years? Now that's a question, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, it's up from zero to $1.281 million. I wonder whether these phenomenal increases are going to continue in future years. When will the legislation be phased out? When can the rentalsman's job diminish?

It's impossible to compare it to last year because there was no such job last year. I'm thinking in the future and wondering when we're going to receive an estimates book with a happy situation, with all the list of expenditures on the left and blank spaces on the right, instead of the other way around.

I wonder whether the Attorney-General could offer some comment and advice as to when rates will be next changed. We had a great to-ing and fro-ing and backing and filling on the 8.6 and the 10.6, and I

[ Page 2739 ]

wonder whether or not there's some date for an increase. It obviously affects the whole question of the landlord-and-tenant relationship. When will increases next be granted?

I wonder whether the Attorney-General would like to offer some comment under this particular piece of legislation and this particular vote as to the renovations clause. Are buildings being maintained? Can he indicate the information that's been given to him from the rentalsman about the problem of maintaining buildings? We have heard some rather worried stories. I'm sure you yourself have heard many dealing with the fact that landlords are no longer maintaining buildings as they used to do because occupancy is 99.8 per cent and vacancy is 0.2 per cent or less, and therefore under those curious circumstances, surprising circumstances, in particular in light of the lack of incentive to build further rental accommodation, the maintenance of buildings is going downhill very rapidly.

Those are a number of questions. I trust the Attorney-General, who got up himself to complain about the number of questions he used to ask the previous administration and the lack of answers he used to get, will display the new spirit, which presumably he was referring to, by answering them all in detail and in a fair manner and not simply give one side of the story.

Another subject I'd like to touch upon is the case of rentalsmen exceeding their authority. This matter has been before the courts. Somewhere here I have the decision.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): If you were here at 4 o'clock today, Dave, you would have heard it then. It was all covered.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, maybe it was all covered, but I wonder whether what I heard was adequate in terms of the Minister's reply. Certainly questions were asked, but the rentalsman himself talked about.... I'm quoting a letter dated March 24 of this year, the president of the New Westminster Apartment Association, from page 2, paragraph 1, where he states: "We have already taken the necessary steps to avoid the delegation problems until such time as the Legislature deals with this matter."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's already on the order paper....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, that's in one of the bills?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 77, I believe has the section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I apologize to the Attorney-General for referring to it. The omnibus bill is broken down and I appreciate that, but obviously from the title one couldn't grasp entirely what was in it. I must admit I haven't been reading every bill as fast as I used to when they come out. I will accept the Attorney-General's word that this matter and the reference in the rentalsman's letter of this date has been adequately taken care of. I will look at that matter when the legislation comes forward in the clause-by-clause.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There'll be an amendment to it....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Attorney-General now tells me there will be an amendment to it, and naturally with some fascination.... First I'm told the thing is taken care of, and then we find, indicated by the Attorney-General, that it's not taken care of; there'll have to be an amendment. But I will be quite willing to discuss this with the Attorney-General when not only the legislation, Bill 77, comes forward but we see the amendment. Obviously that would be the time to do it.

However, I'll leave that subject and simply ask the Attorney-General whether he would deal with the other five specific questions that I asked him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to be technical about the vote, but I haven't brought housing-start information, which is the Department of Housing, with me.

In terms of whether this vote will continue in succession years, I can only venture an opinion. I would say yes. I would think that landlord-tenant problems will — I hope not multiply — I'm sure, be with us in the following years.

In terms of the upkeep of apartments and whether or not the 12 per cent renovation allowance is enough, well, again, that's under the rent review commission. May I say very briefly that that is the purpose of the research and the inquiry that's going ahead, which will report sometime in the summer under Karl Jaffary of the City of Toronto. I suppose the legislation will have to be looked at in the fall or certainly in the spring. So that was renovation. But generally these things that have been raised are the subject matter of the inquiry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I agree with the Attorney-General. I think that in the years to come the rentalsman's office will continue to flourish and will deal with the kind of problems that the rentalsman has been confronted with over this past several months. While there's been a backlog of smouldering differences between landlords and tenants, nonetheless I suspect that they will continue.

[ Page 2740 ]

It's a natural result of the confrontations which exist between landlords and tenants, particularly under the circumstances of low vacancy rates, the inability of a tenant to have freedom of movement within the community in order that he can disassociate himself with a landlord with whom he does not agree — similarly for the landlord who does not agree with the tenant.

I don't want to offend against the rules of order, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have to say that you can't separate this problem of the rent a tenant pays from all of the other problems. It affects the way in which the rented property is managed; it leads to increasing tensions between the landlord and the tenant or the manager of the landlord and the tenant; it contributes to a breakdown of a relationship between these two people. As I said, with no place else to go under the legislation we currently have today, the tenant can't move and the landlord can't get him out.

The Hon. Attorney-General read statistics as to the nature of the complaints or inquiries that the rentalsman deals with. Some of those dealt with the termination of tenancies, proper terminations within the limits of the legislation. For every one of those which is terminated, that means that the tenant has to find someplace else to go. The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) indicated the 0.2 per cent vacancy rate. That means that there is no place to go.

I think it's unfortunate that we don't have in the Attorney-General's estimates a section for the rent review commission so that these things could be dealt with together, because you can't really separate them. I would not like to think that the absence of any estimates for the rent review commission is because the Attorney-General and this government don't want to debate this issue at this time.

I make this prophecy, Mr. Chairman. I give this government about four to five months under present circumstances, where there is no rental accommodation being constructed in British Columbia, where the rentalsman and the rent review commission are continuing to receive the complaints and problems that are coming before them day by day. You have a situation in British Columbia which this government will not be able to overcome, a situation which is not of their making but to which they have contributed. That's what the rentalsman was talking about in the remarks read by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). The government has got to face up to this. You're not facing up to it by telling us that under the rules of order we can't talk about the rent review commission and the problems that they are creating.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just went down to my office, because I think the Legislature should know.... I'm sure the rentalsman has read this review from a study of the effects of rent controls in Canberra.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Even though the Chair may have the greatest sympathy with the desire of the Hon. Member to discuss this subject, since he clearly wants to talk about it, unfortunately the Chair must enforce the rules. There is simply no provision in this particular vote for discussion of the rent review commission or rent controls.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I certainly want to abide by the rules of the House. However, it is the rentalsman who must enforce rent control, because if there were no rent controls, there wouldn't be a need for a rentalsman. Does that sound relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that perhaps the Attorney-General could make the distinction of that particular point with the Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you're the Chairman. You're the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rentalsman has the responsibility of administering the Landlord and Tenant Act, those particular sections for which he is responsible for the administration. However, it is the Chair's understanding that matters of rent control are matters either of legislation or the rent review commission and not specifically of the rentalsman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the rentalsman not...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rentalsman has incidental administrative responsibility.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just as a matter of information to my humble self.... I realize that I am just a poor country boy trying to protect the taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. If there were no rent controls, no controls on the amount of money that can be charged for rental accommodation in British Columbia, what would be really the need for the rentalsman? So is it not relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that the original duties of the rentalsman did include a rent control function. However, this was taken out of the rentalsman's responsibility by the rent review commission.

