[ Page 671 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Kahl — 671

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

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. King — 676

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 676

Mrs. Dailly — 678

Mr. Macdonald — 679

Mr. Lauk — 679

Mr. King — 682

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 682

Mr. Cocke — 683

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 684

Mr. Lauk — 685

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 686

Mrs. Dailly — 686

Mr. Lauk — 687

Mr. King — 687

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 688

Mr. Nicolson — 688

Mrs. Wallace — 690

Mr. Skelly — 690

Mr. Barber — 692

Ms. Sanford — 695

Mr. Stupich — 696

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

On the preamble.

Mr. King — 700

Report and third reading — 701

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken on two other occasions in this House, it was only to let be known my views on two issues raised by the official opposition. Tonight is the first opportunity I have in the budget debate to speak on behalf of the great people in Esquimalt.

To name the many firsts that Esquimalt has presented to our province would take all evening, so I will highlight only a few.

It is interesting to note that in the Highway News Review of March 31, 1965, the editor was kind enough to give a report on the district. In this article mention is made of the B.C. forest industry, and I will take this opportunity to read from the issue. In the following article News Review has outlined these early beginnings that led to today's $800 million-a-year industry, and this was in 1965. It says:

"It was a Wednesday afternoon, and the date was August 4, 1847. Robert Finlayson, an official of the Hudson's Bay Co. from Fort Victoria, standing on the brush-lined bank of the creek studied the flow of water as it poured over the lip of the projecting bedrock, dropped several feet and continued on its course to the sea.

"That morning he had left the fort and made his way to the head of Esquimalt harbour. There he found the stream described to him by Indians, and having worked his way through underbrush and virgin timberland for a quarter of a mile, he now stood at the miniature waterfall he had come to seek."

That day was one of great significance in the history of British Columbia. Finlayson was seeking a suitable water source to turn the wheel that would separate the first power sawmill west of the Canadian Rockies, and he had found it on a creek which, to this day, is identified as Millstream and located in my riding.

The report continues:

"The forest industry is by far our greatest source of wealth in British Columbia, producing roughly half of all the money that circulates in this province. It is of particular interest that this industry was born in Esquimalt."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it is the Social Credit government of this province that will once again assist the forest industry on its road to recovery.

On April 27, 1849, the mill shipped its first order to the mainland market, lumber to be used in constructing export business was born when the American brig "Colony" loaded 4,270 feet of lumber for California.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that our fault?

Interjections.

MR, KAHL: If I research it far enough, it probably is your fault.

From the Daily Colonist on Sunday, July 27, 1969:

"From an historical point of view, Esquimalt has sat in the shadow of Victoria, but in some respects this has been unfair. Esquimalt is much older than Victoria and has been the scene of many historical events, and without the navy being on guard in Esquimalt to provide adequate protection against not only the natives, but the grasping reach of both Russia and the United States, Victoria might have become a casualty in the development of the Pacific coast."

I am pleased to say that I am the only MLA that has a navy base, and, Mr. Speaker, in your difficult role, if you ever require assistance, do not hesitate to call. (Laughter.)

In 1851, Captain Langford and family arrived on the Hudson's Bay Co. supply ship. They were the first white family to arrive at the fort direct from England. I am happy to say that family settled in Esquimalt, and the area of Langford is named after them.

Mr. Speaker, the largest portion of my riding is unorganized territory. It is the largest, population-wise unorganized territory in Canada. That past development could be described at best as haphazard. Outside the municipal boundaries of Esquimalt municipality, and within my riding, live approximately 30,000 people. No local councils, no mayors, no planning councils or zoning councils, only five capital regional board members and myself to assist the provincial government in the administration.

We were extremely pleased to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) meet with the local regional representatives. His department is willing and ready to assist in bringing some kind of organization to and with the local people.

The regional representatives, I must say, are excellent to work with and represent the areas of View Royal, Colwood, Langford, Sooke and Metchosin. They represent some of the oldest settled areas of this province, yet with no organized local government.

Some of B.C.'s noteworthy citizens have come

[ Page 672 ]

from Esquimalt. Charles Pooley was not only MLA for 24 years during the late 19th century, but was Speaker in this House for six years and.president of the council for nine years. The first Queen's Printer for B.C. was a resident of Esquimalt, Richard Wolfender. His son played an important part in shaping the development of Esquimalt.

