[ Page 631 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Mincome programme appeals. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers — 631

Report on WCB. Mr. Cocke — 632

Student summer employment. Mr. Gibson — 632

Jurisdiction over fishing vessel inspection. Mr. Lockstead — 632

Consultation on hair-length regulation. Mr. Wallace — 633

Student summer employment. Mr. Lauk — 633

March retain food price drop. Ms. Sanford — 634

FIAS for potato growers. Mrs. Wallace — 634

Meeting of Canadian Cellulose, government and unions. Mr. Lea — 634

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Mair — 635

Ms. Brown — 639

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

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lea — 645

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 646

Mr. King  — 646

Mr. Lea — 647

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 647

Mr. Gibson — 648

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 648

Mr. Gibson — 648

Mr. Macdonald — 648

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 648

Mrs. Dailly — 648

Mr. Macdonald — 648

Mr. Gibson — 649

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 649

Mr. Gibson — 649

Mr. Levi — 649

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 650

Mr.Cocke — 650

Mrs. Wallace — 651

Mr. Lauk — 651

Mr. Lea — 652

Mr. King — 652

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 653

Mr. Lauk — 653

Mr. Stupich — 654

Mrs. Dailly — 654

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 655

Mr. Barber — 655

Mr. Gibson — 655

Amendment to section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 656

Mr. Cocke — 656

Mr. Gibson — 656

Mr. King — 656

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 657

Mr. Lauk — 657

Mr. Wallace — 657

Mr. Chabot — 658

Mr. Levi — 658

Mr. Cocke — 659

Mr. Gibson — 659

Mr. Mussallem — 660

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 662

Mr. Cocke — 662

Mr. Gibson — 663

On section 1.

Mr. King — 663

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 664

Mr. Macdonald — 664

Mr. Stupich — 665

Division of motion that the committee rise and report progress 665

On section 1.

Mrs. Dailly — 665

Mr. Skelly — 665

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 666

Mr. Lea — 667

Mr. Lauk — 667

Mr. King — 667

Mr. Stupich — 668

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 669

Mr. Stupich — 669

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 670

Presenting petitions

Petition of the Most Reverend Jerome Isidore Chimy. Mr. Strongman — 670

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you, a group of students situated in the gallery today from Gladstone Senior Secondary School, accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr. Campbell and Miss Kenny. I would like this House to bid them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that in the gallery today we have Mayor Russ Postill, mayor of Coldstream and chairman of the North Okanagan Regional District; Mayor Pat Duke, mayor of the Corporation of the Village of Lumby; Mr. Peter Mackiewich, the secretary — manager of the North Okanagan Regional District; and Mr. Bob Ferguson, hospital administrator for the Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I wish to announce that in the gallery today, either now or will be, a group of students from Templeton high school, from the great riding of Vancouver Centre.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, in the House today I have visiting Mr. Don Sherwin, alderman of the City of Cranbrook and a director of the Regional District of East Kootenay. With him is Mr. Jim Lamb, the administrator for the City of Cranbrook, and Mr. Dick Fletcher, the consultant for EPEC-Western. Would you please welcome these gentlemen to the House today?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, there is now in the gallery, or shortly will be, a delegation of students from the greater riding of Vancouver East, and the greater high school of Gladstone High. I hope the House will welcome them.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, today I'd also like all members to bid a very hearty welcome to a number of young ladies from Sacred Heart Convent, accompanied by two counsellors.

Oral questions.

MINCOME PROGRAMME APPEALS

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer some of the questions which were given some days ago. The first was a question posed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with respect to appeals in the Mincome programme. The answer is that the appeals in the Mincome programme are the same as those for social assistance as outlined in section 29 of Social Assistance Regulations — B.C. regulation 25975. A copy of these regulations is available and could be tabled in the House if you so wished.

ASSISTANCE FOR STRIKERS

The second, Mr. Speaker, was also a question from the hon. member for Oak Bay. The question was with regard to applications for payment of social assistance to persons who are on strike or locked out. "Have any regulations been issued to give consideration and payment to these applicants? If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the text of these regulations? If the answer is no, will consideration and payment be made to these applicants?"

The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, section 3(6) of Social Assistance Regulations reads as follows:

"Social assistance may be authorized by the director for a person who is a union member involved in an industrial dispute when there are no other sources of income or assets available. This policy is used when severe hardships would occur to dependants, and assistance, when granted, is primarily limited to food and emergency medications."

Another question, Mr. Speaker, from the former Minister of Human Resources....

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member for Burrard.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi).

The question was: "With reference to the social assistance cost-sharing formula between the government and the municipalities, what were the total amounts paid by the government under the formula in the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75? What were the total amounts paid by the municipalities in these same fiscal years?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. Minister, are you answering questions which have been put to you on the order paper? Are they on the order paper?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This particular question was on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the proper way to reply would be by a written answer filed at the table of the House.

[ Page 632 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Okay. I'll file this answer, Mr. Speaker. (See Appendix.)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch that questions that were on the order paper were answered during — question period, I wonder if the official timing of the question period might start now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerks inform me that we will add another 90 seconds to the question period today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It went longer than that.

REPORT ON WCB

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. The question is: I wonder if either the Minister of Labour or the Workers' Compensation Board, who, I understand, ordered a report from Touche, Ross and Associates, have received either a report or an interim report on the Workers' Compensation Board to date.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): To the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, Touche, Ross have not been asked to make any report or examination into the Workers' Compensation Board; it is P.S. Ross and Partners. No, there has been no report received either interim or otherwise. I will be happy to table the report in the House as soon as it is in my possession.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Labour. On March 25 the Minister told the House that he hoped to be able to announce phase two of the student summer employment programme within a week. In view of the fact that classes for most university students ended last Friday, this announcement is urgently required. Can he inform the House when it will be made and the reason for the delay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The programme has already been advertised, Mr. Speaker. Applications are being received. We am currently waiting for government departments to make known their specific requirements so that they can be fitted to the applicants that we have. This is an ongoing matter right now. Those applicants who are successful in achieving work in government jobs will be advised directly by the employment branch of the Department of Labour.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. In past years the Department of Labour has allotted money to each department for the hiring of summer students. Could the minister advise the House if it is correct that departments how have been told that they must find their own funding for phase two of this programme without special Department of Labour funding?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the previous years, Mr. Speaker, special legislation was introduced to provide sums of money for special employment programmes which included summer student employment. There was $9 million made available for special funds in phase one; with respect to phase two, those moneys are included in the estimates of individual departments under code 04 which deals with auxiliary employees. It is through code 04 opportunities that work in government will be carried out this year.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a supplementary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The code 04 is for the normal summer-replacement employees on a departmental basis. Is the minister informing the House now that no special funds have been allocated for Working in Government, the student summer-employment programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, no special funds have been allocated.

JURISDICTION OVER
FISHING VESSEL INSPECTION

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): To the hon. Minister of Labour. Has the minister or representatives of the Workers' Compensation Board met with the Ministry of Transport and fisheries groups to resolve the question of jurisdiction over health and safety inspection for fishing vessels?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the member. The Minister of Labour has not met with federal officials on this matter. As the members well know, the Workers' Compensation Board functions independently of government in this respect. I am advised, however, by the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board that meetings are ongoing between the board and representatives of

[ Page 633 ]

MOT in order to resolve the duplication of regulations under the federal legislation and that of the province, in order that the fishermen and those involved in that industry will not be faced with duplicate sets of regulations and double inspection. There is a serious constitutional question which has to be resolved and that is being considered now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As the Department of Transport has not developed adequate inspection procedures in this matter, is the minister proceeding with further drafts of the Workers' Compensation Board regulations proposed in 1975 in consultation with the industry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour and his department are not involved directly in the formulation of those regulations. That is the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. Discussions are going on with fishermen and other involved in the fishing industry as to the adequacy of the draft regulations which were first produced, and this is part of a continuing study on that subject which involves consultations with the national government for the resolution of the constitutional conflict.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a very short supplementary. I appreciate the answer, Mr. Minister, but many fishermen are concerned that standards will drive them out of business. Is the government willing to consider financial assistance to fishermen affected by the regulations?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's always a policy decision, Mr. Speaker, which we will take once the regulations are finalized.

CONSULTATION ON
HAIR-LENGTH REGULATION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We all seem to have questions for the Minister of Labour today. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question with regard to yesterday's announcement that welfare recipients seeking employment will have the effect of their hair style judged by social workers.

Since the minister is responsible for the protection of individual human rights, was the minister consulted as to the application of this regulation, inasmuch as it extends arbitrary power to social workers, many of whom themselves wear long hair and might well penalize persons simply because of the length of their hair?

Was the minister's department of human rights consulted at all on this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will be the judge of the length of hair. No, seriously, I'm sorry.

I can't till you whether the Department of Human Resources consulted with the human rights branch of the Department of Labour. As you are aware, the human rights branch of the Department of Labour has already made its position known with effect to these regulations, and I can assure you that there will be continuing discussions.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to address the supplementary to the Minister of Human Resources, because it follows from the first question.

Will recipients who refuse to have their hair cut be denied social assistance?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Take it as notice, Bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question as originally posed to the Minister of Labour certainly wasn't correct, in that it's not a matter of us judging, or anyone judging, on the length of a person's hair or whether he wears a beard or otherwise. It's a matter of when a person continually fails to obtain employment because of attire or grooming, we then can, in fact, according to the regulation, withdraw welfare or social assistance. This regulation has been on the books for a considerable time. It was only a restatement of the regulation.

MR. WALLACE: A very quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the minister's answer, could he tell the House how many such cases he's been made aware of where the repeated failure to get employment is related to grooming? These general statements are not apparently documented by any research or any number of....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The regulation has been on the books for some time. I'm sure it was never fully enforced but now that it will be enforced we'll soon know how many will be affected and, given some experience, I'll let you know.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Labour, who's doing so well. I don't want to leave him alone.

Is it not true that in the student-employment programme, which the Public Service Commission is planning to implement, two people doing exactly the same kind of job will get markedly different salaries

[ Page 634 ]

under the student employment programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not true.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary: is it not true, or is the minister aware, that a senior forester refuses to hire any students this summer because of a differential based only on what year of training that particular student is involved in, and not on any other criteria?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am not aware, Mr. Speaker. I would be pleased if the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre would make known to me that official in the Department of Forests who is not prepared to follow the directives of government.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. The Anti-Inflation Board has announced that retail food prices in Canada have dropped by 1.3 per cent during the month of March. I would like to know if the monitoring which is carried out by your department throughout various parts of the province bears out that retail food prices in British Columbia have experienced the same or a similar kind of drop during the month of March.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

FIAS FOR POTATO GROWERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates again to the farm income assurance scheme. I would like to ask whether or not he has had time to review the negotiations on behalf of the potato growers, and, as a supplementary, what the status of that particular scheme is.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate the member's concern. I'll take the question as notice and get a report for her on that particular subject.

MRS. WALLACE: Supplemental....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It would be customary, I think, to hold your supplemental question until such time as you've received a reply to the first question. Then it may lead into further supplemental questions, hon. member, that you would like to ask.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I just would like to ask him to at the same time also give me a review on the raspberry scheme.

MR. SPEAKER: That's in order.

MEETING OF CANADIAN CELLULOSE,
GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Mines: during the election campaign, the Social Credit candidate for Prince Rupert, Mr. Roy Last, at a public meeting quoted from a telegram he said had come from the leader of the Social Credit Party, now Premier, stating that there would be a meeting between Canadian Cellulose, the unions involved and government to try and iron out some of the difficulties, to examine and find problems, and solve problems. That meeting was supposed to be in the first or middle part of January. As I understand it, that meeting has not taken place yet. My question is: why not?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In reply to the hon. member for Prince Rupert, during the middle of January this government was just recently sworn in, and due to the extreme pressure of business at the time it was felt that a more meaningful meeting could be held at a later date after the minister was more familiar with his portfolio in that regard.

MR. LEA: Were the unions and Canadian Cellulose management informed of that decision?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The union contacted the Premier and myself and we advised that we would be meeting with them at a later date.

MR. LEA: What date was it they were informed of that, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the House; take it as notice.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'll take the question as notice.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents the financial statements, as of March 31, 1975, of the overall Medical Services Plan of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Davis presents the consolidated financial statement of the British Columbia Steamship Company, 1975, Ltd.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 635 ]

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Consumer Services is recognized.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, I would like to know if the hon. minister has permission from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to speak in this debate with that beard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, as I said outside the House today, when I get in the shape that the hon. member for Prince Rupert is in, then I will seek permission from my colleague, the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: I meant that as kindly as I possibly can under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take my place in this debate, and also to welcome you and the Deputy Speaker to your positions of great honour and responsibility, positions I am sure that this House feels confident, as I do, that you will fill admirably. I would like before I embark upon my remarks today to pay tribute to the person whose position I have taken in this House, Mr. Gerry Anderson, MLA. You didn't know I was going to be that nice, did you?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's early in the season.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's very early in the season.

Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who gives three and a half years of his life, and of his best working years, to the service of the public is due tribute, and I cheerfully pay tribute to Mr. Anderson today.

I understand that it is traditional that in what amounts to a maiden speech a member dwells for a moment or two on his own constituency, and I am very proud and honoured to have that opportunity today,

The Kamloops constituency stretches from a point just north of Blue River on the North Thompson River to Stump Lake on the Merritt highway to the south; from Monte Creek in the east to Deadman Creek in the west. It is truly a microcosm of British Columbia life both in the economic and in the political sense.

In the last three provincial elections, interestingly enough, the results reflected in the Kamloops constituency were virtually indistinguishable from the overall provincial results. There is an obvious reason for this. With the exception of the fishing industry, the municipality of Kamloops truly is representative of the economic life in British Columbia. The north river country — that is, from the northern boundary of the city of Kamloops up past Blue River — is very heavily dependent upon the forest industry. The Kamloops forest district, Mr. Speaker, is 28,500 square miles and has within its area 40 sawmills. There are approximately 30,000 people in my constituency who live in such lumber towns as Louis Creek, Barriere, Little Fort, Clearwater, Vavenby, Birch Island and Blue River, all of whom are on the North Thompson River.

These places, Mr. Speaker, depend almost exclusively upon the forest industry for their well-being. Needless to say, in the last few years times have been difficult indeed for these people.

The community of Blue River has particularly been hard hit by the depression in the forest industry, since it depends without exception upon a sawmill which is now out of business — I hope, temporarily. The people who live in this area, Mr. Speaker, live in what can only be described as a one-crop economy. It is essential that this government do what it can to encourage alternative employment possibilities in this area.

Mr. Speaker, there is another area in my constituency which likewise depends almost exclusively upon the forest industry, and that is the historic town of Savona, which was known in the past and was famous in the past for Savona's ferry, which crossed the Thompson River at the western end of Kamloops Lake.

The people of Savona in the years gone by, particularly the last three or four years, have attempted to find another industry — a secondary industry to supplant the forest industry that is there now. Through problems they have found with the Department of Highways, they have been unable to do so. Whether these problems raised by the Department of Highways are real or not is beside the point. The fact is that this is another area, Mr. Speaker, that I will urge upon my government — the government I represent — as a place where secondary industry is not only desirable but essential.

Mining plays a large role in my constituency. The town of Logan Lake, which houses the hundreds of people who work at Lornex, is within my constituency. Much of the Highland Valley, which includes Bethlehem Copper, Valley Copper and Lomex mines, is serviced by the city of Kamloops within its trading area. These areas play a large part in the economic life of the city of Kamloops itself.

The depression in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker, has hit this area particularly hard. A decision by the previous government to provide a royalty taxation system, which was so onerous as to remove the production which provided the royalty, is a

[ Page 636 ]

decision which my constituents find impossible to understand.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Afton Mines has its proposed mine site in my constituency, and it is very much to be hoped that the ecological concerns which have been raised by some of the citizens will be overcome so that this advantageous addition to the economy can come into production.

As you know also, Mr. Speaker, Kamloops is ranching country. There are approximately 350 ranches of varying sizes in my constituency — in the Kamloops area — handling approximately 125,000 head of cattle. The provincial bull sale has been an annual event since March, 1919.