Opinions regarding the merits of rent control are out of order regardless, since they are matters of legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, then I have to ask you under what vote do we discuss the rent control

[ Page 2741 ]

commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could ask that of the Hon. Attorney-General.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm asking you; you're in charge of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All I can say to the Hon. Member is that it is not under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under what legislation do we have a rent control commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under my salary vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: And under what specific vote do we have the rent control commission, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the Attorney-General would answer that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's statutory at the present time.

MR. PHILLIPS: What do you mean by statutory? Has it been passed by the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: By order-in-council?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, The Chair would consider the questions the Hon. Member is answering as good questions, and I would ask him to ask the questions and then allow the Hon. Attorney-General to stand in his place and answer them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to know under what statute should we discuss the rent review commission. Under what vote is it in the estimates? Under what estimate?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it is not under this vote. That's point 1, which has some significance to what we are doing. The second part of the answer is that while it is not under this vote, it is under the Landlord and Tenant Act and that is provided for by an appropriation by the Legislature to look after this function.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under what amount of money under the Landlord and Tenant Act...? I mean, if we are going to administer the Landlord and Tenant Act, there must be a vote, so I would like to ask the Attorney-General under what vote does the administration of the Landlord and Tenant Act come. What vote in the estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Anything that is not actually covered under the rentalsman's duties would come under the Attorney-General's salary vote inasmuch as he is responsible for the administration of....

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you are the one who told me to ask the Attorney-General. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General under what vote does the rent review commission come.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a statutory appropriation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Under what vote? What is the number of the vote? I want to be able to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The money was provided by the legislation that was passed at the last legislative session; therefore it was debated at that time and cannot be debated again. If a further bill is brought in providing additional funds, or if a vote is brought in, then the Hon. Member may debate it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, Mr. Chairman. Don't pull the wool over my eyes. There was no money voted by the Legislature to administer the rent review commission, and if there were, this is a new year. Don't snow-job me like that.

I want to know under what vote in the 1975 estimates of this Legislature should we discuss the rent review commission. Now you said for me to ask the Attorney-General. I want to know what vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Attorney-General did say that it was a statutory provision.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it is not a statutory provision. I want to know under what vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the answer, he can press the matter and ask a further question, but I would ask him to return to consideration of this vote. This is a matter of....

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I would rather pursue your instructions, Mr. Chairman, where you asked me to ask the Attorney-General under what vote we can discuss the rent review commission. That's all I am doing. I would like the Attorney-General to tell me under what vote do we discuss the rent review commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member asked the Attorney-General.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, don't take the

[ Page 2742 ]

Attorney-General off the hook.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one who told me to ask the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And I also heard the answer. I would say that the Hon. Attorney-General said that it was a statutory provision. That's the answer. Now would the Hon. Member continue with this vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but I have to disagree with the Hon. Attorney-General because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Are we in Committee of Supply or not? Are we considering vote 29 or not? If we are not, I am going to go home to bed. Now would the Hon. Member speak to the vote? Otherwise we are all wasting our time here.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I hate to see you lose your temper, but you're the one who asked me to ask the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. And the answer was given — statutory provision. Now that means it is not in any vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's like "it's raining out" — it's covering the whole waterfront. I want to know under what vote in these estimates we can discuss the rent review commission. Now you're the one who told me to ask the Attorney-General. You wouldn't answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I allowed some latitude of the Hon. Member to ask a question of the Attorney-General which he answered, and he seems to be satisfied that that is the answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not satisfied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Well, I cannot allow any further latitude. We must speak to the vote or the Hon. Member must take his seat, because I am sure there may be other Hon. Members who wish to speak, or we could get on with the business. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly take my seat if other Members wish to speak on this vote, and I'll wait my turn because I don't want to monopolize the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I fail to see any value in having the Hon. Member wasting the time of the House. Now the Chair has a responsibility to follow the rules of order and to ask the Hon. Member to speak to the rules of order. Now is the Hon. Member testing the will of the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Not at all. No, no, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what game are you playing then?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a facetious remark. I'm not playing any game. I came down here to work for the taxpayers of British Columbia, and you accuse me of playing games. Now you withdraw that remark! You withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Withdraw it. Withdraw! Withdraw the statement that I was playing games.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly I'll be seated.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes for intemperate language. I would ask that we have an atmosphere of goodwill. There are rules that we all have to follow in this place. I am sure that there are many intelligent things that could be said about this vote and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have exercised a spirit of goodwill all evening. I really have. But I am concerned. The rentalsman is administering rental controls and I felt it was only proper that I should talk about what has happened to rent controls and I felt it was only proper that I should talk about what has happened to rental controls in other provinces and in other areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This would be permissible if it was in order. However, it happens to be out of order. Would the Hon. Member speak to what is in order in this vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: You leave me dumbfounded, Mr.

[ Page 2743 ]

Chairman, because we are going to spend $1,281,000 on a rentalsman whose purpose is to administer — and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman — rent controls. Is he not to administer rent controls?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member knows, I think, that the duties of the rentalsman's office are very specific ones. He is to administer many functions under the Landlord and Tenant Act. However, the rent control function is one which is either a matter for the rent review commission to consider or a matter of legislation. On both grounds a discussion, therefore, would be out of order on rent controls. However, the rentalsman's office may very well have incidental functions to do with rent control, but we should not embark upon a general discussion on the merits of rent control.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I feel that if you would give me a little leniency, we could settle this matter. But when the legislation was passed through this House it was the duty....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you want me to explain the situation?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The rent review commission was established in the fall session of the Legislature. It was not established at the time of the basic preparation of these estimates and therefore the Legislature voted sums out of general revenue for the rent review commission. That's why it's not in the estimates; it is a statutory appropriation.

I don't want to get uptight about answering questions about what you call rent control in this vote particularly. It isn't really under the rentalsman. But, in addition, I have explained that we are now canvassing and studying the whole situation.

