[ Page 317 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting petitions

Alleged breach of confidentiality re budget release. Mr. Macdonald — 317

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 319

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill 34) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 319

Oral questions

Special warrant for post-secondary education. Mrs. Dailly — 319

Cash position of B.C. Mr. Gibson — 320

Mincome for extended-care patients. Mr. Wallace — 320

Scaling fund. Mr. Stupich — 320

Special warrants issued to supplement votes 236 & 237.

Mr. Lea — 320

Action on truckers strike. Mr. Wallace — 321

Urgency of restructured grants. Mr. Cocke — 321

Exceptions to extended care rate increase. Mr. Gibson — 321

Warrants for urgent expenditure. Ms. Brown — 321

Universities Council letter to NDU. Mr. Nicolson — 322

Mincome. Mr. Levi — 322

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Davis — 323

Mr. Lauk — 327

Mr. Chabot — 336

Committee of Supply: Supply Act, No. 1,1976

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 340

Committee of Ways and Means

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 341

Supply Act, No. 1,1976 (Bill 10) Second reading.

Mr. King — 342

Mr. Gibson — 342

Mr. Stupich — 342

Mr. Cocke — 343

Mr. Nicolson — 344

Mr. Lauk — 347

Mr. Wallace — 348

Ms. Brown — 349

Mr. Lea — 350

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 351

Supply Act, No. 1, 1976 (Bill 10) Committee stage.

Mr. Gibson — 351

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 352

Mr. Gibson — 352

Mr. King — 352

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 352

Mr. Lauk — 353

Mr. Lea — 353

Ms. Brown — 353

Mr. King — 354

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3) .

Second reading.

Mr. Stupich — 354

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): In the debate yesterday the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned the growing birth rate as an example of the confidence shown by people in this province. I'd like to introduce my contribution to that growing birth rate: in the gallery today is my new son Robert Mark William Skelly, accompanied by his mother and also accompanied by his sister, Susan Kathleen. Thank you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): It's not too often that I have the opportunity to welcome guests from my own riding of Revelstoke-Slocan, but today we do have in the gallery Mr. Bernie Blades and his son Lance. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the House to the distinguished guest we have on the floor this afternoon, Mr. Gordon Dowding, formerly the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds and, of course, Speaker of this esteemed assembly.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today we have Miss Pat Talbot, president of the Air Canada Vancouver base for the Canadian Airlines Flight Attendants Association; the two children of my secretary, Miss Margaret McCubbin and Mr. Bob McCubbin, who are here on their Easter break; and Mr. Jim Vernon, a friend of all British Columbians. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I would very much like to also welcome the former Speaker to the House, and say that his record over the years was unparalleled. We've not yet seen a person in the Legislature who can possibly come close to the soaring flights that he involved himself in in many interesting debates.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): We have with us today in the gallery from Vancouver South Mr. and Mrs. Will Preston and their daughters Ruth and Vicky. I would ask this House to welcome them, please.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I would draw the attention of the House to another distinguished spectator today in the person of Mr. Don Morton of North Cowichan who still serves the province of British Columbia in one capacity, but who also has devoted many years of service at the local and regional government level, and is a past president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and by reason of that fact, a life member of that organization.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today Mayor Karl Maartman and his city clerk, Harold Gyte of Elkford, the instant coal city of British Columbia. I would like this House to welcome them, please.

Also I'm being distinguished by having my own personal news reporter with us, in the person of Miss Susanne Bond from Kimberley. She's the reporter for the newspaper there. Will you welcome her, please?

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): I would like the House to join in welcoming this afternoon friends of mine and also my constituency secretary — Mr. Norm Bridge and his wife, my secretary, Mrs. Pat Bridge, who are in the gallery. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It has become a custom on days like this to introduce all members who haven't yet been introduced and I expect that will now be extended to the members of the press. There is a group in the west gallery, some lovely young ladies from the Convent of the Sacred Heart in Point Grey. I hope the House will welcome them and be on particularly good behaviour this afternoon on their account.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Attorney-General.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition. When are you going to get crime off the streets and back into city hall where it belongs? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. first member for Vancouver South (laughter)...Vancouver East.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is not your suit.

MR. MACDONALD: Pursuant to standing order 73 a petition to the hon. Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled, the petition, duly signed, Alexander B. Macdonald and Gary V. Lauk, humbly showeth as follows:

1. Statements have been circulated in The Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times alleging a serious breach of confidentiality in respect to the budget premature release to persons other than civil servants and to unauthorized persons, thereby reflecting upon the privileges of this

[ Page 318 ]

House and upon the Minister of Finance and his custody of sensitive documents relating to tax changes. The statements referred to are as follows:

In The Vancouver Sun, March 27, 1976, under heading: "Jack Wasserman".

"Ad-man Dave Brown's role in preparing the budget speech that was under such tight search security came to light Friday afternoon and there were some questions about the role of a non-civil servant in dealing with a sensitive document. 'Has he been placed under oath,' Evan Wolfe was asked. 'I think so,' Wolfe replied."

In The Vancouver Sun, March 27, 1976, under heading: "Alan Fotheringham".

"Dave Brown, the Bennett consultant who was so sloppy with the budget drafts that he left one in temporary custody of a hotel employee who transferred some details to his university girlfriend who let it get to the University of Victoria's student paper..."

In the Victoria Times, March 26, 1976, under heading: "Budget Data Leaked More Than a Week Ago?"

"Did confidential budget material fall into the wrong hands before its official release today? The Times has learned a young man was asked by an aide of Premier Bennett about 10 days ago to put a folder of papers in a hotel safe overnight. The curious young man took a look at the papers and saw at the top of the pile a press release concerning the Alberta budget. Next came a paragraph..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. I refer you to standing orders contained on page 26, standing order 73(1) and (2)... .

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...in which in presenting a petition you have asked leave, which you have done, and in the presentation of the petition, you must confine your remarks to the material allegations it contains. I don't think that it allows editorializing of the material or straying beyond a very tight guideline in the presentation of the petition. So I would ask you to be guided by those rules of the House and that particular rule in presenting a petition.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate that point at length because the rule does....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, not debate. I mean, I am not debating with the Speaker on that. I would be glad to shorten the presentation because the petition is in writing and I presume it will be dealt with in accordance with the rules of the House. Rule 73(2) does say that you must state the allegations and the prayer. I won't continue with the Victoria Times article because I think that is in the written material. But the other things I think are essential to the allegation.

2. That the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano informed the House on March 29, 1976 that prior to the budget speech he had received a call advising him that the budget included an increase in the sales tax to 7 per cent. He has also been alleged to have stated that he wrote down this information and handed it in a sealed envelope to Charles LaVertu of the press gallery to be opened after the budget speech.

3. That the Victoria Times of March 27, 1976 — and this is part of the allegation — reports a statement of the Minister of Finance as follows: "Finance Minister Evan Wolfe said later that Dave Brown, a government consultant on information services, had seen parts of the budget in advance and had 'assisted in terminology' in making the budget. Wolfe said Brown was not a member of the civil service but he believed Brown had taken a secrecy oath required of all civil servants."

4. The Premier has stated to the House on March 26 last as follows...and that is in Hansard and all members are familiar with the statement, I will not quote it at this time.

5. That we have caused inquiries to be made in the office of the Clerk of the House to determine if one of the persons referred to, the said Dave Brown who was neither a civil servant nor an employee of the government, has been administered an oath of secrecy, and we are informed, as we verily believe, that no oath of secrecy was administered nor is on file in the office of the Clerk of the House.

6. That the statement of the Minister of Finance attributed to him by the Victoria Times in paragraph 3 of this petition contradicts the assurance given by the Premier to this House on March 26 referred to in paragraph 4 hereof.

7. That the statement of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano in paragraph 2 hereof contradicts the denial of the Premier that information concerning the tax changes were available to people who could use the information as set out in paragraph 4 hereof and specifically as follows:

"I have to tell him that I received a telephone call very shortly after noon last

[ Page 319 ]

Friday advising me as a matter of fact, not a matter of conjecture, that as the result of documentation that certain persons had seen that the sales tax was going to be 7 per cent. I simply mention that to the Minister in order that he may review the procedures that his department followed in the dissemination of certain of the consequential documentation surrounding the budget."

8. That the contradictory evidence presented in the newspapers and the conflicting statements made both inside and outside the House cannot be reconciled and seriously jeopardize the rights and privileges of this House and the people of the province who are entitled to the protection of the budget from premature disclosure to persons outside the House.

9. That the persons who had made the allegations and those persons who are reported as having knowledge of the budget prior to its being made before the House, it is submitted, should be called before a committee of privileges as prescribed in May, 17th edition at pages 136 to 148 inclusive, which states at page 147: "A petition complaining of the matter which affects the privilege of the House may be taken into consideration on the presentation thereof."

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would seem that in the remarks that you are addressing to the House that you are drawing certain conclusions — also conclusions as to remedies of what should take place....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to stick strictly to the facts of the matter in your presentation and your material allegations. I'm sure you will do that.

MR. MACDONALD: One final paragraph, and that is the prayer which rule 732 says should be read, in addition to the allegations. They are not allegations, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be on the basis of making a charge. The petition is suggesting that certain statements cannot be reconciled and is asking for an investigation — not pre-judgment of anything. I'm serious about that; it's not a charge. But here's the prayer, and the prayer will clear it up.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House may be pleased to appoint a committee of privileges to investigate the grave allegations made in this House, and also the allegations contained in the said newspapers as related herein, the statements by diverse persons as contained therein which call into question the authority and dignity of the Legislative Assembly and the rights and privileges of its members, with power to call for books, papers and things, and to summon all witnesses who may have knowledge of the matters and facts bearing upon the said allegation, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Dated and duly signed by the only member for Vancouver East and the first member for Vancouver Centre.

Would you present that to the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver East presents a petition.

Introduction of bills.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 33, Freedom of Information Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CHANGE OF NAME ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 34, An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise the House whether or not you would be ready to rule today on the point of order which you took under advisement from the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is still under consideration. I will try to have a report back to the House before we adjourn today.

Oral questions.

SPECIAL WARRANT FOR
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Minister of Finance: on March 2 a special warrant for $3.855 million was approved for post-secondary education and training. Would the hon. minister tell the House why this warrant was urgently and immediately required for the public good?

[ Page 320 ]

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Madam Member, I will be happy to take that question as notice.

CASH POSITION OF B.C.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, of which I have sent him notice. It is too bad that this has to be raised in question period, but it wasn't contained in his remarks last night.

I would ask him, in order to facilitate the debate of Bill 3: what is the cash position of the province of British Columbia today, approximately? Does the minister expect any significant inflow of funds, except those possibly due to Bill 3, before the end of the fiscal year, tomorrow at midnight?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the question has been given to me on notice. I felt it was a question which would more properly be placed on the order paper since it required a certain amount of detail, but since the question has been raised in the House by the hon. member, I would be happy to take it as notice and provide the information for him as soon as I can.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm very puzzled at this. It is obviously not an order paper question; it's a question of some urgency. It's a question of which I had sent the minister notice, and I'm appalled if he doesn't know the cash position of the province within three hours.

MR.'SPEAKER: Order! Order, Mr. Member. It is not a matter for debate at this time as to whether it should be on the order paper or not; it is a matter that the question was taken as notice.

MINCOME FOR EXTENDED-CARE PATIENTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to the issue I raised yesterday, that persons in extended-care hospitals last May who qualified for Mincome were not given Mincome. Also, with regard to the minister's statement subsequent to my speech yesterday, that he was unaware of the May letter — and I'm not casting any criticism in that regard; it was under another administration — but I would like to find out if the minister will be now informing those extended-care patients — and I've already received telephone calls on this — whether, in fact, the introduction of the $7-a-day charge will now mean that they will be assured of receiving Mincome if they qualify for it.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.member for Oak Bay: I did check this morning with my deputy to see just what the procedure had been. I found that a letter had been sent from the department to the Mincome recipients in extended-care facilities, but there hadn't been any follow-up after the letter. The effect of this was that some responded and, in fact, their Mincome was withheld while others continued to receive their Mincome, and we saw develop a very inequitable situation which we are now immediately moving to rectify. I think the intentions were well, but obviously it was very sloppily administered. I can't take responsibility for that, but I can assure you that we are looking into the matter now, and it will be rectified properly.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's very full answer, but it is obvious that certain circumstances can arise where applicants, on the basis of their assets, qualify for Mincome but, by government or departmental decision, have been denied it — rightly or wrongly.

I'm wondering if the regulations or the departmental procedures allow for any mechanism of appeal by an individual who qualifies for Mincome but, because of some departmental decision, is denied it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I'll take that particular question as notice and I'll get the answer for it.

SCALING FUND

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance as chairman of Treasury Board.

On March 1, 1976, an order-in-council was passed approving a Treasury Board warrant. My question is directed to that part dealing with vote 146, scaling fund. The original provision of $10 would indicate this is a net amount, that it is recovered completely from industry. Yet an additional requirement, apparently, of $887,000 was urgently and immediately required. I wondered why they were departing from the policy of recovering this from industry.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take that question as notice.

SPECIAL WARRANTS ISSUED
TO SUPPLEMENT VOTES 236 & 237

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The question, Mr. Speaker, is for the hon. Minister of Finance. On March 2 an order-in-council was approved — or a special warrant, I should say — for $595,000, to

[ Page 321 ]

supplement votes 236 and 237. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could advise what those special warrants were for, and why the urgency. Why did they have to be through before the end of this month?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. I read the rest of the warrant, special warrant. It's order-in-council 709, special warrant for $595,000 to supplement votes 236 and 237; what was the urgency for that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

ACTION ON TRUCKERS STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the very serious continuing effect of the truckers strike and the latest reports, I am able to determine that no new negotiations — that's quite a mouthful — have been scheduled. Could the minister tell us what moves he is about to make, either to bring the parties back to the bargaining table or for government to take intervening action?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that Mr. Albertini, the mediator who was successful in bringing the parties together last weekend for three days of continuing discussion, is still involved in this dispute. It is one which is under his daily concern; he is in touch with the parties. As the members will know from the press, Mr. Speaker, the employers have suggested that the differences between them and the union should be resolved by compulsory arbitration. I understand that a formal request for such arbitration has been sent to the union, and I understand that a copy is being sent to me. When I am satisfied as to the basis upon which such arbitration will take place I will be discussing it with each of the parties.

URGENCY OF RESTRUCTURED GRANTS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Noting the surprise of Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George and Kelowna at the prospect of receiving money early, what was the urgency of warrant OIC-701, passed on March 2, for $9 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you know?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, wasn't this the question that was raised yesterday to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis)? You should have heard his answer at that time.