In addition, of course, my constituency abuts Yale-Lillooet and the Cariboo — both represented by friends and colleagues of mine in this government — which are world famous for cattle. The Cariboo, of course, contains the Gang Ranch, the Chilco Ranch and numerous other ranching enterprises, while to the south, in the Merritt area, there is the Douglas Lake Cattle Company, the Guichon Ranch and others.

It is fair to say, then, Mr. Speaker, that the city of Kamloops is the capital of cattle country, and it is the headquarters for the B.C., Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Livestock Producers' Association.

I would just state here again that it is no secret that ranching has fallen on sorry times in this province. There is no question but that many of the influences giving rise to these problems are beyond the scope and control of this province and relate to extra-provincial, national and world conditions.

This last statement is evidenced, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that British Columbia exports its own beef and imports beef at the same time from elsewhere. It exports its livestock and imports them back — virtually all slaughtering is done elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, the financing of cattle operations in a tenuous business at best. Difficulties in this regard have been seriously compounded, I may say, by uncertain and contradictory attitudes of the previous administration concerning grazing permits and leased land. I am pleased to learn, and my constituents will be also, that this question is under study by this government and that the uncertainties of land tenure for the rancher will be overcome.

Farm income assurance, Mr. Speaker, paid to ranchers is unquestionably a necessity in many instances. What must be recognized, however, is that of all of our citizens the rancher is perhaps the most independent spirited, and the one who is least desirous of government intervention and help. It is incumbent upon us then, Mr. Speaker, to work diligently towards the removal of the influences which make government assistance to this hardy breed of independent entrepreneurs necessary.

Mr. Speaker, no reference to my constituency would be complete without reference to the tourist industry. The city of Kamloops enjoys a unique geographic position in that it is about one-half way between Edmonton and Calgary on the one hand, and Vancouver on the other. Accordingly it has a very large hotel-motel industry.

The world-famous Kamloops trout, Mr. Speaker, a strain of rainbow trout, abounds in the hundreds of lakes which exist within the boundaries of my constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Are you a fisherman? Really?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): In other words, all the roads lead to Kamloops! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: It is crucial then, Mr. Speaker, to my constituency that great care be taken when encouraging industries not to upset the delicate balance of nature. More and more, resource industry in my area is anxious to cooperate with conservation-minded people. A cynic might argue that this is because the government has forced industry to act in this way. However, the cause is not important; it's the effect. The fact is that government has an important role to play in ensuring that our resource industries handle their affairs in a manner compatible with the surroundings in which they operate.

Furthermore, it will become more important, Mr. Speaker, that our recreation facilities are managed in a careful manner indeed, ensuring that all types of recreation can be accommodated. Increasing pressures of population, Mr. Speaker, make careful management in this area obligatory.

In and around my constituency there are a number of large lakes, such as the two Shuswap Lakes, Mabel Lake, Mara Lake and Adams Lake, which can easily accommodate intensified uses such as boating and water-skiing. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there are a great many lakes — and the government of British Columbia has recognized this — which ought by nature to be restricted to much less vigorous pursuits such as fly-fishing only.

There is now a policy, I am told, to provide trophy lakes which, while not restricted to fly-fishing, are restricted to light-tackle fishing with a greater limitation on the catch.

All of these matters, Mr. Speaker, can be solved by good management, and the people of my constituency look to this government to provide the necessary leadership.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Good luck!

HON. MR. MAIR: They'll get it!

[ Page 637 ]

Allow me if I may, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a problem specifically affecting the city of Kamloops itself. In assessing the current and future problems of the city it is important, Mr. Speaker, to understand that it now has a population of close to 70,000 people. At a 6 per cent growth rate per year it will, by 1996, have a population of 200,000 people. What is even more frightening, Mr. Speaker, is that if the growth rate continues at its present rate of 9 per cent, that 200,000 mark will be reached by 1988 — 12 years from now.

The present city of Kamloops, Mr. Speaker, was incorporated by letters patent on May 1, 1973. Prior to that, in 1968, the cities of North Kamloops and South Kamloops were amalgamated — these two areas being separated by the Thompson River.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are not familiar with the city I have the honour to represent, allow me to point out that it is in reality a city of three rivers: the North Thompson, the South Thompson and the Thompson River itself; and to visualize the geography, Mr. Speaker, if one were to visualize the South Thompson running into the Thomson River in a straight line running east and west, and the North Thompson' intersecting it from north and south, one would have a fair idea of the geography.

On the south shore of the Thompson River itself are the communities of what used to be Kamloops proper, along with Dufferin, Valleyview, Dallas, Barnhart Vale and Knutsford. Across the Thompson River to the northwest are the communities of North Kamloops, Brocklehurst and Westsyde. Across the river to the northeast, separated from the rest of the city by the Kamloops Indian reserve, are Rayleigh and Heffley Creek. The whole area covers 140 square miles. To give the House some idea of what this means in terms of transportation, allow me to point out that it is 15 miles from the centre of the city to the border of Westsyde, and some 20 miles to its centre. It's approximately 15 miles to the border of Westsyde, which means that many residents of my city must travel in excess of 20 miles to go downtown, neither of these two areas being serviced by bus.

The Brocklehurst suburb of 11,000 people is serviced by bus only once an hour. As this House heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) a few days ago, the transit system throughout the province of British Columbia is in a state of chaos. The previous administration promised Kamloops a transit system and provided the machinery and men for it. However, as my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, no funds were allocated for its operation. This is regarded in my city as no more, no less, than a cruel joke.

The areas of North Kamloops, Brocklehurst and Westsyde, which now account for about 50 per cent of the population of the city and which are growing at an unprecedented rate, are connected to the city centre over the Thompson River by the Overlander Bridge. So that members of this House can appreciate the strain that is placed on this bridge, permit me to point out that in 1964 the daily average number of vehicles on this bridge was 18,000. This increased in 1972, Mr. Speaker, to 38,500 and in 1975 to 45,400. Obviously, second and third crossings of this river are of crucial importance to the city. I may say that this will require, in all likelihood, extensive negotiations with the Kamloops Indian band. I might say further, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a particularly good position to deal with this band due to the decisions made by this government in the first three months it's been in power.

The Kamloops Indian band was taken into the city of Kamloops without any consultation with them and against their will, on May 1, 1973, by the previous government. For three years they complained. In three months we took them out of the city. I think now we can talk to them as man to man, as equals, as woman to woman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I should say woman to woman because the chief, my colleague points out very accurately, is a lady — and a very good chief.

Kamloops is the administrative and judicial centre of an immense area. The Kamloops division of the Yale district extends as far south as Osoyoos and goes as far north, almost, as Williams Lake. The county of Yale, of which Kamloops again is the judicial centre, is enormous. In this context, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House might be interested to know that the Kamloops courthouse, with its one courtroom, was built in 1908 when the city was less than 4,000 in number. To say that the courtroom situation in Kamloops is critical would be to put it far too mildly.

MR. GIBSON: Lawyers have to talk faster.

HON. MR. MAIR: We do, Mr. Member. We have to talk in the streets, and we have some cold winters.

The Department of Public Works and the Department of the Attorney-General have done what they can to provide alternate courtroom facilities throughout the city, but, Mr. Speaker, let me say now that the city of Kamloops requires a new administrative centre, including a new, modern courthouse, and it requires it forthwith,

Let me turn now, if I may, to a more strict and direct evaluation of the budget brought down by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . We're passing judgment on a budget of more than $3.5 billion and we must, of course, estimate

[ Page 638 ]

with great particularity in many areas of income and outgo. We must take great care because we are on the people's business and we are handling money which does not belong to us. We are, in every sense of the word, handling trust money. And what do our critics say? They say, Mr. Speaker, that we're a bottom-line government, that we know the cost of everything but we don't know the value of anything. I'm telling you that that's not so. I would ask those who thump their desks and who make those statements to look at the budget and see the vastly improved situation in housing, particularly as it relates to senior citizens.

In my own Department of Consumer Services, there will be new legislative thrust to ensure fairness in the marketplace for all. Education: up nearly 11 per cent. Health: expenditures up 20 per cent or more. Human Resources: up over 22 per cent.

Injection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Now, Mr. Speaker, if being a bottom-line government means that by careful management of the province's money we can put more money where it is most needed, we plead guilty.

Yesterday, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) put a number of questions to the government, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few back.

MR. LEA: What about answers?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the questions have to be questions before answers can be provided.

Mr. Speaker, how come the opposition couldn't take an insurance monopoly, with a built-in clientele of one million people or more — people who had to buy the insurance whether they liked it or not — when they had the right to set rates, and couldn't even break even?

The excuse offered is that Allstate and State Farm lost money in the United States of America. They didn't have a monopoly, Mr. Speaker; that group had a monopoly and couldn't even break even.

Mr. Speaker, they had the ball game to themselves: they wrote the rules, they refereed the game, and they even got to keep score — and they couldn't even come up with a tie, much less a win.

How come they didn't tell the people that they were playing politics with ICBC? We heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Premier outline the game that they played — the things that they heard that they didn't tell outside the cabinet room. They knew we were losing money, and they lowered the rates at the same time. Mr. Speaker, they kept the facts from this House, and they kept them from the people, and they still don't want to come clean with the people, even now.

I heard the hon. Premier speak the other day. He talked about the promises of the NDP to keep the money in the province, and he outlined where it went to the chartered banks of Canada. I heard it over there, Mr. Speaker. They said: "Yes, but it went to Victoria branches." Did they think that the branch manager kept it in the branch mattress? (Laughter.)

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): That was the member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. MAIR: He thought it was in the branch mattress, kept there for later use. Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the thinking that we had to live with and, thank God, no longer have to live with.

How come these new, self-styled financial experts didn't know in April and May and June of last year the financial trouble that this province was in? How come they didn't know that stumpage was way down and that mining royalties were way down and that their expenses were higher? The opposition knew. Business knew. The loggers knew and the miners knew — but not the government. These Johnny-come-lately financial experts thought they could pull off a winning election before the public got wise, and then they hoped the voters would forget four years later.

How come these financial Merlins, when they were in power, with their own Treasury Board, allowed a $ 100 million little error to occur in one department?

HON. MR. BENNETT: They called it "clerical."

HON. MR. MAIR: A clerical error. Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt if an error of $ 1,000 could happen in a department with this government and this Treasury Board, and yet $100 million was typical of what we had for three and a half years.

How come these people, when they were in government, in the face of all advice — including advice from their own party, advice from their own experts — kept on the books mining legislation and royalty legislation which decimated the second largest industry in B.C. and nearly brought my constituency to ruin? How come?

Mr. Speaker, human beings have short memories. The Creator in his wisdom no doubt felt that a short memory was a mercy in most cases. Regrettably, the Creator did not have the previous administration in mind when he made that decision. I consider it the duty of this government and my duty to remind the people from time to time, as is necessary, of what went on for three and a half years.

We will come out of this crisis and British Columbia will prosper again.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): How could you stoop to such tactics?

[ Page 639 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Gary. (Laughter.)

No one knows the value of a dollar better than the man who doesn't have one, and nobody ought to know the value of a dollar better than the man who is handling somebody else's money. We're handling somebody else's money, we know the value of a dollar, and through good business management and sound fiscal policies we mean to get that dollar into the hands of the people who need it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in his text the Minister of Consumer Services indicated that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) stated that it was our belief, as far as the NDP were concerned, that the short-term investments of moneys from ICBC would remain in local branch offices. That was never stated or purported, and it was never claimed by this side of the House. I fully understand what short-term investment means...

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

MR. LAUK: ...and, of course, centrally located chartered banks do certain things within the provincial jurisdiction in order to invest that money in short-term.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is an increasing tendency among members from both sides of the House to rise on points of order and immediately launch into what is really a speech. A point of order is just that: a point of order taking exception to words or a word that has been uttered in debate, a point of order that you do not believe the person who has just taken their seat fairly expressed an opinion or statement made by one side of the House or the other. But I hope you would keep your points of order to points of order in the future.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on behalf of the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard and take my place in this debate on the budget. Before I can do that, however, I think maybe I should answer a couple of the questions raised by the hon. Minister of Consumer Services, since he is a new member to the House and obviously doesn't know some of the facts about what actually happened when the Social Credit was government before.

One of the questions he raised was: "How do you explain the fact that that government" — namely the NDP government — "could have a monopoly corporation and not break even or make a profit?" The answer is quite simple, Mr. Member. We don't believe that you balance books by soaking people.

That's quite simple, Mr. Member, when you are starting a corporation. We started a corporation that charged fair premiums. We did not try to drive people into bankruptcy so that they could pay their insurance corporation.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Another question raised, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: ...was about the overrun in the Department of Human Resources. Does that member not realize that every single year the Department of Human Resources has an overrun? Under your Mr. Gaglardi, Mr. Member, the person who was replaced by the person whom you replaced, there were overruns year after year after year, and your government, when it was the government, covered them up. We were too honest; that was our problem. We told the truth about what was going on in this department. We didn't cover it up the way it used to be covered up.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What did Gaglardi say when he was questioned?

However, the real reason I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, is to speak to the issue of the budget on behalf of the people of Vancouver-Burrard.

I want to start out by saying quite clearly that I'm going to be speaking on the first edition of the budget, the unabridged, unexpurgated issue of the budget. No expletives, nothing deleted. Now I recognize that we are aware of at least two budgets. There may be even more; there may be three or four, but I want to deal specifically with the first edition.

Now the minister, when he was asked about the second edition of the budget, told the press that his reasons for abridging the budget were for the benefit of the business community and for distribution around the world. He didn't want the money markets of the world to read the statements pertaining to New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, and after this opposition brought to his attention the error of his ways, that minister recognized the folly of interfering in the internal affairs of Commonwealth nations and recognized the folly of spreading around the world inaccuracies pertaining to the B.C. economy.

He decided it was okay to pretend for the residents of this province that B.C. was broke, that our productive effort was crippled — and here I'm quoting from the budget — "and that the province was in a state of financial disaster." But certainly he

[ Page 640 ]

didn't want that kind of inaccuracy spread through the rest of the world, certainly not to the borrowing markets of the world, for what financial institution in its right mind would loan $400 million to an economy that was crippled, as we read this economy is supposed to have been crippled on page 35 of this budget?

In any event, Mr. Speaker, since the government knows that the statements made on page 34 and page 35 were patently untrue, it waited until that minister had left this province and had gone to Ottawa on business, and then some mystery person or persons gave the order to expurgate the budget. Now this person or these mystery persons hoped that the minister would not notice, but the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) blabbed, and the press blabbed. They blew the whistle on the deal and the Minister of Finance had to confess that he was unaware of the expurgation and that he certainly had no idea of who had authorized that the budget be changed in his absence. However, he agreed to take full responsibility for the deed, for reasons best known to himself. He shouldered the responsibility without knowing the true architects of that deed.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I accept that the government and the minister are more familiar with the first edition, the unabridged, unexpurgated edition, and that is the one with which I choose to deal since that is the one with which I too am familiar and indeed is the one which was delivered in this House.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to say that I wish that I had had the chance to assist in the expurgation of that budget, because the first thing that I would have expurgated was the 40 per cent increase in the sales tax. The sales tax, Mr. Speaker, is regressive and unfair, and this is not just my opinion, because I accept that I am no economist. It is the opinion of scholars in the field like Samuelson and Scott, authors of a basic economics text, who wrote: "Sales taxes are relatively regressive in that they take a larger fraction of the poor man's income than they do of the rich."

Since most of the poor people in this country, including the constituents of Vancouver-Burrard, are women and children, you can imagine what the sales tax does to their income, Mr. Speaker.

The White Paper on tax reform prepared for the federal government in 1969 also took the same position, and it stated: "The sales tax is inferior in fairness to the graduated income tax." Even that government's own Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, is quoted in the Daily Colonist of March 17, on page 20, as saying:

" 'I think sales tax bears more heavily on people in low-income brackets while those with higher income make their contributions through income tax,' Davis said. 'I see a levy for the schools through income tax rather than through the sales tax.' "

A split in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker...I should say another split in the cabinet, because in delivering the budget address the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) stated, and here I'm quoting from Hansard: "Next, a rather insignificant item." He called it an insignificant item. "The social service tax or sales tax is to be increased two percentage points to 7 per cent." A 40 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker, is referred to as "insignificant." The government of the people certainly gave it to the people that time.