The Hon. Member has an article from Canberra and I would like to have a copy of it. It may be that we have it as part of our research material. So you are not going to get definite answers from me at a time when we are now reviewing where we have to go. That's where we stand at the present time. I would expect the report will be down some time this summer — the task force we have working on the problem of protecting tenants in the rental field, and landlords too. So there we sit.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's remarks. But I am just not too sure that I buy everything he says because he has the ability as a politician to get up.... As I said this afternoon, this man is the chief justice of the province and we have to rely and hang on every word he says. But I don't want him to mislead the people of British Columbia. When the legislation went through to establish the office of rentalsman, he was to be in charge of rent controls. Now the government has made a unilateral decision which never came to the floor of this Legislature...

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I didn't vote for any rent review commission. No, no. That was a unilateral decision on behalf of the Attorney-General, and maybe he's right. It was this same rentalsman who said: "I can't control the rents in British Columbia." He said: "You've got to take it out of my hands." And there was no legislation which gives the rentalsman the right to foist his responsibility on the rent review commission, and the Attorney-General knows this.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. It was a unilateral decision by the Attorney-General. This same rentalsman who condemned him and condemned rent controls, said to the Attorney-General: "I am not going to be responsible for rent controls. I want you to set up a separate commission." Now I want the Attorney-General to stand in this Legislature and tell me if I am wrong.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, tell me I am wrong.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that you are wrong. Your memory is defective.

We had in the fall of 1974, the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974, which we presented to the House, that had the appropriation for that expenditure. I think we can perhaps find it for you. It is now incorporated, I would expect, in the main Act, but it was then a separate bill. I suspect the Hon. Member voted against it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes, but at least that means you remember it. That is where the rent review commission came from.

MR. PHILLIPS: And that legislation was due to statements made by the rentalsman that he could not control rents...?

AN HON. MEMBER: You've spent a couple of hours beating the air here now. Let's not redebate that.

[ Page 2744 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point has been made quite clearly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I accept the Attorney-General's statement, and I will sit down. I will resume my seat, but I will do it knowing that the government really does not want to discuss one of the most pressing problems in British Columbia today. I will certainly send the Attorney-General a copy. I feel sort of stinted that I can't read this into the record because this is probably the most up-to-date review made. Just bear with me, Mr. Chairman. This is probably one of the most up-to-date reviews made...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send us a copy, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...of rent controls in the world. I won't go into the report, but it points out that rent controls just haven't worked. There are reviews from all other jurisdictions in the world. This is dated February, 1975. Certainly I will have my secretary make a copy of this in the morning.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you?

M R. PHILLIPS: I'll send it to the Attorney-General on the provision that he will read it with all consciousness.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I will. But would you...?

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you sit down just a moment? Promise me this evening to listen to some of the statements that are made. They come from Chicago, they come from Sweden, they come from New York; they come from jurisdictions everywhere in the world that have had rent control. Unfortunately, Mr. Attorney-General, they tell of the problems that have been created in other jurisdictions by rent control. I want the Attorney-General to tell me that he will have an open mind and that he will listen to the statements made in Vernon on May 14 by the rentalsman and not use politics in this very, very tenuous situation of supply and demand where it is the small people of British Columbia who are going to be hurt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has allowed the Hon. Member some latitude because I thought you were just going to wind up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm going to. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your being lenient and I appreciate the Attorney-General's statements. And on the places where I've made errors, I stand corrected. But I am concerned about those poor people in British Columbia who are not going to be able to find accommodation in the very near future and today. I am concerned about all the risk capital which is fleeing our province and not being used here to provide much in this whole bag.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a good discussion. I appreciate your leniency and I know that you are working also for those poor people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send me a copy, and make an extra one for Peter, too, will you?

Vote 29 approved.

On vote 30: salary contingencies, $13,107,898.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the House Leader read out the sum or not, or whether she was....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I did read it out.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I am sorry. Perhaps it was smothered by the noise over here. One thing I would pay credit to the Attorney-General on is that at least he put this in a separate item. In some of the other votes we have discussed in this session, the salary contingencies have been put in with other expenses. But $13 million out of a total of $115 million is just about a 10-per-cent cushion of some sort or another.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has already explained that this year, instead of putting contingencies in one item under his budget, each department has been asked to calculate its own salary contingencies. So far during debates on estimates, we have tended to be told by Ministers that we couldn't get a breakdown on this because negotiations were still going on with government employees, and, on the basis of these negotiations, specific percentage increases in salaries could not be discussed or revealed. I wonder, now that the Provincial Secretary has completed negotiations, if the Minister could give us a breakdown as to how this $13,107,898 was calculated. Is it a ballpark 10 per cent pulled out of the air, or is this related to specific salary adjustments and temporary assistance and consultation fees for people who are just part-time employees or what?

On this side of the House we have been a little frustrated so far in debate on estimates to come across rather large items of many millions of dollars under this delightful word "contingencies." I'm sure that every citizen in this province wishes that 10 per cent of their budget could include an item for contingencies. Most people are living right up to the

[ Page 2745 ]

bone on their income, and the same in business these days, particularly in the light of inflation. I hope that this Minister will shine tonight by being the first one of the government in this session to give us some specific, valuable breakdown on how he arrived at the magic figure of $13 million.

MR. FRASER: As this deals with salaries, I'd like to talk a bit about salaries of provincial judges, particularly stipendiary magistrates.

In the smaller communities of this province today, we have stipendiary magistrates working for $50 a month, and it's far below the labour laws of this province. They don't even get the minimum wage, and this Minister is completely responsible for it. They've approached him innumerable times and he says: "Oh, yes, it's all being looked after." They continue to work seven days a week — seven days a week, Mr. Chairman — for $50 a month. I think it's time this nonsense and brush-off from this irresponsible Minister came to a halt and we paid these decent citizens a decent salary. He certainly looks after the members of the legal profession...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FRASER: ...at $38,000 a year and $33,000 a year. What's going on here? Is he trying to squeeze out the responsible citizens who will let themselves be appointed as stipendiary magistrates? He is trying to squeeze them out, as far as I'm concerned, at $50 a month, because they have no legal training. That's what's going on. It's time this Minister stopped brushing off and taking an airy-fairy view of everything and looked after these people who are called night and day by the RCMP detachments to sign search warrants in the middle of the night, seven days a week, for $50 a month. It's an absolute disgrace, when this Minister supports the minimum wage laws of that government, and all the labour laws they've brought in. He has to apologize to those people here tonight, and tell us tonight what he's going to do about it and when.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the first question: when the estimates were made up in the fall of last year, we did not have the impact on our budget of the public service settlement, so in this salary contingency vote we have to take into account the increases in salaries that have been negotiated, and they are very substantial. They are very substantial, too, in terms of their impact on conditions of work, for example — more overtime, some portal-to-portal pay in the forestry camps, things of that kind.

Secondly, it's an estimate of what may be negotiated in the coming year, within our budget. Then there are reclassifications that have taken place, subject to the public service commission. So it's this kind of a process as a result of the union bargaining, the provincial government employees union.

