[ Page 357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Bawlf — 357

Point of order

Time allotted for budget debate. Mr. King — 361

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 361

Mr. Lauk — 361

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 362

Mr. Speaker — 362

Mr. Lauk — 362

Routine proceedings

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

Second reading.

Mr. Stupich — 362

Mr. Cocke — 381

Point of order

Procedure at time of adjournment. Mr. King — 385

Mr. Speaker — 386

Mr. Lauk — 386

Mr. Speaker — 386

Mr. Lauk — 386

Mr., Gibson 386

Mr. Lauk — 387

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 387

Mr. Speaker — 387

Mr. Lauk — 387

Mr. Gibson — 387

Mr. Speaker — 388

Mr. Gibson — 388

Mr. Speaker — 389

Mr. Chabot — 389

Mr. King — 389

Mr. Speaker — 389

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 390

Mr. King — 390

Mr. Gibson — 390

Mr. Schroeder — 391

Mr. Speaker — 392

Mr. Gibson — 392

Mr. King — 393

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 394

Mr. Speaker — 395

Mr. King — 395

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 395

Mr. Speaker — 395

Mr. King — 395

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 396

Mr. King — 397

Mr. Wallace — 397

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 398

Mr. King — 398

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 398

Mr. Cocke — 398

Mr. Mussallem — 399

Mr. Speaker — 399

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 399

Mr. King — 399

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 399

Mr. Wallace — 399

Mr. Speaker — 400

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked a question with regard to correspondence between Dr. Armstrong and the board of governors of Notre Dame University and I said that I would take the question as notice and would be happy to file the letter in question. I have the letter here as well as a report of the universities council of British Columbia on Notre Dame University upon which certain of the statements in the letter were based.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in debate I referred to correspondence in 1973 between the then Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) and the then chairman of British Columbia Hydro (Mr. Cass-Beggs) An hon. member suggested that this material should be tabled and I file it herewith.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to file the 57th Annual Report of the Public Service Commission, January 1 to December 31,1975, submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Public Service Act.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, just an inquiry to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) On that occasion the minister also referred to a memorandum which I think was from the chairman of B.C. Hydro to one of his assistants.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GIBSON: I was just going to ask if the minister was going to file that all's well.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not at this stage of the debate that we ask questions. If the minister files documents, there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the minister in question period on another day.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present my maiden address before this House and, as you will recall, I have already on an earlier occasion had the pleasure of extending my regards to yourself and to the other members of the House. So I will pick up where I left off.

Victoria is by some standards an old city. Born out of the gold rush of 1858, it was a thriving town of several thousand in the 1860s. Considering its venerable age, it is not surprising that Victoria's population is at last approaching 250,000 people. Indeed, one might suppose from these facts that the city's rate of growth and change have been so gradual as to be almost imperceptible. Victoria's growth has, in fact, been very irregular. In one boom period spanning from completion of these parliament buildings in 1897 through to 1914 more buildings were built in Victoria than in the entire 50 years which followed. This was Victoria's grandest era as an outpost of the empire, its virtues extolled by Rudyard Kipling, its pride bolstered by its stature as a home for the Royal Navy in the Pacific. Then came the First World War and the expected commercial benefits from such as the newly opened Panama Canal evaporated.

Suddenly the immense over-supply of everything we now call infrastructure was painfully apparent. The city became a monument to the fallibility of human speculations, and until the 1960s hundreds of vintage commercial buildings stood almost vacant, and rambling Edwardian homes were a glut on the market. This long period of fossilization has had a profound effect on the city's image in an otherwise changing world. Its reputation as a place of genteel old-world charm has been steeped in the unchanging character of the city.

This reputation is unrivalled on the western half of this continent and it is the fundamental reason for Victoria's two most evident functions other than that of the capital city — those of a tourist centre and a retirement centre.

As a result, some have, unkindly I think, referred to Victoria as the city of the newly wed and the nearly dead. Indeed, Victoria has now entered an era of new growth. Some projections anticipate double the population in this area within 20 years. This outlook may well prove conservative, however, for during the same period the total population of urbanized areas centred with….

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an awful lot of talk on the opposition benches considering the…

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are the people over there.

MR. BAWLF: …courtesy that is normally accorded to a maiden speech.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the members will accord you the same privileges accorded other members when they make their maiden speech.

MR. BAWLF: This outlook may well prove

[ Page 358 ]

conservative, however, Mr. Speaker, for during the same period the total population of urbanized areas centred within 75 miles of Victoria, including Seattle and Vancouver, is expected to approach six million people, the population of Los Angeles today. It is possible that Victoria, with it's superior climate, half the annual rainfall of neighboring areas, and equidistant from the increasingly mobile populations of Vancouver and Seattle, may soon face a phantasmagoria of exploitation as the Orange County of the northwest.

At the centre of this capital region is my constituency, consisting in the main of the city of Victoria. The central issue concerning most of my 65,000 constituents, in the face of these growth pressures, is the survival of the quality of life that they enjoy and the special environment on which it is largely based. Translated into a political mandate, this concern has resulted in a number of city programmes aimed at minimizing the adverse effects of growth upon the community.

The City of Victoria has enacted one of the most progressive sign bylaws in North America, prohibiting all third-party advertising by sign and, in particular, eliminating billboards for hire. To complement this measure against visual pollution, a strong anti-noise bylaw has been recently passed. Most high-rise zoning outside of downtown has been eliminated, leaving a six-storey limit in these areas. Where several charming older neighbourhoods were threatened with decay and eventual destruction, rehabilitation has been undertaken by the city through federal neighbourhood improvement programmes.

Allowable building densities downtown have been halved with a view to spreading the benefits of growth throughout the core area, avoiding overly massive. buildings and encouraging retention of heritage buildings. Furthering this last objective, a 50-foot height limit has been placed on the entire old-town area compared with a 14-storey limit elsewhere in downtown.

Victoria's old town is the finest collection of vintage commercial buildings in western Canada or, indeed, on the west coast of the continent. The city's heritage committee has identified some 125 of these buildings in downtown Victoria worthy of preservation. Many of these have been officially designated for preservation purposes. Approximately 50 heritage buildings have already been renovated and restored including many by private initiative. This reflects a growing awareness by my constituents that Victoria's old-world character is a vital economic stimulus not only to the city but to the entire Vancouver Island. Last year, the capital region was visited by more than two million tourists, who spent an estimated $120 million here.

The most recent Canadian travel survey reports that 29 per cent of tourist spending in Canada is attributable to tourists whose main activity is visiting historical and cultural sites. This outranks fishing and boating dollars put together, and if we combine the all-Canadian leisure pastimes of boating, hunting, snow skiing and sports watching, we find that even they, combined, count for less spending than do historical and cultural visits. Now if this is true as a national average, it is doubly true of Victoria.

With this in mind, and mindful also of the need to make this city worthy of its place as capital of British Columbia and a place that all the people of this great province can be proud of, the city fathers have pressed on to further secure and enhance the city's special character. The city has directed expenditure of some $15 million in the construction of two civic squares and a growing network of connecting malls, in the undergrounding of all overhead wires in the core, in planning for redevelopment of the Inner Harbour for public use and to enhance these precincts, and in completion of the first stage of a planned continuous waterfront promenade.

All this, Mr. Speaker, has been undertaken at the city's initiative and pursued to the limit of her financial resources, reflecting the capacity of some 28,000 municipal taxpayers and what meagre financial assistance has been available from the senior levels of government. These efforts by this community have won national acclaim, but, Mr. Speaker, the three years of NDP government just passed have seen a record of incredibly boorish treatment of the city of Victoria by the provincial government, treatment which has incredibly frustrated the city's sincere efforts and brought them to the point of collapse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BAWLF: It is a sad and shameful record, Mr. Speaker, which must bear comment for the benefit of the hon. members here present if they are to understand the needs of my constituency at the hand of this new government.

First, there is the matter of revenue-sharing with municipalities. In the time that the NDP government more than doubled their spending, the municipalities received only token increases in financial aid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Token.

MR. BAWLF: Increases in aid to municipalities have failed to keep pace with inflation. Moreover in Victoria, at least, the increases in aid under the NDP were absorbed entirely by increased charges to the city for their share of provincial expenditures for welfare and assessment services. This situation has resulted in intolerable increases in the burden of

[ Page 359 ]

municipal taxes on municipal property taxpayers. Compounding this is the situation of school taxes. Remember the famous promise from the former Premier — that school taxes would be removed from property assessments? Of course, we now know that school taxes have gone up, not down — this, in spite of the fact that in most areas school enrolment has fallen.

Then there is the matter of municipal property taxes on properties owned by the Crown. The means of compensation, of long standing in this province, has been a system of grants in lieu of payment of property taxes by the provincial government. The rate in which these grants are paid is equal to 15 mills. Though once adequate, this allocation has long since been working a hardship on many municipalities, as other hon. members will attest.

During the 1972 provincial election all parties addressed their platforms to improved arrangements in this area. Indeed the former Premier promised that the Crown would pay full municipal property taxes. What happened instead, Mr. Speaker? No change in compensation. Instead, the NDP government took blatant advantage of the status quo to expand their municipal land holdings, thereby enlarging the proportion of the total municipal tax base encumbered by this inequitable arrangement, and further compounding the injury to steadily weakening municipal finances in this province.

This was nothing more than usury, Mr. Speaker, and there is no better example than my own constituency. In the city of Victoria the NDP expanded the province's property holdings by nearly double by value of land and assessments. As a consequence the city now owns 115 acres in the city of Victoria, most of it in the core area, for a total of about 10 per cent of the total assessment base of the city.

This voracious appetite was at the instigation of the former Lands minister — that sensitive individual, Mr. Williams. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, he is the former hon. member who, upon being duly re-elected to this Legislature, and discovering that he was facing in this House a government other than his own, decided that discretion was the better part of valour and callously abandoned his constituents to an unnecessary by-election.

Mr. Williams was not satisfied with merely meeting the direct needs of his government for land; he had to embark on a binge of grabbing any land which would allow him to supercede the role of the city in governing its own affairs, and grab the headlines as a fictitious hero of his fiefdom.

To secure the Inner Harbour waterfront for public use and enjoyment, and to enhance these precincts, the city worked for 10 years. The city approached the former Minister of Public Works to ask for assistance with half the costs of an important land acquisition in this connection, known as the Reid site. No reply, Mr. Speaker. No reply was received.

Another letter goes out; still no reply. As the deadline for action approaches the letters from the city grow more frantic.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver East): Did you own land there?

MR. BAWLF: No. All this is ably documented, Mr. Speaker.

In an article in The Vancouver Sun, dated May 29, 1974, by one Marjorie Nichols, a very capable reporter, in spite of what the former Premier thought of her….

AN HON. MEMBER: We agree — read tonight's paper.

MR. BAWLF:

"The deadline comes and goes. The city council, still lacking the courtesy of even a reply" — still lacking that courtesy — "subside into despondency and give up the ghost on that government. Suddenly, out of the blue comes an order-in-council from the NDP government, placing a complete freeze on the status of all the waterfront property in the Inner Harbour.

"The order-in-council is accompanied with a statement from the Minister of Lands: 'The council, I think, has stumbled along through the history of the whole Inner Harbour development, and we see it as important in relation to the parliamentary precinct, and important to the province at large. That is why we stepped in. It's why we intervened; it's why we bought the land. In effect, we have had to do the job the city has shown it is unable to do.'"

An incredibly arrogant statement, Mr. Speaker. An incredibly arrogant manner in which to treat the city council of Victoria and the people they were duly elected to represent — so arrogant, Mr. Speaker, that the press throughout this province, in defence of the city of Victoria, rose up in unison and slammed that minister for his actions.

I quote from just one of a dozen examples of commentary in the press on his actions. Characterizing it as "the now typical NDP bulldozer tactic," this is an editorial in the Victoria Times dated Friday, May 31, 1974:

"Although there have been discussions between the city and the provincial government several months before with consideration of a 50-50 arrangement to acquire the Reid property, these had lapsed. Letter after letter, over a period of more than a year, had been sent from city hall to various cabinet ministers

[ Page 360 ]

urgently requesting action which only the provincial government could provide to help solve Victoria's Inner Harbour problem.

"The letters were not even acknowledged. Then subtly, without any contact with the city, Resources Minister Williams, in a most contemptuous and ham-handed manner, announced the government's purchase of the Reid property.

"There is no excuse for such God-has-spoken treatment of the capital city or any other municipality in the province. Such a boorish performance destroys the confidence and cooperation of the municipal governments, alarms the public by trading a claustrophobic fear of what may be coming next from an administration in which ruthless arrogance is poorly suppressed and harms the government itself by creating. a repulsive image. Even worthwhile actions, if performed in an unworthy way, will not build the public acceptance that good government requires, and bad manners don't hide bad administration."

Mr. Speaker, I could produce many more of those kinds of comments on that particular action. The reason I bring this example to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is not because it was the exception but because it was the rule under the former government. Time after time, similar behaviour was repeated.

The same minister, Mr. Speaker, commissioned a study. He wasn't satisfied to ask for the cooperation of the city of Victoria in planning her own destiny. He commissioned a study from a city planner from eastern Canada, a Mr. Clack, who was to report on how the city was to be planned according to Mr. Williams' whim. That report included such recommendations that the city was subsequently advised were going to be fact as reorganizing the entire traffic system of the downtown area of Victoria.

It was a completely cavalier treatment of the city. The city of Victoria for years had been endeavouring to bring about the public use of the waterfront, and part of that was the acquisition of the former CP Marathon site, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that the city concluded an arrangement which would have seen that site bought for a price of $1.2 million. But the ministers of the former government, in their enthusiasm for controlling the situation, said they would take over the negotiations because they wanted to acquire the site. And what was the eventual cost of that site, the city having concluded a price of $1.2 million? The province later bought the site for $2.4 million.

Causeway Garage, a rather sad old relic on the Inner Harbour here, the city acquired with their own funds. The provincial government said: "Now let us take this over. We want to beautify the Inner Harbour. This is an important exercise in cooperation."

City council, having been burned a couple of times, asked: "Well, now are you sure that you intend to carry out this beautification?" The response was: "Oh, yes. Of course." So the property was turned over for the same cost to the city.

The Minister of Public Works proceeded, without any permission or discussion with the city, to construct a beanery on the site. An interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that the city had understood that that was being turned over to the duly constituted body, the Capital Improvement District Commission, a body which is, by legislation, responsible for cooperation between the province and the local municipalities in beautifying capital areas.

Now how it passed from that commission's hands without the benefit of a meeting…the commission had no idea, Mr. Speaker, that that property was being turned over to the Minister of Public Works and a beanery being constructed there, without any formal meeting of that commission to decide such an action.

AN HON. MEMBER: Local planning.

MR. LAUK: Snob!

MR. BAWLF: We have the example; I could go on. There are a number of examples in just this one subject of the Inner Harbour.

To give you one further example, the province has owned for a number of years the site where the Black Ball ferry docks.

Repeated attempts were made, Mr. Speaker, to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Transport to discuss an eventual evolution of that site into part of this waterfront promenade. Never, Mr. Speaker, was the courtesy of a fair reply given to the city on that, in spite of years of effort.

Mr. Speaker, the ignorance and abusiveness of the NDP government towards the city's elected representatives became so bad that finally, out of total frustration, those city councillors personally paid for a full-page ad in the local dailies in an attempt to fight off Daddy Warbucks and his grabby hand of state socialism — a message to the citizens of Victoria concerning the Inner Harbour.

It was a case of the former provincial government having obviously the greater opportunity to do the shouting with their extensive resources and access to the media. So we have here, Mr. Speaker, an ad which was placed in the Saturday Times, Victoria, June 1, 1974, which outlines 21 steps which the city of Victoria had taken over that 10-year period to advance the cause of an improved waterfront area and specifically public use.

But the grab went on, Mr. Speaker, in spite of it,

[ Page 361 ]

and on and on and wilted the hopes of a diligent little city council of governing their own affairs as they were duly elected to do, because on top of this state of affairs the city were advised by the NDP government of their plans to use their newly acquired lands to construct 2.4 million square feet of new office space in this city, in the core area, to accommodate its plans for expanding the bureaucracy.

This would double the office content of the city, placing large new demands for expansion on the city's services, including sewers, water, roads, parking, police and fire protection, only one-third of the cost of which would be recovered through the existing provincial grants.

At present, nearly one million square feet of office space — provincial office space — is under construction in downtown. Only one of the several buildings involved has, for example, provision for employee parking, and in that single instance, the city has had to defray most of the cost of the parking structure itself. So today, as Victoria with its grant in lieu of taxes equal to only one-third of our general purposes mill rate, the shortfall in the taxes paid to the city by the province amounts to nearly $1 million a year.

This is nearly triple the annual shortfall that existed only three years ago. As such, it is an entirely unreasonable burden on the city's 28,000 taxpayers to have to subsidize more than two million British Columbians to this extent. Even with no further office building starts, the shortfall of tax revenue to the city, thanks to the NDP administration, will be approaching $2 million per year within three years.

Whatever the other citizens of this province would have thought of these grandiose NDP plans to expand the bureaucracy and influence people, the citizens of Victoria have been seriously concerned. When the council protested, however, the former Premier arrogantly threatened to withhold the per-capita grant from the ungrateful city, a grant which is made to all municipalities without reference to Crown lands.

The argument put forward by that man, having reneged on his promise to pay full taxes, was that the provincial government should get special treatment because it provides jobs in the local economy. In other words, he would have the people of my constituency accord the province status as a corporate welfare burn. How hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, most of the provincial employees in this city reside in neighbouring municipalities and pay no property taxes in Victoria. The largest identifiable group of taxpayers in Victoria are senior citizens, for the most part on fixed incomes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I spoke at some length the other day on the unfortunate lot of a large number of senior citizens in my constituency, who during the NDP term in government suffered so badly. I don't intend to repeat those remarks today, Mr. Speaker. Suffice it to say simply that here is yet another example of that sad performance by the NDP.