MR. COCKE: I asked a question about the urgency. I'd like to ask a supplemental if the Minister....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the minister answered that yesterday, but I'll take that question as notice.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, does the minister attend Treasury Board meetings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): There's a whole big mess of stuff left by you. You know very well we can't remember it all. Put it on the order paper.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

EXCEPTIONS TO EXTENDED
CARE RATE INCREASE

MR. GIBSON: A question for either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Human Resources, whichever might feel it most appropriate. There has been much distress caused among some families who have people, perhaps children for example, in extended care who are not recipients of Mincome. I would ask the appropriate minister to clarify to this House, and for the families concerned, whether the boost in the rate from $1 to $7 a day applies to such persons who are not in receipt of Mincome?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, before the hon. minister answers. I don't think it's really proper parliamentary procedure to scattergun at the ministers, and you should specify a minister. If it's not within his department then he can advise you of that fact.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would think this would probably be better taken up in the estimates of the department, but there will be exceptions and those will be spelled out in the regulations.

WARRANTS FOR URGENT EXPENDITURE

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Finance and it also has to do with warrants. I really hope he's got an answer at least to this one, because

[ Page 322 ]

he certainly didn't have an answer to any of the others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MS. BROWN: On March 2, Mr. Speaker, a special warrant in the amount of $2,860,000 was approved by the Minister of Finance to supplement votes 193, 202, 203 — if you're listening, Mr. Minister — 219 and 227. Now would you tell the House what the urgency was that necessitated your approving of that warrant at that time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, just a word of explanation. As I understand the procedure for approving warrants, what it requires is an order from the Minister of Finance indicating that there is no provision in the votes for the expenditure. Then he receives from the appropriate minister instructions that, in fact, this expenditure is urgently required. So it is the minister's own responsibility, if I may say so, to indicate whether the expenditure is urgently required.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In any event, in response to the question from the member, we'll be happy to make a report on these warrants that have been mentioned, and the ones she mentioned.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All of them, all of them!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a supplemental question, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand then that the Minister of Finance approved these warrants without understanding whether there was any urgency involved?

UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL
LETTER TO NDU

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education: a letter of March 17 went from Dr. Gordon Armstrong of the Universities Council to the board of governors of Notre Dame University, a copy of which went to the Deputy Minister of Education. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read that letter?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and be happy to file a copy of the letter with the House.

MINCOME

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Minister of Human Resources: with reference to the government's decision to have the 60 to 64 Mincome group and the handicapped at $265 per month when the federal cost-of-living bonus takes the over-65 Mincome group to $269 on April 1, can the minister tell us if it is government policy or merely a temporary measure until policy can be formulated?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the member....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Shall I repeat the question, Mr. Speaker? I'll address the question to the Premier, he's so anxious to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources is on his feet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the problems that I face, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, is that none of the programmes have been reviewed for the best part of two years. Frankly, all the programmes are a bit of a shambles, to say the least. What we've been attempting to do over the last several months is to unscramble this mess and find out where we've been going. Also, we've been attempting to determine just exactly where the priorities ought to be and to also determine whether in fact we've been getting sufficient federal cost-sharing. In order to get the maximum dollars from the federal government, which are due the province of British Columbia....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister is on his feet, hon. members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: To the hon. member, in order to receive maximum funding from the federal government, which is due the province of British Columbia, and in order to develop a better programme which will provide and assist all the needy people, we are re-assessing all the programmes. I'm sure that the opposition as well as the government will be very pleased with the legislation which will be brought down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the money go?

Interjections.

[ Page 323 ]

MR. LEVI: The wrecking crew! Look at them, the wrecking crew. They want to wreck the question period. Oh, what a wrecking crew!

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we going to have speeches in question period, or answers? On a supplementary to the same minister....

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker to this august assembly. I have a great respect for your knowledge of the rules, your ability, your good judgment and most important of all, I believe, your sense of humour. My experience in another place is that if the Speaker has a sense of humour, he can often resolve impasses which otherwise would be impossible.

I want to, of course, being on this side of the House, to endorse whole-heartedly the Speech from the Throne and the budget. The main reason I do so is because the priorities are in the right place; they are people priorities. This government has been elected by the people. It must govern for the people, and its priorities are people priorities.

I know that the official opposition is surprised at the priorities which stand out clearly in both the Speech from the Throne and in the budget, priorities which underline the services to people in this province — education...

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Human Resources.

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...aid to the needy...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Health.

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...health and consumer services. These are all vital programmes, the kinds of services which governments are elected to provide. They are services provided by a government elected by the people for the people. Those are the right kinds of priorities. I'm sure that everyone on all sides of this House agrees with those priorities, and to that extent, at least, they must all endorse both the Speech from the Throne and the budget.

I want to talk briefly this afternoon about two other areas of concern — they're also people areas, or I will argue that this is so — transportation and the supply of energy.

They are not as obviously people programmes in this day and age as they used to be a few hundred years ago when people with their own two hands had to provide the heat and motor power that they themselves employed. There have been fantastic changes over the last century or so — from the time when one man alone could break a horse, learn to ride it reasonably well and had his own means of transport — to today when the means of transport which we all use depend on the activities, not of dozens, not of hundreds, but of thousands and tens of thousands of people, often people in far corners of the world.

We are using transport when we use an aircraft to move about, transport that's developed by people, that's produced by people and operated by people. But it isn't as obvious that those people-efforts have to be organized, and they have to be organized in very efficient, cooperative ways. The main word I want to underline in my brief remarks this afternoon is "cooperation" — the contribution of people, many people, cooperating together to build, to supply us with effective transport, to supply us with energy here in this province, here in this nation, here in this world.

Policy is important. Programmes are important in both these areas.

One Minister of Transport not so long ago in Ottawa said that transportation in Canada was a mess. I want to add: the transportation in this province, for some years, has been in a mess.

There was a time not so long ago when we were still starting to build, and build effectively: highways; we were starting new pipelines; we were starting new rail lines. But all that activity ceased. It certainly ceased beginning in 1972, and very little that is new has happened in the last few years in this province — in a province where distance is probably the main obstacle keeping people apart, where high mountains and stretches of water also keep us from meeting and communicating effectively with one another often. We need an effective transport policy; we need an effective transport programme fundamental to policy — and I think we've gone wrong nationally and recently we've gone wrong provincially in the emphasis of our transport policy.

Essentially the federal approach for some years now has been that government should assist individual industries, pin-point financial support — give it to particular firms and particular places and have transport, whether it be rail or pipelines or transmission lines or airlines, pay their own way. The users pay 100 per cent of cost. In respect to transport, the subsidies go to individual firms' specific situations.

That may be all right in some circumstances, but I think a shift all the way to a specific policy of that kind for economic development is wrong. It's wrong

[ Page 324 ]

particularly in western Canada where distance is our biggest single problem. Western Canada, in a real extent at least, is two-thirds to three-quarters of the nation, and distance-spanning has to be a No. 1 priority. Any national government that changes that policy and makes its policy one of financial support for individual firms in specific areas is deserting a traditional policy in this country.

The largest chamber in the parliament buildings in Ottawa, other than the House of Commons and the Senate, is the Railway Committee Room, and that was built, roughly, 100 years ago. It indicated that 100 years ago, railways, transport, was the biggest subject, the most important programme area for governments of those days. And we've shifted from that; we've shifted from it nationally, we've shifted from it provincially.

We have to get back to transport, transportation also being a means for developing parts of the country which are relatively new, relatively remote, especially in the north. This is important and it must be a major element of development policy.

The present Minister of Transport in Ottawa (Hon. Mr. Lang) has recently produced a document which outlines a policy, and the policy is essentially a user-pay policy. That doesn't tell you much. It's a user-pays-100 per cent policy. If the federal government could push this policy to complete fulfillment there would be no federal subsidies for railways operating across this country or, indeed, federal lines operating north and south; no federal support for airlines, for highways. Obviously that cannot be pressed to its ultimate conclusion. There are situations — there are situations right here in this province — where the user should pay 100 per cent or should pay a high proportion of all the costs involved. Typical of those instances are pipelines. Pipelines, basically, have paid their own way and then some. Our transmission lines carrying energy, electrical energy, should pay their own way. B.C. Hydro should balance its books from year to year and should not be subsidized.

I well remember the Premier of a year or two ago (Mr. Barrett). One of the very big points he made in the election of 1972 was that we were far too greedy where energy was concerned, that we were consuming too much energy and he was going to slow down the rate of low growth of electricity demand, for example. Had he been consistent, he would have priced that electricity at least at cost and had the users pay, and the price itself would have helped to ration what in some instances can't be qualified in any other way than by using the word "greedy".

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, transmission lines should pay their own way and pipelines should pay their own way.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Do you believe in the two prices for...?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The main airlines operating across this country should pay their own way.

MR. MACDONALD: Should there be one price or two prices?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are situations, however, where for reasons of development they should not pay their own way, and I would include B.C. Ferries in this area. The most heavily travelled routes should come close to paying their own way. The developmental routes, the services to more remote areas — and I will include theSunshine Coast in that category or even the Gulf Islands, if I may, Mr. Speaker — should not necessarily pay their own way. There should be, in other words, an element of subsidy — the user wouldn't pay the whole shot.

Then there is an argument for subsidy using the reasoning that the highways of this province as the highways of most provinces and states in the United States — are paid for out of the general revenue coming to the government, and to the extent that the ferry crossings are themselves parts of our highway system, they should receive a similar subsidy — a subsidy similar, for example, to the subsidy...

AN HON. MEMBER: A toll highway?

HON. MR. DAVIS: ...the financial support for sections of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Fraser Canyon. That was a very costly section of our transportation system. It's paid for out of our sales taxes, out of our income taxes. Similarly, a case can be made for part, at least, of the costs of the ferry system to be met in that way. I believe, in other words, that there should be a subsidy for ferries, but on the main routes, the most-travelled routes, the mature routes, the users should go some distance towards paying the total cost of the operation.

The resource industries — new rail lines, for example, into coal-rich areas — the resource industries should certainly, as users of those new transportation facilities, pay 100 per cent of the costs. Perhaps these costs should be pro-rated over a period of years, but certainly not a period longer than the lives of the first mines. The users should pay in those cases, clearly, and those groups of users can help to open up the country and provide transportation systems, be they rail, highway or airline transportation systems, and help to pay for those services which others will benefit from directly or indirectly.

We have to get our costs down on the ferries, for example, and we can in various ways — by building

[ Page 325 ]

bigger ferries, manning them more efficiently, running them, where possible, over shorter routes, or having better schedules for operation.

In the north development is vital and is fundamental. We have to cooperate with the federal authorities and, above all, with the industries concerned. The best way to cooperate — the best way to cut our costs, to keep them at a minimum — is to put all the facts on the table, conceal nothing, demand that the others do the same, and choose the least costly routes regardless of whether they are over B.C. Rail or over CNR, regardless of whether they are by highway rather than by rail and, in some instances, by air. We must do the most efficient and the best thing because this will bring services, and particularly energy, to people throughout the province efficiently and effectively and give them the kind of service they deserve.

We've a few problems with the federal government, and I'll outline a very few of them, in respect to shipping. Currently there is legislation before the federal House of Commons referred to as Bill C-61. Bill C-61, in its major intent, is designed to establish a merchant marine for Canada which has a base, and that base is carrying goods from one point in Canada to another point in Canada. It's a shipping capability — at least that's the objective — which will serve the coasting trade of Canada.

Here on the west coast basically we serve our own coasting needs — that is, from point to point in British Columbia, with vessels built in British Columbia, with crews who are British Columbians, with ships and shipping which is owned in British Columbia by corporations that have their head offices here.

But in the rest of Canada this isn't really true and the federal government of the moment seems bent on imitating other countries, particularly the United States, which, among other things, has legislation, one law of which is referred to as the Jones Act, and that requires that all shipping going from point to point in the United States be carried on U.S.-built ships, U.S.-operated ships, U.S.-owned ships.

I'm critical of Bill C-61, Mr. Speaker, at least in one respect, and this is an aspect of that legislation which I believe is prejudicial to British Columbia. That is with respect to shipping from the east coast of Canada to the west coast, or from the west coast of Canada to the east coast of Canada, through the Panama Canal. I would like to allude to it as "the shipping opportunity through the Panama Canal."

It was the Panama Canal, more than anything else, that gave British Columbia its great lift-off in the early years of this century, after 1914, and if the traffic which Canadians can use shipping from east coast to west coast, or from west coast to east coast is limited to Canadian-owned, Canadian-built, Canadian-operated vessels, the cost will go up.

This is significant in a very important way. There isn't much shipping that actually moves from one coast to the other, but it is the price of that shipping, the competitive tenders on that shipping, that determines our rail freight rates across Canada for many commodities, determines our trucking rates across Canada for many commodities. So if that legislation passes in Ottawa, what it does is eliminate international competition, eliminates the low bidders from putting an effective low ceiling on rail freight rates across this country. Nothing could do more to stretch out Canada, make it longer in economic terms, wider across, hoist us on the petard of distance more than anything else, more than that kind of legislation.

We have to have international competition, international shipping competing through the Panama Canal to hold this country together and give us the kinds of levels of freight rates and trucking rates that we should have across the surface of Canada itself.

Port development: we should be working closely with the federal government in that area. The previous government knew nothing about Bill C-61. It seemed to know nothing about port development.

One of our very real problems currently is that on this coast the user pays 100 per cent. There is no subsidy. On the east coast there are very heavy subsidies for transport of all kinds, and especially for port development. Not only the east coast in the sense of the Maritimes and Newfoundland, but Quebec and some of the Great Lakes developments as well — they are heavily supported. The user-pay principle doesn't obtain there. The user certainly doesn't pay 100 per cent. But the user pays 100 per cent in the Port of Vancouver. The user pays 100 per cent at Roberts Bank. The user pays 100 per cent in the Port of New Westminster, and 100 per cent in Nanaimo — in all the federal ports. The user-pay principle is in fact in force in western Canada, certainly in British Columbia. As I said earlier, that isn't necessarily the best principle for economic development.

It perhaps can apply to mature developments where there is competition. Certainly where there are raw materials in the form of resources moving out from our province, they should pay their own way, but not in all respects.

Airlines: some of the grumbling in the west relative to rail lines relates to the great difficulty of determining where costs really lie, and how rates relate to costs; whether or not the rates reflect true costs. The supposition is — certainly the suspicion has often been — that we are subsidizing operations in central Canada by our paying higher rates across the west and in British Columbia.

This is true, Mr. Speaker, with respect to airlines, certainly. Air Canada subsidizes its eastern operation out of its longer hauls, and the hauls of people, for example, from Toronto to Montreal, or Montreal to

[ Page 326 ]

Ottawa and on to Toronto are less than average cost for the system, and the hauls from Vancouver or Calgary or Edmonton, even Winnipeg, to Toronto and Montreal are above-average cost.