Have you any idea what this means to the average family? The Victoria Times, in a conservative estimate on March 27, tells us:

"The family of Mr. Average has been paying about $175 a year in sales tax, but this year it will go up to $245 effective immediately, and this assumes no major purchases during the year. If Mr. Average buys a new car for $4,000, the sales tax on that alone goes up to $280, an increase of $80 over the original tax. Mr. Average, starting today, will face a penny tax for store items priced between 15 cents and 21 cents. Under 15 cents is free."

It goes on to show that on every purchase you make on goods, as long as they are not food, this regressive tax, this iniquitous tax is added, and as usual the burden is on the people who can least afford to pay it.

Again, Mr. Speaker, and I hate to belabour this point, but I want to quote from the textbook of Samuelson and Scott. It says: "The sales tax does not penalize the wealthy." The sales tax does not penalize the MacMillan Bloedel presidents of this world, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly works a hardship on the average citizens, and many average citizens live within the borders of Vancouver-Burrard.

It goes on to say:

"Most people feel vaguely that there is something immoral about tobacco and alcohol. They somehow think two birds are being killed with one stone when these articles are taxed — the province gets its revenue and a vice is made more expensive — but the same moral attitude would hardly apply to a 5 per cent tax on everything that a consumer buys; be it shoes, soap, a church candle, rich and poor are taxed alike on each dollar, and since the poor are forced to spend a larger portion of their total dollar, one sees that a sales tax on non-luxury items is a regressive tax for taking a larger fraction of low income than high income."

Also, I want to quote from Daniel Morgan who tells us:

"Low-income people spend all or more of their income, thus ensuring that a higher

[ Page 641 ]

proportion of what they have goes into the sales tax than people of higher income who are in a position to exercise discretion and thus spend a much smaller percentage of their income on this iniquitous tax."

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) tells us, and here I'm quoting from the Province of March 27: "It's basically a fair tax. It's right out front where everybody can see it." When a gun is held to your head, Mr. Speaker, it also is "right out front," but that does not make it fair.

In fact, the fact of the matter is that the sales tax is a poll tax. It penalizes only the poor and, in the final analysis, it is inflationary. It exacerbates the problem that it is supposed to cure.

Only yesterday when the budget was brought down in Great Britain we saw the headlines in the Sun that the United Kingdom Slashes the Sales Tax to Fight Inflation: "In a move to spur production and yet restrain inflation, the British government today reduced the retail sales tax by 1.5 on a wide range of consumer goods."

If that government was genuinely concerned about shortening the budget, about abridging the budget, about expurgating the budget and cleaning it up, that is where they should have started, by getting rid of that 40 per cent increase in the sales tax. It is becoming increasingly clear that the average citizen in this province cannot afford that free-enterprise government over there. Only the MacMillan Bloedel presidents of this province can afford them.

Again I quote from the Victoria Times of March 20: "Life is costlier under the Socreds." It goes on to tell us that the average family of four will have to come up with an additional $ 5 5 0 this year as a result of increases brought in since January by the Social Credit government. It warns us that there are more price hikes to come, including higher ferry rates and any increase on alcoholic products — and it goes on and on and on — including, of course, the increase on health and other vital services like that.

Had the Minister of Finance consulted me on the expurgation of the budget, the other area that I would have deleted was the increase in payment for health services — MSA as well as hospitalization.

Tell me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, now that it has been brought to your attention that a directive went out last year cutting extended-care patients off welfare, thus ensuring that they could not build up large estates for their families, why have you not removed, why have you not reversed your decision on the $7-a-day extended-care bed cost, an increase which, if we accept the calculations of the Victoria Times, means an increase from $365 annually for someone in extended care to $2,555?

Those people in extended care who are not on welfare now face a bill increase of over 700 per cent. What of those parents of handicapped children in Sunnyhill Hospital and other extended-care hospitals? What of those parents of adolescent and young children facing many years of extended care?

Your purpose has been served, Mr. Minister. People in receipt of welfare can no longer build up large estates while they are in extended-care units. Can you tell us what now is your justification for retaining this oppressive increase? Why will you not delete it from the budget? Why not expurgate it and remove it from the backs of the already overtaxed taxpayers of this province? I ask you, Mr. Minister, to consider this. Many parents of chronically ill children, many families of chronically ill parents, would be grateful for this act.

If ever you decide, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to once again expurgate areas from this budget, or delete sections from it, start with the $7-a-day extended care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the government, through you, an excerpt of a letter from Dr. Lotta Hitchmanova of the Unitarian Services Committee of Canada:

"I keep asking myself the same important, haunting question over and over again as I write to you from the stillness of Nairobi, my present stop. How much does the average Canadian know about hunger?

"I do not mean the kind of hunger you feel after an invigorating walk, or a fast game of hockey or a day of skiing in the mountains. I am speaking of that obsessing, never-ceasing ache in your stomach because you cannot afford a balanced, sustaining meal even once a year — that terrible weakness which is your constant companion, and the immense effort even the smallest assignment demands. Your eyes blur, your limbs swell, your mind can focus only on one single question: where will the next meal be coming from?"

Then Dr. Hitchmanova goes on to say that last year in Lesotho the Unitarian Services Committee was able to build what they refer to as "egg-circles," which are marketing cooperatives entirely run by the 1,450 village women in nine districts. She says:

"According to the Ministry of Agriculture, this project is the most spectacular success on record in the field of food production. It has made eggs an excellent and cheap protein substitute for meat, which is very expensive."

And she goes on, Mr. Speaker:

"We are grateful to the government of British Columbia which generously funded part of this imaginative project."

The Member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), Mr. Speaker, while heckling the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) during his speech on the disbanding of aid to developing countries fund, told us that charity begins at home.

[ Page 642 ]

I now ask the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker: does it also have to end at home? Does he believe, or does that government believe, for one moment that this province is an island unto itself'? Does he believe, or does that government believe, that we can continue to adopt an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude to the rest of the world? Does that government have no moral commitment whatsoever to anyone but itself, the corporate structure and multinational investors?

Throughout my campaign, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the sisterhood and brotherhood of peoples and races who share this planet. I spoke of our collective responsibility for and to each other. The people of Vancouver-Burrard are proud of Canada's role in helping the emerging nations of the world. They are proud of the role that the previous government played in this area, and they experienced shame and sorrow at the pettiness of a government, blessed with the abundance that this government is, that would turn its back on the needs of other nations.

It is to our shame that this section...and I quote what it says: "Recapture the funds." Recapture, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words used for money being spent to help to feed the world's hungry people. "Recapture the funds." Why was not that section deleted from the new abridged, expurgated edition of the budget? As Lord Ritchie-Calder pointed out in the last issue of The Humanist: "There is a sombre reminder that we are all in this together, in an interdependent world, as we have seen in the oil crisis. Even the advanced countries are not immune in these circumstances."

I want to read also, Mr. Speaker, some letters, of which one was sent to the Premier by Mrs. Freda Coombs — and she sent me a carbon copy — and another letter from Mrs. Llewellyn. Just to mention, she says in speaking about this fund: "I am convinced of the moral necessity of being our brothers' keeper while helping them to become able to help themselves." Because that, in fact, was-what this fund was doing. It was not just sending money to feed people, Mr. Speaker. It was an aid to agriculture. It was helping them to develop the means of feeding themselves.

Another letter from, as I said before, a Mrs. Llewellyn, to the Premier and a carbon copy to me, again pointing out the deep concern of many people in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard for the fact that this government has seen fit to, as it says, "recapture" this fund.

The combination, Mr. Speaker, of increased taxation accompanied by severe cutbacks in essential services has had a devastating impact on a number of areas in my riding, and I would like to touch very briefly on four of them. The first one is housing, the second will be the whole unemployment situation, and then specifically the Vancouver General Hospital which is located in my riding, and the whole question of information centres.

The housing policy put out by the city council in Vancouver reads as follows: "There is mounting evidence in Vancouver that people of modest income are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for the cost of accommodation adjacent to their employment and equally difficult to pay for the cost of commuting from outlying but affordable housing to inner-city employment." That is the crisis area in the riding, Mr. Speaker. We have no shortage of high-priced housing in Vancouver-Burrard. We have high-priced condominiums and townhouses standing vacant in that constituency, while people looking for modest accommodation cannot find any accommodation to rent.

Mr. Speaker, it is family housing that is in short supply. It is family housing, young families starting out, people with small children — that's the kind of housing we need in that constituency, not housing for the rich, not housing for the wealthy; and the private section has demonstrated that it is not interested in supplying social housing, Mr. Speaker.

When I speak on behalf of this constituency and its housing needs, I'm addressing myself specifically to a government who found it — in its wisdom — correct to downgrade the whole concept of housing and put the Department of Housing as an appendage to another department.

A couple of innovative things in this area have been tried. Some of the people renting accommodation in the constituency have come together and formed themselves in a co-op and tried to buy the building in which they were living so that they would be able to cut out the profit motive on behalf of some outside force. What happens to that? I'll tell you what happened to it, Mr. Speaker.

The government, that government over there, phased out the co-ops area of its Department of Housing and fired the person responsible for the whole section on cooperative housing. I am speaking about Mr. Donald Davis.

It has no policy on cooperative housing. Co-op housing is the only hope that exists for people of medium income or even above medium income securing any kind of good accommodation and good housing within the borders — the perimeters — of the Vancouver area.

Because it is true: land is expensive; housing is expensive. What people are looking for, Mr. Speaker, is not new housing. There is good housing in there. What we want is that the housing should not be demolished. That housing should not be torn down and be replaced by these high-priced townhouses and high-priced condominiums that only a few can afford.

The whole personality of the riding is changing, I have statistics here that are alarming in that they show that children are disappearing from the riding

[ Page 643 ]

because young families — people with small children — can no longer afford to live in the borders of the Vancouver-Burrard constituency because housing is too expensive. In fact, they are being replaced, again, by families where both people are working and there is a major income involved to be able to afford that.

Some of the people in the Fairview-Mount Pleasant area came together, Mr. Speaker, and drafted a policy — a plan that they would like to see. This is what they asked for: preservation, first of all, of existing housing stock and retention of the existing population that is currently living in the riding.

None of this is going to be possible under the kind of recommendations made in the budget because what the budget is aiming at is the building of new housing. There is good housing in that constituency now; there is superb housing. What we would like to see is that housing remain that way and that people on medium and fixed incomes be able to afford it.

But we also want to see, Mr. Speaker, that the division of cooperative housing be reintroduced. Co-op housing is one way of people working to help themselves. That government over there is always talking about people working to help themselves. Better a department of cooperative houses than worrying about giving shovels to people who are unable to find employment.

Another group, the Community Alternative Co-ops who came together to try and fund their building, went and met with CMHC. Again they were told by CMHC that they could not get into any kind of lending or mortgage deal with them because the provincial government has no policy — has not made any kind of decision that has to do with cooperative housing.

So I am appealing to the government to reopen its office — its department — on cooperative housing and to permit people who want to remain in the area and to purchase their own homes to be able to do so. The NIP programme, Mr. Speaker, is an excellent programme, and I think the provincial government should be encouraged to support it,

The other area pertaining to my constituency that I want to talk about is the whole business of unemployment. Decisions made by this government in its first three months in office have been absolutely devastating in terms of employment throughout the province, really — not just in my constituency, but throughout the province. Everything that they have done to date, whether it is in the cutback of services....

When you cut back a service, Mr. Speaker, you've not just cut back a service, but you've put the people who are delivering that service out of work. That's not fighting in employment; that is encouraging unemployment; that is expanding unemployment.

When you cut back a service, as is done.... When I talk about Vancouver General Hospital I'll go into more detail about the kinds of services being cut back there. What do you do? Again, the whole business of what happens to the nursing staff and what happens to the support staff in that hospital.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not here. We are told by the teachers that there is a threat that there will be 5,000 teachers out of work in this province. That is the government that tells us it is so concerned about employment and wants to stimulate the job market and find jobs for everyone so 'that there isn't a run on the shovels, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) promises for anyone who doesn't want to work or who won't cut their hair every morning before going to look for a job.

I had a visit from a group of women, Mr. Speaker, who were previously on welfare. Under the last government they were encouraged to go to Vancouver City College and take a one-year course on social services. These women are now graduating; they are going to be graduating this spring. There is no work out there for them to go to, Mr. Speaker, because the areas that they were planning to work in have been out back.

The information centres, where most of them were planning to work — their funding has been cut off. The community centres — their funding has been cut back. The child-care centres — their funding is in jeopardy. Support in the schools — the schools can no longer afford the kind of support services that these women would be able to offer.

So here we have people going through the system taking the educational courses in order to get off of welfare and when they have completed the courses there is no job out there for them — courtesy of that government over there which tells everyone that they are the government of the people.

Here is the Registered Nurses Association "viewing with alarm that the lack of funding may kill the nursing programme" right here in the City of Victoria.

I have another case history, Mr. Speaker, and I have to bring these case histories out because that is the only way, I think, that the reality of the problem is brought home to people.

Two years ago we were told that there was a tremendous shortage of nurses in this province, and in my own constituency I got a call from a couple, both of them, male and female, then entered the nursing class. They are graduating again this year and out of a class of 23, Mr. Speaker, only two of them have been able to find nursing jobs so far. Two people out of a graduating class of 23, and the two people who are being hired had previous experience of psychiatric nursing and are going back into the field of psychiatric nursing.

The problem is complicated because there arc so many nurses coming from Ontario and Nova Scotia

[ Page 644 ]

and other provinces that are also experiencing a cutback in their health services that are flooding into this province.

I'm speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who I see is really listening very closely to what I'm saying. We really are concerned, Mr. Minister of Health, at the fact that there are no jobs out there as the result of the decisions being made to cut back on health services, yet there is a need for it.

I was in the Peace River this weekend, Mr. Minister, and they desperately need nurses up there. They desperately need that mammography machine that was promised to them up there. They need all these things, but here we have not just an increase in taxation, not just an increase in personal income tax, not just an increase in medical premiums, but we also have a cutback in services at the same time. So you know they really are being caught in the pincers of that Social Credit government over there.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Which government cutback?

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, aside from unemployment in a number of areas, I also want to speak specifically, since the Minister is listening, about VGH, and really Vancouver General Hospital is in a pretty tragic situation at this point.

One of the things that they are doing in order to meet the kind of directives that you are sending out to them to the Minister of Health through you, Mr. Speaker is to cut out all of their part-time employees.

Now there used to be a myth circulating through the community that part-time workers were women who were just working to keep themselves out of mischief. But that's not true. We now know as a result, and I'm sure you will agree with me, that people who work, work because they have to. Included in some of these part-time workers who are being cut back is one particular woman who has been working, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, part-time for 18 years. The reason she has been working part-time is because her husband is an invalid and she has to care for him all day at home and the only time she can work is five or six hours in the evening when he is asleep.

That is their sole means of income, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. Now she is going to lose her job as a result of the direction, the decision to cut down, cut out all part-time workers from VGH. And there are a number of other instances like that.

There are people who are physically unable to work full time. There are people with handicaps who must work part time. They cannot handle a 35-hour or a 40-hour week and have been working part time for a large number of years and they are being cut back too.

And the little things that are being done to a place like Riverview. The kind of increases in the price of food in the cafeteria. Some really terrible things are happening in the field of health, Mr. Minister. I hope to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there are going to be some genuine deletions in this budget, that there is going to be a third edition or a fourth edition of this budget, at which time you do deal with some of the real problems in it that have to do with the kinds of cutbacks and the kinds of increases in your $7 a day and your MSA and those kinds of things.

Vancouver General Hospital, which sits right smack in the centre of the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, which hires a lot of the people living in that particular riding, is the largest general hospital in this province and, for all we know, in the western provinces. They're really alarmed there about the decision made pertaining to the health services for children and the decision to wipe out that children's hospital. But that will be dealt with under your own particular estimates. I won't deal with that at this particular time, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk now about the information centres. Again, it seems that one has to continually deal with the lack of information on the part of that government about what community services really do.