Well, Mr. Speaker, fortunately for these people and all my constituents, and for all the people of this province, what's-his-name and his inept NDP colleagues are no longer in government, and never again should those people have the opportunity of inflicting such grievous wrongs on the citizens of this province. Never again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to interrupt my remarks and to move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Chair could give a rule with respect to the amount of time allotted for the debate of the budget, which in my understanding must be 14 sittings, not less than 14 sittings in 10 days. I wonder if the Chair would rule whether or not the one-shot excursions that we are making into the budget debate in night sittings, in the view of the Chair, constitute one sitting devoted to budget, because if that is the case it seems to me that the government is doing through the back door what they protest they do not intend to do, and that is to limit the time afforded for debate of the budget.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would be prepared, with leave, to extend the number of days for budget debate, because of the urgency of debate, now to accommodate those members who wish to speak in budget debate and not to have these sittings constitute any time taken away from any of the members who wish to speak.

MR. KING: I appreciate the Premier's comments, Mr. Speaker, but I do think it would be appropriate for the Chair to rule on this matter.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in support of the Leader of the Opposition's point, we also, of course, must thank the Premier for indicating his desire to have a full debate on the budget, but the House is in control of its own procedure and its own points.

I think it's important, not only for this budget debate, but for other budget debates, that the Speaker do consider this matter and consider the length of the sitting. As I recall, the committee which proposed the present rules carried on for many, many hours, with the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and others, about this very point: what constitutes a sitting, what is the length of a sitting, what is the length of debate on the question of the

[ Page 362 ]

budget debate and throne debate, and so on. It was felt that unless there was a substantial portion of the time of that sitting devoted to the debate, it could not be counted as a sitting on its own.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, so that you can take due time and deliberate, and perhaps even extend your deliberation…just to assure the members of this House that you need not hasten your decision, I have given my assurance that with leave of the House no opportunity to debate in budget will be lost.

I just want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, of our intentions to provide and support any opportunity of leave so members can speak, and you may take due time in coming to a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Premier, and the Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter that I'll take under consideration.

I would say at this point that, perhaps in clarification, I see nothing in the rules that precludes the House Leader from moving from one position on the order paper to another after we have accommodated some debate on the budget. I can also see the fact that if, in a sifting, we only had the opportunity to hear one or two speakers, then that would preclude a number of people from being heard in the time limits that we have presently before us as to the number of sittings and the number of days.

I think you've heard a commitment from the Premier in this respect. I'll take a look at it, however, to see how that fits in with the rules of the House, and take it under advisement.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is under advisement. Have you something further to offer, Mr. Member?

MR. LAUK: While Your Honour's in deliberation on this point, it might be helpful to refer to the committee reports that did recommend these rules. I'm sure there's some discussion in that regard. If there is not, I'd be only too glad to come to your office and provide you with my personal notes on the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your observations and advice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Adjourned debate on Bill 3.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976
(continued)

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): If I could pick up my remarks where I left off two and a half hours ago, I was actually comparing the partisan political approach taken in Bill 3 to the extremely partisan political approach in the uncalled-for and unusual partisan political approach taken in the British Columbia budget, March, 1976. I was discussing, I think, the fact that it is in the budget and in the bill by implication, a serious of threats against people, a series of insults. I think I got as far as mentioning that it was threatening, indeed, the voters of Vancouver East. The implication is there in the bill, as it is in the budget.

In the budget speech the voters of Vancouver East were being told that they are going to be used in an attempt for someone to slide in — some 28,000 or 29,000 registered voters. They were being insulted….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggested in an earlier debate, on two occasions that I can recall today, that the Premier, by his interjections, encourages me to extend my remarks further than I might otherwise do.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would remind the Premier that that is exactly how he arrived in this chamber — by someone resigning and making room for him to run in a by-election. And, Mr. Speaker, it was never suggested by anyone on this side of the House that he was sliding in. We never insulted the voters of South Okanagan by saying they were being used in an attempt for someone to slide into office. We accepted the resignation; the by-election was called, the Premier ran for that position and was duly elected by the voters of South Okanagan to represent his constituents in this most exclusive of all clubs.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we get back to the principle of Bill 3 now, please?

MR. STUPICH: Well, as I say, Mr. Speaker, if you were just a little more successful at controlling the Premier, or if the Premier were a little more successful at controlling himself, then it would be easier for me to keep my remarks in line with the discussion of Bill 3.

However, let me get back to the discussion of Bill….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I realize that

[ Page 363 ]

interjections come from all sides of the House at different times. I try to be fair and protect you from the abusive remarks, or from any remarks that will distract you from debating the principle of Bill 3.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly didn't intend to imply in any way at all that you were being unfair. I was just agreeing with you that it is an extremely difficult job to control the Premier when he is determined to interrupt. He seems to be determined to continually interrupt.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you allow the hon. member who has the floor to continue the debate?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as I have said — and I note you are giving me your attention — Bill 3 is another document very similar to the document that was produced by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) a little earlier in this debate.

The wonder, I suppose, is that since it is so much in line with the budget speech itself, that in this Bill 3 the House, or the minister presenting this bill, didn't take advantage of the same opportunities afforded him — the opportunity he took advantage of to threaten people around the world. Maybe I'm accusing the Minister of Finance improperly; perhaps I should have said it was Mr. Brown who wrote these remarks to which we are taking offence, or perhaps a Mr. Dan Campbell. Whoever wrote it, it doesn't really matter.

They took advantage in the budget speech, and since Bill 3 is following the same partisan political approach, they might really well have taken advantage of Bill 3 to have done the same thing. Since in the budget speech they were so keen to give advice to people around the world as to what they should do and what they should not do, perhaps in Bill 3 they might very well have given the same kind of advice.

They might have advised people in the United States, for example, that if you want to continue dealing with the citizens of British Columbia, you should be careful in your presidential election not to elect anyone other than George Wallace or possibly Reagan as president.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party government of British Columbia was accused at times by some people of being perhaps a little left of centre — let's say some 10 degrees left of centre. If that accusation can be made, then I think the government opposite in presenting this kind of legislation, and the budget speech that is so closely associated to it, might very well have been accused of being, not 10 degrees away from centre, but 90 degrees to the right, since they seem to have assumed the responsibility for advising voters around the world as to how they should look at British Columbia and how they should look at the politics within their own jurisdictions.

I have an interesting quotation from the Los Angeles Times, perhaps, about the present government:

"The Bennetts belong to the Social Credit Party — Socreds in the local press — a party at the opposite political spectrum from the New Democrats, conservative in its politics and a history of being cosy with big business. There also is some feeling that young Bennett may be particularly friendly towards some of the American-based firms operating in British Columbia."

Particularly friendly towards some of them.

I would hope that is not true, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, that is the opinion that is going abroad, and it is the opinion that is going to go abroad even more when they read this bill and the budget speech that is so closely associated with it.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot be a part of these threats to B.C. voters. We have indicated earlier that we cannot support the budget and we cannot support this bill.

We just don't accept this kind of attitude. This partisan political approach within our own community is okay, but when we extend it beyond our jurisdictions, beyond the boundaries of our own province, then, Mr. Speaker, we just can't be a party to legislation that goes in that direction or of a budget speech that is so blatantly political partisan politics.

We could, perhaps, support legislation like this if it were legislation that were going to provide that succeeding governments — and, Mr. Speaker, I think we will all have to admit that there may be some change in administration at some time — if we were going to deal with legislation in this House that would open the possibility of legislation such as this being necessary….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you get your suits?

MR. STUPICH: A firm by the name of Harvey Murphy in Nanaimo. I buy them off the rack, Mr. Premier.

If this kind of legislation were available in such a form that it would be available to any or all succeeding governments in the event that legislation such as this were necessary to deal with some emergent situation, some unusual situation, to deal with the kind of unemployment that we have today — and admittedly it's worse than it was three months ago, and would seem to be getting worse than it was last year and worse than it was in the three years under the NDP administration; it's getting worse —

[ Page 364 ]

and if the legislation were legislation that were needed to deal with that situation and with the possibility that that situation might arise again at some time or might continue during the lifetime of the present administration, if it were general legislation that were providing the government with an opportunity to adopt a fiscal policy that would deal with unemployment when it became necessary to deal with it, that would deal with recession when it became necessary to deal with it, then we would have to admit the possibility, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time legislation like this might be necessary because certainly we are so dependent upon the world economy. We are not an island unto ourselves. We are not a province unto ourselves. These opportunities do arise, or occasions do arise, when it might be necessary to have legislation that would provide for this kind of accommodation to deal with a problem of the day,

But this bill before us, Mr. Speaker, doesn't do that. It limits this particular legislation to the needs of the government of today. It specifically says that it will not be available to governments of tomorrow or of the day after tomorrow. We just can't support that kind of legislation and we are disappointed that the government brings in and asks the House to support that kind of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the legislation suggests that if the B.C. voters are unreliable enough that they might be irresponsible enough to some day turn out that administration, then by this legislation we are guarding those voters against making that kind of a mistake and getting into trouble because they have been unwise enough to have thrown out this particular administration. Mr. Speaker, we can't be expected to support that kind of legislation.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) said during the campaign that the issue is not — the issue in the election, that is — social benefits; the issue is who is fit to govern. Now that member has influence in this government, Mr. Speaker. Apparently that member had access to the Clarkson, Gordon report even before the Premier did.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He was quoting the Clarkson, Gordon report before the Premier wag ready to do it. The first member for Victoria was referring to figures and, of course, at that time….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I have newspaper clippings where he is quoting figures about the Clarkson, Gordon report….

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's as wrong as you are.

MR. STUPICH: He's as wrong as I am?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Almost.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the first member for Victoria is wrong, then that is something that the Premier should take up with the first member for Victoria rather than with me, because I am simply referring to reports of what the first member had to say. I understand at the time there were also reports where the Premier did take occasion to discuss with the first member for Victoria some of the remarks that he did make. There were newspaper reports saying that you thought at the time he was wrong and that perhaps he should change his mind. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: As I say, the Premier keeps urging me to extend my remarks. Now I am not sure if that's the goal that he has in mind. If that is….

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Yes.

MR. STUPICH: I hear a "yes". If that is the goal that he has in mind I would appreciate knowing what is the time limit, because I always like to know just what is my goal and how long I should carry on. In this particular case, if it's the Premier who is setting some goal in his mind, then perhaps sometime during the course of the evening he will pass on to me his advice as to just how much longer he would like me to carry on. And certainly it does help; his interjections do help. But I have numerous clippings since the first member for Victoria's comments have been called into question as to what he said about the budget and his estimates as to what the deficit was.

Mr. Speaker, these estimates were not made in advance of the Clarkson, Gordon report — not much. Just hours before the Premier chose to give his release of the Clarkson, Gordon report the first member for Victoria was speaking at a meeting in Victoria and telling us all what was going to be revealed in the Clarkson, Gordon report.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious that he did have access to that report, and while he may not have had access to it in advance of the Premier himself, certainly he was able to talk about it publicly before the Premier felt that he was able to talk about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you resign if you are wrong?

MR. STUPICH: Would I…?

Mr. Speaker, was either of you wrong? You were both wrong. It's not coming out quite the way I heard

[ Page 365 ]

it the first time, but what I did think I heard him say was: "was either of them wrong?" Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, knowing that the question's coming out different now, but I prefer to answer the question "was either of you wrong", and I would say you were both wrong.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Would you do it through the Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this government needs….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. STUPICH: Am I wrong? Am I wrong about what now? About the Clarkson, Gordon report being right? The Clarkson, Gordon report was right.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I take no issue at all with anything that was in the Clarkson, Gordon report, and if you stick around long enough I'll talk to you more about the Clarkson, Gordon report this evening.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Is it right?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, it was. The Clarkson, Gordon report is right in line, and, Mr. Speaker, through you, I have never quarreled with the Clarkson, Gordon report, but I have quarreled, not with the use of it, but with the abuse of it. I intend to get into the details of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you for just one second? You made a reference to time limit in this debate. I assume you are the designated speaker and I've extended that without really asking you that question, and there's no time limit, as you know, on your remarks in second reading as designated speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have two designated ones, the first and the last.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: We appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker. It's just, as I suggested in my remarks, that the Premier seemed to be encouraging me to extend my remarks. I wondered if he had some time in mind, not the time limit imposed by our rules, but rather a time limit that he had in mind for this debate.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't you have a mind of your own?

MR. STUPICH: Sometimes it gets hard, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to resist that particular temptation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good for you.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this legislation could be used as an attempt to combat unemployment, and certainly there is a need to combat unemployment. Yesterday, during the course of my remarks during the budget debate, I did quote some figures on unemployment. I quoted figures to indicate that unemployment has been increasing in the few months during which this government has been in office, that unemployment is higher than it was during the same months last year when the New Democratic Party formed the government, that unemployment was decreasing faster than it was in Canada as a whole during the last few months of the NDP administration, and that it has been increasing faster than in Canada as a whole since the present government took office.

I think there is a real need for some kind of legislation to be brought in by this government that would give it the fiscal opportunity to do what it feels would be necessary to combat unemployment. But again, Mr. Speaker, in this particular legislation they're not doing that. They're zeroing in on one particular situation, relating it to what they consider to be past crimes of a previous government, rather than using this particular kind of legislation to open the door for new policies that might correct some of the ills in our community, some of the economic problems that our community faces.

The bill ought to have a full employment preamble, Mr. Speaker. If we're going to deal with this kind of legislation, then we should include that kind of thing in it. This bill doesn't include that.

Similar legislation in other jurisdictions to allow for borrowing has included some preamble to provide for employment, and I have a reference now that I'd like to quote from, the Full Employment Act from the United States. It's an old one. This is nothing new I'm talking about. This is one that's 30 years old, Full Employment Act, 1946, in the U.S.

Declaration of policy is the preamble to the legislation in that case, rather than a straight political partisan attack on a previous administration. This is dealing positively with the problem. The Congress declares that it is a continuing policy and responsibility, and, Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the course of my remarks I talked then about policy and responsibility, about the responsibility that a government has to govern on behalf of the citizens, about the opportunity that a government has, and I

[ Page 366 ]

quoted from the budget speech where there is a reference to people in government and where it said: "Government, like people". I argue that government is not like people; government has a responsibility.

[ Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

If I may go back, then, reading this declaration of policy:

"The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of government to use all practical means consistent with its needs and obligations, and other essential considerations of policy, with the assistance and cooperation…"

And there's mention of this in the budget — cooperation with industry — and we grant that there has to be that kind of cooperation with our whole community, cooperation with industry, with agriculture, with labour. I think there's been, perhaps, precious little cooperation between this government and agriculture, but we're hoping for an improvement. There has been precious little cooperation with labour — a lot of confrontations, perhaps, but not much cooperation yet.

"…and state and local governments to co-ordinate and utilize all its plans, functions and resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote enterprise and general welfare conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities including self-employment for those able, willing and seeking to work, and to promote maximum employment, production and purchasing power."

Mr. Speaker, this is a preamble that was used in legislation 30 years ago in the U.S. Congress. Yet we have this legislation before us 30 years later, and all it can deal with are the pressing political needs of the day. And these political needs, Mr. Speaker, are not pressing. I keep saying over and over again, and many of us will be saying over and over again, during this debate and other debates: the election is over; the pressing political needs are to get on with the business of governing the province, not to continue fighting the New Democratic Party.

We have problems in this province. I suppose the biggest problem of all is that we have a Social Credit government. But we have other problems, and they are problems that the Social Credit government could deal with if it would forget that the election was fought, is over and would get on with governing the province.

Mr. Speaker, if we could contrast this with the attitude in this bill, and the narrow approach that it takes to this question of borrowing…. I have already referred to the legislation in the United States. I would now like to refer to something closer to home, and that is another of our provinces — the province of Ontario, and their attitude towards borrowing. And that's what this bill is about, but borrowing for a very particular partisan political purpose; whereas the legislation in Ontario was dealing positively with this question of borrowing when the need arose.

"The underlying strength of incomes, consumer spending and investment is reinforced by the measures in this budget." Mr. Speaker, this was dealing, also, in a time when there was need for economic recovery, which is mentioned in the budget speech, and which this bill is indirectly related to. Whereas we are proposing to increase the sales tax — and I can't talk about that because there is a bill before us — nevertheless, this preamble goes on to say that a temporary retail sales tax cut will generate additional consumer spending, particularly on durable commodities.

"The $1,500 grant for first-time home buyers, the temporary removal of sales tax on production machinery, this measure will promote expansion of Ontario's manufacturing capacity and improve the competitive position of industries depending on export."

Mr. Speaker, they were prepared to deal positively with this question, rather than to simply deal with it from a partisan political point of view.

If we are going to talk about borrowing, Mr. Speaker…and we are in this legislation; we are talking about borrowing. If we are going to be talking about borrowing, rather than directing it to a political campaign, a political fight, there ought to be some sensible limit instead of some purely arbitrary, vengeful and purely partisan political limit. Perhaps we could think about a limit related to something else. One of the criteria that might be used would be a limit related to the gross provincial product, as an example.

If I may quote from another document, Mr. Speaker, the History of the Committee of Finance: United States Senate, in talking about this problem: it does talk about the need to borrow, and talks about borrowing related to the economic conditions in a country. In this case, of course, we are talking about the United States, and it is talking about debt.

Yesterday I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that while we say we have no gross debt and no net debt in the province, we do have a very real community debt in the sense that the so-called contingent liabilities are part of our total government operations. The contingent liabilities are all liabilities guaranteed by the Province of British Columbia; they are liabilities of agents of the Crown, and in a sense they are part of our total liabilities, and nothing to be alarmed at. The fact that our contingent liability today must be standing at about $2,500 per capita is not something

[ Page 367 ]

to be alarmed about, as long as we have the productive kind of machinery that can service that kind of a debt. I am talking now in total, not talking within the narrow limits of so-called direct government accounts.

So reading, then, from this book about the conditions in the United States:

"Although the national debt seems, in absolute terms, immense, and has been growing steadily since World War II, when looked at in terms of the national income and wealth, as measured by the gross national product, the relative size of the debt has decreased substantially."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that we can say that about our contingent liability. I think the relative contingent liability has increased substantially in the last 20 years. But that is not something to be alarmed about as long as it is kept within workable, reasonable limits.

Mr. Speaker, rather than dealing with a bill right now that is suggesting an amount related to a political campaign, we should perhaps be dealing with general legislation that will be dealing with a problem that is with us today, might be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, and one where borrowing, rather than being limited to the needs of partisan politicians of today, would be not so much limited as calculated with reference to some other criterion in the province.