I am pleased to have in the gallery today Mr. Herb Bruch. Mr. Bruch had the distinction of serving the Esquimalt riding for 19 years, from 1953 to 1972. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank Mr. Bruch for his dedicated years of public service and express that appreciation on behalf of this assembly and the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, all that is history. Now we must move on to serving the needs of the citizens of our province. In September of 1972, the economy of British Columbia was in excellent financial shape.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in excellent financial shape, that is what it said in the order-in-council 3386, dated September 13, 1972. The order was signed by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. He said the economy was in excellent financial condition, with more persons employed than ever in its history. Order-in-council 3386 was left by the Social Credit administration. It indicated the sound financial shape of this province in 1972.

Since taking my office I have searched for a corresponding order-in-council. A corresponding order-in-council would be a matter for public record, a record that would have indicated the financial shape of this province as of December 22, 1975. Mr. Speaker, no order-in-council was left by the last administration that would indicate the financial shape of our province at the time the Social Credit government took over from the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know.

MR. KAHL: None. No record as in no. 3386. Mr. Speaker, that is why the Clarkson, Gordon study was done. I ask, why was no financial record left?

I feel the main reason the former administration didn't leave a financial state of the province was so when our government had to produce one — and they did — then the NDP could criticize it and say how wrong we were. Mr. Speaker, that was a political cover-up. On February 28, 1975, Dave Barrett, then Minister of Finance, said of the budget he had just presented: "It is a budget of job security. This budget will stimulate various sectors of the provincial economy." A budget of job security, he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened to his job security.

The people found as Finance minister Dave Barrett had operated this province as the largest, most expertly staffed, scientifically planned and lavishly financed propaganda machine in all history. With that approach applied to finances the people of this province headed for financial disaster. They remembered and they showed that concern on December 11.

The people knew that the NDP, big-handed planning with this magic formula for growth and prosperity...the people knew that it was a bed of bureaucracy and red tape and that political planning took precedence over economic planning.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see in the opening speech that this session we will be asked to move toward the ideal situation where all of our people can have the opportunity to own their own home and the land under it. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see in the budget speech incentives to assist that. Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with the Vancouver East Side Tenants' association. During the course of the discussion the group indicated there were some half-million tenants in this province. Also during the course of our meeting the president of the group said:

"Most tenants would rather be homeowners. And yet we saw under the former administration more boards, committees and commissions, all of which were a hoax for the overall plan of spreading political propaganda. We saw a trend toward people becoming tenants of the state and a return to 14th century feudalism."

AN HON. MEMBER: They are tenants on their own land.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, an area my constituents are concerned about is education.

I draw your attention to an article in Weekend Magazine. The article is written with one point in mind, and that is simply this: Canadian universities have blatantly neglected Canadian studies and Canadian students, and because of it Canada's search for self-knowledge and identity has suffered seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will take a serious look at the report of the Commission of Canadian Studies. The report indicates clearly that Canadian cultural values are being lost and less and less of our cultural identity is being transmitted to the students. Our values are coming from south of the border.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear at this point that I am not anti-American — only pro-Canadian. I want to make it clear also that in order to teach Canadianism in our school system, the teachers must first be taught by Canadians. We should support any means the Minister of Education is giving to this

[ Page 673 ]

cause.

This brings me to my next point in education. I do hope that in the budget is included an expenditure to aid in the development of producing Canadian textbooks for our children. Although I know, Mr. Speaker, that the costs will be higher because of the limited market, we must believe that there is value in Canadian material for our schools.

Last, with regard to education, somehow the minister must get through to the teachers in the classroom that the Department of Education is on the side of the children and that individual teachers, and I have taught with many of them, are interested in teaching and working with children. As a teacher, I must say that never before was there a feeling of uncertainty in the minds of teachers such as there was in the past three years. In my constituency many students have never had the opportunity to study in depth their own communities and their own local issues, and to study themselves and how they fit into our beautiful province. Instead they have been inundated with material prepared in a foreign country, taught by teachers who were prepared also by foreigners and administered during the past three years by a minister who was also a foreigner to the real educational needs of the children.

The time has come to change all that, and I know the Minister of Education can provide that direction. The proposed medical school is a good step in that direction, because I trust it will be staffed by Canadians and will give preference to Canadian students. Let it serve as a model, Mr. Minister, as to how the departments of our universities should be staffed.

Mr. Speaker, in other remarks in this chamber I have talked about highways and health care in my riding, and I can only say I am pleased. Both ministers regard those services as high priorities.