There's nobody in the province, even the part-time lay judges, who's making $50 a month. Not one.

MR. FRASER: I completely disagree, and I'll name names.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, will you do that privately, to me?

MR. FRASER: Well, I don't want to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know of one. However, it was varied in the old days, and this is what we inherited. We inherited a situation where some did very little work and some did quite a bit, so that the part-time lay judges' remuneration, when I came into office ranged from very low figures to up to about $1,300 a month.

A lot of the lay judges have now been absorbed into the court service, and under legislation that will be introduced, they will finally be given status as justices of the peace — those who choose to join that service — and a proper wage and a proper workload because the workload varied from practically nothing in some places to a very considerable workload in the case of somebody like Judge Evans — well he was full-time.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

That's the situation we inherited, and that's the situation we're correcting.

There will be — and we'll bring in the provincial court judges Act — full-time, trained judges and there will be justices of the peace in the smaller communities.

MR. FRASER: I want to refute the Attorney-General's statement in one degree. I might have been wrong. I'm referring to justices of the peace who are operating as magistrates. That's the only arm of the law that they have in small communities, and I'll go one step further without names — just check in Clinton. The judge there retired, and you're using a justice of the peace seven days a week for $50 a month. It's an absolute disgrace.

Don't blame it on the prior administration. This vote here gives you bundles of money to correct it. It's been brought to your attention and you haven't done anything about it. I demand you do something here tonight and say what you're going to do for these people whom you are putting this injustice on.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it seems that the vote

[ Page 2746 ]

we're dealing with now, salary contingencies, is a substantial amount of money — $13 million in effect. While the Attorney-General has indicated to the House this evening and the committee that this will include substantial salary increases, there is one area I wonder if the Attorney-General would clarify for me. That is the matter of retirement allowances — I guess that's the only thing you could call them — to those lay judges who by statute have been retired in the last 12 months, some of them prior to the time that they were 70 or 75 years of age.

As I understand it, because they operated as lay judges or lay magistrates for a number of years, while their salary may have increased according to their workload, they were never involved in any civil service pension plan so they never contributed towards a pension plan, and the government never contributed anything on their behalf.

I am subject to correction if I am not right but I am told that as compensation at the time these judges were retired, the decision was made to pay them an allowance of one month's salary for each year of service that they had for past service in government employment. That would mean a person with 10 years' employment as a magistrate would receive 10 months' salary beyond their retirement date. Is that correct? If they received one month for each year of employment, it would be 10 months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 30 pass?

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman. I want to pursue this point; I want to get an answer on it first to see that I am correct on the interpretation that I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We wait for the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it was one month's salary for every year of service. It varied tremendously because some of them were part-time with a small remuneration. I think the largest one we had was probably Judge Evans up in Nelson.

MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the remuneration was based upon their....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's in the Act that we passed.

MR. SMITH: As I understand it, the remuneration that they would receive was based on their last month's salary prior to the time that they were retired.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right.

MR. SMITH: The point that I want to make is this: a person who retires after 10 or 15 years' service with the province, probably starting as a part-time lay magistrate and working up to a full-time appointment, with that many years of service, surely they're entitled to more than 10 or 15 months of additional pay. Wouldn't it be possible under a vote of this magnitude to provide a better allowance than that?

I know that there has been representation made to your department by the bar association and the judges themselves to try to work out a favourable formula. I would say that these people have been retired unilaterally, some of them at an age when they could still be productive for a number of years yet. Certainly as their employer, taking into consideration the largesse you seem to throw around or that you seem to be able to create for not only the present members of your work force but in matters of salary contingencies of $13 million — over 10 per cent of your vote — couldn't that be looked at again and reconsidered on the basis that these people are now retired and they have no other income and the number of months that they can look forward to?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's in the Provincial Court Act that's already been passed. But let me say that I went to Treasury on behalf of these people who had nothing in the old days. They had no severance allowance; they were part-time lay judges. As I say, their salaries varied all over the lot from very low to some of them working almost full-time, and some working full-time. But they had no severance pay, no superannuation.

We went to Treasury on the basis of...well, as good as we could do for them. That was about $500,000. Some of the payments are generous, but if the person was part-time at a very low monthly return and working in this as part-time employment, then his severance wasn't very great. But at least there was something. There was really no obligation; we did this because we thought it should be done for these people who had given service for many years in the justice field in British Columbia.

If they had retired and the old government had been re-elected, Mr. Member, there would have been nothing. There hadn't been the whole 20 years. They dropped off at 65 or whenever they retired with nothing. At least we gave them something. It's not as good as anybody would like, but there it is.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Attorney-General's answer and I think that, really, when he says that they would have received nothing, that's a hypothetical answer. I'm sure that any government....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, over 20 years they received nothing....

[ Page 2747 ]

MR. SMITH: I'm sure any government, faced with the same situation that you were faced with at that particular time, would have looked at the situation very seriously.

What I'm saying to you tonight is this: the amount of money involved to more adequately balance out a system of some sort for these lay judges who are now retiring or retired is insignificant in relation to the budget of your department or the budget of the province. True, they went through a transitional period whey they were never declared civil servants, so they lost the benefit of anything they might have contributed to a civil service pension plan. There have been ways of overcoming that on an actuarial basis, Mr. Attorney-General, for many, many years. It's known throughout the insurance industry where you take a look at the situation and you allow, if it's to the advantage of an employee, to make a lump sum contribution and for that give them full credit for full pension benefits for many years past. It's called past service.

I think that should have been investigated by the department, rather than just solving the problem with a suggestion that we'll pay you a continuing salary for however many number of months is equal to the number of years of service that you had as an employee of the department. All I'm asking is: will the Attorney-General take another look at it? Some of these people now are really feeling the financial pinch. You know, it's getting very close to the position where that few months of additional salary is close to extinction. It's running out.

MR. FRASER: I still haven't got an answer from the Attorney-General. I'm talking about the justices of the peace who are working today for $50 a month, and we're talking here about $13 million in contingencies. Is that all for the lawyers? That's what I want to know! These are lay people, and in the case of a lot of smaller communities here, they're working full-time for $50 a month because the lawyers won't go to these places. I want to know what you're going to do about it — tonight!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I apologize to the Hon. Member. I thought you were talking about a part-time lay judge and you were not. You were talking about a justice of the peace in Clinton. We're looking....

MR. FRASER: Who works full-time as a lay judge.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's a JP, not a judge.

MR. FRASER: He certainly does, because all the lawyers won't go there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under the new Act....

MR. FRASER: At $38,000 a year, they won't go to Clinton.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay. We're looking at those too, but a JP can't be a judge until the new Act comes in.