We need to know more about those costs. We need to know more about the kinds of rates that are charged by the airlines, as well as the railways, and to make sure that we are not paying as users more than 100 per cent in respect to air travel.

Pipelines: we currently have a problem in respect to oil in this country. The biggest aspect of that problem, indeed the problem itself, is that we aren't finding enough oil to remain self-sufficient. We are no longer exporting as much as we were. We're importing more and more. We're paying the world price for this imported oil, and refusing to pay the world price to our own producers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: But the development which I wish to emphasize is the termination of exports by the federal government and the diversion of the remaining oil to eastern Canada, particularly beyond Toronto and to Montreal.

We have been exporting oil heavily down the U.S. west coast. That is being cut off. The Trans Mountain oil line today is operating half-full whereas it was operating full a year ago. It may shortly be operating at a quarter of its capacity, and what this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the transportation of oil from our principal source in Alberta is going to cost us in British Columbia more. It's going to cost us more and more simply because that heavy flow of a few years ago is being cut off because we're cutting off our exports to the U.S. Pacific northwest.

Our transportation cost across the mountains and down to Vancouver is rising, and while it's rising, the oil that was flowing out from Alberta and British Columbia to the Pacific northwest is being diverted through Sarnia and Toronto to Montreal, through a pipeline that's being financed in large part by the taxpayers of Canada, and you and I are paying part of the $20 million subsidy this year to move that oil on to Montreal.

So we on the west coast are facing a rising tariff for our oil being brought over the mountains through Trans Mountain's line, and we're helping also to pay a subsidy to move Canadian oil — this short, precious Canadian oil — eastward to Montreal to give it security in the event that at any time foreign oil admitted to that city may be cut off. That's an inequity, and we have to face this kind of thing and reach understandings with Ottawa which will at least offset that transportation penalty which we are being asked now to bear.

We're paying part of the $20 million subsidy for eastward movement of Canadian oil to Montreal; we're facing a rising price to move the limited amount of oil that still flows our way from Alberta across the Rockies and down to Vancouver.

I must conclude, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say again that these are programmes that are very important to people, and certainly call for policies which affect people very much.

The debate about ICBC, I think, was very important in several ways. It indicated priorities. It indicated the different priorities between the previous government and this government.

You know, I used to think that the motor vehicle, especially the North American-type motor vehicle, was the epitome of the North American capitalist system. It's inefficient. It uses too many materials. It certainly uses too much fuel, and it damages the environment.

MR. GIBSON: Sounds like the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. DAVIS: And yet the previous government was determined to subsidize that vehicle very, very heavily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. DAVIS: Subsidize that vehicle more than any other programme — any other programme — with which it was involved.

Now this government has, I believe, its priorities straight. It's not going to subsidize the motor vehicle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The owner should use his car any way he wants, keep it, Mr. Speaker, but pay the cost 100 per cent. It's a necessity, if you will, but the user should pay at least 100 per cent of the vehicle. He won't necessarily pay for the highways, roads or streets directly through his direct levies, but at least he'll pay for the vehicle — and he certainly should pay for bashed fenders. If he chooses, on the other hand, to ride on public transit, to use buses, to use efficient means of transport, to use means of transport that don't clutter up our cities, that make them more livable, then he shouldn't have to pay 100 per cent. He can pay some lesser cost, some lesser figure, and I believe that is the right kind of approach to transport, the right kind of approach to energy usage, the right kind of support for energy consumption.

At least we have our priorities straight. We have to develop a plan. We have to develop a programme, but it'll be one based on priorities and one in which people are very much involved.

Mr. Speaker, I feel — I know that the previous government wanted to do well, intended to do well. I was impressed at times by their efforts. I remember,

[ Page 327 ]

however, some of the gaffes that they pulled. I remember the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) going to Washington, D.C. to announce a plan to bring American oil, Alaskan oil, down across British Columbia to the United States.

This plan received all kinds of PR support; it was called "The Way Out". There's still lots of copies around. There's a smiling picture of the Premier on the front — or the former Premier on the front.

The main fault, the main shortcoming in all that was that it was a one-man, or a one-shot effort. There was little discussion beforehand, there was little consultation, there were very few people involved; it was a brainstorm that blew out. It just didn't have it from a technological point of view, from an economic point of view, and certainly from an environmental point of view, because environmentally it would be much more damaging than an ordinary pipeline down and across this country.

There are lots of reasons why it didn't fly, and had the former government been interested in cooperation with other levels of government, with private enterprise, with the Americans, indeed they would have found out quite early that this one wasn't going to work and that others should be developed, and other lines of thought, other programmes, other policies, other projects were much more feasible, and could possibly be pulled off.

It's that kind of people involvement. More people have to be involved; certainly they have to be consulted. We're not going to be bringing in big new changes on the ferries, for example — even modest changes at ferry terminals — without talking to the municipalities, without talking to the people living in those areas.

If a federal subsidy is involved, if industry is to be asked to shoulder part of the costs, we're going to talk to the feds. We're going to talk to the industries concerned as well.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are interested in people. The people programmes were featured in the budget and in the Speech from the Throne. In the areas of energy development and transportation we will be people-oriented as well.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the comments of the new Minister of Transport and Communication. I'm delighted that at least one member of that cabinet realizes the critical importance of transportation to the western Canadian economy and in particular to British Columbia — a view espoused by the previous administration. I am heartened that at least one minister on that side of the House in this administration also espouses that view.

Economic development is important, and we cannot look at a transportation system as being efficient or profit-making in itself. From that transportation system flows the lifeblood of the economy, the jobs, the income, the taxes on the income that make this whole economy and society turn around in British Columbia.

I am wondering whether it is an overall policy of the government or just the views of that minister, because if it was an overall policy of the government, certainly the concept of economic development would be part of their philosophy in all of their decisions. And we now know it is not, that they think that all things must make a profit, that profit equals efficiency and efficiency equals profit.

Not true! That is not even a nineteenth century economic view; that is not even a pre-Cambrian economic view. That is a view that is only new today because it's never been thought of before, and there's a good reason why it has never been thought of before — because it doesn't work. It's nonsense.

The bottom-line economic theory is unique to this province and is now becoming under this new administration the laughing stock of the world. The bottom-line economy that it's cheaper to have government agencies, departments and services make profits — what utter and complete nonsense! We can also see the impossibility of it, Mr. Speaker, when we take a look a this budget address and the budget that was tabled on Friday. They are not even doing it themselves; they're paying lip-service to an election clarion call that was false from the beginning.

I certainly hope that the policy as outlined by the new minister is an overall policy, that we all espouse a theory of a mixed economy in this province, that the BCR and the CPR must be supported by the public purse because it relates to the social and economic well-being of Canadians from coast to coast.

There's not a free market system in Canada and there never has been, so all of the slogans from people who have just arrived to our shores should be put in that light. It is not a free market; it's a mixed economy.

We must support the transportation system. We must support other services to people and to the economic system. But I am interested to note when the minister talks about coal in the northeast — in the light of his remarks about subsidies to transportation and to railway and so on, this vast development that I'm sure he and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are jointly conferring on — he must take into consideration the tremendous infrastructure costs that will be involved: the transportation, the roads, the railways, the electric power, but also the schools and the other services that the new community or the already existing but necessarily expanding communities of the northeast must have. Who is going to pay for all of this?

From the budget address we can see that the people, through their personal income taxes and sales

[ Page 328 ]

taxes, will be the ones to suffer the burden, because it seems to me that that government over there will exact no payment from private industry who will be taking the coal out of the ground and shipping it out at great profits...without exacting the proper taxation through royalties or whatever on that coal to help pay that infrastructure cost, because it's the responsibility of the private industry as well as government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: It was interesting to note the minister's comments on oil, and I think this side of the House agrees that we have been subsidizing eastern Canada since Confederation through the tariff protection system, through an unfair freight rate structure. We have transfer payments for close to, I think it is — what is it now? — $300 million and $400 million a year through tariffs alone. Because from British Columbia alone $800 million to $1 billion a year in tariff transfer payments to the federal treasury — excuse me, to the Niagara peninsula manufacturing base....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (Vancouver-Capilano): About $500 per capita.

MR. LAUK: About $500 per capita? That is what we pay in British Columbia to subsidize Confederation. We subsidize Confederation to that extent, so it is interesting....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that point of view which is now espoused by the minister should have been espoused by him when he spent several years on the front benches of the federal cabinet. But I was waiting with a great deal of interest throughout his federal career to see what his point of view was in terms of his native province. I was disappointed indeed to see no public statement, no encouragement for subsidies to transportation in the west, no encouragement for a sensible free trade or lowering of tariff situation — the continuation of this great injustice since Confederation under which British Columbia have suffered. He wasn't very vociferous then.

It's interesting that the minister will decry all of a sudden the use of the private automobile. He says it pollutes, it's inefficient and it uses too much fuel. My friend to the left here said that it sounds very much like the Social Credit Party, but I don't think I'd be that mean. Certainly the private automobile is all of those things, but what are you substituting over there, through you, Mr. Speaker? They are not providing the alternative.

People in modern society must be mobile, to get to their jobs, to travel, because of social reasons and economic reasons, but nothing's being substituted. You're raising insurance rates and taxes on the people so they cannot afford to travel. But what's the substitute? We have the minister in charge of public transit — I think he conferred with you on the matter, Mr. Minister — and what does he say? "Oh, well, I'm still trying to straighten out the memos from Jimmy Lorimer and I've got a problem here and I had to fire this fellow and I had to do that fellow." We're not interested in excuses, Mr. Speaker. We want action. I'll tell you one thing: Mr. Lorimer, when he was minister in charge of public transit, launched programmes to bring about an increase in dozens of buses going to suburban areas and areas all over this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: We see every sign this will be cut back. We see every sign that your interests are to get people out of the private automobile but on their shoe leather and not into any other alternate form of transit. So at this stage, Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute. It's a catch-22 with that government over there. Get out of that polluting, terrible automobile, but no alternative transit. Just stick out your thumb. We feel that that is a harsh and cruel way to treat the people of British Columbia who must be mobile for economic and social reasons.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the little innocuous statements — if one can describe any statement in the budget address as being innocuous — perhaps the statement in ordinary times about the vitriolic diatribe that the Minister of Finance included in his remarks, perhaps this particular statement on page 27 concerning financing of Crown corporations, had it not been innocuous...but it has passed relatively unnoticed. "Legislation will be presented to the House in this session to increase the borrowing power of the Hydro Authority from $3 billion to $3.5 billion." Prior to that there was a description of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and also B.C. Hydro — the corporation.

I was interested when I read those comments in the budget address about the current chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro. We were greatly disappointed, Mr. Speaker, at the appointment of Robert Bonner to head up that vast, large corporation — one of the largest in Canada. Mr. Bonner was Attorney-General of this province in years gone past. He left under a cloud. He left in a cloud but the other day, when the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) was speaking, I mentioned the Sommers case, and do you know — I won't mention any names — some Social Credit backbenchers came up to me and said: "What was that case? What was that all about?" Methinks there

[ Page 329 ]

is something lacking in their education, particularly about their political party.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Now I know you're wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: A socialist red herring.

MR. LAUK: Can you imagine that? The Sommers case was a cover-up to end all cover-ups, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, sat on a report for months...

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighteen months.

MR. LAUK: ...eighteen months, before prosecuting a guilty cabinet minister for bribery. That's the Sommers case. And that's the person who now heads B.C. Hydro. Is it little wonder, Mr. Speaker — and I know I have your undivided attention on this important matter — is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that this party would be opposed to the appointment of such an individual to head up such a vast corporation which is so important to the economy and the social and economic life-blood of this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you have all of a sudden taken on a stature that I didn't think was possible. It's so good to see you in the chair, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poppycock!

MR. LAUK: He's following distinguished people like Dr. Gordon Shrum, David Cass-Beggs, who served for many years in other provinces as well as here.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: After he flunked out at MacMillan Bloedel, after he totally botched that job, he then became a flunky for the international business conspiracy...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: ...and now we trot him off the shelf and place him in charge of the biggest corporation in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: That's right. And what about the Liberal members who have disappeared from that side of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Liberal members.

MR. LAUK: Eh? What about the Liberal members? Do you remember what they used to say, my friends, about Bob Bonner? Do you remember what the Liberal members — former Liberal members who now sit over on the treasury benches — used to say about Bob Bonner? Well, I have copies here of Politics In Paradise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, read it!

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me a story.

MR. LAUK: You remember, Mr. Speaker, what was said about Bob Bonner by the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Who is the author?

MR. LAUK: Oh, the author was Patrick Lucey McGeer.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): No, no!

MR. LAUK: That's him. None other. In black and white. When he took pen in hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sure he didn't realize that there would be greater things in store for him. I am sure he thought that perhaps he would be in the political wilderness — not in the paradise — forever. But now, when he's really in the paradise, I am sure he regrets some of the things he said about Bob Bonner with the Commonwealth Trust case, page 51; with the Sommers case, with the Bennett Dam, the Columbia River treaty. Do you remember all those things? They're here — Politics In Paradise — I haven't the proper number for you to get it out of the library, but I recommend it to all members of the back bench of the Social Credit Party and, particularly, some new members of the front benches of the government.

The three Liberals — reformed Liberals — fell on their knees to the politics of fear and greed and were silent when this former Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, was appointed to B.C. Hydro. I'll bet those three members didn't say a word, Mr. Premier, through the Speaker to you, about his appointment in cabinet.

HON. MR. MAIR: I bet they did.

[ Page 330 ]

MR. LAUK: I bet they sat on their hands, and running through Pat's mind, I'll bet, were the thoughts of his unfortunate authorship, the first and the last great work from the now Minister of Education.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate, but we are going to be trotting out, it seems, another former Social Credit cabinet minister to head up the BCR. I wonder what that's going to do. What kind of background has Mr. Williston got? Well, let me tell you. He sat on the board for many years. He sat on the board of the BCR when, in those years, they were involved in doubtful accounting practices that were condemned by the accounting association of British Columbia. And, indeed, the auditors of that day, when he was sitting on that board, were suspended from the Chartered Accountants Institute for non-acceptable accounting practices on the BCR that hid losses of the BCR for over 15 years. Talk about a cover-up, Mr. Speaker, an outrageous cover-up!

Now you may ask: "What has this got to do with the budget speech?" I knew you were about to ask that, Mr. Speaker. I'm getting to the point.

This budget is an admission of guilt. The vitriolic language and frantic desk-thumping is only a pathetic attempt to mask this right-wing coalition's total failure to fulfill their most emphatic election promise: they promised to cut back on spending and freeze government taxes. They have done neither! Rather they have exceeded NDP spending and have literally fleeced the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They always chatter like that when they get nervous.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker.....