Information services grew up as a grass roots kind of service from the community itself that recognized its need. It wasn't superimposed by a bureaucracy on any community. The people in the community recognized that with the proliferation of resources in the community it wasn't possible for people to know everything that was accessible to them, and that's where the information service concept started.

Since the information services have been in existence, they have performed a remarkable job — they have actually served to cut costs in a lot of areas; they are accessible to the residents. Time and time again people just walk in off the street, or make their phone call to find out information they need. They are flexible on some of the things they do. A policeman can call for the local address of a health-care team if something has gone wrong on a call he has made. Someone is ill with some kind of a mental health problem and the policeman doesn't know where that particular community-care service team is, so the policeman calls the information service.

A handicapped person will phone and say : "Will someone come and give me a drive to the hospital?" or "Give me a ride to the doctor?" Senior citizens use it; handicapped people use it; people looking for housing use it.

The Kitsilano Information Centre, Mr. Speaker, in its last 12 months of office dealt with 19,922

[ Page 645 ]

inquiries. Now how can you terminate funding to a service which has that kind of call made upon it? Nineteen thousand pieces of information it had to deal with. Of these, 5,000 had to do with finding housing in the area, and that is the kind of service which this government has decided to terminate. Four hundred and twenty-nine had to do with health; 484 came from senior citizens.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the blue light is on. Okay. What I wanted to end up by doing is saying a couple of things that other people have said about this budget because I think it's true. The Province refers to it as "venom and bitter medicine." Marjorie Nichols doesn't have anything good to say about it either. The Victoria Times refers to it as "a vitriolic frame for a harsh budget." It's not just the opposition that thinks this budget is unfair, Mr. Speaker. You know, these people are not card-carrying members of the New Democratic Party — I can assure you of that. But here we have the News from Dawson Creek, and I want to end with the editorial in the Dawson Creek News:

"We are being punished. Yes, you, the electorate. The present government is telling us that we are responsible for the terrible things of the former NDP government, and you elected it, so now you are going to pay. Last Friday's Social Credit provincial budget is asking you for blood in its obsession over black ink."

And it goes on to talk about the terrible things.

"A lot of the budget is phony, such as the reason to raise hospital rates for extended care to $7 a day from $1 a day. The reason? B.C. senior citizens have been building up their estates with Mincome payments. That government now knows that that is not true. They were well aware that, as of last May, the directive went out cutting hospital patients off the Mincome rolls."

It ends up by saying that what that government over there forgets is that people didn't vote for the NDP in the last election; they voted against the Social Credit.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to offer my services to that government and particularly to the Minister of Finance when he decides to issue another edition of this budget, when he decides to delete or expurgate any other areas in this budget. On behalf of my own constituency and all the ordinary people who are being pinched by this budget, the next time he decides to expurgate it I want to be in on it because there are some things in it I want to cut out too. Thank you.

Mr. Kahl moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LEA: Speaking to section 1 of Bill 3, over the period of the last sitting on section 1 of Bill 3 there were a number of questions asked of the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure that the questions were coming so quickly that the minister didn't have a chance to write some of them down. The NDP in this House not wanting to be repetitive, I think it might be a good idea at this time if the Minister of Finance would let the House know the questions that he has that he hasn't answered yet — maybe he did write them down — and then we'll know whether those questions have to be asked again. I would like the Minister of Finance, if he would at this time, Mr. Chairman, to let us know those questions that he hasn't answered yet but intends to so we won't be repetitive.

MR. CHABOT: Send the Blues over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I am sure that the member will remember that it is at the discretion of the minister that he answers the questions. He can answer them all at once or he can answer them one at a time.

MR. LEA: There are a number of questions that have not been answered that were asked, and I feel that the people of British Columbia have a right to know the answers to the questions that have been asked. For instance, let's start with No. 1: why did the government approve a grant of $26 million out of current revenues for the 1975-76 fiscal year when legislation approved in this House has provided for a $50 million borrowing authorization regarding capital transit operations? That's one question. Would you like to answer that now?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I answered that the other day.

MR. LEA: I didn't hear you answer that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: You didn't answer that. You just said....

[ Page 646 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Then could you tell me when you do stand up when it was that you answered that so I can check it in Hansard?

No. 2: why did the government not receive back from the B.C. Railway in the 1975-76 fiscal year a $20 million payment since BCR minutes clearly show the intention was to repay this government? That was in the last fiscal year, 1975-76. Why did the government make a $32.6 million grant to B.C. Hydro in the 1975-76 fiscal year? If the grant was related to operations of the transit losses, then why hasn't the government provided in the upcoming or in these current estimates any provision for funds for the coming year, if that's going to be the policy of government? I'm still not satisfied why a rubber cheque would be given to ICBC which they're not going to cash, but when they do cash it, it's going to be loaned back to the government. I still haven't got that clear in my mind, Mr. Chairman.

Why was $26 million left in the British Columbia Petroleum Corp.? Why wasn't that transferred to government consolidated revenues in the 1975-76 fiscal year? Why did the province not receive back in consolidated revenue for 1975-76 the $25 million advanced to the B.C. Harbours Board when there was provision that that was going to happen from the previous administration? Why didn't the government receive back advances made to B.C. Cellulose of $16 million and to Ocean Falls of $4 million, totalling $20 million? Why was that not received back in 1975-76?

There are a number of other questions that have been asked by the opposition on this section. So far I can't recall any answer, or at least an adequate answer, on these questions. There are more questions, but I wonder if the Minister of Finance would begin by answering some of the questions that I've just asked for a second time.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Member, I believe I did try to answer most of those questions the other day. To deal with just two or three that come to mind, you mentioned the B.C. Hydro deficit. It's a clear-cut indication of our policy that this had to be done. I think that it's also very clear that while your government was in office.... There are memoranda on file where the Minister of Finance was advised by the Premier, et cetera, that there was an intention to subsidize the deficit on the B.C. Hydro, so the indication that we are obligated to fulfill this obligation was there already. I don't think there's any doubt on either side of the House that there was a necessity to subsidize the deficit in Hydro having to do with the transit losses which were incurred.

You mentioned the advance to B.C. Railway — why was this not returned? I think the Premier mentioned in the House the other day that it was very clear that this was indicated in the order-in-council as having been a grant, Mr. Member, not to be returned. Furthermore, the advance to the B.C. Harbours Board of $25 million.... I think these things have all been indicated by the former Minister of Finance, and others, as having been methods by which the books might be balanced.

I suggest to you, Mr. Member, that there was really no intention, when those accounts were advanced, of having them returned, because the bodies receiving them, including the B.C. Harbours Board, can ill afford to return the money. The B.C. Railway can ill afford to return that money; it simply places them into further debt. I say to you as a reasonable man, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there was never any intention to return these amounts. There were advanced because these agencies required the moneys, and any suggestion that they were to be returned was simply a maneuver to balance the books.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, that's an interesting reply from the Minister of Finance — that the government felt obligated to honour what they thought to be a commitment by the previous government. I certainly argue with that in light of the railway minute. But when he says that the government was prepared to honour what he thought to be a commitment to subsidize Hydro deficit, I wonder why, then, he took the completely opposite position with respect to a subsidy to ICBC. Because it was clearly the policy of the previous administration to finance through gasoline tax any shortfall in ICBC funds. Now if he felt committed to live up to our policy on the one hand, I wonder why he departed from that position with respect to ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Could the minister explain why gasoline tax was not used? That would not normally have been paid until the end of the fiscal year, I would point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman.

But the questions which my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) put forward are valid and we have heard no reasonable explanation about why this money should be transferred from general revenue — why borrowing authority should be approved for the government to plunge this province into debt for a political choice which they have made. It certainly isn't justified when it has been demonstrated to the House, Mr. Chairman, that there were reasonable methods — reasonable alternatives — of granting to those Crown corporations borrowing authority, which had been the practice of not only the NDP administration but of the previous Social Credit

[ Page 647 ]

administration, with respect to B.C. Hydro, dam construction, the two-river policy, with respect to the B.C. Railway. I want a better explanation from the minister, Mr. Chairman, as to why the current administration departed from that approach. Certainly we require that before we can approve the passage of authority to plunge this province into $400 million worth of debt.

MR. LEA: I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is going to answer all of the questions when he rises. There is one other question that I would like to put forward, and that is whether the people who were working for the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and who assisted in writing the Clarkson, Gordon report — I won't insult that firm by calling it an audit — whether those people took an oath of secrecy.

I believe it's the first time in British Columbia's history that an outside firm — I'm not questioning the integrity of Clarkson, Gordon — has been asked to come in and do a review of government in its entirety. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a dangerous precedent to set when outside people, who have not taken an oath of secrecy, are asked to come in and take a look at the overall financial situation of any government.

I'm sure that most of the hon. members of this House, and more especially those hon. members who have been in business, would know that one of the greatest things that anybody has to sell is information. I'm sure that if any outside organization knew, for instance, in exact terms the kind of sales tax that, say, Simpson's paid last year in any given area of this province, and what Eaton's paid, they could very quickly figure out what kind of revenues their competitors were taking in. That's information that possibly they shouldn't have.

I'm only using that for an example. I'm sure there is example after example after example that people outside of government should not have information that only people in government have the right to know and have taken an oath of secrecy. I put that down as a dangerous precedent to set, to allow outside accountants or otherwise to come in and to take a look through the financial situation of any province.

But I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that they didn't do that anyway. I'm just putting that as a warning, Mr. Minister. They didn't do that because obviously, in order to come up with the kind of report that they came up with so that the government says Bill 3 is necessary, all they did was walk around, talk to various ministers, according to the Minister of Finance, and get from those ministers what their estimate of their department would happen to be, and each minister would tell them whether they thought it was an emergency situation that this government had to borrow for to meet those obligations.

I am surprised, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that Clarkson, Gordon, after taking that obligation in the first place from government, would continue to write that report. I am surprised that they would take that information and lend their name to what was obviously a political ploy of the government to try and throw a bad light on the past administration. That's all this bill is about, really. Because unless the Minister of Finance gets up in his place and answers the questions that are being put to him by the opposition in a way that will satisfy not only us but the people of British Columbia that there is a need to go into debt, then the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is absolutely right. This government is going to plunge the people of this province into debt for the first time in over 20 years, only in order that they may feel that they're getting some political advantage. Every time we raise that point they say "you did."

HON. MR. MAIR: And you did!

MR, LEA: They say "you did". We're saying that it isn't needed. You haven't proven inside this House or outside of this House that this money is needed. You have not proven it. Otherwise you would not have written a rubber cheque that you're not going to cash, but when you may cash it you'll lend it back to the government, and the people of B.C. will have to pay interest to ICBC, which they already own. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

I don't blame you for coming up with that excuse, because under the circumstances you couldn't come up with a reason. All you could come up with was an excuse, but surely you could have had a better excuse than that. Surely, with 15 people over there, you could have come up with a better excuse than that. But then that's the record of your government — more excuses, no reasons. I would say that these questions have to be answered, and we're quite willing to do the people's business and stay in this House until there are satisfactory answers to these questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I'm not sure if there was a question buried somewhere in all that rhetoric, but I thought I heard one somewhere back there, having to do with the auditing firm and whether they were sworn to secrecy. I can only say to that, that any auditing firm, as a matter of ethical principles, is sworn to secrecy. The confidentiality of the client and the practitioner are automatic in that type of relationship.

MR. LEA: You may buy that. I don't buy it.

[ Page 648 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, that's fine. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, with respect, that he's therefore casting a slur on a reputable national firm of chartered accountants, and I take exception to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you say it outside?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'd say it outside.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I'd like to ask the minister a question directed to understanding the current urgency or otherwise of this bill. Now that the fiscal year ending March 31 is past, could he tell us whether or not the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia has cashed their $181 million cheque? It seems to me to be quite important to know the bank situation and whether he has had any representations from the bankers of the province as to whether or not they are being presented with any cheques which they feel unable to honour because of the cash position of the government, or whether the government has since the end of the fiscal year made interim credit arrangements of some kind to permit these cheques to be accommodated.

There are three short questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not sure I heard three questions, but I recall two. I think one of them had to do with the cheque for ICBC. I've not had any advice as to what the disposition of this cheque has been, nor have I had any contact from any bank with regard to it.

MR. GIBSON: I'll just follow that up with a quick comment. I assume that if the minister hasn't been hearing these kinds of things from the bank there's no tremendous urgency on the bill. That's all I was trying to establish.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I'm a little worried. I was going to ask a very simple question on another subject, but I think we have a right to be concerned about a large cheque of that size that's outstanding, because you might get notice from the bank...I've had that experience myself. (Laughter.) NSF, you know? It would be nice to know who has the cheque and who's holding it and whether or not they intend to put it in their bank account. It's a pretty big item.

The other question I want to ask the minister is a very simple one. I asked the other day about the $7.5 million to the universities council. The minister was good enough to say that there had been a letter from the universities council requesting this amount. We've had a couple of days now, and I'd like the letter to be tabled as part of this discussion. It's a fairly substantial amount, and I'm not content that it should be tabled in the estimates of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in the future. Now is the time to see whether that expenditure is justified — as it might be.

The Minister of Education gave the assurance that it would be tabled in his estimates, but we as an opposition are questioning whether that expenditure had to be made for the previous fiscal year. We're saying the need was not shown and the information we have is that it was not necessary for it to be received by the universities council before March 31. So unless there was a justification for it, the government are exposed as spending money in order to compound the debt situation for political reasons. The letter may clear it up, and in that case we have $7.5 million that we can get rid of. Perhaps the minister could assure us that that letter will be tabled now.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I believe, Mr. Member, that the minister did indicate to you the last time you raised this question that he would table something in the House with regard to the answer to that question. I think it might be more suitable if you raised the question during question period.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Following up on the same question with reference to the $7.5 million warrant for universities, I think that what we're really concerned about is why that was placed in the Clarkson, Gordon report as an expenditure for the 1975-76 year, when I have a clipping in front of me from the Vancouver Sun in which the vice-president of administration for Simon Fraser, George Stuart, is quoted. And I really feel I must quote this to the hon. minister so he can answer from this quote which raises a specific question. He states that the grants increase for the universities is 8.5 per cent, excluding an additional $7.5 million given the universities earlier this year. But he said the $7.5 million could be a non-continuing grant, which means the universities must save the money out of this year's budget to keep for next year's programmes.

In other words, if I read this correctly to the hon. minister, it appears quite clearly from this article that the money which was given to the universities is to be used in the new fiscal year of 1976-77.

In other words, I am asking the hon. Minister of Finance, if this is so — and it appears we have a vice-president of Simon Fraser stating this — why then was the $7.5 million warrant issued in the old fiscal year? Why was it listed as an over expenditure in the Department of Education for the old fiscal year?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the committee that the Minister of Finance, as chairman of treasury, is the one to whom requests for justification for warrant expenditures

[ Page 649 ]

come. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) might have handled that letter, but it must have come to the Minister of Finance; he must have seen it, and it must have been in his custody. It's his responsibility that the warrant was issued when it was issued, and I would ask that this minister, not the Minister of Education, table the letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind you that we are straying a little from the content of section 1. Would you please draw your remarks back to the content of section 1?

MR. GIBSON: To show how clearly my remarks will be within the four comers of section 1, may I quote to the minister that old phrase: "Never borrow money needlessly, just when you must."?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Author!

MR. GIBSON: And, hopefully, at a lower interest rate, I might say — without mentioning names.

I'd like, within that context, to bring the minister back to this question of the $7.5 million, so ably raised a moment ago by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), and ask if he could undertake to this House to ascertain, through the universities council, whether or not this money is still sitting in their bank account as of today, or in the bank account of the universities to which it may have been distributed, as the remarks quoted by the member would seem to indicate.