Even the U.S. Congress now does have a public debt limit, an exact amount of money. Mr. Speaker, no doubt you have seen in the papers from time to time just what the debt limit is for the United States, set by the U.S. Congress.

Now the problem they have found in setting a dollar limit on the debt is much like the contingent liabilities we have on behalf of B.C. Hydro, on behalf of B.C. Railway.

We find that almost every session we have legislation coming in to raise the borrowing limit of B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Rail. Although we're dealing today with a partisan political approach to borrowing in this province, a very finite amount in relating it to a campaign, we're wondering whether a year from now, or two years from now, this administration might be obliged to bring in a general bill that would deal with the situation generally.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress has found that in having a specified amount, as we do with B.C. Hydro, as we do with B.C. Rail, that annually they are obliged to change that amount. The record is here showing that year by year they have another bill in to change that amount, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, as you can guess without me telling you, it's always a change upwards, and likely that will be the situation here. Certainly, it is the situation here when we deal with B.C. Hydro, and when we deal with B.C. Rail.

Each year, or almost every year, in both cases we bring in legislation that changes the borrowing limit of that particular Crown corporation and, predictably enough, the change is always an increase.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is that there is no statement of principle as such — and I'm speaking now about principle rather than principal. If it is declared that the government could quite properly borrow money to maintain and expand services such as hospitals, schools — we have that without this legislation…. But if legislation were before us that we're to give the government the opportunity in time of need to borrow to construct government-owned capital projects, that kind of legislation we could accept. We could certainly consider it at least in a much better light than we're able to consider the kind of legislation before us now.

Mr. Speaker, the budget reveals that this particular legislation will carry a price tag. It's going to cost the consolidated revenue; it's going to cost the taxpayers of this province the sum of $40 million a year. Perhaps in winding up debate on this, the Minister of Finance might reassure us otherwise. But it would appear as though this price tag of revenge, this revenge against the voters for having dared to do what they did in 1972, this price tag of $40 million a year that is part, though not written in the bill — but according to the budget, that's going to be the annual cost with no provision, apparently, for repayment of that — an indefinite charge of $40 million a year is to serve as a constant reminder to the people of the province that once they voted NDP in numbers sufficient to change the government.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention of the government in proposing this bill in the way they have, and in introducing the companion budget in the way that they have. No provision for capital repayment. A debt of $400 million that will stay there for all time. Each year members of the Legislature will be reminded, and through them, the public generally will be reminded that they are paying $40 million out of their tax revenue so they can continue to service this debt. Absolutely no provision to repay the capital portion of this debt, this political debt, that has been arranged.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that says to the people of B.C.: "Give us $40 million a year so that we can indulge ourselves in an orgy of revenge against the enemies out. there." The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) talked about this; he talked about the enemies out there in one of his speeches. It was during the course of his contribution during the throne speech debate. He talked about the enemies out there. Of course, now we're getting even with the enemies out there, those that are enemy enough that they voted in the New Democratic Party in 1972. The wonder of it is that many of them did vote in 1975 for the return of that government. Not

[ Page 368 ]

quite enough, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll agree with me, but many of them did.

Indefinitely; I can't stress that too much because there seems to be no provision at all for any capital repayment. Indefinitely, $40 million a year as a constant reminder. Nothing in return for that; $40 million going out simply as a reminder, simply as revenge. Nothing in that $40 million to provide any protection against unemployment, because there is nothing in this bill that is directed in that direction. It's a simple statement to pay for an alleged deficit, and the calculation of that deficit is something that I will get onto later on in my remarks.

Unemployment that the government of Ontario has tried to deal with in its legislation, unemployment that the U.S. Congress has tried to deal with in its legislation, and the need for other government services — for which all of these jurisdictions had provision that they may finance them by borrowing if need be, so they can continue to provide the capital goods and, indeed, the services in time of need.

The threat in the budget speech, of course, Mr. Speaker, and the implicit threat in the bill, is that if you don't pay this $40 million a year, this continuing charge, this charge that will go on indefinitely, then other services may have to be cut. Of course, the speech itself carries with it over and over again the message: never, never again should you take a chance on doing something like this, or you might be hit with a larger, a continuing charge against the revenue of the province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my remarks, that kind of a bill just can't be supported. It's not a bill that is induced to in any way at all provide for good government. It is simply a bill that provides for political revenge.

The Premier now used to say when he was in opposition: "Not one dime without debate." In this bill before us we're being asked to provide 400 million dimes of revenge against the people of British Columbia. Certainly, as I said, this is a bill that we just cannot support; it's a bill that we do intend to debate over and over again.

It's a fine — a fine against the people of British Columbia for having voted the way they did, a 400 million dime fine per year.

This province — not the government but this province — in view of the record it has built up over the years will have no trouble in borrowing this money. That's not our concern. The $400 million can be borrowed. We have no doubt about that.

I did quote earlier from a newspaper report that indicates B.C.'s credit rating is still very strong. Even after the happening on December 11, apparently our credit rating is still strong. We have a double-A credit rating. The banker….

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): It's stronger.

MR. STUPICH: Not stronger, Mr. Speaker — no. If there were any evidence that it were stronger then I'd like to see that evidence.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a double-A credit rating for some time. The U.S. banker talking to the municipal financing authority — the member who is raising questions about this may not have heard me yesterday — is telling the citizens of British Columbia that we still have — not now have, but still have — a strong credit rating, as does B.C. Hydro, a strong credit acceptance that we have in New York. But he's warning us, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is significant that he takes this occasion — no, not talking about something three or four or five months ago, but talking about something a couple of weeks ago — to remind us that we have to be careful, that that credit rating and the trust that goes along with it or that upon which the credit rating is based is something that we have secured but it is very fragile and must be jealously guarded. Otherwise we may lose it.

I think there is some significance in that, Mr. Speaker. That kind of warning, to the best of my knowledge, was never issued during the three and a third years during which the New Democratic Party was in office in this province. I don't recall it ever being issued prior to that. I think there is some significance, Mr. Speaker, that after the present government has been in office for some three months and one week, up to this time, the U.S. banker feels that it's necessary to warn the Government of British Columbia that there is some concern, that they have to be very careful to guard that acceptance that they have in the financial markets in New York. We all know we need that kind of acceptance. We all know that we are going to need to go there and borrow money for the tremendous capital projects that are coming up in this province. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that to the best of my knowledge no U.S. banker has ever felt it necessary to come to British Columbia and warn us that we had to jealously guard the good reputation that we have in New York. Nobody has had to warn us about that until some three and a third months after the present administration was elected to office.

I suggest that the government take that warning very seriously, consider it and remember they've only seen the need to warn British Columbia after the Social Credit were elected to office. It must be the actions of this government: what this government has been saying around the world, what it's saying now in this budget speech before us, what it's saying in this very partisan political legislation that we are debating this evening. It must be because of things like that that have been going on in the last three months or little more than three months that the U.S. banker has suddenly felt the need to warn us to guard the very good reputation that we have previously held, the very high repute in which we have been held up

[ Page 369 ]

until this point in time.

I would like to add to that my own warning, Mr. Speaker, that they do jealously guard B.C.'s reputation, that they not risk our reputation for the sake of cheap partisan, temporary political advantage as they seem to be so wont to do in documents like the campaign leaflet for the Vancouver East by-election, euphemistically called the British Columbia budget speech, or in documents like Bill 3 that is before us now.

B.C.'s credit rating is still high. Moody's, 1975, says that we have a double-A rating. That's not news; we've had that double-A rating some time. But perhaps the members opposite might be interested in just what is meant by…. What is a double-A rating?

I'd like to quote, Mr. Speaker. I think this is informative for those of us who haven't had an opportunity, perhaps, to read this. "Bonds which are rated double-A are judged to be of high quality by all standards. Together with the triple-A group…."

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps at this point I might interrupt to say that we were working, we were hoping to get a triple-A rating in the last few months of our administration…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH:…and, Mr. Speaker, we're getting close to that. I'm hoping that the present administration will continue in what we believed would be a successful application to get a triple-A rating for the province of British Columbia. We were getting close to that, and I hope the minister will pursue that campaign to try and get that kind of a rating. In any case, bonds which are rated double-A are judged to be of high quality by all standards.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, these interjections again tempt me to say perhaps more than I intended to say.

Had it not been for the questions raised by the present Premier with the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States after the auditor's report on the BCR was questioned to the extent that the auditor was suspended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, had it not been for the present Premier pursuing that question with the Securities Exchange Commission, we were quite confident that we would have had that triple-A rating by the fall of last year. However, I think there is still a good chance that that can be obtained, and I would urge the government to continue its attempts to get that kind of a rating.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, we did retain the double-A in spite of that very irresponsible campaign led by the present Premier. If I can get back to the definition, bonds which are rated double-A are judged to be of high quality by all standards; together with the triple-A group they comprise what are generally known as high-grade bonds. Mr. Speaker, we've retained that rating. We were hoping to improve upon that rating, but it is important that at the very least we do retain that rating.

But, Mr. Speaker, that's not all that Moody's says. On page 3907 it goes on to explain why we have a good rating in the province of British Columbia. I have a photocopy of a page from that, and in this photocopy from Moody's….

AN HON. MEMBER: A photocopy?

MR. STUPICH: A photocopy of a page from Moody's. It goes back to the year 1957, brings it right up to 1974, and shows the gross debt of the province. For the new members who may not realize it, we still do have a gross debt which is balanced by the sinking funds there, so there is a net debt of nil at the current time. But there is also the contingent liability of which I spoke — a net guaranteed debt is what Moody's calls it. They don't call it "contingent liabilities" — it takes too many letters, I guess — but also they recognize that it is a guaranteed debt as far as the province is concerned.

It also lists the revenue, the expenditures for the province. It points out with respect to revenue that revenue is not just current taxation revenue that is coming in in the year. I am referring now to some of the proposals we had for balancing or near balancing the budget in what has been a very difficult year for the whole western world, including British Columbia, but it states here that revenue includes refunds of capital expenditures — and we intend to bring in some of those refunds, and the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) intends to bring in some refunds in the next fiscal period.

As far as expenditures are concerned, they include current expenditures and all capital expenditures to the extent that they are included in the general government accounts. It talks about the public debt, the funded debt, the gross debt, the sinking fund, the net debt, and totals the contingent liabilities to show exactly what is the position with respect to the province of British Columbia. Because our position is so good, and has remained good during the reign of the New Democratic Party in this province, we maintained our good credit rating and, as I suggested to you earlier, we're attempting and we're quite optimistic about the possibility of getting an even better credit rating.

Mr. Speaker, Moody's is something that is relied upon by investors all over the world. To get a good credit rating you have to have a good report from Moody's. Moody's, Mr. Speaker, doesn't join with this present administration in its tirade about British

[ Page 370 ]

Columbia being on the verge of bankruptcy, and this legislation suggesting that it is the first time in so many years and that it is necessary now because of what has happened in the last three years, suggesting that things are all that bad in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, Moody's doesn't go along with that tirade at all. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) suggested that British Columbia was on the verge of bankruptcy. Now if his words were being listened to by Moody's, then there would be cause for great concern. I certainly hope they aren't being listened to. But I think it would be good advice for the members opposite to consider that they not try to spread that message too far abroad, that they not push that message too hard, just in case some uninformed person or some person not so well informed as Moody's might start listening.

If people do start listening to this sort of doom and gloom that is being preached by some of the members opposite, that is not going to do anything but harm for the people of British Columbia, because if these people are able to raise questions about our credit rating in the financial capitals of the world, even the members opposite, I think, can understand the kind of harm that would do to us.

While it might be B.C. Hydro that is borrowing the money in New York, Mr. Speaker, we're paying for that. It's the citizens of British Columbia that are paying the finance cost of that money, whether we are borrowing it in New York or whether we're borrowing it from the Arabs.

It is important that we maintain a good credit rating wherever we're borrowing and, Mr. Speaker, through you to these noisy people down the back bench, the more they talk about how bad things are in B.C., the more likely we are to have to pay more for the financial accommodation that we need so much…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: .. . the financial accommodation that we need to continue to develop this province in the way that it must be developed, in the way that it should be developed and, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the doom and gloom people down in the back benches, the way in which this province will be developed. Because it will be developed, Mr. Speaker, in spite of them. But I say it will be an easier job if they don't spread this kind of story in places where it might be listened to.

Mr. Speaker, I talked earlier about the exclusive nature of this club, about the opportunities we 54 members, soon 55 members, have. But we also, Mr. Speaker, have some responsibilities. We have some responsibilities to speak carefully, to speak the truth. That's something they should remember, too. But we should not go around the province and the country and internationally telling stories about British Columbia that are calculated to hurt British Columbia, because you don't hurt British Columbia without hurting the people of British Columbia. This legislation before us, it seems to me, is calculated to do more harm than good because the purpose of this legislation before us is obviously to carry on a political campaign rather than to deal with a financial problem that we have today.

Mr. Speaker, if a minister of the Crown of the province can take it upon himself to wreck the good repute of this province, then certainly Moody's will go along with it. I suppose we'll have to wait until the next edition of Moody's to see whether or not the kind of concerns, the kind of questions, the kind of accusations that are being raised by the people opposite are really being listened to. I'm fairly confident that they aren't being listened to, and I hope very dearly that they are not being listened to.

All the financial information that we have been able to get hold of, the financial facts in the Vancouver East by-election leaflet, the financial facts in the publication The British Columbia Economic Activity Report that I quoted from yesterday, all of the facts indicate that the province of British Columbia is in good shape. But it's the way in which those facts are related to the misinformation that is being peddled around about them that concerns me when I raise questions about what effect some of these remarks may have on our credit rating in the world.

I'm not really worried about the facts. The facts speak for themselves. But facts can be misinterpreted, if people are determined to misinterpret them. I think one of the ministers — I am not sure which one now — did say in one of his speeches that the province is on the verge of bankruptcy. I think it's very ill-advised to say that. We know it isn't true, Mr. Speaker. You and I know it isn't true, but certainly no one, and in particular, no minister of the Crown should lend himself to that kind of remark.

The Premier of the province is lending himself to some of it to some extent when he says we've got to have $400 million at 6 p.m., March 29, 1976. The Premier of the province is reported in a newspaper story as having said that we have to have it. Premier Bennett said outside the House: "The bill must be passed." The bill is, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to provide $400 million. He said the bill must be passed before Wednesday midnight, the end of the current fiscal period. I don't agree that it has to be passed. I don't agree that it has to be passed at all. I don't agree that it has to be passed by midnight on the current fiscal year. There is no reason that that kind of legislation would have to be dealt with in that kind of a time-frame unless there were some partisan political reasons for dealing with it that way. We are talking now about a time that is only 26½ hours

[ Page 371 ]

away, When I prepared my notes on this particular subject, the figure here is 54 hours, but time has gone by since the time that I thought I would be delivering these remarks.

But, Mr. Speaker, Moody's goes on. On or about 9 p.m., March 29, the Finance minister said: "We don't really need it by then." I don't know who it is we are to believe, but the Minister of Finance is said to have said in the corridors, in spite of what the Premier had said: "We don't really need the money by that time."

It is also reported that at that time the Premier, earlier on in an exchange, denied this. But it is reported in one of the papers, at least one of them, that he is said to have taken the Minister of Finance by the arm, to have said: "Peace! Love!" and then dragged the Minister of Finance from the hall. We don't know the story behind that, Mr. Speaker. All we know is that it was reported in the press.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Are you against peace and love?

MR. STUPICH: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, Moody's will go on to observe that the present government urges a form of fiscal orthodoxy that would have been outdated…I quoted from a book yesterday to show that it was outdated long before 50 years ago, to indicate that the financial attitude of this government is unorthodox in the extreme, They will find some observations in some other books, Whitaker's, for example, which talk about government — the 1976 Whitaker's, prepared last fall.

But surely, Mr. Speaker, if there were anything wrong with the province — anything wrong with the finances of the province — Whitaker's would report it. It was prepared in the fall and lists the Hon. David Barrett as Minister of Finance at that time. It forgoes the opportunity that certainly was there, because they had available the same information that the present Premier was using as he was going around the province talking about doom and gloom — the same as the members on the government side of the House, those who were in the House at that time, who were travelling around the province and speaking in this House about doom and gloom.

Whitaker's had the same opportunity and access to the same information, but, Mr. Speaker, they were a bit more responsible; they were dealing with facts. They weren't dealing with the sort of political accusations that the members opposite were so anxious to deal with and so anxious to talk about on the hustings. And they do go to quite an extent in talking about, the Province of British Columbia, giving factual information about British Columbia — about all the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if one takes the time to read Whitaker's, one would find that B.C. has done quite well, related to other provinces. There are no problems at all as far as B.C. Is concerned, in spite of all the concerns voiced by the members opposite, and the concerns that maybe B.C. Isn't a very nice place to live. Now this concern is not supported by Whitaker in this book. If any of the members would like to read what they have to say about B.C., I would recommend that they take a look at Whitaker's Almanac.

Mr. Speaker, another book that I would recommend to some of the members, if they want to read factual information about B.C. and to see the high repute in which the finances have been held by others, is the Statesman's year book, 1975-1976. It had the same opportunity to talk doom and gloom, if, in fact, there was any reason to talk doom and gloom about the state of affairs in the province of British Columbia. But they saw no reason to reveal any of this information, to discuss any of this information. The Statesman's year book apparently felt, along with the government of the day, that the finances of B.C. were in quite good hands and things were going well in the province of British Columbia, until the present doom-and-gloom wrecking crew arrived on the scene on December 12,1975, or a few days thereafter.

The Statesman's year book, 1975-76, came out and they had the opportunity. Unlike the current ministers of the Crown, they bear no particular responsibility for maintaining the good repute of the province. And that's a point I have tried to make, Mr. Speaker: the ministers of the Crown do have that responsibility. And they might be excused if they didn't say some of the things they know that they felt might do some harm. They might be excused. But, Mr. Speaker, the Statesman's year book has no such responsibility. Its only responsibility is to tell it as it sees it. As far as the Statesman's year book is concerned, when it told it as it saw it, B.C. during the three and a third years of the previous administration was running well and was obviously in good hands, in spite of everything that has been said by these people opposite, and in spite of the indications of the legislation we are discussing this evening.