AN HON. MEMBER: You giggle for both of us.

M R. LEA: You settle down; you're the head-chatterer.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Where's your leader?

MR. LEA: He's going to be right back.

MR. LAUK: Do you know, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Who was it said...? Whenever I hear the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I'm reminded.... I think it was Shakespeare who said something about an empty vessel.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: What was that? Can someone complete that for me? An empty vessel makes the most noise.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I have been listening on that side of the House, and now on this side of the House, to that empty vessel for three and a half years. Will somebody not spare me? Can the people of South Peace River keep him there one term, just one term?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I hear from the Premier that the Minister of Economic Development is planning to resign. Maybe it was he who leaked the budget, I don't know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Maybe it was he who leaked the budget.

But the other day I was up in South Peace River and some people said to me: "You know....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I was up there. You weren't there, though.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never there.

MR. LAUK: You weren't there. I don't know where you were — maybe in Palm Springs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Visiting the Premier.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was up in South Peace River the other day and some constituents of the hon. minister came up to me and said: "What's going to happen? We haven't seen Don since the election."

"He's so busy as a cabinet minister, " I said. "You know, he's got a lot of work down here. He's still trying to figure out the filing system." (Laughter.) Someone showed him what a dial phone was. "But, " I said, "he's got to spend some time down here. He can't possibly make it to his constituency." I said: "If

[ Page 331 ]

you like, I'll go down and mention it to him."

They said: "Oh, no, no, no. Keep him busy." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know I've done more work in the last three months than you did in three and a half years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Economic Development constantly intervenes, Mr. Speaker. He's a glutton for punishment; it's sort of a masochistic type of thing — so I'll carry on about the minister.

It seems that he took office: we know that because we read the order-in-council the other day, but we wouldn't know it by any other action that the minister has taken since. I should point it out to you, Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Economic Development.... The only significant thing I can see he did was give an old pal $29,000 a year — Arthur Leaks...uh, Weeks. (Laughter.) Oh, Arthur's been very busy since he.... He used to be a creative cheque-writer, Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, but now he's been very busy: he's whispering to the resident "leak" recipients in Vancouver; he's poking around the Crown corporations that this minister has in his charge — and I am loosely speaking. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: And do you know what's happened? Nothing. (Laughter.) That's why we can't pick on that minister; he hasn't done anything. The poor fellow is still trying to emerge from this paranoiac feeling he's got since the election, that everybody's against him, that all the civil servants are all NDPers. He looks under his bed every night to see if an NDPer is there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I sure don't look to see if you're there. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: You'd know it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Well, may I return to the budget, Mr. Speaker?

This budget, Mr. Speaker, expects the ordinary working men and women of this province to control their wage demands, to tighten their belts, to suffer and be pure. Well, they're not very pure, Mr. Speaker, but they sure as heck are suffering! They sure as heck are.

While they are making these demands of the working people of this province, they are increasing the costs that working person must endure. That is a Catch-22 that has no humour in it whatsoever. It is a cruel joke; it is a betrayal of election promises.

They said they would freeze government spending; they said they would freeze taxes; they would freeze oil and gas. What they did was pay lip-service to the price freeze on food for a short period of time. Then every one of that front bench couldn't help themselves but jump up in front of the cameras and declare some new increase that the ordinary little people of this province have to bear.

Nothing about any new resource taxation formula. Nothing that can bring in new revenue on natural gas. But the little people, Mr. Speaker — oh, they can pay, because they want to feel pure. They want to feel purged. They're being spanked for voting NDP.

MS. BROWN: Terrible!

MR. LAUK: And on we go.

MS. BROWN: As a mother I know that's not right.

MR. LAUK: The New Democratic Party, on October 24, 1975...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The architect of the wasteland.

MR. LAUK: ...announced an increase in Mincome to $265 a month for single persons and to $530 for couples. It announced an increase in the minimum wage from $2.50 to $3 an hour. It announced continuation of rent control, with a decrease from 10 per cent to 8 per cent...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...to 8 per cent, and all the shouting in the world won't save them. We said 8 per cent; they say 10 per cent. They know it.

We announced a plan to establish a housing corporation to provide first mortgages at lower interest rates.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: We put a price freeze on all food and beverage products — the only province in Canada to do this, Mr. Speaker — put a freeze on all energy prices, including home heating fuels, gasoline, propane, natural gas and electricity, put a price freeze on transportation, including ferries and bus fares, announced new legislation to be introduced on rental control on commercial properties to help small businesses. We demanded our law control bank profits, interest rates, mortgage rates and professional incomes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): And broke the

[ Page 332 ]

province doing it.

MR. LAUK: What has the Social Credit done since they were elected? They've increased auto insurance anywhere from 100 to 400 per cent, and promised to let the United States insurance industry back into the field to pay off old campaign debts — not so old; they're even lukewarm — increased electricity and natural gas rates an average of 12 per cent, and allowed an increase for home heating oil of 4.54 cents per gallon.

HON. MR. MAIR: Increase? Increase? What do you mean?

MR. LAUK: You've got to repay the oil companies for their campaign fund contributions, it says on speaker's note 325.

They've eliminated the price freeze on propane and gasoline. What about the northern MLAs? They've eliminated the price freeze on propane and gasoline, and you sit there silently on your hands in that steeplechase for the cabinet post you want?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They have allowed an increase in the allowance for residential rents from 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: They have cancelled the plan to introduce rent control on commercial premises and then cancelled the food price freeze that affects mostly the lower-income and fixed-income people of this province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, all of these increases, together with the increases that we have now in the budget, have put the ordinary industrial worker in this province in a complete and utter bind. The average person who works — a member of the IWA, Mr. Speaker, let's take that example. The average industrial worker gained a percentage increase that was held down because of the fight against inflation, and their leader John Munro was a very reasonable union leader in this province and should be hailed as such on all sides of the House. He said to his union: "We will act responsibly and keep our demands low." What was his reward, Mr. Speaker? What was the reward that he can now tell his members? That increase and more was taken up by the ICBC increases in automobile insurance rates.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Then he goes on, and he says to his workers: "We've still got to cooperate. We've got to belt-tighten. Look at the ICBC. We're having problems." Then he's hit with a budget that increases his personal taxes, his sales taxes and his Medicare payments by 50 per cent. He is now hundreds of dollars behind what he was when he first negotiated the increase. He's been betrayed, Mr. Speaker, and I don't blame him for feeling betrayed. Why should he be the one to tighten his belt? Why should he be the one to go home and tell his family they will have to do with less because that bottom line government over there has no feelings for the ordinary working man. They only feel for the corporate interests which they represent.

The wages, Mr. Speaker? Salaries for 1973 and 1974, including the industrial workers, rose in that period of time 21.8 per cent. The cost of living, before these increases in this province, rose 22.7 per cent. They're behind before these increases.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Who was in government then?

MR. LAUK: The working Canadian cannot afford to wait. How can we ask them this year in negotiations to say pull back? Their car payment is due now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How is Larry?

MR. LAUK: Their ICBC rates are due now. Their rent or their mortgage payments are due now. Their sons and daughters want to go to university and college this fall — not two years from now, not next year, this fall.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Make a suggestion. Be helpful.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll be helpful. I'm going to give you an alternative to this budget in a moment, Mr. Member, but I think I must lay a foundation. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Speaker? I've got to lay a foundation to give an alternative.

What about tax relief to over-65s? Now nobody on this side of the House resents that. What about the tenants? I represent an area — and some of the members of the Social Credit back bench represent ridings — with large tenant populations.

What about the people over 65 who rent premises? All these people are considered by that government as second-class citizens. My predecessor, Herb Capozzi, God rest him, argued for renters' grants in this House, and they were ignored for years. Finally he was able to push it through. Then he was ostracized by this new Premier. But they are always treated as second-class citizens — the rent control, a cruel joke

[ Page 333 ]

at 10.6 per cent; in three years the landlords can raise rents by 34 per cent, in five years they will be able to raise them by 65 per cent.

If someone is paying today $200 a month, in five years they can be paying $340 a month, or more, under this so-called rent control system of that government over there. So what about some relief for the tenants? Have you considered that, you northern MLAs? The member for Kamloops.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not north and you know that!

MR. LAUK: It's north to me, and you look pretty bush to me, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) What about the approach in the budget to Mincome and the new restrictions, Mr. Speaker? You know, here's a letter.... I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not here today. "Dear Mr. Lauk,

"Here's an example of how the Social Crediters are wasting the taxpayers' money. Bennett said over and over again he would not touch Mincome, and it's one of the first things he's gone back on. My husband is retiring this year and I am 62. We will have $400 a month to live on and Vander Zalm (that's the Minister of Human Resources) says all or nothing at all, so instead of assisting us with $130 a month he's now going to pay us $530, because we're going to cash in our shares and blow the works. He will be paying us $4,800 more per year, for life, than if he had left us alone.

"I am surprised that... (and the expletive is deleted) individual has enough sense to put his tulip bulbs in right side up. He doesn't want people building estates on Mincome, but if you don't think buying a house a few years ago for $20,000 and have it now worth $65,000, or more, is not building up an estate, I don't know what it is. His Mincome costs are going to zoom sky-high, and to think I voted Social Credit. I know many others who are going to do the same thing. Yours truly, Mrs. Elva Johnson."

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, that letter exemplifies the kind of fuzzy economic thinking; anything simplistic appeals to the government over there. They don't realize that by shutting off costs to day-care centres.... In one day-care centre in my riding alone, 20 single mothers will be forced onto welfare, and they will be paying 10 to 11 times the costs they would be to give a little bit of support to the day-care centre, women who now can go out and earn a living, and contribute to the cost of the day-care centre, to relieve the government burden, to fulfil the same promise that you were arguing about during the election campaign — that is, have people make out for themselves and be responsible for themselves. This is forcing them back on to welfare.

Is that the kind of economic thinking you are proposing? What a ridiculous thing for you to suggest. I am sure that you will reconsider on those points.

Who suffers from ICBC rate increases, ferry rate increases? Only the rich can ride now, Mr. Speaker. It reminds me of the stories of the old days when the aristocracy rode through peasant villages in elegant carriages. Now we are forcing the poorest people, the middle-income people, off the roads and highways, not being able to use ferries, so that the rich can ride their big Cadillacs, their Mercedes Benz, their Rolls Royces, driving over the countryside laughing at the poor.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): What colour is your Mercedes?

HON. MR. MAIR: You are the only member with a Mercedes.

MR. LAUK: Well, let's put it in perspective. Some of the members are questioning my use of terms, and I know it's harsh. But you know, when it comes down to the bottom line in economics, that's exactly what it means. Take care of the people who can afford it. But what do you say to the person who can't afford it? "You walk. You walk."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Hon. Premier withdraw the word hypocrite.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): If the member thinks it's offensive that I call him a hypocrite for driving a Mercedes Benz, I withdraw the remark.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Premier for that unconditional withdrawal. (Laughter.) I do drive a Mercedes Benz.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is this coming off my time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must press on, then. I should tell you this: they say about socialists not having a good business instinct; well, let me describe to you my personal history.

In 1966 I bought a Mercedes Benz for $8,000. It is now worth, I am told, $8,000. It's over 10 years old, it gets good mileage, and they call me a hypocrite? No, Mr. Speaker, that's not so — good business sense.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised in reading the budget

[ Page 334 ]

speech that they did not back-slide and ask for our forgiveness, especially the Minister of Economic Development — and I hesitate to call his attention to my speech once again, operating on the old empty-vessel theory. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed to see after the election that they refused $117 million of federal money in the railway agreement. They left it on the table. Mr. Speaker, these people left that money on the table all because the Premier — who was not then the Premier — during the election campaign said to himself: "Oh, I can't let them have this kind of an announcement in the middle of an election. I've got to say the agreement's bad." They have not come up with one reason why the agreement's bad. It's an excellent agreement for British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's an absolute falsehood, and you know it.

MR. LAUK: I heard the minister interviewed on CBC radio and every time the interviewer said "well, what's wrong with the agreement?", he said: "I don't want to prejudice negotiations with Ottawa." The interviewer said: "What negotiations? I didn't think there were any". He said: "Oh, well, there will be."

You know, Mr. Speaker, prejudice what negotiations? The agreement is a good agreement. You know it, Mr. Minister, and you are going to sign that agreement....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: This man has no respect for the rules.

Mr. Speaker, that agreement was a good agreement for the economic development of this province. Everyone says so, and let me tell you something else — $117 million down the drain because I know from my sources in Ottawa — are you ready for this? — they want to pull out of that agreement because they know they don't want to give that $117 million. You sign that agreement now, Mr. Minister, and you won't miss the boat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to sell B.C. down the drain?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Columbia River?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, that agreement would lead to the great economic development of the northwest and the northeast of this province.

So we gave running rights to the CNR. What are we, a sovereign country unto our own? No, we gave the CNR running rights and we have originating rates for traffic from the northeast on the great British Columbia Railway and that evens itself out. In addition, we get $117 million to the provincial coffers. This minister, because he's been browbeaten by the Premier, told what to say, told what to do, is turning his back on the people of his own constituency and delaying the development of the northeast and northwest for a crass political reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd do that for $150 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the decision was just political and the Premier is opposed to the agreement simply because he got his fingers pinched in someone's briefcase. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Ouch!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: He's saving face on our time instead of his own. That agreement, Mr. Speaker, must be accepted, and must be signed, and it must be now or the federal government may pull out.

Now what about the economy, Mr. Speaker? We've heard so much about the....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I do a one-man act, if you don't mind.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that was unkind. Oh, the member for North Okanagan, after all we've.... Oh, I am speechless. (Laughter.) It's almost a Pavlov dog situation in here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the Clarkson, Gordon report, do you know we've heard so much about that and its review of the finances of this province. I think that my colleagues have sufficiently shot that one down.

You know, that report started to be prepared by the bagman accountant who was taken off the case, the bagman accountant by his own admission, a bagman for the Social Credit Party, and he was appointed by that government to do an audit. The Premier said "audit" — now we know it's a "review" of the figures that were provided to him by the Premier and the cabinet.

The other day when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was talking about the economy, he was referring to one of our own in-service documents from the Department of Economic Development, an absolutely first-class

[ Page 335 ]

organization, which I established myself. (Laughter.) There were people involved in that organization, the best economic advisers we could find in the country — and I know the minister's going to keep them all — who prepared an independent, unbiased view of the economy, and they said things were fine.

But what did the Premier do when the member for Nanaimo was talking? He waves a copy of the DREE report. Have you read it?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The DREE report says that we're not doing so well. You ask them what evidence they have. None. Do you know who said that our statistics division — now in your department, Mr. Minister — is one of the best in the country? Mrs. Ostry of Canadian statistics. These are the people that put together....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I advise the speaker he has one minute left of his speech?