I think it is an important question for the House to know because if, in fact, that money was disbursed in advance of need, then what that indicates is that the province would have to borrow in advance of need, thereby paying unnecessary interest. I think that's important, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister if he would undertake to ascertain from the universities council where this money is now. Has it in fact, in other words, been disbursed, or is it still sitting there somewhere? If so, is there any way we can recapture it so we can reduce this loan limit by a little bit for a while? Would he do that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this question and matters relating to it were directed to the Minister of Education the other day. I think he's proposing to answer that question. He has indicated he will file in the House a letter that was involved and I think that's the proper answer to the question.

I'm not able to answer your second question as of today in any event. You mentioned "never borrow money needlessly" which is an inference that we don't need an authority for $400 million. I believe I heard you quoted as saying that the deficit might not be $400 million; it might be $700 million! Is that not correct? Well, why are you arguing over $7.5 million insofar as the borrowing authority is concerned?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR, WOLFE: I only want to emphasize to all the members that this is an authority to borrow up to $400 million to cover the operating deficit which we expect to be the case for the fiscal year ended. I just ask for their cooperation in allowing this matter to proceed, because it has reasonable urgency.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Vancouver Burrard defer to North Vancouver–Capilano?

MR, GIBSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Member — just one second. Just a short rejoinder.

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: A point of short! (Laughter.) Mr. Member for Vancouver-Burrard, I'll be very brief.

In response to the minister, I wanted to say to him: yes, indeed, I do believe that the deficit could have been made, and legitimately have been looked to be made, larger than it was. But what we are talking about here is the cash position, and, as the minister knows, when the cash flows is important. I don't think that he should suggest to the House that $7.5 million is just a little expenditure that we shouldn't worry about in that context.

So I say to him again: will he undertake, as the money-manager of the province, who is not the Minister of Education — the Minister of Finance is the money-manager — will he undertake to discover where that $7.5 million is? Has it been spent, or is it sitting in the bank?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on the section in relation to the deficit, the minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he has relied completely on the Clarkson, Gordon report.

I have two questions for him. One is: would he like to tell us how much the report cost — how much Clarkson, Gordon were paid for it?

The second one is this, if I might just quote from the report relating to the deficit: on the first page of their report, not the Premier's speech, it says:

"Any discussion of a province's finances usually starts with the consideration of the

[ Page 650 ]

anticipated surplus or deficit for the year under review, and a primary purpose of your request for financial information was to determine what the results would be for the province's fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, based on actual results to the end of '75 in estimates made by the appropriate officials and managers for the rest of the year."

Now that was done in February.

I would like to suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he does now have available to him, and perhaps he would consider making it available to the House.... He should now have in his hands, on his desk, the report from the comptroller-general. As you are obviously having a great deal of trouble convincing us over here of the facts, and if the comptroller-general's report, presumably, is available — it is the end of the fiscal year; it is usually routine that it's made available within a few days of the end of the fiscal year — why doesn't the minister table that in the House, and then we'll know where we are in terms of the deficit?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, just in answer to the member's question, such a report is not now available.

I think I described the situation to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the other day, that in fact the year-end deficit would have to include many transactions applying to April, which at the year-end, if you will read the financial reports at any year-end in the public accounts, includes expenditures made in April which have to do with March, having to do with the prior year. So it's going to be some little while before we really have an accurate figure for the year-end.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I think most people have a clear understanding of what's been going on in this province.

Since that new government was sworn in some time late in December...

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: ...until March.... Mr. Chairman, since when has committee limited one to ask a specific question? If committee allows one to ask questions, it should also demand answers — and we haven't been getting them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Mr. Member; you are in order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to get back to when I was so uniquely interrupted. (Laughter.) The people feel now — and I kind of second their feeling;

1 feel the same way — that what occurred after that swearing-in ceremony was a rush to the offices to spend money like drunken sailors until March 31. And I say that based on this premise: if not, why haven't we been getting answers to the questions we've been asking? Very ordinary, common-sense questions.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Evan, help us!

MR. COCKE: Indeed, Evan, help us. Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we will see Bill 3 circulated around this province with a political preamble. You know, I can see it all now, edged in black — they got us in debt for the first time, and all that.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we are resisting this bill is because of the fact that they know as we know.... We could have put in a bill like that for $1 billion when we took over in 1972 — $1 billion for the Columbia River $850 million fiasco, for the BCR fiasco and all the other fiascos.

But no, Mr. Chairman, all we want is a few little, solid answers to some questions. What do we see before us — the grant to keep women alive! All of these things that were done before March 31 — spending money in such a way as to, I think, humiliate themselves, really — unless they could come up with the proper answers. Making advance payments: we've asked about that — making these advance payments to municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: When they got the notice in your own municipality they were as surprised as can be.

HON. MR. MAIR: Take a look at the facts.

MR. COCKE: A five-year probability.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, listen to the Minister of Consumer Services who likes to kick people around...

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

MR. COCKE: ...indicating that there wasn't surprise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order, please!

MR. COCKE: Yes, Sir, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 651 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please address the Chair, and we can avoid the kind of confrontation that we've just experienced.

MR. COCKE: Yes, we would want to avoid that at all costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rafe, why don't you join the cabinet meeting? Leave him there by himself. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you stick to the facts?

MR. KING: Vander Zalm's going to cut you off welfare, with that beard. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: They are deciding what more to cut out of the budget when you're not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, does the minister deny that the financial statement that came down from the auditors, or whoever they were, was that a financial statement that reflected a political course that had been set, a position prior zing, set by a government. That's all we want to know. If you will admit that, then I think we're along the way on getting to grips with this bill. A sorrowful affair, Mr. Chairman, to say the least.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions, but the first question that I would like to ask sort of follows on what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has been saying.

It rather intrigues me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. My friends in the beef-growing industry, who have an income-assurance scheme, received a payment in November and, according to the scheme's regulations, the next payment was due in April. But strangely enough, and much to the surprise of the beef growers, they received their premium in March.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. WALLACE: According to my calculations that's something between $15 and $20 million, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about that!

MRS. WALLACE: Now I would suggest that that certainly supports the contention being made by the member for New Westminster.

MRS. JORDAN: What have you got against the farmers?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the minister what the rationale was behind making the payment in March rather than leaving it until April when it was due.

HON. MR. MAIR: When was it due?

MRS. WALLACE: In April.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who was it to?

MRS. WALLACE: It was due in April, Mr. Chairman, to the beef producers.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where, where! There's more than one....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: All the beef producers covered by income assurance, Mr. Chairman. That was the amount of money that was paid out, something between $15 million and $20 million.

My other question to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) relates to the figures which he has given us in the House, which indicate that the cash shortfall as of the end of March was something around $220 million. Now that leaves an outstanding amount, in relation to this bill, of some S 18 0 million. He has been consistently saying that he doesn't know what this is or how much it will be but he's just assuming that it's going to be this much.

Now I would suggest that as the minister responsible for the financial affairs of this province, he should at least be able to give us some idea of what goes into the makeup of that $ 180 million he is expecting to have to pay. I think until such time as the minister is prepared to do that, I cannot give my support to this bill. I would ask him to give us that kind of information, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the more we pursue the minister in questioning on section 1 of this bill, the more we can reveal to the public about how political in nature this bill has been from its inception.

The minister steadfastly refuses to answer these questions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs, Dailly) asked a question about the $7 million

[ Page 652 ]

warrant for education. The minister, the other day, stood in this House and said it was for an over expenditure of the 1975-1976 fiscal year. Those were the Finance minister's words, no one else's. That is flatly contradicted in the press and the minister has said nothing further except he's waiting for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to get him out of that one. He is remaining silent and by his silence he is revealing that there was indeed a conspiracy to trump up the deficit that this bill is supposed to cover. The answer must be that that $7 million warrant was not for over expenditures. It was a deliberate attempt to add $7 million to the deficit, because the minister has not explained his actions. He is supposed to explain his actions in this House and he's not doing that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm very disappointed in him.

Mr. Chairman, questions were asked last day with respect to the Clarkson, Gordon report. The minister rose in his place and said that I received the only copy from Clarkson, Gordon and there's been no changes in any of the figures. Well, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister: did he not receive various reports from Clarkson, Gordon, either in final draft or draft form or interim, verbal or written reports that he and the Premier were not satisfied with and sent back for revision?

The first part of my question is therefore to the minister: did he receive any reports other than the final draft report that has been tabled in this House or that has been publicly released?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Did you receive any other report?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Did you receive any other report?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, would you please take your chair? We have recognized the member for Prince Rupert.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think it's becoming very obvious, not only in this House but throughout the province, what is happening. Only one of two things, Mr. Chairman: either the Minister of Finance does not know the answers to the questions that are being asked, or he knows the answers and refuses to let this House know and the people of British Columbia know.

MR. LAUK: The truth.

MR. LEA: If he doesn't know the answers, then as Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, what he is doing in that portfolio is unforgivable. If he does know the answers and refuses to give them to us, it's unpardonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's withholding.

MR. LEA: It's either unforgivable or unpardonable, and there is no other way to go. He either doesn't know what is going on in his portfolio — in his department — or he knows and won't square with the people and with the opposition in this House. It's one or the other. You can't sit there day after day after day chewing on a pencil and refusing to answer. He may do it, but I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, the day will come when he will wish that he had not defended the political actions of his government and had preferred to square with the people and at least had kept that a portfolio with dignity in this province.

Question after question, he stands up and says: "I’ve already answered." One question at a time so there can be no error — one question at a time: why was not the $26 million that is in the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. transferred into consolidated revenues for the 1975-1976 fiscal year?

MS. K.F. SANFORD (Comox): No answers.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that the minister expects to sit there and resist giving answers to the questions that have been put to him. These questions are very pertinent; they are very logical and reasonable questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're very repetitive.

MR. KING: Well, that's true, because we are not getting answers, and we, Mr. Chairman, expect to receive answers and we are prepared to remain here until we do.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Now the minister has an obligation, not only to the opposition but to the province of British Columbia, to square and to be accountable for the large borrowing he is proposing. For the first time he is proposing that this province be plunged into debt to the tune of $400 million.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Read the legislation.

[ Page 653 ]

MR. KING: He must be accountable. He must explain why this is necessary. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am very confused. On the one hand we were told that the province of British Columbia was broke, that there were no funds in general revenue. Then the minister writes a cheque for $181 million from general revenue to ICBC. The next day, he tells the media that that cheque wasn't necessary at all and the Premier grabs him by the arm and drags him down the hall. I don't know whether he just grabbed him by the arm or whether he grabbed his throat and perhaps damaged his voice, Mr. Chairman. Maybe that's why he can't answer.

I want to suggest that we require answers to these questions before we can consider passing authorization to borrow up to $400 million in this province. The Minister surely has an obligation to explain what the cash position of ICBC is today. He has not provided answers to the query of what ICBC expects to take in in the time payments for plate insurance that was provided this year. He has not explained what it will cost for the suggestion from his colleague that ICBC might perhaps be in a position to make cash loans to the government. What will that transaction — the writing of that cheque and then the subsequent borrowing of the same money back to treasury in this province — cost in interest payments to the people of British Columbia, solely as far as we can determine to bring about a self-fulfilling prophesy of that Social Credit administration?

These are questions we must have the answers to. It's not good enough for the minister to sit in his office or in this House playing chess games with peppermints and so on — biting pencils. He must be prepared to answer. We expect those answers, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the procedure of the House just long enough to acquaint members, particularly new members, of what the procedures of the House are? The minister may answer those questions or all questions; he may answer them one at a time; he may answer them all together; or, indeed, he may not answer them at all. That is the procedure of the House. No one can insist on an answer.

MR. KING: Let's hear it for the farmers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I repeat: the fundamental reason for clause 1 is to get an authority to borrow up to $400 million. This matter has been well canvassed. I've already announced in this House, some days ago, the expected cash deficit on a question from the member for North Vancouver, which you are all familiar with. I indicated at that time that it was impossible to know what this deficit might grow to by the time we go through April and so on, and also that the deficit overdraft at that time did not include certain outstanding cheques and certain sizeable expenditures which normally occur in the month of April.

I think it is very obvious to all members that it is reasonable that we get an authority to borrow this money. I think even the members across the House realize the need to borrow this money. Even the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), in his final statement on leaving office, in sort of assuming the returns and transfers of money from Crown corporations, I think, predicted the deficit. I would suggest that if your party were in power today you would be putting forward such a bill as we are now looking at. You would need authority to borrow from the Province of British Columbia for the deficit which we incurred. So as I said earlier, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) predicted some time ago that the deficit might run to $700 and $800 million. It depends on whom you talk to. Suffice to say, Mr. Chairman...

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...that the deficit is sizeable....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think this matter has been well canvassed. I have attempted to answer most of the questions that have been put to me. I think that we should allow the business of this House to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver Centre is first on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I apologize to my colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . I've been jogging lately and I've....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The springs under my.... The elevator shoes, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 1, Mr. Member,

MR. LAUK: Thank you. The hon. minister indicated that what we are talking about is section 1. So far as that's concerned he is accurate, in that we are talking about the amount of $400 million as a

[ Page 654 ]

borrowing authority to the government. But he has not answered the questions that are requisite for the opposition to support this section.

So far we have worked him down to $50 million. If we keep on asking him any more questions we may not have a deficit at all.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He admits himself, Mr. Chairman, that he doesn't know the answers. It depends on whom he talked to last how much the borrowing deficit will be.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, we have the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) here.... He is underemployed, Mr. Chairman, since he lost his job as Whip, so he's practicing a little heckle here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken little.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister said he answered my question with respect to the alleged political tampering with the Clarkson, Gordon report. I have looked over the Blues and what he, said was: "I would like to assure the House, Mr. Chairman" — he meant the committee — "with regard to the Clarkson, Gordon report that I received the only copy of this report and that no change was made in any figures supplied by this report."

Mr. Chairman, this is a catch-22 tautological argument.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the only movie you've ever seen?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the question again: did the hon. minister receive any interim reports from Clarkson, Gordon, either verbal or written, with respect to the findings of the final publicly released document?

MR. CHABOT: He has already answered it.

MR. LAUK: That was not answered. You've received those reports and you tampered with them. You know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it might be presumptuous of me, but I'd like to offer a word of advice to the minister. It's not that we're holding this thing up deliberately.... (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, we are asking questions and many of the questions, in spite of what the minister said, are going by unanswered. He doesn't make notes when a number of questions are asked. He apparently tries to remember them or perhaps prefers to forget them. I'm not sure. In any case, the individual questions are just not answered.

I suggested in an earlier session when we were debating this that if the minister would simply, with respect to each one of these questions, say: "Well, this is the answer" or "I don't know the answer" or "I prefer not to answer that question", that would dispose of those questions. As you say, we can't insist on an answer with respect to any question, but we can keep asking questions until the minister has dealt with them in one of those three ways — either by answering or by saying he doesn't know the answer or by simply saying: "I prefer not to answer that question."

He suggested that in a speech I made earlier I said that there would be a deficit even had we been returned to office. Now that's not the case. It might be his recollection of it; it might be his understanding. What I did say was that there would be a $40 million shortfall between revenue and expenditures in total but there was $147 million surplus going into that period. So there would have been no need to borrow had we remained in office. There would have been, on those figures, some $107 million left in the cash surplus. It's called the cash surplus although, properly, it's on the liability side. Nevertheless, it's called a cash surplus. There would have been no need to borrow had we been returned to office.

We have asked certain specific questions. There has been no answer. The member for Cowichan-Malahat, for example, did ask the question about paying for the cattle insurance scheme — paying two years in the one fiscal period when that certainly was not the intention of the previous administration. It was not expected by the cattlemen. Yet for some reason or other the government chose to make the payment that would have been paid in the second fiscal period in the first fiscal period. It leaves us to suspect it was done so as to put the maximum expenditures into the previous fiscal period and minimize the expenditures in the next fiscal period. There may have been some other reason, but we would like some comment from the minister, even if he doesn't know. Well, at least tell us that, why it was done that way. If he doesn't know, it's not good. But at least he could make some comment on that.

In view of his previous record of apparently not remembering a list of questions, I prefer to leave that one with him for the moment and see what response we get for that one.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, back again on the $7.5 million warrant to the hon. minister, I have information from a council member that the hon.