I think this government, if it really feels that everybody else is wrong and that they are right, has an opportunity to tell the world that Moody's is wrong; that Whitaker's is wrong; that the Statesman's year book is wrong — if they really believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe it; I hope they don't believe it. I wish they wouldn't keep talking about how bad things are in the province of British Columbia, and start talking, instead, about how good things are. I would excuse them if they want to go on and say things are good now, but they are going to be better. But they are not saying that; they're talking about the disaster that befell the province of British Columbia, and that they hope things will not be so

[ Page 372 ]

bad in the future. Not that they'll be good but simply that maybe they won't be quite so bad as in the past.

This government does not pale at telling voters throughout the world how to behave. They have done that in this by-election leaflet: they criticized voters all over the world; they criticized their governments; they criticized opposition parties. They don't back away at all from giving that kind of advice.

Surely, since they are in possession of arcane fiscal methods by which they can reveal that a jurisdiction in good financial standing throughout the world — and I have quoted all kinds of references to indicate that as far as the world is concerned, our financial position is good and our finances are in good hands — but if they really are in possession of some kind of knowledge, not known to anyone else, that would indicate the situation as otherwise, they have some responsibility to tell the world just exactly how bad things are.

Mr. Speaker, that would be doing a disservice to the province because it just isn't true. This legislation before us this evening is doing a disservice to the province by spreading around the world the idea that B.C. is in bad shape. B.C. is in good shape, Mr. Speaker. B.C. was in good shape and in spite of what has happened — in spite of the wrecking crew opposite now being in office — B.C. will continue to be in good shape; B.C. will continue to prosper.

One might wonder if fiscal information, financial information, has been withheld, as some of them would seem to suggest — they suggested we were keeping this information away from people, that we weren't letting the information be known, in spite of the fact that we were filing information on a regular basis — in spite of that, one might wonder what other secrets they are hoping to find that have been withheld. I wonder what they are looking for that really isn't there at all. But are they looking for it? Are they going to report to people around the world that they should be looking deeper into some of the things that have been happening in the province of British Columbia?

Moody's reports that many jurisdictions are not in nearly as good a shape, as British Columbia. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, if the crew opposite were to take a look at the finances, let us say, of one of our sister provinces — the province of Ontario. What would they say about the finances of that particular province, if they were to have a look at those finances and compare them to the very outmoded ideas they have about finance? At this moment nobody is concerned about what is happening in the province of Ontario, but if they were to follow the guidelines espoused by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in this document, then, by comparison, the province of Ontario would, indeed, look very dark. But, Mr. Speaker, nobody does; not even the people opposite would suggest that.

They are directing their political campaign only against the previous administration of the province of British Columbia. The bill before us this evening is an attempt to direct people's attention, for purely partisan political purposes, against what has been happening in the province; trying to destroy the excellent reputation that the province has had, again for purely partisan political advantage, even though the need for that is certainly gone, at least for the time being.

If one were to look at some other jurisdictions in the light of the legislation before us, and talking about debt, about the danger of debt — of course, this document also talks about the danger of debt — try looking at some of the other jurisdictions and see how they view it.

For example, one country that is presumed to be in very good financial shape, one of the financial countries of the world, is Switzerland. Actually — and if you'll excuse me for using the word — Switzerland has a debt. Really, Mr. Speaker, Switzerland has a debt. Now nobody has ever noticed them having any trouble. I'm sure they used that money for good purposes for the people of their country. But there's no denying the fact that they have a debt, and they seem to have survived at least as well with it as we have without having any direct debt. Although, as I say, the difference is that we have what we call contingent liabilities.

If the present Minister of Finance, the present administration opposite, feel that they are going to be so good at running the affairs of this province that they will be able to do it and be out of step with every other jurisdiction in the world, or almost every other jurisdiction, perhaps they will go on and give advice to the rest of the world and tell them, too, how they may govern their affairs to they will be able to provide the citizens with everything they should have today — all of their capital projects, all of their capital needs — and do this and finance it all out of current revenue.

It's quite a challenge for them, because, as I say, in doing that they would be reversing the trend of the whole world. Because in pretending that we are out of debt in this province, we are pretending to be out of step with the whole world.

The bill asks for $400 million. You don't need $400 million. I think that's generally agreed; we don't need it from the financial point of view. We could raise that amount of money, I suppose, if we're going to say to the rest of the world that we're so much better here that we can manage our affairs in a better way than anyone else in the whole world. We'd have people coming, flocking to us. Our finances would be so strong that all the money in the world would be deposited in the province of British Columbia. If we were able to convince the world that we were that good, then money would be flowing into B.C. banks

[ Page 373 ]

and there'd be enough money coming in that we could finance our debt out of a small service charge on all the money pouring in.

But, Mr. Speaker, we aren't going to do that. We're simply pretending that we're different, because, really, when it comes to financing — although we don't use the word "deficit" and we don't use the word "debt" — we do continue to finance a large proportion of our capital expenditure by borrowing. We will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, and other legislation before us indicates that we are going to do that to a greater extent. There is absolutely no harm in doing that; we will be simply following the trend that has been established, well established, in the rest of the world.

The United States and all of its states have debts. All the provinces in Canada have debts of one kind or another.

A lot of people out there may be wondering why the need for this $400 million. Although it was talked about, apparently it didn't become absolutely known to the government until the bill was introduced just a few hours ago, almost. A few days ago. If the need was that urgent, if it was known that long ahead, I wonder why the bill wasn't introduced sooner, Mr. Speaker?

If there was that kind of a time limit on debate on this bill, it could have been dealt with sooner by the House. There could even have been a special session to deal with this question of emergency legislation that was going to be needed. But it was known — and the Premier knew; the Minister of Finance knew — that it was a political ploy, that it was a continuation of the partisan political campaign. There was no real need to bring in this bill. There was a political battle to be fought, but there was no real need to bring it in then, or at any other time. So there's no need to bring it in any sooner than they did.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just make a reference for a moment to a former Social Credit province, and that is the province of Alberta. There too, Mr. Speaker, they're in step with the rest of the world. There too they operate by having deficits. Now they do have capital expenditure, they do have capital funds, but they also, Mr. Speaker, if I may use that nasty word, they also often have deficits in their operating accounts. But Mr. Speaker, they don't try to hide this. They reveal it publicly. They don't try to pretend they don't exist. They recognize that they are there.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I did quote from one publication to talk about the reasonableness of this kind of approach, about the out-of-date policies that are apparently supported by the present administration. One of the members opposite was asking for the title and the author of this book. I quoted from Prosperity Without Inflation, by Arthur F. Burns, to show that it is not unorthodox to borrow for capital expenditure, or indeed to borrow for any other expenditure.

Quoting at length — I didn't quote at length, Mr. Speaker — and I won't bore you this evening with quoting at length, but the comments are in here and showing that any such idea as is being espoused in the British Columbia budget went out of date at least 50 years ago. Pointing out also, Mr. Speaker, and I think I should remind you of this, pointing out also in the words of the foreward to this book, by Ralph C. Epstein…and reminding you, Mr. Speaker, as I did the House yesterday, that when I attended the first meeting of the Ministers of Finance that I did attend, the Minister of Finance — and I think it was his first meeting of Ministers of Finance as well, he was new in his position too — made a point of saying that fighting inflation and fighting recession are like fighting two sides of the same coin. The kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about borrowing, if we are talking about borrowing in that context, Mr. Speaker, of it being a two-pronged attack on two problems that are really part of the same problem, then that kind of borrowing legislation we could accept, Mr. Speaker. But the kind of legislation, as I have to keep repeating, the kind of legislation that is simply partisan political legislation, is legislation that we feel we just can't accept.

Mr. Speaker, the budget for the state of California, Ronald Reagan — how can you find anyone any more conservative than that — borrowing right across the United States, right across Canada, with the one exception, the province of Quebec, where they do it differently, but the same pattern, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing wrong with the borrowing. It's not the borrowing in this legislation that is before us now that we object to. It's the partisan political approach in this bill that's before us and the fact that it is said to be there simply to pay off deficits that were accumulated by a previous government when we know that those deficits were something that were arranged by the present administration, rather than something that was a result of a previous government.

Of course the rate at the top of the good risk borrowers, and I mentioned that earlier I think as far as B.C. Hydro…fortunately for us it is one of the agencies that does have this double-A credit rating. It is important that we hold that. I recalled to the House yesterday that when the second issue of petro-dollars became available, Mr. Speaker, B.C. was the first province, because of the high credit rating, the good esteem in which we were held under the previous administration — and I warn them again not to do anything to damage that — that we were the first province to get in on that second issue of petro-dollars. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we retain that good reputation in the financial capitals of the world.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government should be

[ Page 374 ]

reminded that at every university in British Columbia, there are people teaching that it is normal for governments to borrow, particularly for capital expenditures, by implication that there are circumstances in which they have a responsibility to borrow. A government that can tell other sovereign states what kind of governments they should have, or how they should act, should not trouble about the independence of the university perhaps.

But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there are the members of the U.S. senate committee on finance, that have associated themselves with government borrowing, and more particularly with a law that permanently permits succeeding governments to borrow. I said that earlier during the course of my remarks, and I want to repeat again, that it's the one prime nature of this legislation — that's one of the things that disturbs us most about it — the fact that it's related to one particular incident, rather than giving the government the authority to use this opportunity, when whatever government of the day feels it is necessary to have the use of this authority in the interests of the community that the government should be serving.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's lost his place.

MR. STUPICH: Lost my place? No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't lost my place. It's just that I'm avoiding repeating some of the information that I feel perhaps may be failing on some deaf ears down on that side of the House, and perhaps moving on….

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why don't you talk about your Bricklin?

MR. STUPICH: My Bricklin?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you've got me wondering. I'm not just sure what my Bricklin is.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've said all along the different reasons why we should oppose this particular bill — why we just feel that we can't support it, the kind of bill that is before us. I have suggested the sort of legislation that we could support: general legislation that was not related to or not referring to partisan politics, legislation that would province an opportunity for future governments to borrow when circumstances of the day required it, whether it be a future Social Credit government — although one would hope not, certainly — but a future Social Credit government, or one like the Social Credit government they had in the province of Alberta which found it in the interests of that province to borrow in the 20 years from 1952 to 1972, a government such as they have in the province of Ontario — certainly not a New Democratic Party government and not one that can be considered wasteful because it is a socialist government, but rather a Conservative government, Mr. Speaker — one that chose to borrow when it felt it in the interests of its people to borrow to maintain programmes or to proceed with capital expenditures without any real political tirade and without any real political squabbles in the House. It was legislation that was supported because it was not directed against any political party. It was legislation that was intended to deal with a particular problem of the day. That's the kind of legislation that we would like to see before us now rather than the sort of legislation with which we are dealing.

Mr. Speaker, there is a recent news release put out by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Province of Ontario that, I think, relates something I have referred to earlier when I talked about the close association between government and its agencies. It's from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, March 25, 1976, Toronto. It's an announcement by the Ontario Treasurer: "Darcy McKeough today announced a major financing by Ontario Hydro in the United States private placement market, the issue of U.S. 650 million 20-year 9.5 per cent notes guaranteed by the Province of Ontario." That's the same sort of approach that we take, Mr. Speaker, when we are borrowing for Hydro.

But again, it's being arranged by the government, it's being announced by the government, it's guaranteed by the government. There are more dollars involved than we would normally do in one borrowing, but nevertheless guaranteed by the Province of Ontario, sold to a group of U.S. financial institutions, arranged by Salomon Brothers and Wood, Gundy Inc. of New York, the same people with whom we deal from time to time. "Payment and delivery of the majority of the placement was completed on March 24, with the balance to be completed in two smaller installments in June and September."

That's the kind of thing that goes on, Mr. Speaker. There were no quarrels about that in the Ontario Legislature, I'm sure — certainly no objections from the New Democratic Party. There was nothing political in this; it was borrowing that was done for the citizens of the province of Ontario. That kind of borrowing is something with which we would not quarrel. But that is not the kind of borrowing bill that is before us this evening.

You don't find in the Conservative government of Ontario any statute which guards against the

[ Page 375 ]

possibility that the people of Ontario might someday elect a different kind of government. And that's a very real possibility, Mr. Speaker. You will recall they had an election last year and they now have a minority government. There is a very real possibility that there might be a change of administration after the next election. But there's no legislation on their books guarding against that possibility, warning the people what might happen if they dare to throw out an administration that has been in so long, no lashing out against political Joes, not preachment to the social democracies of the world that they had better watch their step, they had better smarten up, if they want Ontario to continue talking to them. Or a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker — again, not NDP, not socialist, but a Liberal government; if the people choose a Liberal government they won't slide in any more than the hon. Premier slid in when an opportunity was opened for him to enter the Legislature, in the words that our budget speech talks about the parliamentary system.

We're all here as part of the parliamentary system. I think we should honour that system rather than talk about it in the disparaging terms that are used in the budget — to think that one would "slide" in. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and I respect the parliamentary system under which we both serve. Neither one of us would want to be associated with the kind of words that are used in the British Columbia budget, March, 1976.

These people are properly elected, Mr. Speaker, as were you and I properly elected.

The administration may change in Ontario and if it does it will be properly elected. Some day the administration will change in the province of British Columbia, and when that day comes, I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will be by election, because I think you and I would not want it to happen by any other means.

But that is not sliding in, that is by election, and that is the system that you and I support. Or an NDP government such as they have now in two provinces in Canada, twice as many as the number of provinces in which there is a Social Credit government…any government, whatever the party, whatever the politics, we're certainly much closer in our thinking than we are to governments of many other nations. Any government such as we have in mind might feel it wise to borrow, might feel it expedient, might feel it necessary to borrow to establish capital assets, just as they do in the Conservative province of Alberta.

The federal government has borrowed every year for many years. They ran deficits in 1969-70,1971-72,1973-74, and there's no doubt that they're going to run a substantial deficit this year, but nobody is preaching ruin. Canada is doing very well among the nations of the world and Canada will do well among the nations of the world and nobody is going around preaching the sort of doom and gloom that they are here. Of all people, the government is the one that is doing the preaching of doom and gloom about the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on them!

MR. STUPICH: British Columbia, even under this Social Credit administration, Mr. Speaker, is still a province in Canada and let us remember that. Let us remember that we are part of Canada. As a part of Canada we live under laws that allow governments to borrow at need, or when it's sensible to do so. The legislation before us is not drafted in that vein. Again, Mr. Speaker, it's legislation like the budget speech, legislation of political revenge. Shocking, yes, I hear someone saying that it's shocking that legislation of this kind should be placed before us. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that this kind of legislation should be before us this evening.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made in the B.C. budget speech to the Clarkson, Gordon report, about the need to borrow $400 million. There's reference to a deficit of $541 million. There just as easily could have been reference to a deficit of $40 million, as was the figure forecast by the then Premier of the province, David Barrett, and myself in December of 1975. The figure could have been $40 million, it could have been $541 million, or it could be more, or it could be less. Mr. Speaker, it is a politically contrived figure and I intend to…. And this came up earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, when I was being challenged from across the way about the Clarkson, Gordon report, and I said that no one on this side of the House has questioned the Clarkson, Gordon report in any way at all. We do not question the use of the Clarkson, Gordon report, but we cannot help but question the abuse of the Clarkson, Gordon report and the liberty that has been taken with this report in the budget speech itself and by implication in the bill before us now, the bill that pretends that, because of the information revealed in the Clarkson, Gordon report, it is necessary for this province to borrow $400 million.

Mr. Speaker, I find no quarrel at all with the Clarkson, Gordon report. I think the only people who can quarrel with the Clarkson, Gordon report are the people who haven't read it. Mr. Speaker, for their benefit I want to quote a few lines from the Clarkson Gordon report. Mr. Speaker, in the budget speech reference was made to the fact that information was revealed in the Clarkson, Gordon report and of course that information forms the basis of the legislation before us this evening. The Clarkson, Gordon report, dated February 18, 1976, addressed to the Hon. Evan

[ Page 376 ]

M. Wolfe, Minister of Finance. It starts by reminding the Minister of Finance: "On December 22, 1975, you requested us" and I'd like you to note these words, Mr. Speaker, "to co-ordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year ending March 31, 1976."

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Vancouver East was referring to this in the same vein, and when the Premier was in his seat at the time, he said: "Are you questioning the Clarkson, Gordon report?" Mr. Speaker, we're not questioning the Clarkson, Gordon report. We're questioning only the abuse, the liberties that have been taken with this report. "You requested us to co-ordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year ending March 31, 1976 which you" and the you, Mr. Speaker, is not you, but it's the hon. Minister of Finance, "information which you had requested from the Deputy Minister of Finance," and that's quite proper, "the comptroller-general," and that too is quite proper, "and the management of all Crown corporations, boards and agencies" and, Mr. Speaker, this I want you to note too, "and to produce a summary report on the overall financial position of the province."

Mr. Speaker, it is quite plain in there that the advice in the Clarkson, Gordon report is simply a compilation of information that was provided by the hon. Minister of Finance. They had not arrived at this independently, in spite of what the Premier said in the opening of his address where he promised research, promised an independent review by a firm of chartered accountants. Now that's not what Clarkson, Gordon tell us they did. Clarkson, Gordon tell the Minister of Finance, remind him, that all he asked them to do was to add up certain figures that he was giving to them. That's all; there was nothing more than that.

Mr. Speaker, they go on to talk about surplus or deficit, and this, of course, is where we get to the nub of the bill before us, because this is dealing with an alleged deficit that was built up as a result of the financial operations of the previous administration.

Let's see what they have to say about surplus or deficit. It's worth reading, this Clarkson, Gordon report. I would commend it to the members opposite, that they quit talking about it and start reading it. Or, alternatively, that they listen to me read certain passages from it.

When we are talking about surplus or deficit, Mr. Speaker, any discussion of a province's finances usually starts with a consideration of the anticipated surplus or deficit. Fair enough. "For the year under review," and, of course, under this bill we are dealing with the year ended March 31, 1976, "and the primary purpose of your request" — that's the Minister of Finance's request — "for financial information was to determine what the result would be for the province's fiscal year, ending March 31, 1976, based on actual results to the end of 1975, and estimates made by the appropriate officials and managers for the rest of the year."