MR. FRASER: Yes, sure, but what are you going to do about their inadequate salary now? You haven't answered the question at all. And if I ask you what's the new legislation, you'll say: "Wait for that." I'm not prepared to wait for it. I want to know about these people now!

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up.

MR. FRASER: They have served for a long time under these circumstances — under your administration.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Right on!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just before this vote goes — $13 million — I'm still worried, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, about a question yesterday. I'm worried about that poor, lonely film projectionist in the film classification bureau who has to work 12 and 14 hours a day viewing pornographic movies for a living, and who can only have, probably, a four-year lifespan in his job at the very most. (Laughter.) How much raise is he going to get, and how much danger pay does that man get? That's the question the people of B.C. want to know.

Vote 30 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

On vote 34: Minister's office, $85,129.

MR. McCLELLAND: No answers from the Minister. No answers.

MR. CHABOT: Vote 34, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions to ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who hasn't been extremely active since he's been in this portfolio. He seems to have been void as far as activity is concerned — void in answers to questions put to him in the few minutes we had in discussing his portfolio on a prior occasion. Now I'd like to....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic

[ Page 2748 ]

Development): Three days.

MR. CHABOT: Three days, but there were no answers.

HON. MR. LAUK: Three days.

MR. CHABOT: Three days of questions and two minutes of answers. That's all we got from you, Mr. Minister. Now I want to....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, now, there's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) chirping up when his estimates are through. But then his were rammed through this House — without debate!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: And he has the audacity to suggest that we're too long winded!

MR. FRASER: Be real proud of it.

MR. CHABOT: You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. Hide your head in shame!

MR. FRASER: Get under the desk!

AN HON. MEMBER: No questions.

MR. CHABOT: There are many other votes that weren't approved. They were rammed through this House by closure. You know that full well. You know that.

HON. MR. COCKE: You're just making a bunch of speeches and never saying a word.

MR. CHABOT: There's the Minister of chewing gum, you know. That Minister chews more gum, I would suggest, than the other 54 Members in this House because he never stops chewing gum.

HON. MR. LAUK: Don't get personal.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I just don't like the unnecessary and irresponsible interjections from that Minister of Health. But I want to say a few words. There have been a few developments since the last opportunity we had to question the Minister of Economic Development. One area that disturbs me tremendously is the Minister who is in charge or is the director of the B.C. Railway and chief executive officer, I believe, and it has to do with the B.C. railcar manufacturing plant in the community of Squamish. Would you believe that that plant was supposed to open on January 1, 1974, and that we have now reached the end of May, 1975? Proposed to be opened on January 1, 1974. They missed the deadline by a substantial degree. Yet we read in that political propaganda rag, the B.C. Government News....

AN HON. MEMBER: It gets to you, doesn't it?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, it gets to me and it gets to a lot of British Columbians because of the lies, the deliberate lies...

MR. FRASER: Deliberate lies.

MR. CHABOT: ...that are in the B.C. Government News.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on now!

MR. CHABOT: Deliberate lies.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: It stated in the B.C. Government News.... That socialistic government inaccuracy rag stated that on March 25 the railcar manufacturing plant would be officially opened — in other words, that we would be in the process of manufacturing railcars because of the extreme shortage that has existed on the BCR for some considerable period of time.

There's a beautiful picture in this political rag showing the car plant ready to produce railcars. It suggests that it was going to open on March 25. Would you believe that this is May 27 and it hasn't produced one single car? And this political rag suggests that it would open on March 25 and that they would manufacture four cars per day. The Minister, by his own admission, has suggested that there won't be one manufactured car prior to the middle of June.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

A railcar plant that was originally projected to cost $5 million.... Two years later the costs have escalated by 60 per cent to $8 million. There's the government over there that has the gall to suggest that the costs on the Columbia River treaty escalated to an unacceptable degree. Over a period of 10 years it increased by 33 1/3 per cent. Talk about business acumen! There is none in this government, none whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Acumen?

AN HON. MEMBER: They couldn't run a woodshed. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2749 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He thinks acumen is a skin disease. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Well, maybe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) thinks that's what it is.

Four cars per day. Four cars per day — B.C. Government News says it will open on March 25. And the Minister admits that no railcars will be manufactured until June 15. An $8 million plant inoperative 18 months after its projected opening day. I suggest that the Minister, who now has his railway vest on, has a responsibility to investigate the shortcomings of the BCR. Certainly when they kicked that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) out of his position as chief executive officer and director of the BCR because of his conflict of interest, why would the government bring on the weakest Minister they have in office to become the chief executive officer?

MR. FRASER: He's all they had.

MR. CHABOT: He's a Minister who has been responsible for suggesting that the plant would open on March 25, some 15 months too late, and who has the gall to suggest that the railcars won't be manufactured until June 15, when everyone knows there's a pressing and a dire shortage of cars on that railway. I want to suggest that....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, that's the Minister who suggested that there would be a scandal and that it would be revealed about the BCR momentarily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three months ago.

MR. CHABOT: That was some considerable period of time ago and we haven't heard that major scandal. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Minister who is so knowledgeable about scandals to reveal that great scandal about the BCR. Your Premier is away tonight. Maybe this is the opportune time as the chief executive officer of that railway to tell us what the scandal is all about.

Now there are a couple of other points I wanted to raise. I certainly don't want to occupy all the time until 11 o'clock because I know that there are a lot of other Members who want to speak about the lack of activity in that redundant Department of Economic Development.

Since the last time we have had an opportunity to question the Minister, there have been some strange developments in that particular portfolio. The one that concerns me, not necessarily most of all but to a great degree, is the firing of the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development.

The Minister can weasel around all he wants about an unfiring, but never in the history of government has a man willfully or of his own accord resigned from a position and been given six months' severance pay. Never have I heard of such an asinine situation in my life. The Minister has suggested in this House when I questioned him during the question period that the former Deputy Minister of Industrial Development resigned of his own volition. Why would the Minister find it incumbent upon himself to abuse the taxpayers of this province to over $20,000 in severance pay? When a man resigns, he leaves because he feels it is more opportune to leave a redundant and a do-nothing department administered by that Minister over there.

There is something wrong here; the whole truth is not being told. I think the Minister has a responsibility at this time to tell the truth. Did he fire the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development? If he did, maybe he found it necessary to give him severance pay. If he wasn't fired, why was it necessary to establish the kind of precedent he established? Without any doubt, it is a precedent, and an irresponsible precedent in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. There have been other firings by that socialist government over there. Most of those firings didn't institute a contract. Never has severance pay been given.

I think the Minister is on the horns of a dilemma in this particular instance because he has suggested publicly that the Deputy resigned of his own volition. If he did, which I doubt very much, why did the Minister find it necessary to give severance pay for someone who resigns, who finds it opportune to leave because of a conflict of opinion with the Minister probably, or maybe because of greater opportunities existing on the outside of government service?