[ Page 655 ]

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) requested that the $7.5 million be given to the universities without even having any request from the universities council.

I consider this devastating. I consider this a complete erosion of the rights and responsibilities of the University Council of British Columbia. Not only that, to the lion. minister — it's obvious what has happened here, that that $7.5 million was requested by the Minister of Education so that the former Department of Education budget under the NDP could be inflated for their own particular political purposes. I would like an answer from the minister as to what he is going to do about this.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who raises questions about the validity of the amount of the deficit and the certain statements that he may have made that the deficit or loss for the year might be $400 million, and so on.

This is a long-standing argument. Was it $400 million? Was it $400 million? Was it $800 million? — et cetera, et cetera. I can only suggest to him that a senior staff member in the Department of Finance felt so strongly about statements this member made in leaving office and intimating that they might balance the books — he felt so strongly that he objected to it that he had to go into a press conference and announce publicly what he knew to be the facts, since he was privy to them, Mr. Chairman.

I think that this is ample evidence that there was a deficit impending — not having a thing to do with what our new government may have done between January 1 and March 1 — which was unavoidable, hon. member, unavoidable. When a member of our senior staff who's privy to this information comes forward and announces publicly at some expense to his own future, I think this is ample evidence to the public of British Columbia that we are faced with a serious financial situation.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. As a new member, perhaps unembittered by previous partisan quarrels, I feel as a human being some genuine sympathy for the Minister of Finance. It's clear to me from that embarrassing incident in the hall when he was removed bodily by the Premier from the reporters who were asking questions, from that embarrassing incident and others, that as a human being, the minister is in a most awkward position. What I want to point out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: What I want to point out is that the minister has, I think, an opportunity if he wishes by revising section 1 to save face, to give himself an opportunity to return — as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) indicated — to the dignity of a portfolio which has held perhaps in its senior way more dignity than any other portfolio in government since Confederation, by answering the question put most seriously by the former Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly), who has pointed out most clearly to the minister that the figure of $7.5 million granted to the universities of British Columbia was neither requested nor due.

She has demonstrated with documentation presented in this House — and could provide more, I'm informed — that the $7.5 million neither requested nor due does in fact, Mr. Chairman, explode to pieces the fundamental argument of that minister, the fundamental claim that we are in fact in urgent requirement of $400 million.

It explodes it to pieces and I would like to ask the minister whether or not he realizes this. Do you understand the significance of this charge of $7.5 million allegedly required to make up an alleged deficit in the previous fiscal year? I ask the minister to reconsider, to give an answer. I ask the minister to do himself a favour and before the explosion gets bigger and the repercussions more serious, to answer this question now.

MR. GIBSON: I would gladly yield my place on the floor to the minister if he wishes to reply to the very, I think, serious and dignified statement of the member for Victoria.

Well, if the minister chooses not to answer right now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up another point. I'm glad that the lion. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is back in the House because I'd hoped to raise this point with her during question period, as a matter of fact. But it rises in another way here.

The adequacy of the exact amount of $400 million we are being asked to approve naturally relates to whether or riot expenditures actually were made in the past fiscal year, because of course interim borrowing authority is available for anything else under our laws and the Revenue Act.

Now the Hon. Provincial Secretary issued a grant in the amount of $17,000 to a programme called "Keep Women Alive", which has been much questioned by the medical profession. On March 22 in this House, Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) undertook that her department was reassessing this unusual grant, and that she would report back to the House in a few days. She has so far not done so and the Provincial Secretary says that she will. In the mean time, as the Provincial Secretary may be aware, there is a document being circulated by this particular group saying "Printing of this edition has

[ Page 656 ]

been made possible through a grant from the Provincial Secretary of British Columbia", so I would suggest the Provincial Secretary might speed up her inquiry or the horse will have left the barn door...or whatever the proper image is for this one.

So in contemplation of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite likely that this money will be returned to consolidated revenue and properly credited by the comptroller-general to the accounts of the previous fiscal year, it would seem to me that, at the very least, a change in the limit that is being proposed here is in order. Therefore I would suggest to you, Sir, and make this motion, that at line 3 of section 1, which we are currently debating, the figure $400 million should be changed to $399,983,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano has forwarded an amendment to the table and we have had opportunity to peruse it. The amendment does appear to be in order. Proceed.

MR. COCKE: Certainly I'm taking into consideration the remarks by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano when he talked about the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) taking a very serious and dignified position with respect to questioning, I appreciate that, because I didn't take a very serious and dignified position in the eyes of some when I said that the government was spending money like drunken sailors from the very day, from the very hour, that they were appointed to their offices until such time as we achieved March 31, Mr. Chairman.

It's obvious — the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has proven it, and everybody else that asks a question proves it more and more as we go along.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: And, Mr. Chairman, we still don't get answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. The amendment reads that line 3 shall be changed....

MR. COCKE: I thought you said that amendment was out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in order. We are on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't buy the amendment either, because the amount there is as inflated, within $1, as the amount that the government is asking. Certainly the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, taking into account the message from the member for Burnaby North, surely must realize that his figure is inflated badly.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the first amendment.

MR. COCKE: That's the first amendment. Well, Mr. Chairman, when that member produces an amendment to that bill that would bring it down to point where no borrowing was necessary, then I think we would take into consideration supporting something along that line. But, Mr. Chairman.... Drop three zeros.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member wishes to make a sub amendment to the amendment, that is in order. But we are on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Speaking to the amendment, I suggest to you that that amendment — and I suspect that it was put forward in a conscientious way — as far as this party is concerned, is quite unacceptable to us.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want it clearly on record that I have been able to have both the government and the opposition disagree with my amendment. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for the same reason, though.

MR. GIBSON: It was put forward, Mr. Chairman — and I'm still speaking to the amendment; I think not for long — as the first of a series of potential amendments in order that we might discuss, issue by issue, the particular votes or expenditures which might possibly be excised from the proposed total of $400 million.

It was put forward in that spirit, and my suggestion was that inasmuch as the Provincial Secretary is currently studying this programme and will report back to the House on whether or not that grant will be withdrawn, it seems to me until such time — as long as the programme is under question, the "Keep Women Alive" grant is under question — it would be proper for this House to restrain its authority for that programme to proceed. That's the full and simple intent of the amendment.

If the hon. Provincial Secretary would care to stand up now and give the House an account of the current status of this grant, as she promised to do on March 22, which is well over two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, that, it seems to me, would be helpful in knowing how to dispose of this amendment.

MR. KING: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that on the amendment the opposition finds themselves in the same dilemma that we're

[ Page 657 ]

confronted with by the bill.

When we have an amount which has been clearly demonstrated as paid out, while totally unnecessary in the last fiscal year — namely $7.5 million to the universities council without request — I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is not only an obvious, crass political maneuver, but it borders on violation of the statute which authorizes the issuance of special warrants. I think this is a really scandalous revelation and one that the Minister of Finance should be springing to his feet to justify. Otherwise, we can have no assurance, and the people of this province can have no satisfaction, that the reason and compliance with the law is attending the disbursement of funds, through the Treasury Board, of this government. This is an absolutely shocking revelation, Mr. Chairman.

So we have now demonstrated, without any question of a doubt, that $7.5 million has been disbursed which was unnecessary, to say nothing of the $17,000 grant for non-medical use for cancer research — whatever that might be. One can try to rationalize that however they may. But we have demonstrated with respect to the university council grant that there was no justification — no need. That, as the Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has indicated, blows apart any justification for the elements of accounting which the minister has used to demonstrate need for $400 million borrowing authority.

We certainly cannot approve any amount until that minister restores his credibility by making himself fully accountable to this Legislature, and demonstrating that there is reason in compliance with the law in issuing special warrants by Treasury Board, and by demonstrating that special warrants, when issued, are to meet a need that is real and emergent, as the law requires, So, Mr. Chairman, we have to oppose this amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this question of a $7.5 million grant to the universities has been raised in question period and in previous days in debate on this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. We are on the amendment, and the amendment is the deletion of an amount that will reduce the $400 million to $399.983 million.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on the amendment, I think that I admire the courage of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in bringing forward such an amendment, although the official opposition cannot support it; our issues are broader than...

HON. MR. WOLFE: You want $4.99?

MR. LAUK: ...the grant that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stamped "approved".

But it does symbolize, nevertheless, the sham with which this government was elected to power on a businesslike approach to the taxpayers' money. I think the public, and certainly this side of the House, is convinced that the Provincial Secretary didn't give that grant a second look. Obviously she didn't; she has to look at it again. She hardly read the report. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that she just signed it as a matter of course.

Now I don't know what kind of mechanism the Provincial Secretary is going to set up in her department to avoid this wasteful throwing away of the taxpayers' money on doubtful programmes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you on the amendment?

MR. CHABOT: No, he's on general nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, please. We are on the amendment, and we must keep our debate strictly related to the reduction of the amount of $400 million.

MR. LAUK: That's correct, Mr. Chairman, and the reduction is in the exact amount of the grant that the Provincial Secretary gave to this doubtful programme about which I am talking.

The member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) gets up periodically and says something just to make sure that he's still there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: For that reason I have great sympathy for the amendment, but to vote for it, of course, would destroy our major attack which is...or not destroy it, but diminish our major attack on this bill and its amount. We will be looking forward to other creative and courageous amendments that will be brought forward by the hon. Liberal leader.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I think that I would support the amendment on the basis of two facts, really. The earlier comment I made in the debate on second reading was that the one thing I think the whole House has agreed about is the uncertainty of the real amount of money that will need to be borrowed. We have had that confirmed by the minister himself in several of the responses he has made to opposition questions. So whether it's to be $400 million or $300 million or whatever, it's certainly very debatable and has been admitted by

[ Page 658 ]

the minister...hoping that it will be less than $400 million. In the next section of the bill I want to comment a little bit further on that point.

The other thrust of opposition comments has been to try and justify borrowing at all, and an expenditure of the amount proposed in this amendment certainly should be supported by the House, in my view.

The people who have looked at the programme for "Keep Women Alive" don't just represent, as the pamphlet suggests, biased people. Some very responsible people in the medical field seem to be fairly unanimous, or all but unanimous, that, yes, while we need research into one of the most serious, if not the most serious, cancers affecting women, we certainly need to put our research dollars into the likeliest possible way of getting some results.

For the sake of the subject of breast cancer in women, it has to be admitted there has been pitifully little progress in the last 30 or 40 years, despite a tremendous amount of very basic research and long-term projects going on over a period of 10, 15 or 20 years. I'm proud to say that Edinburgh University has played a very large part in providing some of the research through Professor McWhurter's efforts. So there is an enormous amount of cancer research being done, particularly in relation to breast cancer in women.

As a physician, I suppose the question might be asked: why on earth of all people are you opposing a research project? Now all I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that indeed we need research, but we haven't got an endless number of dollars to do it with. In fact, Canada, I think, has no reason to be proud of the fraction of its total income that goes into medical research; we depend too much on other countries. But aside from that point, the fact that we don't have a great deal of money for research, we surely have to try and direct what money is available into those programmes that at least are judged by the most informed people in cancer research to be likely to be of some real use.

I'm guided by many very knowledgeable people in the field of cancer research who feel that this programme is not well prepared and that the people who will be running it are not really in a position to make it effective, and besides there are some much more specific ways that research can be carried out. So I think it would be quite reasonable to assume that here is $17,000 which should not be spent. For that reason I support the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, regarding the amendment, which I view as a bit of political charade because I can never really understand the thinking of the Liberal supporters and Liberals who sit in this Legislature, because they seem to be fairly consistent in what they say.

It wasn't too long ago where I read an article where the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson), the leader of a one-man party in this House, had suggested that the deficit was in the vicinity of $800 million. Now he's suggesting that it be reduced by $17,000! How inconsistent can you be? No wonder there is only one Liberal in this House today, with that kind of inconsistency. Cheap politics — that's all that is, Mr. Chairman.

Do you know the reason we're debating this bill today? It's because we need to borrow funds to look after the waste and extravagance of the former government over three and a half years.

I could give you examples all over this province where money was wasted. One right at our doorstep: the Inner Harbour, where one Mr. Reid.... This has a lot to do with this bill, Mr....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: The amendment, Mr. Chairman, has a lot to do.... We can't tolerate the reduction of the $400 million deficit which we are debating here. The reason why we can't tolerate the reduction is because there has been waste and extravagance throughout this province during the last three and a half years.

An example for which we need money is right in the Inner Harbour here in Victoria, where the government wasted $600,000 by paying $600,000 more than the land was worth. There's a fine example of why we can't tolerate the reduction of this deficit bill by $17,000.

I'll give you another example why we can’t, Mr. Chairman: because of the waste and extravagance of buying land at inflated prices all over British Columbia. That's the reason why we can't decrease this amount by $17,000.

An example of this is that the government bought, in the community of Revelstoke, a little piece of land — two-thirds of an acre in a small community of 5,000 to 6,000 people — for the purpose of erecting low-cost housing. Would you imagine, for two-thirds of an acre in Revelstoke they paid $103,000! Waste and extravagance! We need that additional $17,000 to look after those kinds of acts against the taxpayers of this province, Mr. Chairman.

That's why we can't tolerate the reduction of this. We cannot support this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Because of the losses in the Crown corporations that have to be made up by this bill, we can't tolerate that amendment. This bill of $400 million is here to look after the excesses, the waste, the abuse and the extravagance of the former government, Mr. Speaker. We're against the amendment.

MR. LEVI: You know, it's really remarkable that the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) doesn't

[ Page 659 ]

understand Liberals. (Laughter.) Well that's why you're down there; all the Liberals are up here. (Laughter.) Of course you don't understand Liberals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment, please, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: Well, I mean, I have to answer him. He doesn't understand Liberals.

You know, this, Mr. Chairman, is a very audacious amendment. Gordon, it's really audacious. It's your first amendment — free speech. But he's operating under the fifth amendment: he doesn't want to talk. That's what he's doing over there.

Unfortunately, we can't support the amendment because he talks about $17,000, but what about the $15 million that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about? You know — giving it to the farmers. And what about all the money to the municipalities that suddenly appeared on the desks? That has to be added and taken away.

What about the one for the $7.5 million? We already are running up to $35 or $40 million. You know, as long as we keep this debate going, Mr. Speaker, we're liable to arrive at zero and then, of course, our friend from Columbia River will get up and he'll talk about give-aways.

MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR. LEVI: The give-aways — that's the give-away gang. We're just waiting for the first give-away, that's all — the first one.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You're all opposed, eh? But, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is important that that member for Columbia River understands, so we'll tell you about the Liberals. They sit over there and you sit down there. Now the only thing that I can suggest to you is that you're going to have to learn about Liberalism, and I would suggest you walk over and talk to the member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson), get a few clues and then move up. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Rotate!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rise again to suggest very strongly that we can't support this amendment. I understand the reason for the amendment given by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano — I do — because of this piece of literature that's been spread around the province, endorsed by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . Printing of this edition has been made possible through a grant from the Provincial Secretary endorsing such phrases as "cancer of the breast is lethal", endorsing such phrases as "breast cancer is like income tax." You know, it's a piece of rubbish.

But, Mr. Chairman, beyond that, that member for Columbia River — that member with such a survival instinct that he's managed to cling on for such a number of years that most of us can't even remember (laughter) — he was around when the $850 million Columbia River fiasco occurred. Mr. Chairman, he was a party to that ridiculous fiasco.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order. Are we going to allow the debate on the Columbia River treaty? If we are, I'm going to take the opportunity to set the record straight.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, he was mute in those days.

But we cannot — we cannot — accept this amendment for so many reasons that it's not funny. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) indicated $15 million to $20 million dollars given gratuitously in advance. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has told about all of the grants made, which were loans — minutes recorded — which were loans, and now accepted as grants by this government to Crown corporations. Take all of that money away from that $400 million and what have you got, Mr. Chairman? Zilch, when you take into account that there's $147 million in surplus that they inherited — a greater surplus than we inherited, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. COCKE: A ridiculous bill but, Mr. Chairman, we can't support the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be very brief, but I can't let what the hon. member for Columbia River said go by without....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, his remarks on the amendment — those few remarks he made on the amendment during his time on his feet.