Mr. Speaker, the actual results for the year ended December 31, 1975, were supplied by the Deputy Minister of Finance and by the Comptroller-General, as he does regularly, and those figures are usually available by the 7th or 8th of the month following the end of the month. So they were using information up to the end of December, and their figures for revenue and their figures for expenditure, in some instances, varied from the figures produced by Mr. Barrett and myself. They were a month later, so it's reasonable that they would vary — and I want to come back to that point as well, Mr. Speaker — so there is some difference there.

But he is saying that the information was made available, the information up to the end of December 31, 1975. They were to take that information; they were to get forecasts — not to make forecasts, because, certainly, they are not as well equipped to make forecasts as are the people dealing with these figures — they were to take the forecasts that were made available by the Comptroller-General, by the Department of Finance and by the appropriate officials and managers, forecasts to deal with the balance of the year. On the basis of that information that was to be supplied to Clarkson, Gordon — and according to this, not even directly, but through the hands of the Minister of Finance…. And I am not suggesting there is anything improper there, because that information should go to him; it shouldn't go to other people.

Clarkson, Gordon do say at the top of page 2 of this report that the deficit for the current year is now estimated at $541 million. Now if you took that statement completely out of context then, of course, we would have to say: "Well, that's game over. We had $147 million to start with and Clarkson, Gordon says $541 deficit, so obviously we need $400 million." But, Mr. Speaker, you could only arrive at that conclusion if you do take it completely out of context, because you have to go on and read the rest of it. What are the details, for example — the details of this forecast?

Then let's see what they say in the next paragraph. I am just concerned that many of the members may not have taken the trouble to read this, because it is, after all, in the back of a document. The front part of this document is the address by the Premier. I am just concerned that some of the members opposite may have taken the time to read the 5½ pages of the Premier's speech, but might not have bothered to read the Clarkson, Gordon report itself.

So taking that statement by itself, that the deficit for the current year is now estimated at $541 million, then we go to the next paragraph: "Details of this

[ Page 377 ]

forecast are set out in appendix1." But this is the point: this information is meaningful only if the reader understands the way British Columbia accounts for its revenues and expenditures.

Before commenting on the results we would like to discuss in broad terms what a surplus or deficit is, and what it is not. Such an understanding is essential if readers are to be able to place in context the matters discussed later in this report.

Mr. Speaker, you can't simply lift that one line out of the Clarkson, Gordon report and say that you have summarized the report. Clarkson, Gordon go to great pains to tell the readers that they mustn't take that one line out of their report and simply assume from that, draw all their conclusions from that. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us was drafted purely on the basis of that one line in the Clarkson, Gordon report, without having taken into account the advice contained in the report and the rest of the information in it.

Clarkson, Gordon point out that that's the way things are. They don't say it's right or wrong; I don't say it's right or wrong. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that this legislation is before us tonight is not simply because of what the previous administration did, but it's because the present administration is trying to take maximum political advantage of the fact that they won an election. They are trying to make things look as bad as they can for the previous administration.

So when the Minister of Finance and chairman of Treasury — and that is the same fellow — was unable to explain to us any of the details why these special warrants that totalled, I believe, in excess of $100 million…why it was necessary to proceed with us at this time. Certainly, he gave us every indication that he was not examining these urgent and special needs for funds, but was simply approving everything that everybody asked for in the hopes that they wouldn't be coming back next month asking for anything.

Now that is the impression we got when he was unable to answer these questions. Nevertheless, he has taken his notice, and presumably sometime in the next fiscal period we will get some of the answers, sometime after, the government hopes, this bill will have been passed.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): We should have them before this bill is passed.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we've dealt with two of the important things that Clarkson, Gordon have to say with respect to surplus and deficit. First, you'll recall: it's an annual concept.

Secondly: it depends upon the political choice, the government's decision as to whether an expenditure will be made by midnight on March 31 or whether it will be made on April 1. If it is made by midnight on March 31, then it is the fiscal period ending in that period. If it is made on April 1, then it is part of the surplus or deficit of the next fiscal period, and the government has the complete authority to do that kind of thing and to do its accounting in a way so that it can make one period look better or worse compared to the other periods, depending upon the government's purposes in so doing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, no, Mr. Speaker, only finally with respect to the three. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the tolerance of the members, and the fact that they are listening so patiently — those who are here. I hope that they are gaining something from this reading of the Clarkson, Gordon report. I am fairly confident that very few of them, if any, have actually read the report the way that I have.

Finally, it is important to note that revenues and expenditures entering into the calculation of the annual surplus or deficit relate only to the general accounts of the province, and do not fully consolidate any special purpose funds or other government-controlled operations such as agencies and Crown operations. So there is a good deal left out, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They don't take into account at all the operations of the special funds that total, at the March 31, 1975, year-end date, in excess of $500 million. There is no recognition of those funds at all. They don't take into account the operation of all the Crown agencies that the government has under its control — B.C. Hydro, for example; B.C.R.; Canadian Cellulose which is controlled by B.C. Cellulose which, of course, is owned by the government. None of that is taken into account at all. When they talk about the deficits of the current year, estimated at $541 million, we have to remember that that word could mean a great deal of things, or could mean very little.

You have to bear in mind the three important things that Clarkson, Gordon draws to our attention when you are talking about the word "deficit."

Going on further with a discussion now of general accounts, and Clarkson, Gordon, I want to repeat again that we have no quarrel at all with the Clarkson, Gordon report. We are concerned only about the people who are talking about it and who, apparently, haven't read it.

With respect to general accounts since surplus or deficit refers only to the general accounts, the question may well be asked: how are other

[ Page 378 ]

government-controlled funds, agencies or Crown corporations, dealt with? Of course, the Clarkson, Gordon report goes on to discuss a number of these.

With respect to special purpose funds the government may, and the previous administration did on occasion, transfer funds, too. There are certain special funds set up by legislation — this money comes from the general accounts in the province. The effect of this is that the full amount of any of this cash taken out of general accounts will affect the province's surplus for that period.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the three years the previous government was in office government revenue exceeded budgeted expenditures by $560 million in three fiscal periods. Revenues exceeded expenditures by over $500 million; more than the deficit they are talking about in this period. That is not unusual. That was done by the previous Social Credit administration, and likely the present Social Credit administration hopes that it will be done by them — that things will improve to the extent that they, too, will be able to transfer funds to special accounts from time to time, or to make grants to Crown corporations from time to time.

They are making grants now. They are proposing that grants be made to several Crown corporations by March 31 in order to increase last year's deficit. But there may be other good reasons. There will be other reasons, and they will be good reasons; that isn't a good reason. But there will be other reasons in the future.

In common usage the terms "surplus" or "deficit" are used to describe the difference between cash received by the province in a year in its general accounts, and cash paid out. If cash coming in exceeds cash paid out, there's a surplus for the year. If cash paid out exceeds cash coming in, then, of course, there's a deficit. But there are three important things to bear in mind. Mr. Speaker, I think the members really should pay attention to the information in this report.

First, used in this sense, surplus or deficit is an annual concept and, Mr. Speaker, I think that in itself raises an interesting concept. Should we really be talking about 12 months? Can we really look at a 12-month period in time and say that this is a reasonable length of time during which we should be considering government accounting? Certainly it's reasonable for some items in revenue, and some of expenditure, but not reasonable, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in the total concept when we are thinking, for example, of assets that in some cases have a useful life of 100 years.

So it's really an artificial period of time when we take a year. What would be more proper…. Why would 12 months be more proper than, say, 15 months? Oh, it's generally accepted, 12 months. You usually look at 12 months. But should we perhaps in some instances be looking at 60 months instead of 12 months? Should we be looking with respect to some items of 12 months and some at 60? Or should we be looking with respect to some items at even much more than that?

So the first thing to bear in mind then, as Clarkson, Gordon points out, is that this question of a surplus or a deficit…and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is referring to a deficit. Should we be looking at this concept of a deficit with respect to the relatively short period — perhaps not all that short in your life or mine, but certainly short in the life of government as such, short in the life of a particular administration. but not short in the life of a government? It's a very short concept to be used when we are talking about this idea of surplus or deficit.

To go on then, Mr. Speaker…. Perhaps I'd better repeat that. Firstly, used in this sense, surplus or deficit is an annual concept. Cash reserves available at the beginning of the year resulting from surpluses, less deficits of all previous years, do not enter into this particular calculation; we're talking now about this one-year period. So when we're talking about the deficits that must be accommodated for according to this legislation that is before us, we're talking about the deficit of one particular year. That's one point. It's an annual concept.

Secondly, it's measured substantially on a cash basis. Revenue includes all the cash which came in during the year — expenditures, all the cash paid out. As I mentioned before, if a building is purchased during the year or a highway is built, the entire cost — that is if it is something done out of general account or a ferry (that's not in here, but I'm just throwing that in) or a ferry is built or purchased — if it's paid for in cash in that period, then it's included as an expenditure in that period, even though the asset may serve the citizens of the province for many years to come. It's still part of the expenditures of that year, and will still contribute either to a lower surplus or a larger deficit, depending upon the situation we are in.

Similarly, if an expenditure is made on March 31 of the fiscal year…. And this is one of the concerns we have about some of the things that the present administration has been doing, and some of the reasons we raise questions about warrants. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that today during question period we asked several questions about warrants that had been passed just before this House was called into session, and you're aware, Mr. Speaker, that warrants are something that are extraordinary. Funds have not been provided for these certain expenditures.

We had some concern wondering why the government felt it was necessary to pay these specially large amounts out at that point in time. The question in our minds was whether or not they were

[ Page 379 ]

simply trying to inflate the expenditures of this period, as Clarkson, Gordon pointed out, so as to maximize the deficit in this period and so improve the financial position for the next fiscal period. I will not say now whether it will be surplus or deficit, but certainly if they can put into this particular period expenditures that would not normally be paid in this period, then they are maximizing the deficit and increasing the necessity — if indeed there is any necessity — but certainly increasing the possibility of a need to borrow by March 31, 1976.

If those special warrants were for expenditures that need not be made…. And I may say, if I may digress for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, that certainly the suspicion was very much in our minds when the chairman of Treasury, the Minister of Finance, knew nothing about the details for those special warrants.

Now in my experience, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of Treasury looked very closely into requests for special warrants, and made sure; it's been suggested that he looked too closely. I think there was a period in time when perhaps he didn't look closely enough, and a period in time when he looked too closely. Perhaps the average was, you know, like a man with his head in the oven and his feet in a block of ice — his average temperature was okay. Over a period of time the average might have been all right.

But we were concerned, Mr. Speaker, that some of these expenditures were being thrown in simply to maximize the deficit in this particular fiscal year-end to increase the need to borrow in this period, and to improve the financial position for the following period.

Clarkson, Gordon pointed out the reasons in the future. There will be good reasons for making grants to Crown corporations, and I am sure the government hopes that it will be in a financial position to do that from time to time.

But, Mr. Speaker, again going back to Clarkson, Gordon, when a government decides to do that and has the financial wherewithal to do it, the effect of that is that the full amount of any cash transferred automatically and immediately affects the province's surplus or deficits for that year, even though the special fund may spend the money over a number of years.

When $10 million is put into a special reforestation fund, it reduces the surplus for that year by that amount. Now that money might be spent over the next 10 years and is not taken account of in the general accounts at all, but it is taken account of in the day or the year, the fiscal year, in which it is transferred to that special fund.

Clearly, then, the use of a special fund results in a lower surplus, and this is one of the manoeuvres — and I don't use that word in any derogatory sense at all, Mr. Speaker…. I'm just quoting and referring to Clarkson, Gordon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that way of financing, of moving money to special accounts, to special funds, or to Crown corporations from time to time as the money is available to do this.

Clearly the use of a special fund results in a lower surplus or a higher deficit. It could be done even though there is a deficit, Mr. Speaker. You are not limited simply to the amount of surplus for that annual period. As long as there is revenue surplus carried forward, governments could transfer money to special funds, even though the current year has a deficit.

In the year that it is created…. Currently the use of a special fund results in a lower surplus in the year it is created than if the cash were spent directly out of general accounts as it is actually required. The opposite, of course, is true. In any year that the unspent or uncommitted money in a special fund is returned to general accounts…and that's one of the proposals that we have in the budget speech. That will be before us in legislation if it isn't already.

Money bills will be returned, and could be returned in the fiscal period ended March 31, 1976, which would, of course, reduce any possibility of a deficit. Money could have been brought back into revenue. Clarkson, Gordon tells us this could be done; it is quite proper. We have no quarrel with that; we have no quarrel with Clarkson, Gordon. The money will be brought in from certain special funds in the next period, as the Minister of Finance indicated. This can be done — nothing right about it, nothing wrong about it.

Another point in the Clarkson, Gordon report: they point out that if you look through government finances there is just no such thing as being able to pick out one figure and say that this is the correct and true position of the province at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members, while their patience has been very good, would probably like to hear from someone else in this debate. I am sure they recognize that there are many things yet that have to be said before we can drop this subject….

Mr. Speaker, going back to the need to borrow $400 million, if I may briefly — and then I will yield my place. Mr. Speaker, let's look at some of the figures that make up this amount of $541 million. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at the difference between ordinary revenue as projected in the statement issued by Mr. Barrett and myself in December, and the figures as are projected in the Clarkson, Gordon report, and the figures as are projected in the budget speech that was read by the Minister of Finance on Friday.

The reason we are doing this, Mr. Speaker, is to show you that, although monthly reports are available, and although monthly reports are made

[ Page 380 ]

available to Clarkson, Gordon, the monthly report for the first month is not necessarily the pattern for the whole year, any more than the monthly report for the ninth month, as was the month that Clarkson, Gordon had available, was a necessarily final evaluation of what was going to happen in the year.

Mr. Speaker, the Clarkson, Gordon figures differed from the figures presented by Mr. Barrett and myself by some $80 million, when we're looking at the straight ordinary revenue of the province. If we look now at the budget speech, which presumably was based on figures that were a month later, we find another difference. We find, Mr. Speaker, that there is a difference in revenue. Revenue figures are changed from the time that Clarkson, Gordon looked at them until the time that the budget was prepared. And presumably what they had were figures that were one month later — that is, to the end of January.

Revenue was estimated to be $19 million higher than the figures produced by Clarkson, Gordon. Expenditures were estimated to be $11 million lower in spite of all the special warrants that were rushed in — a difference, Mr. Speaker, of some $30 million. The situation had improved in the one month by some $30 million. There was still two months to go, Mr. Speaker.

Now in the statement that Mr. Barrett and I presented in December, it is short some $80 million from what Clarkson, Gordon…. Or, rather, Clarkson, Gordon is short some $80 million from what we said. Mr. Speaker, in one month, according to the budget speech, $30 million of that $80 million discrepancy has been picked up. There were still two months to go. Mr. Speaker, at that rate the whole of the $80 million would be made up, with another $10 million to boot.

AN HON. Member: Right.

MR. STUPICH: So, Mr. Speaker, the first figure that I would like to question in the addition of the $541 million deficit is the $80 million discrepancy that gives every indication of being made up if that pattern is to be continued for the balance of the year.

Now, I recognize there are some political decisions made that would have some bearing on that. I recognize that ICBC, for example, might have a detracting effect on the economy of the province, and the pick-up might not be that good. Nevertheless, on the basis of the actual figures that we have — and of course we don't have access to the figures at the end of February. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has had those in his hands now for over — not over but for about — three weeks and could give us the figures up to the end of February if he so chose. Of course, that is up to him. He is not obligated so to do. But nevertheless, the only information available to the members of the opposition would indicate that the $80 million difference is ordinary revenue and expenditure could very well be made up by the end of March, 1976.

Then we look at other items. We look at grants to Crown corporations, and, of course, the one that comes to mind first…I'm sure it's the one you'd think of first as well. The necessity for borrowing $400 million to give a grant to a Crown corporation, a Crown corporation that the Premier of the province is quoted as saying: "Not only does it not need the money now" — quoted in the Victoria Times, dated January 27 — not only has the government decided to pay off the deficit left by ICBC but the money will not be needed right away. ICBC can invest it.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is asking us to approve the borrowing of $400 million, almost half of which is to be a grant to a Crown corporation that doesn't need the money. A Crown corporation that at this point in time, on March 30, probably has twice that amount of money sitting in the bank, twice that $175 million. Yet we are being asked tonight, seriously, to consider that it is in the interests of the people of the province to go out and borrow $400 million, so we can give $175 million to a corporation that has twice that much sitting in the bank right now — and doesn't need it.

MR. BARNES: It's a political hoax.

MR. STUPICH: It's a political hoax. It's a farce. It's political revenge against the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

Another figure included in this — and it's not their choice. It wasn't the choice of Clarkson, Gordon to put this in. Clarkson, Gordon state quite clearly in their report: "We have been advised by the government that this grant is going to be paid out by March 31, 1976, regardless of what the legislature does." Doesn't matter what we think, doesn't matter that it doesn't need it, the government is going to pay this money out by March 31, 1976, and: "Therefore we have included it in the expenditure for this period."

I go back to that line I quoted, and I said if you take that out of context — completely out of context — you can justify borrowing $400 million, but when you read the rest of the report there is absolutely no justification in the Clarkson, Gordon report for borrowing $4 million, $40 million, or $400 million. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. No justification anywhere in this report for borrowing. The $175 million isn't needed.

The transit authority, $26 million grant. The transit authority needs money. There's no doubt about that. You'll recall that last year we increased the gasoline tax by two cents to subsidize transit in the hope of persuading people that they should use the transit system and to develop the transit system.

[ Page 381 ]

We could do that again. We needn't give a grant. The transit authority has the authority to borrow. We could very well consider that the general revenue of the province should subsidize transit even further to persuade more people to use the transit system. It's a good policy. We could do that, but there's no need, other than the partisan political need, at this time to include a further grant to transit authority of that amount or any other amount.

Grant to B.C. Hydro, the same thing.

You recall me quoting from the Clarkson, Gordon report to the effect that money from Crown corporations can be recovered. Money from BCR, $35 million, and we quarrelled about that in the House. They have said that it was a grant, not a loan. Mr. Speaker, we quoted from Hansard to show that at the time, the Premier of the day clearly indicated that it was intended as a loan and not a grant. The minutes of the directors' meetings of BCR recorded it as a loan and not a grant, and even recorded the date on which repayment was to be made in one set of minutes, and in a later set of minutes, postponed the date of payment. So, obviously, it was intended as a loan and not a grant, and could be repaid by BCR. BCR is a Crown corporation that has the authority and the ability to borrow. It could go out and borrow that and could pay it back.