On January 22, 1971, the former Premier, Mr. Barrett, rose in this House to ask leave to discuss a matter of urgent public concern. That was employment. He went on to say that there were 70,000 people unemployed. Mr. Speaker, after three years of the NDP, there are more than 70,000 people unemployed. In fact, in 1975 there were approximately 94,000. In my own constituency a mine closed down, and many loggers are out of work.

What had the former administration done to assist in developing a stabilized economy for our province? The budget of 1975 indicates little if anything — no incentives, no long-range operational plans, only a hocus-pocus, idealistic, philosophic mumbo-jumbo of promises. While denying the people of this province an opportunity to work, they in government spent money as if it were going out of style.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of waste of public funds during the 39 days prior to the election. From November 4 to December 11 we saw a total of 79 air trips by cabinet ministers and their executive assistants. It was my feeling, and certainly that of the public, that we as candidates all started equal on November 4 when the election was called. Yet 79 air trips were made on a commercial-cost basis, which amounted to $2,318 of the taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, in the federal government, cabinet ministers, executive assistants and other politicians do not use government aircraft during political campaigns unless they are on government business. The same is true, I am told, in our neighbouring province of Alberta.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What a bunch of junk!

AN HON. MEMBER: Flying Phil again!

MR. KAHL: Let me give you an example of another expenditure, while we're talking about the budget.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt has the floor.

MR. KAHL: Since we were talking about Dunsky Advertising before we took our dinner break, in 1973-74 the provincial government paid Dunsky $738,477. In 1974-75 they paid $2,063,476 to Dunsky.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): How much? Whose money was that?

MR. KAHL: The public's money. At this rate — and since they knew an election was coming in December — perhaps they would have spent $5 million in 1975-76. The public accounts should be very interesting to look at.

Mr. Speaker, another point about Dunsky advertising: in The Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, March 3, 1976, it says: "The proposed new provincial logo" — and we discussed this before we went for dinner — "commissioned by the NDP government at a cost of $85,000, is no-go as far as the Provincial Secretary, Grace McCarthy, is concerned."

March 31, 1976, the Sun says: "Long, a Vancouver commercial designer, created the logo for Dunsky Advertising of Vancouver. Long said he wished to point out that he did not receive the total $85,000 the government paid for the logo."

AN HON. MEMBER: A ripoff, a political payoff.

MR. KAHL: "He said he worked on a straight-fee basis of $35 an hour for Dunsky for more than 400 hours, for which he received $15,000." Where did the

[ Page 674 ]

other $70,000 go?

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: I suggest a competition among school students could have been held at no cost to the government. Undoubtedly, a much better logo could have been created if, indeed, another one was needed at all.

Mr. Speaker, the government's budget is based on sound fiscal policy. The moneys allotted are allocated to people services — education, health and human resources are receiving the largest share, and rightfully so.

Mr. Speaker, I know this money will be utilized in action programmes that are a direct service. I know the funds will not be spent on the government advertising what a good job they are doing, but rather the money will be spent on doing a good job.

While I'm talking about doing a good job, let me tell you about a good job that was done in this House on March 22. Hansard shows that on March 22, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) said:

"Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance. The matter...is the present policy of discrimination against more than 50 per cent of our population, namely women of this province."

Well, Mr. Speaker, you might remember your ruling on that day; for the benefit of the members you said:

"...in the course of discussions today and in the following days, in the debate on the throne speech, there is ample opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak upon whatever matter they consider to be of importance.

The key words were "debate on the throne speech."

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): What did he say?

MR. KAHL: Settle down now; I'll get to that.

"... upon whatever matter they consider of importance." Now a move from the official opposition considered the women's rally a matter of importance. A check of Hansard indicates no one in the official opposition, no one after being told by you, Mr. Speaker, felt it was important. Not one member felt it was important enough to devote lengthy debate time in their speech in this House on that issue.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt has the floor.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: I knew you were close to the official opposition, but are you really in the official opposition?

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: No, I said the official opposition.

Then I asked what was the first member for Vancouver-Burrard doing by asking leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is she? Where is she?