MR. WALLACE: Were you on the amendment, Jim? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: He, I think, perhaps could not have been in his seat when the Minister of Finance (Hon.

[ Page 660 ]

Mr. Wolfe) earlier on raised the question of what amount of deficit I had forecast. I have said that you could quite logically make a case for something a good deal more than $541 million. That's a matter of opinion, but. that's not the question here, Mr. Member.

The question here is the cash position of the government. The government has come forward with the thought that they require $400 million to maintain their cash position — $400 million.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I support it in principle, Mr. Member; now we're in the detail. There's a $17,000 deficit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. who?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member to be quiet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Be quiet.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, given that we have the government's statement of a need for $400 million, when a member of this chamber has found a potential saving of $17,000, I'm surprised that that member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) would say that that's not a correct thing to do. I had thought that he was concerned about the cash position of this province, Mr. Chairman. I am suggesting to him a way that at least until the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) inquiry is completed, which pray to God would be soon, because these things are being circulated, Madam Provincial Secretary, and we should know what the decision is going to be one way or another...but until that decision is made by the government, Mr. Chairman, this matter should be left in abeyance, this expenditure from the last fiscal year, which may be returned to the Crown and may therefore reduce the amount of deficit by $17,000, should be reflected in the amount we're being asked to approve under clause 1. So I just want to make that little explanation to the member for Columbia River, in the hope that that will further his interest in it.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I regret a great deal that debate, which is quite unnecessary, being kept up by repetitive obstructionism, but I'm talking now on the amendment of $17,000. I think that something should be said about this.

I realize the medical profession descended on the minister and said: "You can't do this because we did not approve of this expenditure."

MR. WALLACE: That's not what they said at all, George!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, they did not say it, but in effect....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, they did not say that.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) gave us a very technical and reasonable approach as to why the medical profession would not agree with the principle of the $17,000 grant to this group, or this person, as the case may be. I respect the hon. member for Oak Bay. He's a very fine physician, very able, and I accept his judgment greatly.

However, in this case, I do not think that the minister, in giving this grant.... I am sure of it. She hasn't said this to me, but I thought to myself, here is a great deal of compassion. You know, the medical profession has made so many grand and noble mistakes in the past they they are the last people who should be telling anybody where this money should be put.

In the research on cancer, millions and multi-millions have been spent and got nowhere, but someday they'll make it. It may come by pure accident, as did the discovery of penicillin, as did the discovery of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Insulin.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Insulin, yes. That came the same way.

MR. WALLACE: It didn't come out of a computer, either.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, we don't want.... Not a computer...a good thing.

MR. WALLACE: That's what this is.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Here we have, 100 years ago, the first anesthetic.... I think it was the first, or one of the first — nitrous oxide. They call it "laughing gas." The medical profession and the dentists said: "Don't use that stuff — it doesn't work anyway." So they brought a drunk up one day and this doctor was trying to show how it would work.

[ Page 661 ]

They said: "Will anybody volunteer to have their tooth pulled by this system that is painless?" Well, unfortunately this fellow had taken a few, and it doesn't work when you've had a few. Of course, that put back this anaesthetic for another 50 years.

I'm just saying now that this $17,000 could be — and I think it's such a little drop in the bucket — the turn of the road....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. MUSSALLEM: It could be — you don't know! If I were there and it was my money and I could afford it, and I looked at this thing, I would take a chance. Perhaps there would be a new turn of the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: You laugh — you financiers who know — all about finance! Anybody who can bungle in such massive style should not be asking questions about line 1 in this debate. Anyone who can spend money recklessly without abandon — buying ships, buying ferries and all this stuff — anyone who can sound like that, I would tell you very quietly that I would sit down there and accept this bill, because it's so simple.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You bet the Clarkson, Gordon report was right! You admit it's correct and yet you want to argue about a $400 million permit to borrow for this Legislature. Here it is, plain and simple. You say this is correct and yet you argue.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't say it was correct.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You did! Your whole party did!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Certainly you did!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's the old convoluting, twisting trick! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I want to say that I respect the judgment of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in making this grant. I hope she does not withdraw it because, as I say again, it could be the turn of the road. It could be the little drop that is necessary to find a new way where all others have failed.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in the discussion on the amendment the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) said that the opposition had been guilty of lies. I wouldn't want him to think that I didn't hear that. I'm sure you did, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary imputation to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I ask the member for Columbia River if he meant to impugn the character of any member of this House by inferring that he was a liar?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, if I suggested that the official opposition are liars, I certainly didn't mean it. They simply don't tell the whole truth, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: Have him withdraw without reservation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that the member for Columbia River understands that this comes under the category of unparliamentary language, and I would ask him to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Unconditionally.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not about to call them liars. They just don't tell the full story, that's all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You do withdraw.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That closes the matter. The member has withdrawn.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this a further point of order?

MR. KING: Indeed it is. I suggest that if the Chair is going to allow people to infer in another way that which they have already stated and which has been categorized as unparliamentary, it is a mockery of the rules of this House.

Once again I ask the Chair to direct that member to render the the opposition an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the member to withdraw. He concurred that he had withdrawn, and that closes the matter.

[ Page 662 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that is not adequate, and I think you recognize that he said it in another way.

(Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Leader of the Opposition please be seated? The member has withdrawn. He has given us an unqualified withdrawal, and that concludes the matter.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'd just like to say that it is the practice that a member cannot say indirectly what he has said directly. It has been so ruled on many occasions.

I think you are doing an excellent job in the chair, Mr. Chairman, but I think you should consider this matter. Perhaps we should go on with our debate this time, but I would urge you to give that consideration, should the need arise, at a further opportunity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates your advice.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I am going to address my remarks to the amendment, which is to diminish the amount of borrowing by $17,000. I am not going to address my remarks to the nature of the grant which you were discussing, because I have made the commitment to the House, and I certainly will fulfill this commitment, that I shall bring a report back to the House.

MR. GIBSON: But they spending the money!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has suggested that it is two weeks. I regret that it is that long, and I can assure you that I have tried to hasten my report to the House and I shall continue so to do. But I would like to ask that hon. member: if his concern is so great that perhaps we should diminish this amount, would he please show the same concern for the situation that this government finds itself in in the first two and a half or three months of office where within an office in this building we found three simulated leather portfolios, attached to which were found several pieces of paper and a bill for $85,000?

The bill came from Dunsky Advertising for an attractive logo. Apparently there was no pressure on the government to change its dogwood logo. There was no pressure that I know of. I don't know if any member in the House can give us this information, but surely there was no pressure from the public to change the identification on trucks and stationery and so on. However, this government was left with a bill for $85,000, of which only approximately $67,000 was paid to Dunsky Advertising by the former government.

We now have an outstanding account to address ourselves to that hasn't been mentioned in the hon. Minister of Finance's report. We have no report from him of that outstanding account because, quite frankly, we don't think that that should be an outstanding account and an attack on the taxpayer's dollar at this present time. But I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that in addressing himself to a $17,000 grant which was given through my administration and which is yet to be reported to this House, there were other things certainly of a far more frivolous nature than the serious nature of addressing ourselves to probably the greatest killer of women in this province.

There are far more frivolous acts of the former government that should be considered by this House and by those very members who represented the former government, and they include three paper portfolios of about 20 pieces of paper which that former government paid $67,000 for and is expecting us to finish paying the bill for. They didn't even clean up their bills, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest to you that if we're talking about frivolous spending, put the onus where it very well belongs.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the serious consideration that the Provincial Secretary has taken with respect to "Breast Cancer is Lethal" and all the rest of this that has been produced by a very serious organization. If they were very serious, it strikes me that they wouldn't be doing the kind of publicity that I hope the Provincial Secretary very soon reads the information that we have available here in this House at this moment, that has been paid for by the office of the Provincial Secretary, and it says so very clearly right on the front of this document.

Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary talks about a logo that was produced by the former government, the Provincial Secretary who is no longer in this House, the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall).

He asked that that logo be produced, Mr. Chairman, because every department of government was out producing their own. In the bygone years when we took over government, let me tell you, the Department of Public Works had one, the Department of Highways had one. They had logos coming out of their ears, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to have the bills for those logos that were produced by the old Socreds when that member was a member of the government, Mr. Chairman.

So don't throw smoke into the issue — 85, 67; she

[ Page 663 ]

can't even decide what the amount was. One day it's $85,000, Mr. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt). Mr. Chairman, that former government spent all sorts of money on developing.... Look at the departments and their logos. All we wanted was a little bit of consistency. Nobody really knew...and the new Premier smiles and says: "Backtrack."

Mr. Chairman, I suggested a while ago that the reason we cannot support this reduction of $17,000 was because we don't support any part of that bill. I suggested before the Premier came in the House that the government that's now in place spent money like drunken sailors in order to make the former government look bad.

HON. MR. MAIR: Vicious attack on sailors.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, to comment on the Provincial Secretary's remarks. I appreciate her request for sympathy in the problems of the government, and I do sympathize with the heavy problems of any government. Madam Provincial Secretary, I will give you my best advice on every occasion that I can.

I am sorry that you are not prepared to comment on the substantive part of the matter here. But I'm perfectly ready to wait for that. The question here is not a question of the substantive merits of the grant, which I take it the Provincial Secretary is carefully considering and will report to this House in due course.

The question here is to preserve the right of this House to comment on this matter when there is a final government decision — and I would take it, Mr. Chairman, that as long as the question of this grant is under consideration, that it is not a proper item to be included in the deficit, and therefore should be withdrawn from this borrowing authority.

It's a very simple contention. It has nothing to do with the merits of the grant. It will be resolved as soon as the Provincial Secretary reports to the House. I wish she could have done it today, but that was not to be.

Also, I might say with the matter of the logo that one wrong doesn't make everything else right. I'm sure you'll find a lot of wrongs as you go through the files and books, but the wrongs of the past, Madam Provincial Secretary, cannot justify the future actions of your government, I would suggest.

The Provincial Secretary also said during her remarks that the government might need more money as they come across matters like the account for the logo, and she asked why my motion didn't adjust it up. Naturally, Mr. Chairman, as a private member I'm not entitled to move such a motion, but if the Provincial Secretary would wish to bring it in, we could discuss it.

Amendment negatived.

MR' KING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we are not prepared to let this bill pass until the Minister of Finance is prepared to give answers to the very important questions that have been raised.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has been less than honest with this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: It's time, Mr. Chairman, that he started to level with the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition be seated for just a moment?

On the basis of decisions made in this House by previous Chairmen and previous Speakers, I must rule that the phrase "less than honest" is unparliamentary. Would the member please withdraw?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I had assumed that was the case, too, until the Chair ruled just a few moments ago that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: ...that charge was quite permissible on behalf of the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) .

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! The phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition — "less than honest" — is unparliamentary and I must ask the member to withdraw.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw that remark. But I would ask the Chair to study the Blues tomorrow where you will find it recorded that the member for Columbia River made that charge against the opposition and Chairman accepted that as a satisfactory withdrawal. I am sure that the Chairman would not want to tarnish him impartiality at this stage...

MR. CHAIRMAN; Order, please!

MR. KING :...of the proceedings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It was an unqualified withdrawal and it was an unqualified withdrawal in the case of the member for Columbia River.

[ Page 664 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we do have a record of debate in this House. I suggest that tomorrow perusal of the Blues will show that this is not the case. I would imagine the Chairman would want to amend his position at that time. But I suggest that he must demonstrate that the rules of debate — the rules of order and conduct — must be the same for all sides of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on section

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on section 1, I would once again direct a question to the Minister of Finance: why did he approve the disbursement of $7.5 million to the university council when it has been revealed by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that no such request came from the university council?

Obviously, then, this money was put forward by the initiative of the government — the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I wonder how the Minister of Finance can justify his approval of this amount when apparently no emergent need by the council was apparent. Indeed, it would appear that that sum will not, in fact, be spent until the fiscal year 1976-77. I'm sure the minister wants to answer that question.

Further, Mr. Chairman, he gave the House — at least the government gave the House — an undertaking that a letter from the council would be filed with the House. I want to ask the Minister of Finance: did he, in fact, see that letter that apparently was directed to the Minister of Education? And I would like to ask him who signed that letter. If he could give us this information it would be a helpful start.

AN HON. MEMBER: The date.

MR. KING: The date the letter was sent also.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, this question of the grant to the universities, which has been raised by the member for Burnaby North and the Leader of the Opposition and others, seems to ignore the fact that in the case of special warrants, which I am sure opposition members are very well aware of, it is required that the minister making the request for the funds indicate that the need is urgent and necessary. As far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, having been told this he has to advise whether there is money in the vote or not. Once he advises the money is not in the vote, then as long as the minister approves that the funds are fundamentally necessary and urgent, this is the legal requirement under the Audit Act covering the necessity, for a special warrant.

I can only assure you, Mr. Member, that this request certainly has been asked of the Minister of Education. He has indicated that he will file a letter in this House. I believe he made public statements at the time explaining the reason for this.

Secondly, there was no obvious intent to exceed the expenditures for the university grants in total for the year. The minister in charge of this has this matter well in hand and will be filing this letter in the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, this committee has been given two completely different stories. On Monday last we were told there was a request from the universities council for $7.5 million. Now we are told by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that the facts are quite otherwise — that, in fact, the council did not request the money.

The Minister of Education has just taken his seat; I don't know whether he has heard this on the blower or not. The member for Burnaby North has said that the council did not request the money, that it was at the initiative of the Minister of Education. We want the correspondence on that before we approve this bill; otherwise, we've got no choice but to go out and say that there have been inconsistent statements by two ministers of the Crown — that the government, in seeking for the first time in the history of B.C. for many, many years to plunge this province into debt...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: ...to plunge this province into debt, that this province, faced with a Premier who has forgotten everything he learned at his father's knee in terms of never borrowing needlessly, is plunging this province into debt and refusing to produce to this House the documentation which would justify any such course, That's where we stand.

You're not providing the answers, and you're providing inconsistent answers to this committee from ministers of the Crown. How can we, on that basis, say that we really should vote for $400 million to be borrowed for this province? We can't. So let's have the mystery of the $7.5 million cleared up by the tabling in this House at this time and not months later, not weeks later, not days later after this bill has gone through. Because otherwise there's a very clear message to be taken to the people of the province — I know I'm repeating myself — and the message is: no answers, refusal to produce documentation, and inconsistent statements to this House by two ministers of the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a dime without debate. Not a dime without answers.

[ Page 665 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): I rather suspect the Minister of Finance would like an opportunity to consult with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and with the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to get together on their stories. I would suggest further, Mr. Chairman, that the urgency for this bill is not as it was, in that we are past the March 31 deadline. So what we are looking for now is retroactive approval of something the government did by March 31, and since there isn't the urgency, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 32

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo on a point of order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that was my point. I'm pleased that he does want my motion recorded.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Finance has assured the House that he, as chairman of the Treasury Board, would only have passed the $7.5 million warrant on the advice of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . The Minister of Finance obviously assumed that there was an inner urgency to that money being passed; he said the Minister of Education said it. It was obvious that the others on Treasury Board did not check on the urgency because, as I brought up earlier today in the House, we have now found out in the quotation from.... This is for the information of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education was calling across the floor for my information. George Seward, vice-president of SFU, states in the Vancouver Sun of two nights ago that the universities on the whole have now received 13.5 per cent for their operating for the new fiscal year. He doesn't state it in those terms, but he does state they have 13.5 per cent.

Then he follows on to say that that will be for this year's budget, $7.5 million. This year's budget is this year's fiscal budget. So my question to the hon. Minister of Finance is: if there was an urgency which you accept from the Minister of Education, would he elicit information from the Minister of Education on why it was urgent when the Universities Council of British Columbia did not even request the money?

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked a question of the Minister of Finance concerning the $7.5 million granted to the universities council. We were told by way of a newspaper article that that was for this year's budget, and yet we're led to understand by the Minister of Finance that that's part of the $400 million that will be voted under section 1 of Bill 3.