B.C. Harbours Board has the authority to borrow. The Premier of the day, when the B.C. Harbours Board legislation was passed included in that legislation the authority to borrow, knowing full well that sometime in the history of the province it might be advisable for B.C. Harbours Board to put that money back into the general accounts of the province. He had that in mind. They know he had that in mind. They know he had that because they've introduced legislation to amend that legislation, to make it easier, to facilitate it.

Mr. Speaker, all these things could be done. If we went this direction, there'd be no need to proceed with Bill 3. There is no need to proceed at this late date with Bill 3, no need other than the satisfaction of a need for political revenge, to remind the people of the province that they voted New Democratic Party in great numbers in 1972. I think the members opposite should remember that even more people of the province voted NDP in 1975.

Mr. Speaker, we can't support Bill 3 because it's political. It's not intended in any way at all to be in the interests of the people of the province. It's intended only to be interested in furthering a political campaign still be waged by the Social Credit Party. It's not good legislation. It is legislation that will not be supported by the official opposition.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness in this House to debate a bill which I think any thinking person would recognize as nothing more than a political pamphlet. In all conscience, will the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), after having listened — if he listened to the case made, and a proper case made by the member for Nanaimo, Mr. Speaker — would the Minister care to pull the bill right now?

MR. LAUK: In 10 minutes (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Would you accept half an hour? (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: The minister really knows deep down that what I suggested are the facts of the matter. To understand this bill, if you haven't listened to the member for Nanaimo, to understand the bill the way it's presented and the way it's suggested that it's needed, I can only say that you need the wildest imagination that one can achieve. It's a bill put forward in the first place by a government who, by their own admission, do not trust their own public servants — a government who do not trust their own public servants. I can only see two reasons — two possible reasons — for the appointment of an auditor, and then he didn't do an audit, as was amply shown in that report. It had, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. WOLFE: It would have taken five years.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): That's right. You admit that.

MR. COCKE: It would have taken five years, the Minister of Finance says…

AN HON. MEMBER: And any thinking person would know that.

MR. COCKE: …and any thinking person would know that. Then why did they try to indicate that they were getting an audit? For the audience out there, the people of British Columbia. How come that smokescreen? He's already admitted it — an outrageous smokescreen, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could it be political?

MR. LEA: You see that, Bill? You leave him alone for a minute….

AN HON. MEMBER: Wake him up!

MR. COCKE: They couldn't take the word of the comptroller-general — that's one reason — and that

[ Page 382 ]

would be a real shame. He produces a monthly report that's in the hands of the minister, as has been amply shown over the last few days. He produces a monthly report, but the Minister of Finance when questioned can't come up with specific answers in question period that could very well be answered by taking a look at that report.

I suggest to this House that that bill, that insult called a bill, is purely an outrageous smokescreen perpetrated not by this minister, Mr. Speaker, not by this minister — I doubt it. I've known him for some time and I've seen him in conversation over the years. I don't think that he reacts in this way, not naturally. I suggest that the speech that he read the other day was quite foreign to him as well.

Sitting beside him, Mr. Speaker, is the author of Bill 3.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You would if you could, but I don't think you're bright enough. But the first minister….

AN HON. MEMBER: New Westminster smokescreen.

MR. COCKE: The first minister sure called the shot on this one, I would suggest.

Mr. Speaker, when the smoke….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. COCKE: Wouldn't you like to know? (Laughter.) Wouldn't you like to know? He's out there beating the bushes, Mr. Speaker — out there beating the bushes, looking for Socreds under every bush, under every branch.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Mr. Speaker, if they're wondering where he is, all the Premier has to do is adhere to the law of this land, adhere to the law of the province, and call an election.

You know, ever since he walked into this House, Mr. Speaker, he's been calling elections. When he was over here: "Call elections, call elections, call elections." When he's over there he's asking us to resign so that….

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You finally did and you lost. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Yes, we did lose, Mr. Member — we know that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you'll lose the next time.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes? Okay, Mr. Speaker, they know all about what's going to happen in the future. But I'm here to speak for the future.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): You won't be here.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I've been told that the last three times, Mr. New Boy. (Laughter.) The people for New Westminster….

Oh, well, this is the member for Vancouver South, described by one of his colleagues as more right than Genghis Khan — by one of his colleagues! What a terrible thing to say! Did he have a hand in this bill? I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, when the smoke cleared….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us about the smoke.

MR. COCKE: After changing accountants in midstream, remember the…? I'm not going to be quite so accepting as my chartered accountant colleague. I did recall somehow that they changed accountants….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the Clarkson, Gordon thing started out under the auspices of Mr. Adam. Yes, Mr. Adam.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Adam…. No, he hasn't always been a Social Credit bagman.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, no, no. He was a "Pat" bagman. He went with the former leader of the Liberal Party, to the former member of the Liberal Party and then finally…

MR. GIBSON: What? I'm confused.

MR. COCKE: Oh, not you, Mr. Member — no, sir! …then finally over to the Socreds. Mr. Speaker, it was a pitiful arrangement. All the people in B.C. are asking….

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Where's Agnes? (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: All the people in this province are asking for is a little truth in government — just a little truth in government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's what they've got.

[ Page 383 ]

MR. COCKE: When will it occur? Mr. Speaker, the man known by those who know him best as "Leatherlungs" shouldn't be talking about truth. (Laughter.) I sat and listened, 14 hours of continuous debate….

MR, KING: That wasn't debate; that was harangue.

MR. LEA: It was lemon harangue pie. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I do ask the question: when will that truth occur? Can we expect it? Can we expect a conscience to develop in that sad old party over there? They really are. They have some conscience — a little bit, a little bit.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we're asking for the truth.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: We're not asking for a truth by way of the Clarkson, Gordon report through the mouth of the minister or through the Premier. Mr. Speaker, if I have time in this debate I'll start educating on that, too.

But certainly I would like to say a few things about Bill 3. It's not the fault of the Clarkson, Gordon report; it's the fault of what was done with it. But where I depart from my colleague from Nanaimo is: why did a reputable firm of chartered accountants do a report like that which could be misinterpreted by the unwashed as an audit? That's what they wanted to happen, Mr. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen).

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with ICBC when I get around to it. If that member wants to make a speech, why doesn't he get up and make a speech. He had lots of time to jump up between the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and myself. But, no, he didn't; he would rather sit there and screech and howl. He's going to be quite a screecher and howler over the next while.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Gordon Dowding.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we saw the former member in the House today and I felt somewhat regretful — a deep feeling in my heart that somebody out there in Edmonds lost something.

Mr. Speaker, they could only use the figures, they could only use the priorities — and I am talking about Clarkson, Gordon now — they could only use the direction provided by their employer.

Mr. Speaker, are we to pass a bill based on the Premier's political speech? That's what that report was. The real preamble, the part of that report that got circulated the most across the province, was the Premier's reaction to a report that he set the guidelines for in a most unorthodox way, I quote from the Clarkson, Gordon report. It said — and that's why I am saying what I'm saying…

MR. KAHL: Well, say it.

MR. COCKE: …that the report was a report provided the government. Mr. Speaker, let's hear what Clarkson, Gordon has to say, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) indicated very clearly: "We are not requested to perform an audit of the financial information, and we did not do so."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tedious and repetitious.

MR. COCKE: Now we hear from the member for Columbia River — that's in Alberta (laughter) — the man who is best noted for "jobs!" in this House.

Mr. Speaker, an address by the Hon. W.R. Bennett is what the front page of this document really entails. It's exactly that: a political report in the finest tradition of the Social Credit Party. Mr. Speaker, what did they do with it? You see that report all over the province. I suggest that it's out there to influence, knowing full well that most people don't read that kind of involved statement.

MR. CHABOT: Time.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, he calls for time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is reading "Little Bo-Peep." (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, they were not requested to perform an audit of the financial information, and they did not do so. So it's not an independent audit; we've pretty well satisfied the House on that.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has gone from the House again. He suggested, by a wink or a lack of a nod, that he wasn't going to pull the bill. I can't understand why he doesn't pull the bill because the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) made all the points that are necessary in order for anybody to realize that he had gone the wrong route. That may

[ Page 384 ]

happen; that just might happen.

Mr. Speaker, I heard that one should pull the minister. I wonder if that might happen. If he disappears tomorrow we will all wonder where he's gone.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested something about the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) old buddy a little while ago, Mr. Adam. I wonder if he knows him — the man described as a bagman for the Minister of Education.

I wonder what the report would have said if Mr. Adam hadn't been fired from the Clarkson, Gordon report. I wonder what it would have said. But, Mr. Speaker, they've added all those riders to make sure that they were covered. I wonder if all those riders would have been there had it been otherwise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus the Lone Ranger. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: Yes, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I look in contrast in this situation to when our government asked for a report when our NDP government suspected all was not well with the BCR. Remember that?

We suspected that there were problems, and we engaged Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, another accounting firm, Mr. Speaker, with another international reputation, to do a properly certified audit. We didn't ask them to re-arrange the figures, Mr. Speaker. All we asked for was an audit, and that's what we got.

Honesty in government, Mr. Speaker, is something the people got used to in this province over three years. Why did we ask for an audit, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Oh, let's not get shirty. Because the comptroller-general in a report filed in the Legislature indicated that he was not happy with the BCR.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: He was not happy with their accounting procedures.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up.

MR. COCKE: He had information to the effect that under the former Social Credit government, the B.C. Rail auditor had been restricted in his auditing. He'd been restricted. Here are the comptroller-general's own words. According to the B.C. Rail comptroller, Mr. E.M. Gunderson…. Have I heard that name before? Gunderson? Gunderson?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Another bagman! Well, well, well. "Mr. E.M. Gunderson restricted the extent to which the external auditors could go into their auditing." The precise words. The precise words, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cook the books!

MR. COCKE: Shake your head all you like but watch out. It might fall off, because you're cutting your throat with this dishonesty.

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Rail auditor, Mr. Douglas Walker, resigned and was suspended, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out. So, as I say, a properly certified audit was asked for and was received.

Now, what did this audit reveal? Well, Mr. Speaker, it showed that under the previous Social Credit government a deficit of no less than $52.7 million by B.C. Rail had been hidden between '57 and '72.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up!

MR. COCKE: I have to smile, standing in my place, Mr. Speaker, when I look across at the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), that great champion of virtue in this House, who used to stand up and kick the living daylights out of the Socreds for all their cover-ups. Some of my colleagues likely will follow with the quotes from that member, that minister. I might have one or two myself before the evening is out.

MR. CHABOT: Filibuster!

MR. COCKE: The member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) says "filibuster". The member for Columbia River doesn't want to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The truth hurts.

MR. COCKE: A speech of over a paragraph and a half from that member is a filibuster. (Laughter.) But that does not represent the kind of words that you hear from here because you hear the truth.

In the last year of the Social Credit, in 1972, for example, the Socreds announced B.C. Rail made a profit of $992,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it true?

MR. COCKE: The auditors certified that, in fact, the B.C. Rail lost $8.1 million, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), $8.1 million, and yet they had certified that the rail had made money.

Mr. Speaker, I just can't help but think, if we had been a vindictive gang in 1972, I just can't help but

[ Page 385 ]

think what we could have done with those Socred debts that this province has inherited. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we could have produced a $1 billion deficit using the same kind of calculations as that bunch over there used.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would have been twice as irresponsible.

MR. COCKE: And it would have been twice as irresponsible as doing what you did.

But, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at the figures. On the Columbia River $845 million lost, Mr. Speaker, $845 million, and I'm not talking about the debt. I'm just talking about that which was lost. Mr. Speaker, $52.7 million down the tube, down the tube, on the BCR.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They're beginning to chatter, Mr. Speaker. What's happening over there? Don't they like me, Mr. Speaker? Is there something about my glasses possibly or the colour of my shirt?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I'd appreciate it, hon. member, if you'd get back a little closer to the principle.

MR. COCKE: I'm immediately on the bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about a deficit or a debt that we could have done exactly the same thing for in 1972. It's related directly to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about the $845 million on the Columbia power project. I'm talking about the $52 million on BCR, and an additional $227 million lost, down the tube, underestimated on the extension of the BCR. And anybody that doesn't remember…. Oh, Mr. Speaker, there will be one that doesn't remember, the one who knows nothing about B.C. politics, who came in here recently. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, it works out….

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Hawaii.

MR. COCKE: Yes, the member for Hawaii. But, Mr. Speaker, it works out to $1 billion.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Chirp, chirp, chirp. Mr. Speaker…. Ah, look, he's getting support from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). He's in good hands with Allstate, and I suspect that that's the same hands that the Attorney-General's in — Allstate. Oh, what a terrible thing for me to say, especially to a minister who plays by all the right rules…squash.

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP has been irresponsible like this present government, that's precisely what we would have found, a $1 billion deficit. We'd have brought a bill in here chirping around, telling the people of B.C., hoping against hope that we could convince them that that old government had done all the wrong things. Most of the people in B.C. sensed that that old government had a lot to add to it to be desirable. But, Mr. Speaker, the present government is asking this House to give assent to borrow $400 million, and they're asking the taxpayers to pay the interest on that $400 million.

Mr. King draws Mr. Speaker's attention to the clock.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 11:05 this evening.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you can't do that. I'm on my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You yielded the floor; you yielded the floor!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. member for New Westminster. You were on your feet; you yielded to the Leader of the Opposition who rose on a point of order. The point of order apparently was to draw my attention to the clock. The Hon. Provincial Secretary then rose and I recognized her because it is implicit and spelled out in a ruling by former Speaker Dowding in our own Journals, 1970…. be seated please…that the Speaker or the Chairman, whoever is presiding at the appointed hour of adjournment may entertain a routine motion.

The routine motion that I entertained was the one that was put by the Provincial Secretary to adjourn until 11:05. Are you in favour of the motion?

Interjections.

MR. KING: I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that when I rose to draw attention to the clock, I did not rise on a point of order. I understand that the rules of this House allow any member to rise and draw attention to the clock when the normal time of adjournment arrives. Therefore the procedure was not interrupted or intervened by a point of order, and I

[ Page 386 ]

suggest that under those circumstances the motion of the Provincial Secretary is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, once you rose in your place to draw attention to the clock, the routine proceedings at that point were interrupted by that very act. At that point, I did accept a routine motion to adjourn from the Hon. Provincial Secretary. And it's quite distinct in the Journals of our House, 1973, page 171, on a very concise ruling by former Speaker Dowding.

MR. LAUK; The issue that was decided by Speaker Dowding in the decision to which you refer does not deal with the interruption in proceedings. What it deals with is what kind of transaction of business can follow after your attention has been drawn to the clock. In any event, when a speaker is in the middle of a debate and he yields on a point of order to any member of this House, he does not lose his place in debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't suggested that the member has lost his place in the debate. What I have suggested is that other business intervened and I took a motion to adjourn.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you do not understand my point. With respect….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, the motion has been put. I must now call for the vote on the motion.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a ruling in our own book. It's there. I have just taken a motion that this House adjourn.

MR. LAUK: But that motion is improper and not in order. When a member is on his feet….

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge the ruling.

MR. LAUK: I have no intention of challenging rulings. It's a childish practice of your days, not ours.

I beg Mr. Speaker's indulgence in this matter, because my point has not been grasped. What I wish to point out here, Mr. Speaker, is that when a member is in the middle of a debate and he yields to a point of order, no other motion can take precedence over his position in that debate, and he must continue when the point of order has been disposed of.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the opposition leader says that he did not rise on a point of order; he rose to draw my attention to the clock, which in the event was an intervention of the business that was before the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the member is still on the floor speaking in this debate, and the debate has not been adjourned. That's improper procedure in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the motion….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion on the floor of this House, and under standing order No. 45(1)(k) this motion is debatable. I propose to debate it. May I proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: A motion to adjourn is not debatable….

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, may I quote you the text of standing order 45(1)(k)? It states: "The following motions are debatable:" Then (k):

"And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting-days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The time has been fixed.

MR. GIBSON: The time is not fixed, Mr. Speaker; it has been proposed. It's debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the member take his seat, please?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: The time of the motion to adjourn…. If the time is set, then the time is debatable, not the motion to adjourn; but the time is a debatable matter.

Interjections.

[ Page 387 ]

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: Incidentally, since it's now past 11:05, the motion is perhaps out of order in any event. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask the House to consider, Mr. Speaker, why the government would wish to change the regular sitting hours. It's not a step of minor consequence. It's a step which results in grave inconvenience to the staff of this House; to the Sergeant's staff, the restaurant staff, the library staff — people who are detained here for what is presumably a reason.

I wonder what this reason might be, Mr. Speaker, We were not afforded by the hon. Provincial Secretary her reasons for seeking to reconvene this chamber at 11:05. Perhaps when I sit down she may wish to stand up and describe at some length why the government should feel this move necessary.

MRS. JORDAN: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. GIBSON: I would suggest, Madam Member, you tell the government to get their hands out of the people's pockets.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR, SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor and he is debating the time of adjournment.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the Provincial Secretary is no longer in order in this House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, will you entertain a motion that the House at its rising do stand adjourned to adjust to the time that has allowed for the time of the debate on this motion?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your dad when you need him?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a phone call for you from Kelowna.

Interjections.

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

Hon. members, it is quite apparent that the motion that was moved by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was moved at a time, had it been voted on then, that would have left a time between the hour of adjournment and the next sitting of the House. Now business that has taken place since then has been points of order and debate on the motion to adjourn. That debate can continue as long as you wish to speak to that point, and as many members as wish, I presume, can speak to that point, as to whether they are approving or disapproving of the hour of adjournment. But that does not mean that the hon. Provincial Secretary would then have to put a new motion…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: …at whatever time there is a conclusion to the debate that takes place on the time to adjourn.

MR. LAUK: According to Dicey on constitutional law, Mr. Speaker, parliament is supreme…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. LAUK: …and I suppose parliament can adjourn itself to a time past, but with respect, Mr. Speaker, that would appear ridiculous. It would bring derision and mockery upon this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that parliament can even vote that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning.

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a point of order, please make it.

MR. LAUK: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it's the height of nonsense to continue with a motion to adjourn to 11:05 when it's now 11:13.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that I've given you the….