MR. LAUK: I'm much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I've got about three hours to go here but I'm sure there'll be another opportunity. There are many more points that have to be made on this budget. I may have to propose an amendment. Have you got one ready? (Laughter.)

Well, Mr. Speaker, the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Now Mrs. Ostry said we have a good statistics branch. In that report they said: "British Columbia's economy has withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth is estimated at 16 per cent." That was a major factor contributing to an anticipated 10 per cent growth in the gross provincial product.

The wholesale price index was up only 7-point-some per cent compared to the dramatic 22 per cent increase in 1974, but still up. Do you know why the wholesale price was down in 1975? It was the price freeze — this little NDP government sticking up for the little people, the consumers of this province.

What does the new Consumer Services minister say? Do you know what he says?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He withdrew the price freeze and kicked them in the rear. That's all that consumers need. He said: "Kick them in the rear."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. member kindly conclude at his convenience, please?

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: At your convenience.

MR. LAUK: Concluding briefly, Mr. Speaker.... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If I could leap forward to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you do it in say, about 10 seconds, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Ten seconds you are.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to the right-wing coalition that triumph and defeat — I want you to get this now — triumph and defeat are but imposters. Remember that no matter what side of the House you're sitting, there is a game of musical chairs that we don't play, Mr. Speaker. The people play. You've embarked upon a very ugly course in this budget that will leave a bad taste in the mouths of British Columbia voters and taxpayers for a long time to come.

MS. BROWN: Revenge.

MR. LAUK: It's a revenge budget, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I was not permitted, before I received....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down.

MR. LAUK: I'll sit down, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: These are your rules. Remember that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, thank you for drawing the time to my attention. I will sit down but I would like to just say one thing.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. member would tax the chair, if you did that. Would you please rise another time?

MR. LAUK: You're a very patient man and I

[ Page 336 ]

thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again...

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy, Jim!

MR. CHABOT: ...a pleasure to take my place in the new parliament, the 31st parliament of British Columbia. I want first of all to express my appreciation for the confidence of the electorate from Columbia River who have sent me to Victoria on five occasions. I'm happy to have the opportunity of continuing to serve them in their best interests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your elevation to the high office of Speakership of the Legislature. Your role is that of a mediator, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you won't encounter too much difficulty from the member for Columbia River.

MRS. JORDAN: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: The member for Columbia River has always adhered to the rules...

AN HON. MEMBER: Your rules.

MR. CHABOT: ...and has never had any difficulty with Speakers (laughter) who have shown impartiality in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the act we've just witnessed in this assembly from...

MR. LAUK: Order!

MR. CHABOT: ...the former Minister of Economic Development is indeed difficult to follow. He's a natural born actor. He's all wind and no action. We witnessed that when he had the responsibility of administering the portfolio of Economic Development. Every time we attempted to elicit some information from that minister we were always told that his department was under review.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. CHABOT: Not only was his department under review, but practically the departments of every aspect of government were under review for three and a half years. He was a review. He was not a government governing for people. He was a government reviewing the books and doing nothing.

That minister, that member and former minister, has the gall to stand in this House and suggest that the price of propane and electricity is going up in this province, when they've increased the price of propane and electricity at record levels!

MR. LAUK: We froze them.

MR. CHABOT: In a three-and-a-half year period never in the history of British Columbia has propane increased to the proportion it increased in 1974. It more than doubled in 1974. When I approached the Energy Commission set up by that group when they were government, and ministers of the Crown as well, they told me their hands were tied, there was nothing they could do, the people would have to take it, and the price of propane was doubled. That minister, that former minister over there, has the gall to stand in this House and complain about a slight increase in the price of propane. What gall, Mr. Speaker, from a former minister of the Crown!

MR. LEA: Well, so are you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which former minister?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't be jealous.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that former minister and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), attempts to set himself up as an expert in the management of government. He was probably an example as the most inefficient administrator in government in the history of this province. He talked about the B.C. Railway and the potential management of a man who has given 20 years of his life in service to the province of British Columbia, who has established the most comprehensive and most sought-after forestry policy ever seen in any nation, Mr. Ray Williston. That former minister has the gall to attack the man that is sought by all governments throughout the world. No, I hope that Ray Williston will become the head of the B.C. Railway. Maybe we'll get some efficiency there.

I recall very clearly when the first member for Vancouver Centre was a director of the B.C. Railway, Mr. Speaker. Oh, he was in charge of the new railway car plant that was established in the community of Squamish.

Oh, you know, they had the gall to talk about the overrun on the Columbia River Treaty. Oh, yes, massive overrun. You know, 33 per cent overrun over a 10-year period. Well, they built a railcar plant that took about three years to build — two years longer than projected — and would you believe that the overrun during that period of construction was 85 per cent? Eighty-five per cent overrun. And those people have stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, time after time, so many times, and have given the same

[ Page 337 ]

speeches since '63, that I can remember, that I could almost recite them verbatim myself. How ridiculous to criticize the Columbia River overrun of 33 per cent in a 10-year period, approximately 3 per cent per year, and then an 85 per cent over a short-term construction of a railway car plant in the community of Squamish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How many cars?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, yes, I recall when the first car came off the assembly line — the minister made an announcement in the Legislature just about two weeks before. Oh, he gave us a projection and the difficulties they were having with the new railcar plant. Oh, they were having serious difficulties; it will be about two to three months before the first car rolls off — even though they're already 18 months behind. Then, lo and behold, we have to read in the Vancouver Province a press report in which the first car came off the assembly line in Squamish about two and a half months before the minister and the director of the B.C. Railway had indicated in this House would take place. So as he reads the newspaper report in the Province, the minister is quite amazed. He's sitting back here, you know, as chirpy as he usually is and....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: No. You know, if that makes you feel indignant, Mr. Member, I certainly withdraw that. I won't be abusive; I'll leave that to you to hurl insults and libelous statements against individuals in this House where they have no right of recourse, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement that I have made libelous statements. I did not libel anyone in my speech in this House this afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This afternoon? What about yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, on your point of order: I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Columbia River, and as I recall them, and Hansard will show the exact words, he said: "I'll not make libelous statements; I'll leave that to you." He didn't infer that you had made a libelous statement at any time during your speech, as I recall.

MR. LAUK: I took the inference, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the hon. member did not mean to imply it, but if he did, could he withdraw?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're guilty if you must protest.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member implied or inferred that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre made libelous statements in the House, would he withdraw it?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I would withdraw if the member feels offended by anything I might say. I'm always willing to advocate to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this afternoon I listened to the most despicable, vicious and unwarranted attack against a British Columbian that I've ever witnessed in this House. This was an attack against a man who served his province well in 16 years as Attorney-General, and that man is Robert Bonner — a man who has the capabilities of being the chief executive officer of the B.C. Railway.

Mr. Speaker, this is a personal attack which is not warranted in this House. This is the kind of attack that this member has a habit of giving in this House, the kind of attack that he doesn't dare repeat outside this chamber where he has immunity.

No, Mr. Speaker, I challenge that member to repeat those statements outside this House. He'll find out whether those statements are libelous or not.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You don't dare. Mr. Speaker, that member doesn't dare to repeat those statements outside. He has the gall to question the ability of a man who served very well as Attorney-General of this province, who served very well as chief executive office of one of the largest forest complexes in the Commonwealth. Then he challenges his ability, his integrity to lead the B.C. Hydro, yet we know who he followed in that position. He followed a man who had no qualifications whatsoever. The only qualifications he had, Mr. Speaker, and I listened very attentively to the member on television the other night, and he couldn't even give us the credentials or the reasons why Jimmy Rhodes qualified to be the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what the qualifications of Jimmy Rhodes were to be the chairman of B.C. Hydro....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you on a point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. CHABOT: Gee, he's touchy.

[ Page 338 ]

MR. LAUK: If the hon. member will guarantee me that Mr. Bonner will serve the same length of time as Mr. Rhodes, I'll withdraw my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's no point of order, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chirpy!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the only qualifications that I've been able to establish that Mr. Rhodes had to become the chairman of B.C. Hydro were that he once was a room-mate of Dave Barrett when he was a member of the Legislature, he was a socialist, and he was a friend of the government. That's the only qualifications he had.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vicious attack!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Bonner brings ample qualifications to his role as chairman of the B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and some of the statements he had to say regarding the job-security budget of March 14, 1975. He was then Minister of Economic Development. He said: "It seems to me that the opposition party has failed to comprehend the thrust and the dynamic nature of this budget."

Well, we've got the evidence of the dynamic thrust of that budget, Mr. Speaker. Labelled as a "job-security budget" by the former Minister of Finance and Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett), never in the history of this province have we ever witnessed the degree of unemployment that we had in the year 1975. That cliché "job security" wasn't borne out by the facts about the high rate of unemployment we had in this province — the highest in the history of British Columbia.

Oh no, the job-security budget didn't make provisions to alleviate the punitive tax measures that they had imposed against the mining industry of British Columbia so that people would have an opportunity of being gainfully employed again. They virtually shut down the exploration in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. They shut it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. MAIR: Stay and listen, Gary, you might learn something.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, the member for Vancouver Centre runs. He can't take the heat.

MR. LAUK: I'm staying right here.

MR. CHABOT: We know what happened in the mining industry. We know the constant threats they made against the forest industry that resulted in no expansion whatsoever in the last three and a half years.

The government was busy, Mr. Speaker, busy in wasting the taxpayers' money. The Minister of Economic Development, rather than initiating new policies that would create employment for British Columbians, was busy trying to spend money by acquiring land at inflated prices and unrealistic prices to establish industrial park sites in the province.

I'm not going to take all the time to reveal the facts of the purchase of the old Molson hop farm just east of Kamloops. I don't blame those people who sold the land to the Government of British Columbia, but I blame the minister for having paid extravagant and excessive prices for that land. What a waste of millions of dollars unnecessarily by that minister who has the gall to stand in this House and attempt to lecture the government on its priorities!

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell them about the Highland Valley, too, Jim.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively as well yesterday to members of the opposition when they talked about the other provincial governments that have deficit financing. They suggested that — virtually suggested — that this is the route we should go in British Columbia. They set the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Quebec as beacons to be watched, as directions to be followed. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I wouldn't want to be a part of a government that believes in deficit financing. I believe that this government is taking the right route by going on a pay-as-you-go basis. Mr. Speaker, this budget is a document of fiscal responsibility...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: ...and political reality. It is a sharp contrast to what we've witnessed in the last three and a half years, the kind of fiscal irresponsibility and political immaturity that was given to us over three and a half years. This is a government that recognizes the greatest need in this province and they have directed the greatest allocation of funds to the areas of human needs. The three major areas of the human needs have received the greatest increase in allocation of dollars. They are health, human resources and education.

It's clearly spelled out, Mr. Speaker, that the expenditures for health are to increase by 20.5 per cent to $871 million dollars, to take up 25 per cent of the entire budget. It clearly indicates the government's priorities: education, the second-largest

[ Page 339 ]

government expenditure, $846 million overall increase, almost 11 per cent over last year's allocation for education. The increase is caused primarily by increase in the quality of education and the additional costs in the quality of education in the province and not by the growth and student enrolment in our schools which have stabilized over the last several years.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, inflation has had a bearing. Inflation has certainly had a bearing. But student enrolment is a minor factor as far as increased costs in allocation for education are concerned. Public school enrolment has increased by only 31 per cent since 1965 and yet we look at the budget for education in that same period of time and it has increased six fold from $141 million to $846 million today. The allocation for education in this budget is almost double the entire 1965 budget for the province of $488 million.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): What is it?

MR. CHABOT: The allocation this year? It is $846 million.

MRS. DAILLY: What hasn't gone up?

MR. CHABOT: So it has gone up six fold since 1965 and yet student enrolment has increased only by 31 per cent. So there is a vast difference there. So the priorities are right. The money is being directed towards people needs, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to speak very briefly about that other area, and it is unfortunate the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not here at this time because I....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no, that's the $100 million loss, Madam, the clerical error, Madam.

We witness, Mr. Speaker, a massive increase, over 22 per cent and approximately $100 million more for the needy in this province in this budget. It is a true reflection of the government's concern for the needy. There's no doubt about that, when the largest percentage increase is in human resources. It clearly reflects the government's concern.

We see the provision of a guaranteed income for those between the ages of 55 and 59, again a reflection of this government's priorities. This is an innovative move that has no parallel anywhere in this country. We see that there has been increased allocation for Pharmacare by 20 per cent to $24 million, an increase of $4 million.

That brings me back to the last provincial election which I want to talk about very briefly. I want to talk about Pharmacare and Mincome as it relates to statements being made during the last election. Oh, I remember listening on television, reading in the newspapers, listening on the radio and reading the socialist ads in the paper. "We have strong leadership." Where is that strong leadership today? Where is that strong leadership today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Parachuting in Vancouver East.

MR. CHABOT: But they threatened the senior citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker, with the possibility that if they didn't vote socialist their Pharmacare might disappear, and their Mincome was liable to disappear. That's what they told the people of the province. Yet we see the massive increase here for Pharmacare — a 20 per cent increase from $20 million to $24 million and an expansion to a lesser age for Mincome for those people in need. What's wrong with that? If we're financially able to help those people that need help why shouldn't we help them out?

One of the areas that I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, with the Department of Human Resources is that since 1971 there has been a massive staff increase in that department. It has increased from 1971 to today from 780 employees to 3,100.

You know, you might almost describe that as wall-to-wall social workers — wall-to-wall social workers, social workers all over the province. I'm not going to suggest for a moment that there wasn't a need for expansion of staff within that department as new programmes were initiated; certainly there was a need. But this appears to be a colossal, colossal, unnecessary increase in the staff of that department. I think....

AN HON. MEMBER: Quadrupled!

MR. CHABOT: I would like, and I hope the minister...or somebody will take to the minister that I believe that there is a need for a close examination of the staffing, which appears to be excessive within his department.

I'll give an example of this. Back four years ago in my own constituency we were serviced at the northern end of my riding by a social worker coming to the community of Golden to service Golden and surrounding area. He would come in for one or two days a week. The community of Invermere and surrounding district was serviced by a social worker coming in from Cranbrook one or two days a week.

Now we find that in the community of Golden we have two full-time social workers plus backup staff. In the community of Invermere — a community with

[ Page 340 ]

a population of 1,350 — we have two full-time social workers with backup staff. I am suggesting that the staff and the number of social workers within my constituency is excessive. I'm not suggesting we go back to the days of part-time social worker services within my constituency, but certainly two social workers for a community of 1,300 is excessive along with the clerical help. I think that should be re-examined.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1,300.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a community of 1,300 people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. CHABOT: Invermere.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the whole riding.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sure that the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) will strongly support the allocation in this department because there is an increase of approximately $100 million more for people that need help in this province.