MR. KAHL: Trying to embarrass this side of the House as eight members from the rally sat in the gallery? Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a political trick by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and it was too bad that those eight women could not have stayed to see that not one member from the opposition put forth discussion on that critical issue of that day.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, that 50 per cent of the population will not forget that day. I know the women in my riding will not, because I will remind them how they were done in. I want to state, as I indicated to the women who visited me that day, that I am in favour of an office to support women's rights, and I would suggest our government could take a lesson from the Alberta government who, I am told, have an office like same in every governmental department. However, I want to also point out, as Joan Mackenzie has in her article "My Battle To Be a Stay-at-Home Mother," Chatelaine, October 1975...she says:

"I do not believe there is any real paid substitute for mother. I concede that most hired substitutes for mother can be better for a growing child than the rejecting, resentful, feeling-trapped mother, but I do not believe that there is any substitute for the concerned, loving, mature, disciplined, aware and perceptive mother. No mother substitute can have the wells of concern, the empathetic intuition for need-meeting, the emotional rapport, the almost subliminal awareness of growth and growth experiences that a loving mother has."

In the final analysis, child rearing is a religious experience, one to one, just as marriage is, and just as you cannot, for money, hire a wife or a husband substitute, so you cannot, for money, hire a mother or father substitute. Although I recommend the support of a vehicle to protect women's rights, we must at the same time protect the rights of the hundreds of thousands of women in our province

[ Page 675 ]

who want to be stay-at-home mothers.

Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to talk on behalf of the native people in my riding. I am privileged to have six reservations in my area. While it goes without saying that everyone is in desperate need of more assistance, and I do not only mean financial, it is easy for us to say the problem is a federal issue. We must all remember, federal or not, that these people are citizens of our communities and, as such, they ask no more than any other citizen. That is, simply, the right to have a good home, good food, good clothes and a good job. Perhaps each minister should take it upon himself to show more concern and instruct his department to assist and work with one Mr. Dick, a native counsellor with Manpower who is attempting to find employment for many of our native people.

I will close with these few comments. Today we see all over our province the sinister symbols of the inhumanity, the wastefulness, the imbecility of industrial activity under the NDP. We see the results of the arbitrary decisions of infallible leaders, the results that led this province to bankruptcy, and we see the mistakes and examples of the dangers inherent of economic enterprise without natural free-enterprise market controls. The plan of the NDP loomed as a self-perpetuating giant, an unyielding monster that demanded sacrifices instead of being there to serve. Its result was self-protective paperwork and perpetual meetings, all to the detriment of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister has presented a good budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. KAHL: Whether it is political or not will always be a moot point. The point is, the budget is a start on the road back — a recovery budget moving in a positive direction to restore confidence in British Columbia as a good place to invest, to work and to live.

Hon. Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 3.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House, hon. members. The motion is that we move to public bills and orders.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, hon. member?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Please take your seat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), it is not that the Chair was not going to recognize you. It's a matter that the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) moved a motion which I was in the process of repeating to the members of this House. Following that, I was prepared to recognize you as you were on a point of order, and that's the position that we are at at the moment. Proceed, if you have a point of order.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) ; Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. Provincial Secretary....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and the House. I was misinformed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's nice to know that it's not only the Speaker that makes the odd faux pas.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to raise the matter of the House Leader....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Is it a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes, it's a matter of public concern regarding the interim supply. I wonder why the government does not call that bill. I understand it was rather emergent.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. One moment, please.

The hon. Provincial Secretary has called orders of the day, committee on Bill 3. That is the motion that is before us to discuss right at the moment.

MR. KING: Perhaps she had forgotten....

Motion approved.

[ Page 676 ]

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

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

On section 1.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has been able to talk his colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) into tabling the controversial letters yet, because that is a matter that I think was clearly indicated earlier on today, through the afternoon, that there was a matter of serious concern regarding the need for transmitting $7.5 million to the universities council when according to the information that the official opposition has, no request from the universities council had been received and, indeed, the money had been granted rather gratuitously before it was due, or before it was requested by the Minister of Education.

Now certainly, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education have any evidence to the contrary, I think they are duty bound to file that with the House to assuage the concern that has been stated by the opposition.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'm most happy to file this correspondence and give an explanation to the opposition. Indeed, I've been trying for some days to get up and answer the questions of the opposition, but you know, Mr. Chairman, the problem has been that they have been terribly anxious to ask the questions but they haven't been anxious to hear the answers. Mr. Chairman, they're going to get the answers tonight, like it or not.

I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, in taking over the Department of Education, to find that commitments had been made by our universities which went beyond the amounts of money granted by the Legislature in this past session.

In effect, what the board of governors of these institutions had done was not only spend all the money that had been granted by this Legislature, but they had bargained away some of next year's taxes as well.

The former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) and many members of the opposition have suggested to the Legislature and to the public that no request for funds to cover these legal commitments had ever come from the universities or the universities council. I am going to table the correspondence this evening, and I'm going to indicate to the Legislature, and to the public, the corrective measures that this government has taken.