MR. LAUK: It's Major Douglas and A plus B all over again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I take it that I'm still speaking to the same motion?

[ Page 388 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I presume you are, sir.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Incidentally, Your Honour, I think that that's entirely proper because if you will consult May in the 18th edition at page 368, you will see that a member who has proposed a motion can withdraw it only by the leave of the House, granted without any negative voice. So, if I understand correctly, I am debating a motion that the House should adjourn until 11:05.

MR. SPEAKER: You're debating the time of adjournment. That's right.

MR. GIBSON: No, the motion, Mr. Speaker — I want to be very clear on this so that I understand it correctly — is that the House adjourn until 11:05 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

MR. GIBSON: And that motion, if passed, Mr. Speaker — I want to be very clear on this and understand it — will cause the House to adjourn until 11: 05 p.m. when that next occurs. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Good try.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I'm very serious because it obviously can't adjourn until 11:05 when that last occurred. (Laughter.) It's too late.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. GIBSON: I'll assume then, Mr. Speaker, that we're talking about tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe if we're talking about tomorrow we can settle this pretty quickly.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Then they would lose a vote of confidence.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! Would the member please take his seat for a moment? When the motion was moved, it was to 11:05 p.m.…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! …which would be 11: 05 this evening.

MR. GIBSON: But that wasn't the word.

MR. SPEAKER: 11:05 was five minutes after the hour we were then at, Mr. Member.

MR. GIBSON: But the day wasn't….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Now we are in a process of debating the time of adjournment. It was set at a time prior to 11:05. There will be time lapse in the debate for those who wish to speak to that point of order, including yourself, but 11:05 — or whatever time we get to the point of putting the motion which was moved by the Provincial Secretary — it will be as if it was 11:05 this evening, or five minutes after the regular hour of adjournment this evening, Mr. Member.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Do you understand that?

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, even with the enormous powers of Your Honour I am not satisfied that it is competent on you, Sir, to vary the words of a motion of an hon. member of this House. The motion, it seems to me, either stands there in plain language, which was "the House adjourned until 11:05," or it is withdrawn. The withdrawal requires the unanimous voice of the House without any negative voice, as May makes clear, and therefore it seems to me very clear that if we pass this motion the House will resume tomorrow at 11:05 p.m. Now we will be able to check the Blues tomorrow morning, I suppose, to see whether we may perhaps assemble at 11:05 a.m. in case the time is not specified. I would quite agree that the next 11:05 will suffice.

MR. LOEWEN: Sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making a farce of this House.

MR. GIBSON: No, your government is making a farce of this House, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Don't threaten the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the hon. House Leader, it is true, did not specify 11:05 today,

[ Page 389 ]

tomorrow or next year, but it is a reasonable assumption that at 11 o'clock, or at approximately that time, within a few seconds…. When the hon. House Leader moved a motion to 11:05, it is a reasonable assumption that it was 11:05 this evening. Now if the hon. member wishes to debate that point, and not in a frivolous manner, the Chair is prepared to listen to that debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Responsibility.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All of this, of course, is prior to entering into the debate because before we enter into debate we should know what we are debating. I would argue to you, Sir, that where a time is not specified, or a particular period is not specified for a particular time, that we have to, as I said, go by the plain language, The plain language of the Provincial Secretary — and I must apologize for not being able to distinguish between a.m. and p.m. in this case because I am not sure if the hon. Provincial Secretary herself distinguished — but I do believe that she made no suggestion that she was talking about today, and I believe the Blues will bear me out on that.

I would suggest that if it seems important to the House as to whether it's a.m. or p.m., Mr. Speaker, we could take a short recess while we listen to the tapes to see if it was a.m. or p.m. or, alternately, if it's not important to the House whether it's a.m. or p.m. but simply that it's tomorrow, we can continue in that vein.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We can draw you a picture.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no, it can't possibly be tonight. It can't possibly be tonight because it's too late. (Laughter.) That was last night.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we have any further debate, I think it was obvious that when the hon. Provincial Secretary rose to her feet to adjourn the debate to 11: 05 she was using the same practice that we have used in this House for many, many years and many, many sessions of the Legislature…

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The motion to 11:05 would be to the next ensuing 11:05, which would be five minutes after 11 this evening. I don't think that there is any doubt about that and I now rule that it was the clear intention of the House Leader, when standing in her place at 11 o'clock and suggesting that the House adjourn to 11:05, although she didn't say next ensuing, but the next ensuing 11:05 would be 11:05 this evening. That is the clear intent of the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we wouldn't go through this nonsensical scene that we've seen here tonight. It's been 20 minutes of wasted time by members of the opposition in debating something that in my humble opinion is not debatable because I think standing order 45 is very specific. Section 1 tells you which motions are debatable and it goes on to talk about subsection 2 of standing order 45 which says: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment." I hope we don't have another repetition of a waste of 20 minutes, as we have experienced tonight, when there is absolutely no need. This question should be put forthwith because the motion is not debatable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the time of adjournment, as the Chair has already pointed out, is a matter that is debatable, and that the issue here tonight is the question of whether or not the House could possibly comply with the motion put forward by the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that I must take issue with the ruling that the Chair has put forward which in my view is a clear attempt by the Chair to interpret a motion put forward by the Provincial Secretary when the Provincial Secretary herself has offered no explanation. I think it is just as reasonable to assume from her motion that in compliance and conformity with the rules that have existed in this House over the past three years, that there will not be a return to legislation by exhaustion, that there will not be a return to all-night sessions in this chamber. So I submit, Mr. Speaker — you listened to the member for Columbia River make his point. I would thank you to hear me out also. I would suggest it is infinitely more reasonable for the Chair to interpret the intent of that motion to be 11 a.m. tomorrow morning which is a decent, humane time for legislators to sit. I think the interpretation which the Chair has put on it in this case is a perversion of the intent of the motion and the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Hon. Provincial Secretary, would you wish to clarify for the benefit of the members of the House, when you rose on your feet at 11 o'clock and adjourned the House to 11:05, did you mean 11:05 next ensuing, which would have been 11: 05 this evening, or some other time?

[ Page 390 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to inform the House….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not leading anyone.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Is the Provincial Secretary rising, Mr. Speaker? I know of no standing orders which empower the Speaker to command a member to rise in the House and explain themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary was on her feet as many have been on their feet in the last 20 minutes and I have recognized them in order of the way that they have risen in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: There is a motion on the floor. That would take precedence to anything else except points of order. I've asked under what standing order the Provincial Secretary is being interrogated.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think it is very clear that the Provincial Secretary, if allowed to rise, will be able to clarify what she meant.

MRS. McCARTHY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to clarify, if I may, and to stop this ridiculous debate, that my meaning in making the motion was the same meaning that has been offered by House Leaders in the past. When I adjourned the debate at 11:05, I meant 11:05 p.m. this evening following the 11 o'clock hour when the motion was made this evening, 11: 05 p.m. this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I presume that you are ruling on this matter of the time that was intended. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have already ruled.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I believe the time of the motion is a debatable matter. Is that not so?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention and the attention of the members of the House, the very serious concern and the alarm of the opposition that, in the early days of the new legislative session, under a new government and a young Premier, that we are returning to a style of rules and procedure in this House that seems calculated to punish those who have the temerity to want to debate matters that are before the House. If the opposition doesn't operate in compliance with the government's wish, then the time limits are used as a method of punishing the opposition. I want to say that I believe that 11:05 tonight is an unreasonable time for the House to sit. I think that we have had decent, humane rules in this House over the last three years that have provided some spirit of cooperation in the House, not only to the members but, as the Liberal leader has pointed out, to the staff who must service the needs of the House while it is in session, and I….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano please take your seat? The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor at the moment.

MR. GIBSON: I just wanted to inquire, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition was on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I haven't yielded my place in the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, right. (Laughter.) I apologize, hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano. It is true that in the debate which is now taking place you yielded your place to points of order, and I should have recognized you. The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me apologize for interrupting the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the flow of his thoughts, but I was interrupted in the flow of mine a bit earlier and perhaps should complete them first.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. GIBSON: The question I was then raising, Mr. Speaker, assuming we come back here at 11:05 tonight, is: why it should be done. What are the reasons of the government in calling this kind of resumption of the session tonight?

Presumably they would be taken for good reasons of public business — I would assume that. I would assume that before the end of this debate we will hear good reasons of public business from the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), or the Premier, or someone. But I have to say that I find it difficult to visualize or understand the good reasons of public business that might motivate it.

I can contemplate some bad reasons of public business that just might conceivably motivate it. I can contemplate, for example, that it could be because

[ Page 391 ]

the management of this House by the government has been absolutely incompetent and the Whip system has broken down, therefore the government is using any irresponsible tactic it can bring to bear to try and re-establish its shaky moral authority in this chamber. I can see that as a possible reason for seeking to bring this House back 25 minutes ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Having fun? Enjoying yourself, Gibson?

MR. GIBSON: I think it's a shame that it's gotten into that state.

I can contemplate another reason.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's for later debate, Mr. Member. Indeed, what does happen if the motion passes? But let's just look at the possible reasons for it in the meantime. Could it be that the government is concerned for certain purposes to pass legislation by a certain time?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you for just one moment?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

MR, SPEAKER: I have a message from the Deputy Chief of Hansard. It reads as follows: "The original motion to adjourn, made by the hon. Provincial Secretary, was as follows according to the tape: 'Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 11:05 this evening.'"

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think we have once again a measure of the worth of Hansard to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, with that clarification, which I suggested we obtain — and I compliment the Deputy Chief of Hansard for providing it so quickly; I feared we would have to wait for the Blues — it now leaves me more puzzled than ever because, of course, it is impossible to adjourn until 11:05 this evening. That is now clearly impossible. But perhaps Your Honour might wish to mull that one over for a bit while we consider other reasons that the government might have for wanting to bring this House back tonight.

We are engaged in the passage or the debate of a bill that the government seems uncommonly concerned to conclude before midnight tomorrow night, which by coincidence….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Speaker. We're not engaged in that debate at the moment; we're engaged in the debate on the….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Mr. Member, we're engaged in a debate on the hour of adjournment.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I agree. I am discussing the reasons for any given hour of resumption of this debate. I suggest that the transparent reason that government has is because it wants to pass Bill 3 before midnight, March 31 — being still tomorrow at midnight. Why should this be?

Again, I still search, Mr. Speaker, for some matter of good and essential public business. I'm trying to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Why would they want to take this unusual step, a step that should be a great deal more unusual? The standing orders of this House should provide for fixed hours of sitting, save and except there be objection by no member. But that's not how the rules work, so we have to speculate on why we are confronted with such an unusual motion, a motion which I suggest, Mr. Speaker, should be debated at some length every time it is raised in this chamber henceforth. And on subsequent occasions there will have been more time to prepare for the debate.

Now is there any kind of an emergency, Mr. Speaker, that would call for this chamber to be here tonight?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: the standing order 45(1), which every member has in his desk, has several subsections. One subsection, section (k), as the member speaking now has cited says:

"And such other motion…" — by the way, Mr. Speaker, it is listing those motions which are debatable — "And such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, and the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days, or the times of its meeting or adjournment."

Mr. Speaker, I propose to you that the fixing of the sitting days and the times of meeting and adjournment were established on opening day by proper motion, which motion would have been debatable.

Section 2 clearly states the motions that are not debatable: "All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment."

[ Page 392 ]

1 propose to you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion which the Provincial Secretary has on the floor is a motion to adjourn. Therefore I ask that a ruling be made that all of this nonsense for the past half hour and four minutes is completely — and I hate to use the word — drivel, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, I ask a ruling on that just now. The standing order is very clear in my mind.

MR. CHABOT: Of course it's clear.

MR, SPEAKER: Hon. member, in replying to your point of order, the motion that was passed and adopted by the House the first day of our session is that the daily sittings of the House shall be from 2 till 6 and from 8 until 11, unless otherwise ordered. It was obvious that when the Provincial Secretary moved a motion to adjourn the House until 11:05 this evening, it was unless otherwise ordered — at least that part of our ruling then came into play. I would hear other comments on it, but as I see it, when we moved into that area of setting a time beyond the regular hours, then the time is a debatable matter by the members of the House.

MR. GIBSON: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The trouble with all these points of order is that one loses their train of thought and has to go back to the beginning.

I might say in passing that I was surprised to see the man named as Deputy Speaker (Mr. Schroeder) of this House making a point on behalf of the government in debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think any member of this House has a right to rise on a point of order where the rules of the House are brought into question.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not questioning his right, Mr. Speaker.

Now we were reviewing briefly why the government should wish to amend the sitting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that on a point of order?

MR. GIBSON: No, not on a point of order, Mr. Minister. Would you either listen or go back to sleep?

We were reviewing briefly the question of why the government would wish to amend and change the ordinary hour of reassembly of this House, which normally would have been 2 o'clock tomorrow, until a time which is now 35 minutes ago. We had canvassed the fact that by what the government is doing tonight they are keeping on the premises a large number of staff in various precincts of this building without any notice, for reasons which ought to be pretty good.

We are looking at a situation where the government's management of the business of this House has been completely destroyed because they have chosen not to cooperate in a timely and civilized way with the opposition. Therefore, we naturally reach a state of proceedings when the opposition says that we disagree with how you are going forward.

This House is not being called back into session tonight because there's any emergency in this province. Or if any member on the treasury benches or anywhere in this House would wish to contend that there is an emergency, let them stand in their place right now and tell me what it is.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There being no answer to that, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly not an emergency.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It is to continue the debate of Bill 3. It is because the government wishes to have Bill 3 passed through this House by tomorrow at midnight. Why do they want to do that, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Or Friday.

MR. GIBSON: Or Friday. The hon. Premier doesn't mind when Bill 3 passes. If the hon. Premier doesn't mind when Bill 3 passes, why are we here tonight?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'll move adjournment of the House right now, Mr. Premier, if that's what you want.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's good. Are they in a hurry to speak tonight?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, we now learn that it is due to the vigilance and to the interest of the members of the government back benches wishing to speak that we are here tonight.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We learn that from a government that has seen fit to adjourn the budget debate after an hour on two occasions, thereby attempting to call that a full sitting and cutting off members of this House having a chance to speak. That was exactly the

[ Page 393 ]

intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring your sleeping bags.

MR. GIBSON: A conversion, Mr. Premier, that was the intent, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Isn't the intent of this sitting tonight to get Bill C3 through tomorrow night by midnight? Would you answer that, yes or no? If it's not, then we'll believe you if you say that Bill C3 won't be through until midnight and you won't call it again until Thursday. Then we'd be able to say, well, obviously there's some other reason which we'll sit here and await with interest.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't even know which parliament you're in. It's Bill 3, not C3.

MR. GIBSON: Bill 3.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The fact of the matter is….

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, as a matter of fact, Madam Member, I take the time to read bills from other jurisdictions in this country, from other provinces, and from the federal government. What do you think of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're still in the dark, kid.

MR. GIBSON: Is there a cash shortage that leads to this? We'd like to know. We can't find out from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). He sat in his place today — he's not here now — and refused to tell this House, or was unable to tell this House, whether we have a cash shortage in this province which would require this House to be brought back tonight in order to debate the making of an emergency loan.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: So if it's not an emergency cash shortage, what is it? Is it possibly the fact that the government wants to go through some fast financial footwork for their own accounting purposes? Is that just barely possible, Mr. Speaker? Is it possible that the staff in this chamber and in this legislative building, are being detained tonight because the government wants to go through an accounting transaction that it cannot do without this kind of all-night sitting?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who said anything about an all-night sitting?

MR. GIBSON: Because the management of this House has been so extraordinarily incompetent that this bill wasn't called earlier?

AN HON. MEMBER: You called it an all-night sitting.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. minister across the way is puzzled about a reference to an all-night sitting. I'll tell him where I got it. I got it from one of his backbenchers. What does the hon. minister think about that?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I'm quoting one of your fellows, Mr. Minister. Now we know where I'm getting my advice about all-night sittings. That's right.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I say to you that it's very clear we are back here tonight because the government did not have the confidence to bring this bill forward earlier, because now they're jammed up against the March 31 deadline…

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: …because the March 31 deadline is a deadline that is of no consequence whatsoever to the people of British Columbia but only for the political purposes of that group over there. That's why we're back here tonight, and I think it's a disgrace,

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to go back over the remarks made earlier before I was interrupted. I want to make some observations about the breaking the trend, breaking the custom of this House, which was established over the last three years that we have regular sitting hours, hours that allow people to get their decent rest and do the kind of work they're obliged to do as MLAs in this House. That's certainly not all related to the debates in this chamber. Much of it has to do with answering correspondence in one's office, of serving the needs and complaints of constituents.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is certainly regrettable that we are apparently at this early stage in the new parliament, reverting to that age of senility when

[ Page 394 ]

all-night sessions and sessions that ran to all hours of the morning were the vogue. It seems that the new administration, and the new Premier, Mr. Speaker, is bent on a reaction of punishment and petulance to the opposition when things in this House do not go according to his aspirations. I think it is regrettable.

I had hoped, you know, that the younger edition would be one that resided in the 20th century, one who, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) said, would read some of the Journals and the rules from other Houses of Parliament and recognize the common decency, the common respect for the institution, and that effectiveness of all members — not just opposition but government backbenchers and staff — should dictate that reasonable and normal hours be kept unless there is a genuine issue of emergency before the House.

There is no such issue before the House at this time. The motion is one to adjourn immediately, apparently with the objective — as we have heard recounted here time after time after time by all opposition parties — just to serve the political objective of the Social Credit Party, and it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the needs or the interests of the citizens of this province.

I find it extremely curious, Mr. Speaker, that this government would take the approach that it's taken over the last few days. I find it most difficult to understand. There's been no attempt to collaborate or to develop any dialogue with the opposition about what the orders of procedure in the House should be. They've introduced a bill on interim supply without any advance discussion, thrown that in, and apparently at one and the same time, speaking freely to the press, indicating that they had a magic objective — the witching hour, midnight tomorrow night — as a deadline for passing Bill 3.

For what purpose, Mr. Speaker? And if there was some emergency nature there, if there was some need that was in the best interests of the province, the opposition would have been glad to hear these things. They would have been glad to weigh the need for dispensing with this kind of legislation in an expeditious fashion.