HON. MR. COCKE: Who is writing your speeches for you now?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health can chirp all he wants and chew his gum as long as he wants.

HON. MR. COCKE: I thought it would help you think.

MR. CHABOT: These are serious matters, Mr. Minister. If you are not concerned about taxpayers' dollars, you have no right to be a Minister of the Crown. You took an oath of office; you have a responsibility to uphold that oath of office. I know that the government, as an example, fired Tom Machin of ICBC who had no contract with ICBC. He was one of the top officials of ICBC in charge of Autoplan. Was he given any severance pay? The answer is no. He was a powerhouse, he was a man who had tremendous knowledge in the field of auto

[ Page 2750 ]

insurance. Yet he was dismissed without so much as goodbye.

But the Minister, whom I don't believe, suggests that the Deputy Minister resigned of his own volition. Yet he is given some $20,000 for leaving because it was opportune to leave or because he didn't believe in socialist philosophy or socialist policies. I think it is about time — the time is now come; we are on the Minister's salary vote — that he tell the truth.

I want to ask a couple more questions which I posed to the Minister before. Mr. Chairman, when I questioned the Minister regarding the tremendous waste of taxpayers' dollars by the purchase of half of the Kaymor investment company, the old hop farm, the Molson hop farm in Kamloops....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: A good deal.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Kamloops says it's a good deal, but it's a tremendous waste of agricultural land in this province. We paid substantially beyond its true value.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to plant rubber trees there — get more gum to be stuck in?

MR. CHABOT: First of all, the Minister made application for a rezoning out of the agricultural reserve, the Land Commission. It appeared to be just a formality, and the rezoning was given. It was removed from the agricultural reserve, despite the fact that it had grown hops for some considerable period of time. That was no problem.

Now the Minister said that the option was in place until May 15 for acceptance. I am wondering if the Minister, and I will have a few questions later, tells me that the government picked up the option that expired about 12 days ago. It's an important question.

Now I wonder if the Minister would tell me as well, in view of the fact that he's involved in the question of industrial development, whether he plans to accompany the Premier into that great socialist boondock of England, come next month — that great socialist state of England. Would he tell me if he intends going there regarding the oil refinery?

I recall very vividly the Premier going to England a couple of years ago. Then he came back with a great fanfare and great publicity, saying that they had received a firm commitment from a British firm to establish a steel mill in British Columbia. Would you believe that was two years ago?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The British dollars aren't flowing.

Mr. FRASER: Another kite.

MR. CHABOT: The steel mill isn't here. I am wondering whether the Minister really believes that it is worthwhile that the Premier of British Columbia go to England to discuss the feasibility and the financial acceptability of establishing an oil refinery in British Columbia because of the dismal failure of the Premier, on his last trip to England, to attract British capital to establish a steel mill which is still on the drawing boards in British Columbia, and which will be on the drawing board long after that government over there is defeated.

MR. FRASER: Right on!

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You'll be defeated by the people, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). The people will defeat you, Mr. Minister of Health.

MR. FRASER: Right now — any time.

MR. CHABOT: You're about the only one who will survive, as a Member of the opposition.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's only because he is healthy.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, being interested in the sphere of industrial development, could he tell me how the negotiations are going regarding securing crude oil deliveries from the Province of Alberta to British Columbia for the establishment of an oil refinery in British Columbia? It is unbelievable that the Premier of this province would perpetuate a hoax on the taxpayers regarding his proposed trip to England for the discussion of an oil refinery if there is no potential of crude oil being delivered to British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: Hoax No. 51.

MR. CHABOT: I have never been told, and no one else in British Columbia has ever been told, that we will ever get any crude from the Province of Alberta.

I suggest to you, and I sincerely believe, that the Province of Alberta will not deliver one drop of oil...

MR. FRASER: Not one drop!

MR. CHABOT: ...to this socialist province. I really believe that. I could be proven wrong, but I believe it despite the fact that you people over there might accuse the Premier of Alberta of being Peter the Red. He's in the process of establishing petrochemical industries throughout the Province of Alberta. He has one in place, coming up in the vicinity of the community of Red Deer. You had

[ Page 2751 ]

better believe that any commitment of crude will go to the petrochemical industries of Alberta before it will flow to the socialist Province of British Columbia.

I wonder whether the Minister of Economic Development will tell us where the negotiations now stand regarding the great announcement made by the Premier for the establishment of an oil refinery in this province.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't know what quirk of fate placed the Hon. Member for Columbia River and me together all the time. Corporate fate? I don't know whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is a sadist or not.

Actually, when the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) stands in his place he makes very good theatre, but not many points.

With respect to the B.C. Railway car plant and the announcement of the opening, he indicated I was the one who announced it would open on March 25. You're in error there.

MR. CHABOT: The B.C. Government News, not you.

HON. MR. LAUK: I was not on the board at the time. I think it should be realized that many, many delays were caused by strikes on the railway and on the CNR. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with it.

HON. MR. LAUK: It did stop the construction schedule. I think the Hon. Member knows this.

MR. CHABOT: No way.

HON. MR. LAUK: Strikes on the CNR caused supplier delays for equipment and so on that was going to the car plant.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: We can only rely, as Ministers and as members of the board, on the information that we receive from our officials who tell us the cars should be in operation by the middle of June.

I indicated earlier they were also putting in further equipment to build an addition to chip cars, another kind of car. We hope to have that on pretty soon.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: It's fine for them to snort and giggle and guffaw about what this government is doing. We've had delays. Certainly we've had delays, and no one regrets them more than we do. We would like to get the car plant in operation and provide the jobs that we promised.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: But the state of the situation when we took office.... What efforts were being made by that government over there to provide the kind of jobs that we have made every effort to provide?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: These people are going to eat their words when that car plant is operating, and those people are producing cars that we can sell all over this continent. They're going to be eating their words. They're only politicians for the moment. If they've got an issue that'll last five minutes, they'll use it.

With respect to the Kaymor property in Kamloops, it's quite clear to us — and it was early on quite clear to us — that there must be a policy of this government to provide reasonably priced, leased industrial land for small enterprises to establish. It was also clear to us that this land should be in decentralized areas; that is, areas outside the lower mainland area. We've established sites; we've assembled land in various areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pick up the option.

HON. MR. LAUK: Insofar as Kaymor is concerned, it was used at one time for a hop farm — part of the acreage.

MR. CHABOT: For some considerable period of time.