You know, when we talk about $100 million more it has to remind me of the clerical error of $100 million. (Laughter.) When the minister couldn't find that additional $100 million he had spent he ran to the Premier and he says: "What do we say now?" So the Premier said: "Oh, well, we'll blame a clerk. We'll call it a clerical error." But I assure you that that had a great bearing on the downfall of your government — the laxity and the lack of respect which you had for the taxpayers' money.

I want to tell the Minister of Human Resources that I have personal admiration for him in the job he is doing here in British Columbia, and I want to assure him that he has strong support within my constituency as well.

Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that you do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

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

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31,1977, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on March 30, 1976, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution reads that: from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1 billion 222 million towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, I assume we'll be receiving a supply bill now.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go

[ Page 341 ]

into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 30th day of March, 1976, be now taken as read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1.222 billion towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, not otherwise provided for, and being substantially 1/3 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, No. 1, 1976

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, a bill intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1976.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, can we ask for a five-minute recess while we circulate the bill at this time?

Leave granted.

The House took recess at 4:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:36 p.m.

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

Motion approved.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm just concerned to establish in my own mind the order of procedure at this stage. The bill has been introduced, if I understand it rightly, and has had first reading?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. GIBSON: No? Okay, fine. Thank you.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Motion approved. Bill 10 introduced and read a first time.

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

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I'm speaking to the second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 342 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition yield the floor for a point of order? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I recognized the Leader of the Opposition before I saw you rise to your feet.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a very brief point of order. Since we're passing from one stage of the bill to another on the same day, wouldn't it be proper to ask leave to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance has moved second reading of the bill without comment, and this is a considerable sum that we're debating here: one-third of the total estimates for the year. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would be prepared to elucidate somewhat and explain to the House precisely why he feels it is necessary to seek interim supply on the basis of such a large amount.

We are facing, in the debate over the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker, consideration of the estimates of each department and it seems to me that although the opposition recognizes there certainly is a need to keep the business of government operating in the interim, the interim supply is an emergency step and one that should not embody greater amounts than are absolutely essential. I wonder what the government's thoughts are in anticipation of the length of this session when they are moved to ask for such an extremely large amount.

I would expect, too, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance would be prepared to outline somewhat more precisely the kind of obligations to meet the public service requirements that justify an expenditure of this amount. Is it the main wages that are the concern of the government at this point? Is it the salaries, and so on?

I would seek assurance from the minister that nothing is contained in interim supply which relates other than to the administrative functions of each department and the projected estimates that we have before us for consideration shortly.

I haven't had a chance to study the estimates thoroughly, and I don't believe any other member of the House has. Indeed, they will be up for item-by-item consideration. Therefore it seems to me that when we're looking at such a large amount we need some assurance and some explanation that there is nothing contained in the estimates that goes beyond the sphere of the normal procedures in interim supply which relate to wages, which relate to administration, rather than to any new programmes that may be embodied in the estimates which the House has not, as yet, had an opportunity to peruse at length and to discuss and to debate in the Legislature.

I would hate to be placed in the position of giving any type of tacit approval to new programmes which the members of the House have not, as yet, had an opportunity to consider and debate under the estimates of the various departments.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are entitled to it, and the Minister of Finance owes the House some greater detailed explanation before simply standing in his place and moving second reading of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: I will be brief with this statement, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would appreciate it if the minister would, on the closing of second reading, advise us why he has seen fit to ask for one-third of the year's supply instead of one-sixth, which was the bill introduced at this time last year, on March 26, 1975.

I would also like to suggest to him.... I think the second reading is not the proper stage, but I would wish to ask him in committee — just in case he wishes to have his deputy handy, which I hope he would have — before we vote this sort of money I think it proper that this House should know the current financial situation of the province, and therefore I would be asking the minister: what is the current cash balance of the province, and what are the current bank or other obligations that might have to be eliminated by March 31?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Completely relevant, Mr. Premier, completely relevant to this question. We have to know if indeed one-third supply for one-third of the year is sufficient, or if there are other obligations that may have to be wiped out in other ways. We can't assume in the passage of this bill that any other legislation before this House may be passed. Therefore, as it seems to me proper, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), how much cash he has on hand, and what the loans are. I would hope he would know that anyway. It is just a simple matter of information for the House.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the intention of the official opposition to unduly delay the passage of this bill. We recognize the importance of providing for interim supply. The concern has already been expressed at the amount being sought.

I noticed in an interjection the hon. Premier has said that last year the government had to do it twice.

[ Page 343 ]

But at least, Mr. Speaker, in doing it twice, in coming forward at approximately this date last year with the smaller request, it did give some opportunity for every member in the House to debate some of the estimates at least, to get some idea as to just what the government was doing, and to get that additional assurance as to the direction of the spending programmes of the government.

But today we are offered a bill; we are asked to accept the bill. As I said earlier, we are not going to hold it up long and we will support the bill. Nevertheless, we think it's a bit unusual to, at this date, at the first time of asking and before we have just barely started debate of the budget speech itself — the budget speech itself, of course, was delayed in coming; we received it just a few days before the end of the month....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps interjecting, and if he is going to interject, then I will have to be speaking longer. But I would remind him that his government had some three months, over three months, to prepare for this session. I would also remind him that the previous administration within four weeks of the date of the election called the House into session and passed a couple of important pieces of legislation.

We were much quicker off the mark in getting going in managing the affairs of the province. We were prepared to govern when we won the election; we were not content to sit back for over three months and criticize the actions of a previous administration.

Now I realize I'm out of order but, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from being out of order if the Premier will refrain from interjections, which are also out of order and have nothing to do with the legislation before us.

We are disappointed that the budget came down so late that there was no opportunity to discuss it — or little opportunity to discuss it in the House. We are disappointed that the amount being sought is one-third of the total budget, which we have to assume is to cover four months. It would appear as though the government anticipates a long session — and we are quite prepared to sit here for a long time if that is the case — to conduct the affairs of what he described yesterday as the most important organization in the province of British Columbia. We are prepared to do all that.

But we would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government would realize that it not only has the opportunity to do things in this province; it has some responsibility to govern properly, to work cooperatively with all the members in the House in the hope of proceeding with the people's business — as we should do in this House; that's what we were sent here for. We want to cooperate, but, Mr. Speaker, it becomes difficult to cooperate when the Premier, and the Minister of Finance in this case, act in this way — without any warning, without any consultation — and come in with a bill asking for one-third of supply one day after we have started debating the budget speech.

Now, certainly, in supporting this bill — as I have said, the official opposition will support this bill — and in supporting it that doesn't mean that we endorse the spending programmes or that we endorse the revenue-raising programmes. I gave some indication yesterday as to my feelings about some of these programmes. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, others who will be speaking in the budget debate from the official opposition will continue to express our concerns, our reservations, about the spending and about the revenue-raising programmes of the government. Certainly when we get into estimates there will be a detailed examination of what the government proposes and what the government will be doing. There will be all of that.

So I just assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in accepting this legislation, recognizing the importance of it, we have these reservations. We will support it, but it certainly in no way at all indicates what our attitude will be from here on with respect to the examination and the questioning. We hope when we raise these questions, when we raise these arguments, that there will be an honest effort on the part of the government to answer our questions, to answer our arguments and to give the people of the province of British Columbia the information they should have.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from Nanaimo. We are quite concerned that such a large portion of supply is asked for at this time. Four months — it's an unusual amount as opposed to what you usually ask for, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will explain. One of the main reasons I rose in this, and it's on a related matter....

Oh, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, as I recall in years gone by, this particular interim supply bill is not usually called until some time early in April because, as most of us know, the money isn't needed until the second week in April, certainly beyond April 6 in any event. In talking with my colleague from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), the government Whip, he indicated that he would very much like to see such a bill go through, and I gave him an undertaking that our people would not oppose an interim supply bill as we normally do. However, also when talking to that member, I found that he has likely become somewhat confused and has made an honest mistake. I found that having phoned my constituency a few moments ago, the constituency people said that they heard a report that I had given some kind of an undertaking

[ Page 344 ]

on another bill that is somewhat related.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make something very clear while standing on my feet, because the two bills were very closely related. Shall we do this or shall we do that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member....

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, in that case I will take my place, having endeavoured to speak to the executive council over there who do not wish to be spoken to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am trying my best to see to it that their member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who is trying his best not to be embarrassed....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on interim supply, I think that it is somewhat early but, at the same time, we indicated that we would go along with passing this bill despite the fact that we have some questions in our minds about this particular bill, interim supply, this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to express the same sentiment as my other colleagues in the official opposition: that we recognize the necessity for interim supply; that we wouldn't wish that the misdeeds of the government be meted out by punishing people; that the need for interim supply for social programmes, for salaries, and for the continuation of government, is something which I do not think that oppositions have ever looked upon as a weapon, and I hope they never do. But I think we would be rather derelict in our duty if we weren't to make some passing comment on the fact that this new government consciously embarked upon a course which is making a mockery of parliamentary procedure, particularly around supply, Mr. Speaker.

They admitted from the outset that they would have to ask for interim supply, that they wouldn't be ready. Then, having embarked upon that course, they embarked upon vacations. The Premier, who should have played a very substantial role.... While he should have been considering supply and the necessity of continuing these programmes, the Premier chose to be out of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that course of debate, I would respectfully suggest to you, has nothing to do with the principle of this bill. It is a bill of interim supply, and I would ask you to stay within the confines of the debate that normally takes place in second reading on this type of a bill.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You've been on a permanent holiday for the last four years.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I am using a very subtle point, Mr. Speaker, which was often engaged upon by the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Smith) in previous parliaments. I am talking about the timing and the necessity and also the duration of this interim supply, because it is unusual, Mr. Speaker, that this be one-third of a year. I think it is more often expected — and certainly this came as a surprise I think to all opposition members — that rather than ask for the normal, which is one-quarter of a year — that being three months — they have asked for one-third of a year, which we assume to be four months.

MR. LEA: Ask them if the backbenchers knew it was going to be four months.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't know if the backbenchers knew that, Mr. Speaker...yes, they are nodding. Yes, they did, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: They did, eh?

MR. NICOLSON: They had prior knowledge, Mr. Speaker, of a money bill, of a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and the....

MR. SPEAKER: I must correct you, hon. member. It was not a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again, wrong again!

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Normally, Mr. Speaker, in terms of timing.... Had this government at least come and confided, maybe through the Whips, that they were in some sort of a strait jacket through their mismanagement, if they had thrown themselves upon the fair-mindedness...

[ Page 345 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: ...of the opposition, in the interests of good government, in the interests of continuing the needed services to people that are in these estimates, we might have at least had some introduction. We might at least have been able to look at estimated revenues. We might have been able to question the Minister of Finance concerning the incomes from pari mutuel betting and on what basis he thought that the increase would be from $5.5 million to $6.4 million. Then we might estimate what portion of that he might expect to come in this fiscal year, because being one-third of a year, Mr. Speaker, it would perhaps put us into the racing season for which the Attorney-General is well attired. So we might also have asked some questions about the social service tax and get some estimates of what portion of this would be realized in this first third of the fiscal year, starting April 1.

We might have been able to make some inquiries about interest, discounts, premium of exchange, miscellaneous interest incomes, and other types of revenues.

We could have looked at some of the summarized lists of expenditures. There might have been some notion of what the general intention was. While we might not have had time to get into the complete estimates, we might at least have been through a few ministers' estimates, had they been really genuine in their concern.

It really is remarkable that they set an estimate — they did set one estimate — that they would not be able to start the session until almost the last minute, and that they would come into this House and as the very first thing, without ever having discussed the estimates in general, without this House ever having sat in committee, not having sat in committee for 10 days, not having sat in committee for one day, not for one sitting, not for one hour, not for one minute, for one second, in the general Committee of Supply, not for one millisecond, not for one terasecond, not for one microsecond or picosecond or gigasecond, Mr. Member, being 10 to the negative 18 seconds, not even having given that little instant of consideration, we are being prevailed upon to be fair-minded, to be nice guys and let this go through.

You know, this is a very callous use of the concern which all members in this House should feel for the continuation of orderly good government. It does press, Mr. Speaker, very hard, and I hope that they realize this and that this is not going to be the pattern of this government, that next year they'll call the Legislature together early, call us together in January or February, so that we can have a proper throne speech, so that we can have a proper budget speech, and so we can have proper debate of estimates. If it is necessary then to have supply, well, of course, Mr. Speaker, we would grant that as any good, reasonable opposition has done in the past and will do in the future.

To have the Minister of Finance come in here and without even an introduction, without any introductory remarks, expecting us to just pass this pro forma without any type of.... Now the Minister of Agriculture — you know, there would be many questions.

We want to see the Mincome plan is not eroded. Now are we allowing some erosion? Are we giving blessing to something that's a blank cheque for the government, in good faith and in the interest of the necessity for interim supply and the continuation of programmes? The continuation of legislation concerned with legislation, members, responsibilities of the Speaker's office, Mr. Speaker, without any debate, without any indication about the executive council.... I remember a phrase. I think you might even recall it too, Mr. Speaker: "Not a dime without debate."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. NICOLSON: I think the hon. Premier said that, Mr. Member. That was one of his very good little catch-phrases.

You know that here normally, Mr. Speaker, the estimates would have been somewhat debated at this time of the year when the B.C. Teachers Federation is meeting in Vancouver, their annual convention.

These people might have some idea of some of the details that would come out in this in terms of the debate which is solicited and the questions which are solicited by opposition members of the minister and his backup people. But they won't hear anything, Mr. Speaker, because of this conscious decision to just completely ignore the pro-forma accepted practice of at least getting into the estimates before asking.... This is an unprecedented move, Mr. Speaker. When has a parliament — when has a Legislature — when has a Legislature of British Columbia come in and as a very first act in terms of estimates asked for interim supply?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

MR. NICOLSON: When has that happened?

HON. MR. BENNETT: How many winter elections have we had?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, now the Premier is referring to a winter election which took place last December 11. The argument....

Interjections.

[ Page 346 ]

MR. NICOLSON: The argument for the necessity to seek interim supply seems to hinge upon that. Yet that person who constantly prods and tells and tugs at the Minister of Finance, who leads him down the halls into green pastures, that person who wields so much influence over the Minister of Finance, who has to guide him and help him, he left him. He left him leaderless and he went off to pastures and balmy southern climes. Yet we could have avoided this....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you please get back to the principle of the bill?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I am getting to that point as you might have recalled certain persons doing this. Now the amount of this, Mr. Speaker, we might have.... Is the $1.222 billion precisely one-third of the amount that is in...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your government wasted more than that.