I want to start by quoting from a letter from the universities council....

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): What's the date?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll give you the date in a minute.

"The first commitment is of a legal nature and relates to the amount of money which is required to fulfil the contracts and agreements which the universities have entered into in the present fiscal year, and which will, by the mismatch of the fiscal year and the appointment year, carry over into the fiscal year 1976-1977.

"$10,245 million is required to satisfy this commitment, and the universities council is in total agreement with the inclusion of this amount."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Apologize!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the opposition asked for the date of this letter. It's November 14, 1975, and it's addressed to the Hon. Eileen Daily. That's the letter. No requests, Mr. Chairman, made to the former minister! I want to tell you....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, they didn't give ICBC the money it required even though legal commitments were made there. Make the commitments, Mr. Chairman, spend the money, and leave someone else to pay the bills. It's just like renting a home, paying a month's rent in advance, and then walking out without paying the light, without paying the telephone, and without paying the gardener whom you have contracted to cut the grass.

MR. KING: What a fraud!

HON. MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, we were shocked when we found these commitments had been made, but we saved $2.5 million because we sent in auditors to check those legal commitments and they came back with less than $10 million, so we've saved you money. We saved you money on other things. The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) will tell you that — $340 million more in debts than you built up that weren't put in the Clarkson, Gordon report.

[ Page 677 ]

You got off lightly!

AN HON. MEMBER: Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the money which was allotted by an order-in-council...and the member for Vancouver Centre may have said it wasn't necessary, but I can tell you, had we failed to fulfil these legal commitments, we would have left the universities on the ropes.

Questions were asked in the House. The original request was for over $10 million. We thought it could be cut down below that; we did cut it down below that, and it took some time for the universities council to come up with the proper division of the $7.5 million which the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council did make available. That's the reason the details were not given to you when the question was first asked in the House. But I'll table the letter now, Mr. Chairman, from the universities council as to how that money was to be divided....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): On the recommendation of the auditors.

HON, MR. McGEER: On the recommendation of the auditors, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From their first letter of request for more.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The NDP never used auditors.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know what they were.

HON. MR. McGEER: Finally, Mr. Chairman, what have we done to try and bring a situation under control when a board of governors at a university or some other educational institution might feel it has the power not just to spend the money that we grant in this Legislature, but to spend future taxes as well, something which I cannot accept as a minister of the Crown, and which our Premier and our treasury benches has refused to accept?

Mr. Chairman, we have written the presidents of the universities. I am going to quote this letter so people will understand what a responsible fiscal policy means.

"The Department of Education has reviewed the original budgetary request of the universities council for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1976, as well as the revised budgetary request submitted after consultation with the former minister, Mrs. Eileen Dailly. The requests in both these budgets far exceed the national guidelines established by the federal government in October of 1975.

"Furthermore, it should be clear from the Clarkson, Gordon report that the provincial government, due to the heavy debts incurred by the previous administration, would be prevented for some years from providing substantial operating grant increases, even if the national guidelines did not exist.

"Therefore, a budgetary method must be developed which will provide for stability in our public university system. In the revised universities council budget, submitted on November 14, 1975, reference was made to commitments of a legal nature which the universities during the present fiscal year...for which no budgetary provision had been made beyond April 1, 1976."

I tabled that letter, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't like the answers.

HON. MR. McGEER:

"As you are aware, the universities council and the Department of Education cooperated in utilizing the services of Price Waterhouse and Co. to verify the financial problems created by these legal commitments. The government acknowledges that a special problem exists and therefore the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has approved a sum of $7.5 million to assist the universities in meeting these commitments. Before the end of this month the universities council will recommend to the department the specific allocation of these moneys."

That letter has been tabled, Mr. Chairman.

"In providing this extraordinary funding to universities at this time, it is the expectation of the government and the department that each university will adjust its budgeting procedure to coincide with the government's fiscal year. The purpose is to avoid any contractual arrangements being made which assume an increase in the flow of operating grants. It is our hope" — this is important, Mr. Chairman — "that in order to satisfy these requirements, labour contracts can also be made to coincide with the government's fiscal year.

"While it is obviously impossible for governments to budget more than one year in advance, it should normally be possible to anticipate that a given level of funding of an educational institution would continue so long as the student population did not decline. Similarly, growth in enrolment would normally be accompanied by increased revenues to offset

[ Page 678 ]

the increased demands."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

HON. MR. McGEER:

"New programmes, wherever possible, should be designed to replace programmes that have become obsolete.