HON. MR. LAUK: At great expense to Molsons, who used it. It was because of the tremendous expense and the high salt content of the soil that Molsons moved their hop-producing farm to the lower mainland of the Fraser Valley. We're also told that the amount of chemicals and whatever is used on this soil has a tendency to pollute the Thompson River.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: And again we hear nothing but guffaws over from the other side. They're not interested in facts.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, there was an application

[ Page 2752 ]

to remove the Kaymor property from the agricultural land reserve. The Environment and Land Use Committee reviewed carefully the reports they had on the quality of the soil. It was the opinion of the committee and regional district and many of the people in the area who were familiar with the site that this land would be better used as industrial land rather than agriculture. It would be extremely expensive as agricultural land, and indeed undesirable for such use.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm informed that the British....

MR. PHILLIPS: Even the Minister of Agriculture left the House.

HON. MR. LAUK: And I might add that at the same time that this land was taken out of the agricultural land reserve, the land that was being developed by the Kootenay Industrial Development Association in the Kootenay area also had Columbia Gardens released from the agricultural land reserve for largely the same reason. It was a better use to use it for industrial purposes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do-nothing Minister.

HON. MR. LAUK: There was no interested part of a Crown corporation in that land. Check your facts, Mr. Member. You'll find that the Environment and Land Use Committee and the Land Commission act fairly and even-handedly with people in all areas who make a reasonable appeal to them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: They've come full circle now.

The option on the Kaymor property has been extended, and it's British Columbia Development's intention to pick up the option, to purchase the land, to design an industrial park that would be exemplary and will provide that needed industrial diversification for the Kamloops area.

MR. CHABOT: Extended to when?

HON. MR. LAUK: It'll be extended long enough for the corporation to pick up the option, because it's their intention to do so and to design an industrial site on that property.

Kamloops has an increasing population, Mr. Chairman. It has a need for industry, and it's the responsibility of this government to assist in any way it can.

With respect to the questions on the oil refinery and the Premier's trip and the crude oil for Alberta, and so on, I would refer those questions to the Premier himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: The matter of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., as you know, is under the Attorney-General's department.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I have a few things to say to this Minister as the executive vice-president of B.C. Rail. I have spoken earlier about this; I feet strongly about it. B.C. Rail operations are in a complete shambles. This Minister has been there long enough now hopefully to be able to answer some questions.

Regarding the car plant, I have an observation that there'll be 31 cars salvaged from a wreck they had two months ago. They will produce more rolling equipment than the car plant will for the rest of the year — I mean, by salvaging them.

Just to show you the mismanagement that's going on, they had a rail wreck at Kelly Lake some two and a half months ago when 31 log cars, loaded, left the rails. The other day they let a contract for $98,000 to extract these 31 cars and logs from where they plunged. These rails, Mr. Chairman, could have been unloaded where they piled up by a dragline, put back on the rails and sent on their way to the coast. But oh, no, the brass at B.C. Rail decided they would build a road and take them down the other way. This is what the $98,000 contract was let for.

It's my information that a dragline or a donkey could have been hired to bring these back on the rails for $25,000.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Speaking of donkeys....

MR. FRASER: This is the kind of mismanagement that's going on. I want to let these donkeys know from Kamloops, who have a decent railroad running through there, how this railroad operates, the BCR. They don't even know where it runs. They keep sniping in on the side all the time. They haven't got a clue about how important this railroad is to the economy of the central interior of British Columbia. I want to inform this Minister of actual mismanagement that's going on. No wonder this railroad is running the huge deficits it's running!

I will give you another example of mismanagement of this railroad that is going on tonight, Mr. Chairman. This railroad has 18 locomotive foremen on its system from North Vancouver to the end of where it runs up to the Peace River, where these socialists have stopped it at Dease Lake — creating a scandal. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the CPR mainline from Calgary to Vancouver has two locomotive foremen. I would like to ask you who is hauling the most merchandise and passengers — the

[ Page 2753 ]

BCR in all their system or the CPR from Calgary to Vancouver. These locomotive foremen are in the $25,000 to $30,000 salary range. I ask you what they are doing, and I ask that Minister. They don't run a locomotive; they're supervisors — brass created by the socialists. That's why this railroad is running....

I'd like to ask where in the internal management is Mr. Trask, one of the finest railroad men we ever had? Where is he? He's gone. Where is he? He left. Do you know why he left, Mr. Chairman? He happens to be a personal friend. He left because of political interference from that bunch of socialists over there, particularly the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) who calls himself the "Minister of Northern Affairs," who is a director. I resent this.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Did you lose money on the game tonight?

MR. FRASER: No, I didn't.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I want to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that all the employees in that railroad are unhappy. We've got a disaster ahead of us if this man, as the executive vice-president, doesn't dig into these things and find out what's going on.

Where's Mike Wakeley, the chief engineer? Where's he? He is gone. I'm telling you why he's gone, too: because of political interference.

The other question I'd like to ask the executive vice-president: who is running that railroad tonight? Who is running it? There is no one left in senior management. What is he going to do about that? Everybody in the central and north want to know. When they pull episodes such as these 31 cars, they roll over the bank and let them rot there for two and a half months, take them out the wrong way, build a road, let a contract for $98,000 when they could have pulled them out the top way for less than half the money, what kind of management is that?

No wonder we haven't got a financial statement, from the mess on that railroad. I don't know whether we're going to get one. It's now five months late, and the Premier every week says it's coming in a couple of weeks. I doubt whether it is coming. The Premier has even cut up a chartered accountant over it and blames them for it. What a bunch of poppycock! They're just covering up the whole mess. It's a real shame and a shambles. Everybody in the central and north would like to hear what this Minister is going to do about it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, if hot air could run a railroad, the Hon. Member over there could put Lord Strathcona to shame.

I appreciate that the Hon. Member comes from the Cariboo. The one thing I do know that he understands, and that I agree with, is the importance of the railway to the north and to the central part of this province — indeed, to the whole northern economy of this province. This government accepts its responsibility and understands the importance of that railroad to the economy of the north. That responsibility is accepted fully, as I say, and we will operate the railroad accordingly. I think it is important that that point be made.

But you know, when the Hon. Member gets up and shouts and yells about these issues, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't know anything about railroad operation. If he does, maybe we should hire him. But I see no evidence in the two or three speeches he has made in this session about the railroad that he understands exactly what he is talking about.

The railroad board regrets the leaving of Mr. Trask, who is a very excellent man, a very excellent general manager. But I don't think it is appropriate to start dragging these things into Committee of Supply, and discussing resignations for various reasons. The Hon. Member for Columbia River talked about the Associate Deputy Minister who resigned. What purpose does that kind of thing serve?

The question of whether or not you could have recovered the derailed cars in one method or another is a matter of railroad operation. The railcar recovery...

MR. FRASER: I want to find out what is going on.