MR. NICOLSON: ...this particular, that are in the full estimates, or has it been rounded off? Why has it been rounded off? What are they trying to hide, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. NICOLSON: Cover-up! I'm sure there was perhaps some logical explanation, but none was forthcoming. I think it's a very presumptuous minister who gets up in this House, seeks to set precedent and doesn't say one word about the nature of the bill. Well, you should have said it.

But then, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, had you said it at first, we could have perhaps reacted to what you said. Now you want to sum up. You want us to sit down so you can sum up. But we have to anticipate what you might have said had you said something at the first opportunity. You're choosing perhaps....

MR. LEA: The Premier wouldn't let him.

MR. NICOLSON: I know the Premier has had discussions with the minister today and perhaps he's told him that he can't do that.

MR. LEA: You have to let the kid go sometime, though. He has to go on his own sometime.

MR. NICOLSON: The bill says that "no sum out of this supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose other than those provided in the main estimates, or in excess of the estimate of the expenditures therein and the due application of all moneys expended under the authority of this Act shall be accounted for to Her Majesty."

Now Mr. Speaker, what they are asking is that they be allowed on each part of the estimates to spend up to one-third of the amount that appears in these estimates over the next one-third of a year, give or take any little discrepancies which might result from leap years and various other things.

Mr. Speaker, does that mean that on the student aid programme, which is going to take place in the summer — it isn't going to take place in one-third of a year in equal one-thirds; the student aid programme takes place in a lump in the summer — are we only going to give one-third to the student aid programme? Is this an announcement that the student aid programme is cut to one-third?

If it is, Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked, I'm disappointed and I am most annoyed and angered at such a thoughtless treasury bench that finds time to go out at the people's expense, but they don't find time to do the work — to prepare the budget in time which they could have prepared in time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this unnecessary delay and for having to trade upon the will of the opposition and risking the good interest of the people in this province is that they didn't do their job. They made a conscious decision and it comes down in pieces of legislation that have been brought forward. And the big myth — the myth, Mr. Speaker — is that things were supposed to be in a financial mess, that they couldn't get things together fast enough, They had to untangle things.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a political action. I hate to say it. The necessity for bringing an interim supply in such a high-handed cavalier manner is purely political and I'm shocked. I'm shocked to see that they would stoop to such a level.

I'm not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that they would do this on an ordinary bill that they might bring before the House. I'm not shocked that they would do this by some press announcement such as: "Where British Columbia stands." I'm not shocked that they would do this by issuing announcements and bringing in legislation or things that might be said in the throne speech or the budget speech, Mr. Speaker.

But in interim supply, something that is a last-ditch measure of a disorganized government that's out of control, Mr. Speaker...out of control! Leaderless!

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: And it's lieutenant-less, it's colonel-less! Mr. Speaker, all it's got is a bunch of privates over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MR. NICOLSON: And that is why they're trying

[ Page 347 ]

to bring in this interim supply which is going to jeopardize the students' summer employment programme, which is going to reduce it, perhaps, to one-third, maybe to twenty-two thirty-seconds. Maybe it's going to reduce it to pi multiplied by 14 per cent. (Laughter.) We don't know that, Mr. Speaker, and it was brought in at such a late hour that we won't be able to find out. No, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason.

What's going to happen with the metric conversion programme? Mr. Speaker, we are converting....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've allowed you to speed all over the skating rink this afternoon in this debate, but the metric conversion, please, has very little to do with the principle....

MR. NICOLSON: I'm referring to vote 46 under the Department of Education — metric conversion. Last year $102,468 and this year it's way up — thump your desks, members. It's way up to $119,972. Mr. Speaker, that's almost up 8 per cent.

MR. LEA: And that's no yardstick. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do with this metric conversion programme? Are we going to convert the inch, instead of to 2.56 centimeters...are we only going to take it one-third of the way? Is it going to be less than a whole centimeter, Mr. Speaker?

You know, these are the types of things that I hope never happen in this province again. Never again!

We have seen them make a mockery of estimates, of budget. We have seen them get up, call us in the evening, let us sit for three-quarters of an hour in order to cut down the debate time by three hours or four hours or five hours in the throne speech...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: ...and now they're making a mockery of education....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would you please return to the principle of the bill, which is to grant certain sums of money?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, yes, Mr. Speaker. The concerns of course, go on and on. You know, what is the timing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Unfit.

MR. NICOLSON: What is the timing, Mr. Speaker, of advancing the homeowner grants? Does that happen at one time in a year? Can we do that in thirds? Can we send them out...? What kind of administrative problems are going to result from having to send out a third now of some statutory provisions, some benefit which might fall within this fiscal period? Are we going to send out one-third of the cheque and then send out the other two-thirds later? Because these are votes, Mr. Speaker; these are votes. These are people. These are people that we're dealing with and they're people on this side of the House.

I will support this bill for interim supply but that government over there should never again trade on the good will of the people of British Columbia and the members of the opposition.

MR. CHABOT: Not again.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You know, the most important thing that is before us in this bill today is the fact that the government was late bringing in a budget. The government was late calling the session and the government is late bringing in this interim supply bill.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I'm rather suspicious, though, when we're dealing with this bill — and by the good will of this opposition and because we're responsible British Columbians first, we're going to cooperate as best we can — and I can't help but be very suspicious that this has been brought back to back with Bill 3.

I don't know and I don't think that the government's deliberately trying to create confusion in the public's mind, but I am worried about the kind of research that's gone into this bill on the part of the Minister of Finance. Time after time when we've asked him about special warrants — and under the Audit Act, we know that a report of the Minister of Finance to Treasury Board must be made before a special warrant can be issued, a report on why it is of immediate need for the public good — he couldn't answer. Not one of the questions he could answer, and yet he's brought in a very, very important bill asking for one-third of the budget and it seems to me....

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you against it?

MR. LAUK: You know, that's a simple thing to say, a very simple thing for you to say. Mr. Speaker, they're asking for one-third of this budget and as we stand up and question why the government's bringing it in in this sloppy manner, all we get is: "Do you vote against it?" What kind of simplicity is that? The people of Kamloops should know what kind of antics you go through in this House, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, we regard this as a very grave issue indeed. It's the first time in parliamentary history in British Columbia that a supply bill has been brought

[ Page 348 ]

down in the House before estimates have been started in Committee of Supply. That is a very grave thing for this government to do as a first act.

We know that they've had three months to prepare budget estimates. We know that they have not effected the general direction and guidelines set down by budgetary estimates that were planned after we left office, and there they've been playing games. The Premier's down in Palm Desert. Everybody else is off on holidays while we have to sit on our hands and wait for a last minute, death-bed Supply Act to be brought in.

Now we can't.... We are going to vote in favour of this bill, Mr. Speaker. But at the same time, can we let this matter pass, allowing this government to create this kind of confusion by their sloppy antics and particularly the lack of research on the pair of the Minister of Finance?

If he doesn't know even what the warrants were for — and I direct this to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — how do you expect him to know what this bill is for, whether it be for metric conversion or otherwise? He just doesn't know. He hasn't done his research. He's bringing in bills willy-nilly. He delivers vitriolic speeches that probably he didn't write himself and we're going on this roller-coaster with this new minister.

I used to observe the minister when he was chairman of public accounts, and when he used to meet.... I remember the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he was a member of the Liberal party, he used to complain bitterly that the public accounts committee never used to meet. But at least when it met, it was under good chairmanship then, I should say that about the hon. Minister of Finance. He was very, very gracious as a chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we get off public accounts and back to the principle of the bill?

MR. LAUK: A very good point, Mr. Speaker. I think that what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is really make sure that the people of this province understand that this interim supply bill, brought in at the 11th hour, is clearly the fault and the responsibility of the current government.

They had the time. They could have allowed 10 days or so in estimates or more if they called an earlier session. I really can't accept their explanation that they didn't have the time, that they were busy, and so on. It's just not good enough. It's just not good enough.

In passing second reading of this bill, the opposition wants to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we in no way support the budget in its total and that we have much more to say about this kind of a budget brought down that brings such hardship on the lower and middle-income people of this province.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I rise as a new member in this House, and I might otherwise be hesitant to express the confusion I felt recently when all the manoeuvering was going on with committee and the House and back and forth, except for the fact that other members who had been here for many years seemed to feel the same confusion.

Obviously, we were performing in some way that is not a normal method of introducing a bill into this House, and now I find myself, Mr. Speaker, in a position of having a bill in front of me, not at the stage of first reading, but at the stage of second reading, where I am supposed to make a decision on something in excess of $1.222 billion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I came here with some degree of regard for the people who elected me to represent them, some degree of respect for the procedures of this House, some degree of...well, it's a very great degree of respect for procedures.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I sat through these sessions that you conducted relative to the standing orders of this House, and I'm trying to adapt myself to conform to those orders, and now here I find myself in a position where I am going to have to make a decision, a carte blanche decision, as to whether or not the government can have one-third of their total estimates without as much as one word of explanation as to what that's to be used for.

Now it just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that last year I happened to be in the balcony when the previous government brought in an interim supply bill; and the then opposition, Mr. Speaker, raised quite a disturbance about this. It was a much smaller bill, Mr. Speaker, a much smaller amount.

MR. CHABOT: Smaller opposition.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the government at that time had proceeded with one or two of their estimates, already discussed and voted on, and still when the bill came in there was terrific opposition, because they had not discussed enough of the estimates.

Now here we are with a bigger bill, no estimates discussed, and without one word of explanation from the hon. Minister of Finance. I am supposed to make a decision whether or not he can have this amount of money. I would beg of the man — you know I don't really think you are trying to do this to me — but I would beg of the minister to give us some explanation of what it is he needs this money for.

I would ask him to outline, very briefly — it doesn't have to be in any great degree, but for our understanding — why he needs, at this point in time, on March 30, $1.222 billion.

I don't expect him to go into great detail, Mr. Speaker, but surely he can give us some assurance what that money is to be used for. I really feel that

[ Page 349 ]

he is working a hardship on myself, as a new member of this House, to just have this presented to me at 5 o'clock, and at 5:30 I am supposed to pass the bill.

It's not fair, Mr. Speaker, and again I would urge the minister to present us with some information. You know, maybe we can adjourn the House early or something so that he can come back and tell us what it is he is going to do — just an outline of what he proposes.

HON. MR. MAIR: Why don't you let him speak, then?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I don't see him getting out of his seat....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in case you are not aware of it, when the minister gets on his feet to speak, he closes the debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I just want to make sure that when he does close it, and I realize that he will have the last say, and that is as it should be.... But I just feel that I want to be sure that he recognizes my position, and how much I really want to know why he wants this money. I know he needs money to operate this province — and I know he is going to need it probably before all the estimates are passed — but I would like to know why he needs so much money, and why he needs it all right now. Thank you very much.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, introducing this bill at this time is a very clear case of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of that government over there. Now that government, Mr. Speaker, just brought down on Friday last the most bloodthirsty budget this province has ever seen, designed to bleed this province and everyone in it. Then, before we get an opportunity to discuss the budget and talk about it, in comes Bill 10 telling us to approve over a billion dollars for them to go and spend on what — on what?

Is this another of the minister's panic reactions? You know the panic reactions that had him approving all kinds of warrants, which when he was questioned about them, he had to take as notice. Why should we take this bill seriously? We should take this bill as notice, Mr. Minister, and give you an opportunity to check out and see whether you really need it at this time or not.

Question two — why do you need one-third rather than the customary 25 per cent of the budget at this time — why? I know why; I can answer that question for you. It is because you are a bungling, inept and incompetent government; that's why you need it.

You, Mr. Minister, are the person who in your budget address referred to a 40 per cent increase in the sales tax as being an insignificant little social service tax. You are the person who did that, Mr. Minister. Why should we take any piece of legislation that you bring down seriously? Now why should we?

Mr. Speaker, we have not had an opportunity to go in detail through the estimates, but we have had a chance to look at some of them. I have looked at the Department of Agriculture, because I am curious about agriculture, and I find, for example, that there is a very significant decrease in things like the amount of money allotted to special and regulatory service programmes — again, cutting service programmes: Milk Board, et cetera.

How can we approve a budget that has these kinds of cuts in them before we have examined these cuts and have the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is never in his seat when we are trying to speak to him, explain to us what those kinds of cuts are all about?

You're asking us to buy a pig in a poke. You don't understand that — sorry. You're asking us to buy a package without knowing what is actually in the package, Mr. Minister, and I don't think that's fair. In fact, you are taking advantage of the good will of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

How can we face the farmers of this province after approving this kind of cut in their budget without actually knowing what it's all about? How can we do this? How can we face people who are dependent on the Department of Human Resources about allotting one-third of the money to that minister? To do what? Buy shovels! For whom and under what kind of circumstances? Really, Mr. Minister....

MRS. JORDAN: Bulb-planting. (Laughter.)

MS BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bulb-planting.

MS. BROWN: Oh, bulb-planting. Thank you, thank you.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I think, Mr. Minister, that in fact we, the members of the opposition, recognize that you are an inexperienced government, that you are learning, that you are entitled to make some mistakes and that is the only reason why we are going to support this bill.

But I would like to suggest that you not rely on our continued good will. There is a limit to how much time we are prepared to give you to learn the job. Now get on with it.

[ Page 350 ]

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I guess this just goes to prove that if you give that government a centimetre they'll take a kilometre every time — that's the kind of government they are.

Really, Mr. Speaker, as we said at the outset, the official opposition will support this interim supply bill. I believe that some of my colleagues are being just a bit unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: I think that what my colleagues have failed to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that there are people in the present government in cabinet portfolios who have not had even experience in this Legislature before.

I believe that the Minister of Finance has taken that into consideration in asking for one-third of this year's total budget because I would imagine that when we get to the estimates of those new ministers, especially those new ministers who are new to this House, that it is going to take quite some time for them to become accustomed to really what does happen during the estimates of their departments — of their portfolios, those areas under their jurisdiction.

I believe that that amount of time is set out in this bill is probably what it is going to take for the members of the opposition to extract the kind of information that we're going to need to satisfy the people of British Columbia.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): At least you won't be muzzled on time limits.

MR. LEA: Thank you very much. We were concerned about that, but I'm glad that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has told this House that we will not be muzzled, and we will not be muzzled by time limits. Correct? Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be muzzled.

MR. LEA: I saw the motion on the order paper, Mr. Member. We'll get to that when the motion comes to the floor of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: I wish the Speaker would correct that minister for speaking about that motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister was not on his feet; you were.

MR. LEA: Then would you correct him about it without being on his feet, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Are you going to, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Really, Mr. Speaker, the one point that I would like to make is that it is only the good will of the official opposition and also the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Parties that is allowing this bill to go through with limited debate. Because it's obvious that there are 19 members in this House who have not seen this bill before.