Now there are some conflicting statements here between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education and the members of the university council. We've been accused on this side of the House of delays and obstruction, and we've been accused of asking frivolous questions. But the reason for the delay is that we are not getting answers to the questions that we ask, the legitimate questions: the need for money to be transferred to ICBC at this time, the need for money to be transferred to the universities council at this time and.included in that $400 million, and the need for advanced payments to the cattlemen's association — payments to the beef growers' income assurance that were due in April, yet were paid out to the tune of $15 or $20 million before the end of the last fiscal year. We haven't received an answer to those questions, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps this minister is ready to answer the questions, but we haven't heard anything from him while he is on his feet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 666 ]

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling that side back to order.

But there are some further questions that I'd like to ask concerning the amounts that are to be included in this $400 million, should it be voted. One of those questions has to do with the printing and mailing of the Clarkson, Gordon report. We haven't been told what the cost to the province of the Clarkson, Gordon report is, Mr. Chairman, and, whether that cost is also to be included in the $400 million which we're asked to vote under this section of Bill 3.

I received a piece of correspondence here from one of my constituents, and it comes under a return address: British Columbia Social Credit Party, Main Street, Vancouver, and it includes a copy of the Clarkson, Gordon report.

The date is February 20, 1976, printed by the Queen's Printer, and at the time that this report was mailed out, Peter Hyndman said that it would cost the Social Credit Party $23,000 in postal costs alone. When he was asked what the cost of printing would be, he wasn't able to reply. But I'm wondering, since it comes under the name of the Queen's Printer of the province of British Columbia, whether 72,000 copies of the Clarkson, Gordon report were made available to the Social Credit Party to mail out to their membership, and just what the cost of that mailing was, and whether the cost of that mailing is included in the $400 million we are asked to vote under section 1 of Bill 3.

In the same mailing, Mr. Chairman, was an invitation, and it says: "The Premier of British Columbia and members of the executive council invite you to a reception to be held in the Crystal ballroom of the Empress Hotel, Victoria, B.C. on Wednesday, March 17, 1976" — commonly known as the bun throw.

It was by private invitation this year for the first time in three years. I am wondering of the invitations that were sent out to various people throughout the province — and I understand 4,000 people attended that meeting — what proportion of those invitations were directed to Social Credit members, Social Credit executives, Social Credit former candidates. What was the cost of that reception held in the Empress Hotel, and what proportion of the costs of that reception are included in this $400 million? Are we being asked, as a party, to finance as a part of this $400 million debt, a, private Social Credit reception that was held in the Empress Hotel on opening day of this Legislature?

HON. MR. MAIR: You really wanted to go to it, didn't you?

MR. SKELLY: I had no interest in attending, especially since it was a private Social Credit meeting, apparently.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a suggestion in many of these questions being raised about the amount of the deficit, first of all that the amount is wrong. I want to once again reiterate that it would be irresponsible and not appropriate for us to ask for an authorization for an amount which we knew we would exceed, so we need an ample amount to cover any necessary borrowings during the year which occur through the previous operating deficit. I see members nodding their heads across the way, so I'm sure they agree with that idea.

It's not to say that the amount might be exactly $400 million, of $150 million, but it certainly will be approaching something of this nature, and I think we should allow this to proceed because this is going to be very necessary to us during the current year's operation.

Now there is a suggestion here that this government, upon taking office three months ago, has gone out of its way to pay excessive amounts of money for expenditures which could have been delayed. I suggest to you that there are several items which we could have paid within the previous fiscal period which we've left and which might have been inappropriate. For instance, the B.C. Medical Plan was essentially flat broke. Now we could have made a decision, could we not, to have reinstated the reserve to the B.C. Medical Plan? A decision of this kind would have exaggerated the previous year's deficit by some $40 million or $50 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: They blew it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: How about the producers' gas tax? We could have made an election to pay on account of the producers' gas tax $52 million owing from the previous year's revenues from the petroleum corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was owing for three years.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We did not do so.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You hid it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to cite a third example of a bill which has been presented to us from the B.C. Credit Union for a study of the finance department and of the trust association — B.C. Savings and Trust — as to how it might be used in terms of the credit union movement. We've had great difficulty in determining the justification and authorization for this bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No authorization.

[ Page 667 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: No authorization has been determined, and I just cite this as an example of a bill which we could have pre-empted and paid in the prior year's period and therefore exaggerated the deficit for that period.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who authorized it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're guarding the public's money.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that there is certainly no justification for suggesting that we have exaggerated payments in the prior period to justify a deficit which has been already laid out before us through the Clarkson, Gordon report.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. minister is telling us now is that they could have exaggerated some that they didn't. So what?

The fact of the matter is that we're talking about $7.5 million that was paid out by special warrant to universities within this province that the Minister of Education has said the university councils and the universities asked for. We have information that they did not ask for the money, that it was initiated by the Minister of Education.

All we're asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Finance, in his role as president of the Treasury Board.... And the Minister of Finance should have some idea, especially as this has been raised before today. I would think that on that point being raised within this House or in this committee, that he would have immediately checked with his staff, the Minister of Education or anyone else involved to see, indeed, whether there was an emergent need for that money, whether the Minister of Education has been mixed up. He could have at least checked that. All we're asking is: is there a letter; what was the date; who signed it; what did the letter say?

AN HON. MEMBER: File it.

MR. LEA: File the letter in the House — is that too hard to do? File the letter in the House. Clear your name, clear the portfolio, clear the government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask the member to kindly withdraw the inference that I need to clear my name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair needs some clarification. Were you imputing any ill motive to the Minister of Finance? If you were, I ask you to withdraw.

MR. LEA: No, I wasn't.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has not imputed any ill....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I repeat, he asked me to clear my name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make him stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the member whether or not he was imputing any impropriety to the minister. He assures the House that he was not.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I haven't heard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that the House is satisfied in this regard. Thank you very much.

MR. LAUK: Now that the Minister of Education is back in his chair, as he might recall, a few moments ago I spoke across the way here to him while a division was being taken. At that time the minister indicated that he would file the letter that he has allegedly received from the universities council requesting the $7.5 million warrant. He said he'd do it today and he scooted out of the House. Now he's back again....

HON. MR. McGEER: I brought the letter.

MR. LAUK: You brought the letter.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: Good. You're going to file it today?

HON. MR. McGEER: Absolutely.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you going to resign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are you going to resign?

MR. LAUK: Let's see the letter.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think that the matter might be somewhat assisted if the Minister of Education is prepared to file the letter. We have asked for this for a period of time because we certainly have conflicting information about the need for that money that was disbursed to the universities council. However, that's not the only issue that we've been raising and failing to receive answers to....

[ Page 668 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. KING: It certainly is not. We have been raising a whole variety of questions.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The minister has either been unable or unwilling to provide the answers to the satisfaction of the opposition. Now we asked the minister — and it's still a pertinent question, whether or not the Minister of Education files the letter. I asked the Minister of Finance some time ago if he, in fact, had read that letter and who signed it, because it's pertinent to his justification for authorizing the issuance of the special warrant. Perhaps when the Minister of Education files the letter, it'll be news to the Minister of Finance also. Otherwise, I fail to understand his reluctance in answering the questions I put to him as to when he saw that letter, who signed it and on what date it was issued and received in his office. So I would ask the Minister of Finance those questions again to refresh his memory.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just pursuing that a little further, the hon. Minister of Finance said that the justification for paying out that money was simply that the Minister of Education said: "I want to have the money and my vote has been expended, so therefore I need it." I suggest that unless he is prepared to get further justification than that from the ministers he is going to have quite a lot of trouble balancing the budget for 1976-77. It must be a lot easier to get money out of treasury....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it must be a lot easier to get money out of treasury now than it was three months ago.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I could pursue the remark that the Minister of Finance made during the course of this debate — several days ago, I think it was. When one of the members here was talking about the Clarkson, Gordon report and saying that they did not do the sort of examination that the Premier said they had been asked to do in his address dated February 20, when the Premier said that they had been asked to do a full review, to do independent research, to conduct an independent and full review of the province's financial affairs, the Minister of Finance interjected to say: "Of course they didn't. That sort of investigation would take five years." I agreed with him at the time that it would. I just was afraid that when he acknowledged that, it was not recorded by Hansard. I do want it recorded by Hansard now that the Minister of Finance is admitting that Clarkson, Gordon did not do an independent job of review. All they did was, as they say, compile the figures....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Not for one moment, Mr. Chairman, am I disputing Clarkson, Gordon. What I am saying....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you disputing the figures?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not disputing any of the figures in the Clarkson, Gordon report. I just wanted confirmation from the Minister of Finance that he was agreeing with what Clarkson, Gordon say in their report, rather than with what the Premier said in his address — that is, that Clarkson, Gordon simply consolidated figures supplied to them by the Minister of Finance. Now he has nodded his head in agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

MR. STUPICH: I would like him to.... He did nod his head in agreement, Mr. Chairman, unless he....

MR. LEA: The Premier said he didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier talked him out of it.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record, Hansard will record that the Minister of Finance did agree that Clarkson, Gordon, in their opening statement, told the truth, and that was that they were asked simply to compile figures that were provided by the Minister of Finance. Now you're not arguing with Clarkson, Gordon, are you? That is exactly what they were asked to do and what they did — compile figures provided to them by the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 669 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I think the member for Nanaimo, being a chartered accountant, full well realizes that the independent review made by Clarkson, Gordon was not a request for an audit, and I explicitly stated previously that this was not an audit. If it were an audit, it would have taken years to conduct. This is right.

Secondly, we must realize that this does not take away from the independence of their overview. This is what the inference is from this member, Mr. Chairman, that the review was not independently made by a national, reputable firm of chartered accountants, and I don't think we should continue this charade of suggesting that they were not independent in their review.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, this time I'll agree with the Minister of Finance that the Clarkson, Gordon firm did independent work — no quarrel about that. But will the Minister of Finance go one step further and agree with Clarkson, Gordon when, with respect for example to the largest item that makes up this request for $400 million — with respect to the grant to ICBC — that in effect Clarkson, Gordon said this was a straight political decision, nothing right or wrong about it, but nevertheless it was simply a political decision that this amount should be paid in that amount, and that it should be paid when it was rather than at a later date, before, or not at all — that it was politics that made that decision? I'm not saying there's anything right or wrong with that, but nevertheless it was a political decision. Will the Minister of Finance agree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has already.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance did not agree, but I notice the Premier saying aye. He agrees that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We can only have one person standing at a time.

MR. STUPICH: You may prefer to recognize the hon. Provincial Secretary. I just don't know that you know she's standing, but whatever you choose.

I take it from the Premier's aye that he is agreeing when Clarkson, Gordon says it was a straight....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thought we were voting.

MR. STUPICH: Oh, you thought we were voting. Oh, I'm sorry. So then the Minister of Finance is declining to agree with Clarkson, Gordon when they say it was a straight political decision whether or not this amount should be paid and whether it should be paid in this period. He is declining to agree with that, but neither is he disagreeing. Is that right, Mr. Chairman? So it's in the record then. Hansard will report that the Minister of Finance preferred neither to agree nor disagree that Clarkson, Gordon were correct in saying that it was straight politics that made this decision. I think that Clarkson, Gordon go to great lengths to say that these decisions had to be made politically.

Would the Minister of Finance agree also, with respect to the grant to the transit bureau, that it was a political decision that instructed Clarkson, Gordon to include this amount of $26 million in the $400 million being asked for in Bill 3 which is before us, Mr. Chairman? Now would the Minister of Finance like to comment on that? Clarkson, Gordon have said it was politics that made that decision. Mr. Chairman, silence again. I assume silence means assent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I hear them saying no. Then I can only take it that they are disagreeing when Clarkson, Gordon say that it was a political decision as to whether this amount should be paid. They are neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting a lot of assistance from across the way and I appreciate it, but I'm not getting answers from the Minister of Finance, and that's really what's held us up all this time. As I've suggested before, he can either answer the questions, say that he hasn't been answering or say that he prefers not to answer the questions, and that would dispose of them. I would riot repeat them if the minister were to deal with the questions in any one of those ways.

With respect to the grant to B.C. Hydro, the same thing — a $32.6 million grant to B.C. Hydro — and again, as Clarkson, Gordon have pointed out, it's a political decision as to whether these amounts should be paid at all or whether they should be paid by a certain rate rather than after that date — a straight political decision. Again, I'm not suggesting that that's right or wrong, but it's a straight political decision as to.... Well, I was hoping the Minister of Finance would respond, but the Premier wishes to. Do you want to respond right now? I'm prepared to come back again. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Premier if you'll recognize him.

[ Page 670 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just in response to some remarks made by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) which disturbed me, when he questioned the mail-out lists of the provincial government. It's a well-known fact that our party did announce they requested some copies of the Clarkson, Gordon review, which they mailed out at their expense, but there were also some reviews mailed out on the mailing list that was in place from the previous government. I find it interesting for that member to inform the House that it was made up of NDP constituency secretaries. I'll certainly have the list investigated on that member's say-so, that the list was political and used at public expense. So I'll check on that.

Also, the member who was concerned about the traditional reception, which governments have held for many years, and any question...whether by invitation of government was correct. We'll certainly take a look at the cost of this year's reception and the number of people attending, compared to the number that attended the previous years.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And we'll take a look, too, now that he's brought it up, at all those political lunches throughout this province in the mini-election campaign that took place last fall where the Premier invited people to have lunch with him in Nelson, and then they had the embarrassing situation of the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) saying he was going to pay for the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Chairman reports, may I remind the hon. members that a little earlier in debate today a question arose regarding whether or not unqualified withdrawal did take place on a matter. The Blues, which have arrived at the table, do not substantiate that withdrawal did take place verbally.

The Chairman asked the question "Do you withdraw?" of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). There was some interjection and then the Chairman said: "That closes the matter. The member has withdrawn." However, no words appear to show the member did, in essence, withdraw. So in order to keep the House record absolutely clear, and so the Chair cannot be accused of any impartiality...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...any partiality — I stand corrected — would the Member for Columbia River stand in his place and make an unqualified withdrawal of a remark that was found offensive by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King)?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear that you are issuing a new directive that will be enforced, I hope, consistently in this House,

I did withdraw. On request from the Chair, I withdrew, and possibly with a nod of the head rather than verbally. I withdraw without qualification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We appreciate that very, very much.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to acknowledge with thanks the efforts the Chair has gone to to maintain his impartiality. I certainly respect that and thank you for it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported, progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the House Leader what the order of business will be.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we will move on with debate on the budget debate and other government business as it arises.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House that the Hon. Minister of Education file a letter.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a proper motion for you to move or ask leave.

MR. W.G. Strongman (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. STRONGMAN: The petition of the Most Reverend Jerome Isidore Chimy, Ukrainian Catholic Bishop of the Eparchy of New Westminster, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Incorporate The Bishop Of The Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy Of New Westminster And His Successors In Office A Corporation Sole.

I move that the rules be suspended and that the petition of the Most Reverend Jerome Isidore Chimy, the Ukrainian Catholic Bishop of the Eparchy of New Westminster, be received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 670A ]

APPENDIX

15 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the social assistance cost-sharing formula between the Government and the municipalities —

1. What were the total amounts paid by the Government under the formula in the fiscal years 1972/73, 1973/74, and 1974/75?

2. What were the total amounts paid by the municipalities in the fiscal years 1972/73, 1973/74, and 1974/75?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. 1972/73, $112,386,531.24; 1973/74, $145,148,534.57; and 1974/75, $207,901,506.06.

"2. 1972/73, $20,805,213.60; 1973/74, $24,381,178.22; and 1974/75, $21,697,382.10."

18 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With regard to applications for payment of social assistance by persons who are on strike or locked out —

1. Have any regulations been issued to give consideration and payment to these applicants?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the text of these regulations?

3. If the answer to No. 1 is no, will consideration and payment be given to these applicants?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"L Yes.

"2. section 3 (6) of the Social Assistance Regulations reads as follows: 'Social Assistance may be authorized by the Director for a person who is a union member involved in an industrial dispute when there are no other sources of income or assets available.' This policy is used when severe hardship would occur to dependents, and assistance, when granted, is primarily limited to food or emergency medications.

"3. Not applicable."