But no such approach was made. We can only conclude that the entire approach was one of ignoring the opposition and being prepared to expect capitulation by the opposition — and if that did not occur, then to punish them with late night sittings.

You know, it's a complete return to the past, and I suppose the Premier thinks that smart, and I suppose he thinks in the minds of the people of British Columbia he's going to demonstrate that he's just as tough and hard-hearted as his Social Credit predecessor. I really don't think that that's the kind of image and the kind of record that he should be trying to emulate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: We know that his father, the former Premier, did many good things in this province, but legislation by exhaustion was not one of those good things. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)…they used to be Liberals and sitting in the opposition; they used to be the recipients of all-night sessions, grinding away hour after hour on urgent matters of public importance…

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): How quick they forget.

MR. KING: …when the old Premier used to be in his office sleeping. The speeches they used to make, Mr. Speaker, decrying and telling how the sweetness and light would come to the province once that Social Credit administration was kicked out! There'd be some humility, there'd be some decency in this House. There'd be a system of rules and there'd be some orderly conduct. There'd be respect for rules of order and conduct and for the need to allow people to have their sleep so that they might debate the province's business in an intelligent way.

But something's happened. A transformation has come about. They've tucked themselves comfortably into the Social Credit fold, and been elevated to the cabinet. And, lo and behold, here we are tonight in this early session of the new parliament, confronted with the same old thing; and they're sitting there silently, with red faces, not saying a word. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they got the rotation message from the Premier already and the muzzle is on. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's regrettable.

The government backbenchers should really get up and object to this procedure. It is something that is not in your best interests, and I think that if you want to be a modern party, if you want to demonstrate that you've learned anything, if you've improved and repented for any of those sins for which your party was kicked out in 1972, you're going about it in a sorry way, to demonstrate there has been a….

MR. SPEAKER: One moment. Are you up on a point of order, Hon. Minister?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, if your ruling was that the time was debatable, and the time only, must this childish argument about everything but the time continue for ever? I would suggest it is highly out of order, that they're bringing in everything but the time, and that you should rule them out of order.

[ Page 395 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am listening very closely to the debate that is taking place this evening. It's a matter that when we reached that point of going to a position of "unless otherwise ordered," which has been done by the motion that was put before the House to reconvene at 11:05, it's a debatable motion. Now I would hope that the hon. members, in speaking to the point, will keep as close to it as possible. But there are many things that can be brought into the debate, and as long as they are on target I am not going to rule the speakers out of order,

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly do not take any offence to the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon., Mr. Vander Zalm) categorizing my statements as "childish" because I think any man who would suggest that poor people in this province eat tulip bulbs and take shovels is not fit to categorize my speech in any way. Mr. Speaker, I take no exception.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have never made any such statements. I would ask that the member sit down.

Interjection

MR. SPEAKER: I was listening to the point of order. I think it's proper for you to sit down, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have never made any such statements and I would ask that the hon. member apologize for these statements. If he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order must be a legitimate point of order, hon. minister. If you differ with the expression or the quotations of the member who has the floor, the proper thing to do is rise immediately following the time that that member takes his place and offer an explanation of your difference of opinion. I agree that many points of order are raised by many members on the floor of this House and are sometimes borderline points of order. But if it's because of what he has said, so far it has not been unparliamentary. It might not have been very polite but it's not unparliamentary.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I might just say: do I have to accept a deliberate lie?

MR. SPEAKER: No. No member has to accept a deliberate lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! If the member who is on his feet uses terms which are not true or impugn your character, then you have reason to rise immediately. But if he uses statements attributed to you that are incorrect, you have the opportunity and the privilege of rising immediately he takes his place and correcting the statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor, correct. But when we are discussing a point…. Will you take your place, please?

MR. KING: You would like me to take my place now?

MR. SPEAKER: When we are discussing points of this nature, as you know, you yield the floor while the point is being explained, even if it's a point of order or some other point that the Speaker must intercede on.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not accept the gratuitous remarks offered by the Chair with respect to whether or not the remarks were of a courteous nature or not.

It certainly was reported that the Minister had suggested that poor people in this province should be provided with shovels and that the diet I referred to was not a bad thing. Now if that's not true, fair enough. He can argue with the statements that were attributed to him.

However, I want to make the point basically that certainly this matter is important. It's not one that I consider is frivolous. It's not one that I consider is a waste of time in discussing the principle of late-night sittings in this Legislature. And I think, Mr. Speaker, the kind of climate that's evident here tonight, the kind of hostility that's being generated in this chamber, is symptomatic of the kind of tempers that will flare when members become tired after long days and are forced to sit all night and debate matters that are of great importance to them and to the people of this province.

That was one of the things that characterized this Legislature when the former Social Credit Premier used to keep members here until sometimes 7 o'clock in the morning on important public matters. Tempers used to flare. Insults used to be hurled. And I would hate to see the House degenerate into that kind of climate again. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the demonstration here tonight is a precise indication that that's what we might expect exactly.

So, Mr. Speaker, in opposing the time for the return of this House to session to debate Bill 3, presumably, I must say that it's a break in the

[ Page 396 ]

tradition that we have had over the past three years and it's one that I most vigorously oppose and my party opposes. It's one that I hope certain government members will have the good grace and consistency to oppose, because they certainly opposed it most vigorously before they were members of that party.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the government will relent and will consider trying to generate some good will and some good spirit in this House and reconsider the time limits that have been set.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think we should consider the events leading up to tonight because several of the statements that have been made in this House are incorrect in their assumption. The first incorrect assumption was that there was no agreement between the Whips. The member for Dewdney is an hon. member. He is a respected member not only of this parliament but others in the past, and a respected citizen. The government Whip and all Whips have the obligation or the responsibility of arranging time limits or arranging goals for debate, arbitrary or not, so that this House can proceed in an orderly manner. The member for Dewdney, who is the government Whip, assured me that he had the agreement of the Whip from the New Democratic Party, the official opposition. He assured me, Mr. Speaker….

MR. LAUK: When a member is in this House and is able to speak for himself, it is most improper for another….

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, he is speaking on behalf of a member who is in this House and who can speak for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a correct point of order, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That member had assured me that there was an agreement to reach a goal and pass certain legislation by a particular time. It is unfortunate that since he made that report, that statement to our caucus as participants and as government in this House, that he has had to come to me and tell me that agreement was broken. The history of the Whip system, Mr. Speaker, is to arrange behind the chair, not bring to the floor of this House, the type of things that are being brought onto this floor tonight, but to arrange for the orderly presentation of legislation so that this House can carry on business.

I find it regrettable that the member for Dewdney should have to come and have it put before the floor of this House, that an agreement was broken and that the Whip system has not worked and has failed to work because of that opposition early in this session, early in this parliament. We have no reason to want the Whip system to break down because I lived through two of the last years of the last parliament in which the Whip system did not work, in which the agreements made by the government then were broken many times, when the opposition was left. Yet we did not cry on the floor of this House. We wanted the Whip system to work. We wanted an orderly presentation of legislation in this House.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, as a former Whip during the reign of the last administration, I would like to ask the hon. Premier, if he is so sincere, if he would not like at this time to provide a stenographer in the future to attend all meetings between the Whips in order that we can be assured….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The point I am making in this debate is in this House that the Whip system is not a system to be policed. It is a system of mutual trust. If the Whip system is to work, Mr. Speaker, then members of our party must have confidence in our Whip and we must back him up when he has made an agreement and such must be the responsibility of other parties to their Whip and he or she to them.

But I say this, Mr. Speaker, that we have no Whip to run this House or try to force this House into long debate, but we do have a reason to expect that the orderly presentation of legislation can be achieved with the Whip system and it is regrettable what has happened, the fact that what has happened to the member for Dewdney and the agreement he has made has happened and that this situation has happened this evening. I would hope that, if it is not too late, that during this session we can arrive at the type of trust between Whips, that upon agreement, without a recorder but upon people's words, on an hon. member's words, that the type of Whip arrangement that seems to work in other Houses but has not worked in this House since I've been a member, either the last parliament or this, can be achieved in British Columbia…

MR. CHABOT: It broke down in '72.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …because the Whip system has been a tradition in British Columbia until, I understand, 1972, and it seems to work well in other parliaments.

I find it just a little strange that some members stand up so sanctimoniously and talk about the House being abused, the rules being abused and

[ Page 397 ]

cooperation being abused, when we alone of all parliaments have a Whip system that hasn't been able to operate. I would hope that during this session and coming sessions, and coming sittings, that we won't be forced to repeat and have the type of manoeuvering that's taken place on this floor all because an agreement made with the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was not kept.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Premier is not impugning the honour and the integrity of other Whips in this House because certainly, if we're to take his appeal at face value — and I would put forward a similar appeal, that we can get a Whip system working — but surely it's no basis to set that working by attacking the integrity of other members. I accept that the member for Dewdney is an honourable member, and I certainly hope that the Premier is not inferring that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) are less than honourable members either, because that seemed to be….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I'll say it again: the member for Dewdney is an honourable member and I accept his word.

MR. KING: Do you accept…?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I accept his word!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster has been attacked by the Premier and he is entitled to respond.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Right!

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we happen to be in a debate on a motion and I recognize the hon. member for Oak Bay, who has been waiting patiently to get into the debate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I purposely stayed out of the debate this afternoon on interim supply for one simple reason: that in a discussion with the Whip this afternoon I was asked if there would be any lengthy debate on my part in speaking for the Conservative Party, and I said no. That's regardless of the rather picayune discussions we've had in this House about whether or not supply is needed today, tomorrow, or six days down the road. But the motion we're now debating, Mr. Speaker, certainly goes much deeper than whether it should be 11:05 or 11:10, or whatever time it should be, although that is the thin point on which we are justifying this debate. I sense all around this House tonight a sense of acrimony. The word hostility has been used, and I would hope that perhaps this debate can be the one and only debate of this nature during this session of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I don't think that is a naive hope, or an idealistic one.

I recall the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he seconded the motion to adopt the throne speech, asked for cooperation, and cooperation is a two-way street.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I believe that we are all eager to cooperate, but the kind of element that has developed today — and it's been articulated very ably both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Premier — is one that can only lead us into more and more troubles during the rest of this session. I hope that even if there has been a misunderstanding on today's particular decision among the Whips, and I would add, Mr. Speaker, that in no way am I under any misunderstanding. I have taken the course that I committed to take today and, whatever other implications may have been made tonight, don't anyone ever point any finger of doubt or accusation on my actions in this House or in this debate today. I've done exactly what I said I would do, and I'm even apologetic that I'm taking time of the House at ten after midnight to explain my position.

But this House will never function well or in an adult, mature fashion while we have some of the game playing and childish behavior that we've noticed tonight. In the late hours of the evening it goes from bad to worse. It's just like bringing up your own children: when they get out of line, the later in the day it is the worse they behave. I have to say to myself and to this House: what must the electorate of British Columbia think when they read in the papers tomorrow that we've spent one hour and five minutes arguing about an issue which surely is really self-obvious? Again I say, regardless of this one specific episode which may have some justifiable reasons for having developed, I'm just hoping that this debate now might contribute to a more positive and productive look at the way this House operates in the weeks ahead.

I would only end by saying, Mr. Speaker, for the ears of all of us and in the most objective way we can

[ Page 398 ]

summon up at this time of night, there is little doubt from a purely physiological point of view that none of us function well late at night. We become irascible on small points which would be ignored early in the day, but suddenly provoke another speech from the other side of the House, and on and on it goes. It is an accumulative, degenerative, sad picture for us to paint as legislators. So without pointing a finger of blame to either side of the House on this one particular incident tonight, I would hope, as a person who is a member of one of the smallest parties, and who obviously wields the least clout in this building, that I can be speaking for perhaps the least politically partisan people of this province who want the best kind of legislation which is likely to emerge from mature and intelligent debate at sensible hours of the day. I don't think that's asking too much.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Premier and his expression, which is shared by the government side of the House and, I am sure, by all sides of the House, that we in this House have a sincere desire to see that the Whip system does indeed work. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would entertain a recess for 15 minutes to give our Whips an opportunity to reach an agreement and come back to the House with that agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: A recess would certainly be in order at any time.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on this point: I asked the Premier if he would assure this House that he was not, by reflection, impugning the integrity of the Whip on the opposition side. I can say for my part, since he has thus far refused to do that, that I am not interested in attempting to mend broken fences with that slur, that inferred slur, hanging over the head of the Whip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: It's a simple matter to get up and withdraw that inference. It's a simple matter of courtesy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there was no inference. I said that I have full confidence in the government Whip; if I didn't have, he couldn't function. I trust his word implicitly.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the opposition Whip? All members of the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I accept all hon. members' words.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition and the other members: if the government Whip or any Whip does not have the confidence of his party and his members…. If we ever left our Whip and made him so that he had to break his word, indeed we have done a very serious thing to him. In expressing confidence in our Whip, I am only saying that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) has the full confidence of the government, that we will back up anything he says, and that the opposition parties should be prepared to deal with him, and when he makes an agreement, it must be accepted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Provincial Secretary suggested a recess.

MR. COCKE: Could you hear from our Whip first, please?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Yes, I am prepared to listen to the remarks of the Whip of the opposition, or I am prepared to recess the House if I have unanimous agreement for that at this time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not angry; I'm sorry and I want to suggest very, very strongly that I'm positive in my own mind — maybe I'm wrong, but I really feel sincerely in my own mind that the member for Dewdney either misinterpreted or misunderstood something that occurred either last night or this morning.

I do notice, Mr. Speaker, that the government has let down the member for Dewdney, because I stood in my place twice in the last two or three days indicating that either the government Whip hadn't been told that certain things were going to transpire — the speaking order had been changed and all that — and I don't want to get back to that. But I just want to say that there was a real breakdown occurring in the Whip system.

Now when I heard this afternoon, and that's when I heard, I phoned my riding and I found out that there had been an agreement. I found that out from somebody that had been listening to the radio, namely my wife. I said: "What kind of an agreement?" "An agreement that Bill 3 would pass by Wednesday and that you had given an undertaking or something."

I immediately called on the member for Dewdney, and indicated to him very clearly that I had no such impression. I explained to him very clearly that I felt the bill intolerable, I wouldn't suspect that my caucus would feel any other way, and I wouldn't make an agreement without at least going back to my caucus. But in any event, that's today, and I'm not suggesting how he felt about what I said last night.

I also went on to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that maybe

[ Page 399 ]

what we should do is have a note system, so a note that is signed is a note that is firm, and then we have a clear understanding. Not that somebody nods or waves or blinks, or something like that, then somebody else goes rushing off to his leader or his caucus, or whatever. I think we should be a little bit more careful about this thing.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, when I heard members from the government side around here earlier this evening telling me that they had their sleeping bags with them, and one thing and another, it strikes me that the people over on that side didn't feel very much like they had an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, alluding more closely to this discussion we're having right now…and that is the whole question of the time of adjournment. I'd just like to leave one impression with you and that is this: when attention is drawn to the clock, I think that the Speaker should accept the accepted practice. Immediately his attention is drawn to the clock at any quitting time, he should remove himself from the Chair and walk out until the next normal time back in the Chair. That's always been the practice — and don't refer me to an obscure situation.

In any event, I'm certainly not going to make any remarks about what the Premier said. I think it was most unfortunate. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have a fair enough reputation in this House, and I haven't done too many things to dishonour this place. I would suspect that a thinking person maybe would just say: "Let's have a couple of meetings and sit down and get some sort of an understanding as to how we're going to operate efficiently, and let's not keep anybody in the dark in the future."

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I think it's fitting that the Whip opposite has just spoken. I shouldn't let it pass. I believe that it's most important for the Whip system to work. I will cast no remarks on what I've made or what I've said except to say that I did appeal to the hon. member — we had an agreement — and for this time to go through with it, even if he didn't agree with it entirely. He saw fit not to do so. I appeal to him with all the eloquence at my command — and I think he sits there and nods his head. I said this was no time to argue a division on the question of Whips, and he agreed with me, except he would not meet my request. I think that we'd better let bygones be bygones. We should get together for a few minutes and settle this matter.

But I want to tell him now, before this House, that I will not agree to any system of notes and signed statements. If I can't accept his word and he can't accept mine, then we have no reason to be in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to debate now from both sides of the House. In listening to the debate I think it is obvious that there has been a bit of a breakdown in the communication between Whips.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Because of that, and the fact that I believe that something could be worked out, I hereby declare a 15-minute recess. I'll be back in the chair in 15 minutes.

The House recessed at 12:20 a.m.

The House resumed at 12:46 a.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have knowledge that the Whips have not arranged an agreement, as had been hoped prior to your recess, on Bill 3. But I do understand that they are going to meet in the morning and reach an agreement.

On that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow…. Pardon me, until 2 p.m. Wednesday — today.

AN HON. MEMBER: March 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anno Domini 1976.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the Whips cannot be instructed by the House to agree. I think there is a commitment, an undertaking from the Whips to meet and discuss the problem. If they come up with an agreement, so much the better.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would hope the spirit in which the Whips met, that they would come to an agreement. If I sounded as though I was giving instructions, believe me, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I was not. But I am very hopeful and very sincere in that hope that agreement will be reached before the House meets again.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just would appreciate one moment to try and clarify something which seems to be confusing everyone in the House, and that is that the Whip system isn't necessarily a matter of one side persuading the other side to accept a certain course of action, and that was very plain from our meeting a few minutes ago.

It may well be the legitimate right of the government to ask that certain courses of action be followed in the House, but I think it is as important

[ Page 400 ]

to know when we disagree as to know when we do agree, and having reached at least an agreement to disagree on certain matters, the government then has the responsibility to follow its chosen course of action.

What happened tonight was that we found ourselves unable to agree to the government request to pass Bill 3 by a certain time. I don't think that that in itself means that the Whip system cannot function. It means that a certain course of action is requested by government and not accepted by one or other of the Whips.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

If it's the House's wish to vote upon the motion that at out rising we stand adjourned until 2 p.m. this afternoon, I would assume that you're prepared to rescind and negative the other motion. Is this correct? In that case will the…? Well, I'm not sure whether the Speaker can withdraw a motion.

I ask leave of the members to have the motion withdrawn.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Provincial Secretary, the motion is that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 a.m.