When the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was speaking he asked the question: "Have government backbenchers seen this bill?" The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) spoke up and said yes, he had. I would assume....

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign, resign!

MR. VEITCH: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member on a point of order.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I only mentioned that I realized that there were four quarters in a year. It was a mathematical situation that had nothing to do with the — I'm sorry, three quarters in a year — nothing to do with the bill at hand. I did not say that I had seen the bill. You're merely assuming things.

MR. D'ARCY: Three quarters? I'm sure glad you're not figuring out my sales tax.

MR. LEA: I think it was quite clear, Mr. Speaker. When the member for Nelson-Creston said: "Has any member of the government back bench seen this bill before it came into the House?" that member said, "Yes." He didn't mention that there were three quarters in a year. (Laughter.) He didn't mention that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would have commented.

MR. LEA: Yes, I'm sure that this member, who did teach math, would have corrected him on that point had he said that. But it's obvious he didn't.

So it's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are 19 hon. members in this House who have not seen this bill before it came into this Legislature.

The remainder of the people, the remainder of the members did see it. So it is obvious to me that we would probably ask for a bit more time to go over

[ Page 351 ]

this and to discuss among our different caucuses....

MS. BROWN: Caucusi.

MR. LEA: Caucusi? Cacti? (Laughter.)

But obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the official opposition to vote for this bill, because we realize, having been in government, that there are moneys that have to be expended in order to keep the process of government going on. We've said we will; but we also felt it our duty to point out that these moneys should be only for the normal administration of government. I would hope that we get some assurance from the Minister of Finance, when he is concluding, that that is exactly and only what these moneys are going to be used for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR, WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with the good will and the milk of human kindness that overflows from the members opposite. I can't get over how much they are in support of this bill.

I'm very impressed, too, with the fact that the old-timers on the front bench act as though they have never seen a supply bill before. This is probably one of about 50 in the last 50 years that has been presented in this form to allow the governments to pay for supply, starting the first of the coming year. I'll send you across a copy as explanation if you want any further explanation to that.

I can appreciate new members not appreciating or not realizing the complicated terminology in such a bill. But the one question that seems to prevail among all members, which I take to be sincere, is that they would like to know why the amount indicated is one-third of the total year's budget.

A very good question, Mr. Speaker, because, as we all know, this government has the intention of introducing a complete removal of any restrictions on the estimates and the time allowed to debate the estimates. There will be no restrictions on the length of time allowed to debate the estimates. Not a dime will be spent without debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I would appreciate it if you would move to some other matter. There is a motion on the order paper....

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've got rules.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Putting it in other terms, Mr. Speaker, one-third of the year will allow us to debate, without any restrictions, until the end of July. That is the pure and simple reason why the amount was indicated in such a size, because I could appreciate that in former years there has quite often been a smaller amount.

MR. WALLACE: It's going to be a long, hot summer!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the bill very clearly, as is well known by all members present, is to vote supply which will permit the government to pay for payrolls, for materials, for other necessary expenditures staring with the coming year, and there is nothing unusual about it being introduced at this particular time.

I would only say in answer to the question as to why the budget has been so late this year, that it's very obvious, because of the mess that has been left behind for us to look after.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, Supply Act No. 1, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should that not be done by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, look at that. Bulldozer government!

Leave granted.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Section 1 spells out the amount, and the adequacy of the amount of this vote depends in part on the expenditures of the coming year, and in part on where we start out. So my question to the hon. minister is very simple — a fundamental piece of financial information in this province which I would naturally expect that he would maintain on his desk in regular order from day to day, as was the procedure of the previous Minister of Finance at least once or twice removed, when the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett was Minister of Finance.

I know he used to keep this. What is the cash balance of the province as of today, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 352 ]

Just approximately — close enough to $10 million, if you have that — the nearest $10 million.

Could the minister also tell us, because this is important information too, as to obligations that have to be picked up by March 31? Because, of course, on March 31 the government must not be in deficit: what current bank or other sorts of loans are there that must be repaid as of that time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the hon. member, this supply bill deals only with the expenditures for the next year, starting April 1. I would like to say in reply to this question that we have indicated earlier that the answer to that question will be supplied.

MR. GIBSON: Well, what is it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In any event, we have also indicated through a budget speech recently that we are going to supply quarterly financial information to the public of this province, which is a first time ever in the province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the supply of quarterly information is very interesting, but we are being asked to vote on this bill today, not one quarter hence. If the minister will agree to a six-month hoist on the bill, then his quarterly report is fine. But I would like a report for today.

The question is the adequacy of interim supply, and you can only judge the adequacy of interim supply based on the expenditure requirements and based on the starting position. What I want to know is the starting position: how much more do we have in the bank today? Just within the closest $10 million.

Mr. Chairman, I say that any Minister of Finance who can sit in his place in this House and not have somewhere in his head, within the closest $10 million, how much money we have in the bank, and just very, very roughly what we owe in the way of bank loans.... Any Minister of Finance who doesn't know that, it seems to me, isn't fit to be minister. And any minister who wouldn't tell us that isn't fit to be minister either. So I am just asking him to stand up and give us that very elementary, simple information that every Minister of Finance should know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he not going to give us a picture of history today?

MR. GIBSON: Is it because he doesn't know, or because he refuses? That's all I'd want to know.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Nonsense! It's perfectly in order, and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to re-emphasize the need for the Minister of Finance to get up and give some explanation of the province's financial position at this point in time. The opposition, I think, has made some points with respect to the unusually large amount of interim supply which the government is seeking.

Unfortunately, despite our stated intentions of supporting the government's need, the Minister of Finance responds with a political harangue. I think that's unfortunate. Surely, if the government wants the cooperation of this House, and more particularly the Minister of Finance, he will not be continually muzzled by the Premier when questions are asked of him. He seems singularly unwilling, Mr. Chairman, to respond to any question in this House. I find it curious. Perhaps he's been unduly inhibited by attempting to give answers in the hallway and being dragged away physically from those encounters with the press by the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true.

MR. KING: But I don't think the members in the opposition are prepared to let this kind of bill go through without that Minister of Finance leveling with the House and responding intelligently to the questions, the valid questions that are put to him by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and by members in the official opposition side, too.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the Premier could contain himself and quit cackling away like a jack-in-the-box, he could tell his ministers to be somewhat responsible, and that the question period is serious. The questions related to the passage of bills are important. Indeed, that is why you have a minister, so he can answer and justify the needs and the conduct and the administration of his department. That's fundamental, and I think it is about time the ministers on that side started taking this matter seriously, Mr. Chairman.

So I expect an answer to the question put regarding the financial circumstances of the province at the moment, and unless the government is prepared to answer, I certainly have as much time as they do.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): The question is a very interesting one, posed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) and by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson). I am sure that in due course the Minister of Finance will give answers to questions of that kind.

[ Page 353 ]

I rise merely to point out that it is completely irrelevant to section 1 of this bill, and therefore debate on this particular question should not be entertained at this time — the reason being, Mr. Chairman, that whether or not the cash position of the government were $1 or $1 billion, it would still not be possible for the government to spend any money without receiving interim supply which is directly related to the estimate book in front of all the members.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that even though these members are veteran members of the Legislature, they are not really yet familiar with the rules of the House, and discussions of this kind are quite out of order under this section.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I do think that the point the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) was making has been missed by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Now I don't find that as any surprise because the hon. Minister of Education, when he was sitting on this side of the House, would only arrive for debate around 4 o'clock, having arrived on Air West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. We're on section 1 of Bill 10.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Education has said that it's not proper to debate whether or not we have a plus or minus cash position — whether or not we have that report even from the Minister of Finance. He said it's not relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course, it's relevant.

MR. LAUK: You know, the Minister of Education was not around that much during committee, particularly Committee of Supply and committee on bills. He arrived once in a while for public accounts to ask the odd question.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now I don't like to bring these things to his attention again, but I will. If we're to vote on interim supply — and the amounts are set out in section 1 — we've got to know whether or not we should bring in an amendment, because if the Minister of Finance cannot tell us — or does not know — what the cash surplus situation is, then how are we on this side of the House going to know whether we should ask for an increase or a decrease in interim supply?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Nothing to do with it. Not on a bet.

MR. LAUK: It certainly does. You're entitled under your legislation to apply funds to a subsequent year, if they're in surplus.

We also have to know....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You wiped them out, Mr. Minister of Finance. I've seen the budget and the estimates, and you wiped them out by a crass political decision. Don't give me any of that nonsense. They didn't teach you, when you were becoming a C.A., to play with books like that, but your friend over to the left there certainly taught you. So I think it's important that we get an answer from the Minister of Finance about the cash situation in this province here today before this section passes.

MR. LEA: On section 1, Mr. Chairman. Both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance have pointed out that it may not be relevant whether we discuss that under section 1. The fact of the matter is that you've asked the official opposition for good will in this House to get this interim supply bill through, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance. I think we're showing good will and there isn't anything incorrect about the question asked by the hon. Liberal leader. If you have the information I see nothing wrong in sharing that information with the House. Why not do it to show your good will, and we in turn will show you ours. There isn't anything wrong with it, so why not do it? Don't you know the information, or do you have it and you won't give it to us? If it's good will, Mr. Minister, you show us good will; we'll show you good will. Try it.

MS. BROWN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize that you could see me.

We're very understanding on this side of the House, Mr. Minister. We realize that it's not always possible to have all the answers at your fingertips just when you need them, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman. Can I have the minister's attention, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have a little more attention, please, in the House. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Should I start again? Okay.

We are very understanding on this side of the House, Mr. Minister of Finance, and what I was trying to say is that if you have not got the figures which we are asking for at your fingertips — through you, Mr. Chairperson — we are quite prepared to give you five minutes recess to run out and pick up those figures, or 10 minutes, or as long as you need, but I think

[ Page 354 ]

that the question raised by the hon. Leader of the Liberal Party is a very important one, and that we should have those figures before we vote on section 1 of this bill.

MR. KING: I honestly can't believe this that the Minister of Finance is prepared to sit there in his chair completely mute and not respond to the valid questions of the opposition.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I responded earlier.

MR. KING: There was no response. There was the response that you would take the question as notice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I did respond. I can't be held accountable if you don't understand.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He gave you a response.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Premier, if you can counsel your Minister of Finance and make him understand that it is part of his responsibility to have at his disposal and for the disposal of the House figures on the financial status of the province at this moment....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've been in the House long enough....

MR. KING: Well, I've been here longer than the Premier has, and I think it shows in the kind of conduct....

Interjections.

MR. KING: The Premier is still acting like a spoiled boy from Kelowna, and perhaps if he'd rely more on his ministers to protect themselves and answer for themselves, he might one day emerge with a similar image to that of this father.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Keep trying, keep trying!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! We are on section 1.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the interruptions and the hysterical interjections stop, then I'll proceed with the question.

I want to point out and I want to insist, Mr. Chairman, that certainly the opposition is not prepared to grant carte blanche to over $1 billion, over one-third of the budget — or approximately one-third of the budget...

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to reduce it?

MR. KING: ...unless the Minister of Finance is prepared to demonstrate his good faith by responding to a legitimate question put to him.

What are the cash reserves on hand at the moment? Now I can't understand his reticence in replying. On the one hand he's telling us, "oh, we're going to be an open government and we're going to give a financial review every quarter," and here we are with the House in session with an important and a major financial bill before the House, and he's not even prepared to level with the members of this House. But he's telling us, on the other hand, he's going to level with the people of British Columbia. I find it difficult to accept that, and I must insist that he had an obligation to make this information available to the House before this bill can continue.

Mr. Chairman, I look with anticipation to the minister, in good faith, responding. Surely he can obtain that figure from his staff who must know something about the financial affairs of this province even if the minister does not have that information at his personal disposal.

MS. BROWN: Cover-up.

MR. KING: If not, I think that the minister should come back after the dinner hour with that information for us.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would now like to call the second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 3, I suppose, follows on the heels of the budget speech; it's the very same tone as the budget speech itself. It's a very political document, following along the lines of the government's programme to punish the voters of British Columbia, especially the low-income voters of British Columbia, to punish all of them, to threaten all of them — to threaten the voters of Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They feel threatened enough.

[ Page 355 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, for three years....

The Premier is continuing to feed me interjections so that I will be obliged to speak longer to get across my message.

For three years the former Leader of the Opposition, and now the Premier of the province, has been carrying on a campaign to try and convince the voters of the province that the affairs of the province were being mismanaged. We now have the culmination of that before us today in this bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We were right; you were wrong.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he managed to convince a number of the voters in the province that he was right, and because he was able to convince that number of voters he is now in a position today of having us consider second reading of Bill 3, starting at 5:57 p.m. on March 30, 1976. Telling them the facts, through his eyes, the way he saw those facts....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go again!

MR. STUPICH: He did all this during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, and did it very efficiently. He pulled the wool over the people's eyes and was able to do it very effectively. He carried it on into the post-election period. You will recall, very soon after the election campaign, his announced intention to invite an independent firm of chartered accountants to examine the financial affairs of the province, and he uses that as part of the basis for bringing in today Bill 3, when he asked that outside, independent firm of chartered accountants to add up certain figures that he was going to supply, turn around with the budget speech, another extremely partisan political statement, and he says: "What's new? What's new about politics? Don't politics belong here?" Politics do belong here, Mr. Speaker. Politics is the science of government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you attacking the people?

MR. STUPICH: I'm not attacking the people, Mr. Speaker, I am attacking the government that brings in this particular bill in the form that it brings it in, the form of the bill itself, Mr. Speaker. I'm not opposed to the actual purpose of the bill if we get away from the partisan politics of it, but I am opposed to the partisan politics included throughout the budget speech and included in the legislation before us today. Mr. Speaker, I felt that in part the budget speech and this particular bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you move adjournment?

MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker. I just question what time the Provincial Secretary will bring us back if I move an adjournment at this point in time.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the clock?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, Mr. Member.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there was a discussion taking place at the time and immediately before my attention was drawn to the clock. I think it's parliamentary that if there is a motion at this particular time, I can listen to that before I leave the chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before you raise your point of order, at approximately 6 o'clock the member for Nanaimo had the floor. The hon. Provincial Secretary in a conversation across the floor, suggested a certain move. Now at that point, a point of order was raised by another hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. SPEAKER: Would you take your seat for one moment please, hon. member? Speaker Dowding, in a similar situation when his attention was drawn to the clock ruled that he would listen to a motion that was to be put, a routine motion of the House, at that particular time before he left the chamber. However, my attention having been drawn to the clock, I leave the chamber to return at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker left the chair at 6:01 p.m.