HON. MR. LAUK: ...is a matter of railway operating judgment. We will look into the matter but, Mr. Chairman, that is what we hire these people for — to operate their judgment in terms of recovery of those cars. You are going to have us running around after them saying: "Well, couldn't you have done it another way, and what is the comparison?" We will come back and we will find out that probably you are all wet. But you keep on running after these butterflies about the railroad.

I say that in the same light that I say I agree with you and your sensitivity to the need for this railroad in the north. You are absolutely correct. But are you helping the situation by dragging red herrings here in the Committee of Supply? No, you're not. If you want the railway to succeed, and it will under this administration — it will succeed — then give us a hand and give us some support. Don't blow hot and cold in this chamber simply because you want to impress your constituents. We know how good you are; you don't have to stand in here and give us a lot of hot air.

MR. CHABOT: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman. The Minister suggested that there has been an extension of the option to pick up the Kaymor

[ Page 2754 ]

investment land, which is a scandal as far as I am concerned regarding the abuse of taxpayers' money. They paid more for half the land than what was originally paid for the land just a few months before by a group of investors in the Kamloops area. It is a political scandal as far as I am concerned. It is nothing less than that to have wasted that kind of money for the government to provide the kind of services that they will be providing to this land which might not have been economically viable for the investors to provide. Nevertheless, the government has seen fit to make a quick buck for those kind of people whom they have always held in disdain. All of a sudden they've gotten into bed with developers in British Columbia on the Kaymor investment, the Molson hop farm just east of Kamloops.

The Minister suggested that the option has been extended beyond the period of May 15. I am wondering if the Minister will tell us how long the option has been extended and what the reasons are for the necessity of extending this option. Have there been difficulties? Is there a bit of dragging of feet on the part of the Department of Highways on the provision of access?

The Department of Highways was pretty vociferous in its opposition in the provision of access to the private developers. They had no hesitation in saying so publicly — that they would never provide access to Kaymor investments because of the fact that they were in an area that was congested as far as highway traffic is concerned. Yet all of a sudden the government is making an application to the Department of Highways for access. I suggest that the access will be readily provided.

But is the Minister attempting to delay the option until such time as his estimates have been passed in this House so that we would no longer have the right of questioning the merits, the demerits and the advisability of the purchase of this land? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that government over there will get access almost forthwith once the estimates of the Department of Economic Development have been passed.

The Department of Highways had stated emphatically and forcefully that they were opposed to the provision of access to this land. Yet all of a sudden a different situation develops. The government is involved in having paid unrealistic prices for this land and I am wondering just where the present situation stands as far as application for...

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't make up your mind about moving just one building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) restrain himself please? He is interrupting his fellow Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. ...access which was denied without so much as your leave. Now all of a sudden the government, the B.C. Development Corp., has applied for access. Is this access going to be provided to the B.C. Development Corp. after having been denied to an investment company?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Now I suggest to you that there is hanky-panky on the part of the Department of Highways regarding the provision of access in this province, not only in the Kamloops area but also in other areas of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member suggesting by the use of the term "hanky-panky" that there is wrongdoing?

MR. CHABOT: I suggest that there is collusion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: There is collusion within government departments. If a socialist organization such as the B.C. Development Corp. applies for access, it is almost immediately provided. But if an individual trying to make a living in this province applies for access in this province, it is virtually denied. And I have emphatic proof of that. I have proof of that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I can cite you examples, Mr. Chairman. But I know you will rule me out of order because of the fact that we are dealing... You won't rule me out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not yet.

MR. CHABOT: ...because we are dealing with industrial development. I can cite you example after example within my riding regarding the provision of access to the Trans-Canada Highway which has been denied to individuals but has been readily available to government corporations and socialist operations.

Now the Minister washed over very lightly on the question of the firing of the former Deputy Minister. Now, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't wash with me. You have given feeble excuses regarding the giving of over $20,000 as severance pay to a Minister whom you suggest — which you don't believe, though — resigned of his own volition. You know full well that's not true. You have a responsibility to the people of this

[ Page 2755 ]

province to come clean on that issue. Never in the history of this province has a Deputy Minister or an Associate Deputy Minister, which is a new term under your government, left the public service of his own volition — never in the history of this province — and been given the kind of severance pay that you are giving to the former Deputy Minister of your department. There is something wrong; there are untruths, as far as I am concerned, regarding the statements you have made regarding his departure. The Minister has a responsibility tonight to level with the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member making a specific charge against the Minister?

MR. CHABOT: I am suggesting that the Minister has not told all the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member appreciates that if the Hon. Member wishes to charge a Minister with anything that is not quite right, he should put a substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I am just suggesting that the Minister is not telling the full story regarding the departure of the former Deputy Minister of industrial development. How could anyone ever possibly leave the government service on his own volition? The Minister says: "Well, you know, the taxpayers of British Columbia are very generous people. You have been a good guy. You have been with us for a couple of years and you want to go off in the consulting field of industrial development. You are a good guy. Well, we will help you out. We will give you over $20,000." That doesn't wash with me, Mr. Chairman, and that doesn't wash with the taxpayers of this province. The Minister tonight has a responsibility to tell the truth.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't threaten me!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Minister of Economic Development has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Those people hold their prayer meetings in the rain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. LAUK: Surely, I'm over your head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier, when I stood to answer the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), that the Kaymor property will be purchased and developed by the British Columbia Development Corp.

MR. CHABOT: When?

HON. MR. LAUK: Sometime in the next several weeks. I don't know exactly when.

MR. PHILLIPS: You said May 15 was the deadline. The option has expired.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, but the option has been extended.

MR. PHILLIPS: Until when?

HON. MR. LAUK: I can tell you the development corporation will buy and develop the land.

MR. CHABOT: When?

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, the board of directors voted on it, they passed it. Now the officials will proceed.

MR. CHABOT: How about access?

HON. MR. LAUK: Now the question of access was being discussed with the officials of the development corporation and the officials of the Highways department. My understanding with respect to access is that the Highways department had some problem in dealing with the local traffic, and felt that maybe some responsibility should be on the municipality. That situation has not changed and the Highways department is pursuing that goal. I don't see how that affects our problem of access to the industrial site. They are two separate issues. I think you should investigate a little bit further before you state what you think is correct.

MR. CHABOT: I know what's going on.

HON. MR. LAUK: He says that there is hanky-panky, and he says it is very serious, this hanky-panky that is going on.

MR. CHABOT: I mean it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Hanky-panky — is that as bad as jiggery-pokery? I am sure that the Member doesn't mean hanky-panky; he means jiggery-pokery.

MR. CHABOT: Hanky-panky.

[ Page 2756 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: Or does he mean flatterack? I'm not too sure what he means.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.