"I would appreciate a letter from you indicating the concurrence of your university with these procedures at an early date. The universities council will then be requested to provide quarterly reports to the Department of Education, indicating that each of the public universities is adhering to the spirit of this letter."

Never again, Mr. Chairman, will we be faced with this problem. We're going to have responsibility — fiscal responsibility — not just on the part of this government but every institution that depends on government funds.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to table that letter, too. Let it be said once more that what we are seeing in government departments, in Crown corporations, in bodies that depend on government funding...the end result of total irresponsibility. We're bringing this to an end, Mr. Chairman, as rapidly as we possibly can. These institutions in future, and the government in future, will be able to go step by step with the ability of the economy and the taxpayers of this province to provide.

It's a principle, Mr. Chairman, that this group did not understand when they were in opposition. They did not understand it when they were in government and they still don't understand it when they're in opposition again. Mr. Chairman, it's why they're in opposition now and it's why they're going to remain in opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there is some licence given there because we did ask for a report to be tabled, but we had a speech along with the tabling of the report. So I would hope...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY:...that I also will be accorded some of the same licence. I will address myself to the Minister of Finance because I realize we are in committee stage.

I would simply like to say that I wonder if the Minister of Finance is aware of how fiscally irresponsible the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has been in the handling of these warrants. That's my first question to you.

If he can come to you with warrants for universities, based on the fact that they had contractual arrangements to make, so could the community colleges of British Columbia and so could every other institution in the public school system. Why were the universities singled out by that minister? It's a very interesting question.

Yes, the original request was made to me. And as a fiscally responsible government, we refused the money. We set a certain budget for the universities of this province, and we told them they were to adhere to it. This minister comes in and one of his first moves is to hand out $7.5 million to the universities council which had not even requested it of the new minister. That is his first move.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I am asking the Minister of Finance...

Interjections.

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

MRS. DAILLY:...if he is prepared now for special warrants in the coming years, from that minister, for the community colleges of British Columbia which may not be able to make their contractual arrangements, and also from the public schools. How do these two bodies feel? They have exactly the same problems, yet this minister singles out the universities and gives them the money.

The other point is that I think we should make quite clear to the Hon. Minister of Finance the question we kept asking over and over again: that warrant, which I have already said, in my opinion, should never have been issued; why was it issued in the last fiscal year when it's been made quite clear by the minister today that it is not to be used until the new fiscal year? Yet it is still listed as an overexpenditure from the Department of Education.

I ask the Minister of Finance why the Clarkson, Gordon report was allowed to be prepared with that overexpenditure in. If you were going to give a 13 percent increase to the universities, as the Minister of Education obviously wishes to do — giving them the largest increase of all the institutions in our province, more than the community colleges, more than the public school system — if this is so, why? May I ask the Minister of Finance why these answers were not given to us earlier by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Minister of Finance that I can understand the position he is in. He was presented by the Minister of Education with what apparently appeared to be an urgent need for a warrant. The minister has shown us tonight that there

[ Page 679 ]

was no urgent need for that warrant. He was fiscally irresponsible in granting it. I ask the Minister of Finance, once again, to explain to us why you on Treasury Board, and the Premier of this province who sits on Treasury Board, accepted a warrant from the Minister of Education which was not needed and was showing that you were fiscally irresponsible with the public money.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I back up everything that was said by the member for Burnaby North.

It was intimated to us in the estimates last Monday that there was a request from the universities council for $7.5 million which would justify the requirements of government and law that may wish you to pass a special warrant. It turns out that there was a letter of November 14 of the previous year to the previous administration which relates to matters extending over two fiscal years and obviously refers to the increases in the wage patterns that are going to take place next July. It was on the basis of this letter, and to the astonishment of the members of the universities council, and the stories we've heard to that effect, that they were surprised out of their chairs to hear that they had suddenly been granted $7.5 million by special warrant. That's true! You surprised the heck out of them.

There was no letter from the universities council justifying an emergency that would entitle them — and you broke the law. You were being fiscally irresponsible. No such thing! Bottom-line businessmen! You couldn't run a peanut-oil bar!

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I mean that.

But I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of a special warrant for a large sum of money like $7.5 million is governed by our laws. It must be necessary and urgent. The Treasury Board of this new government issued that money before it was asked for, with no resolution, no discussion by the universities council. An old letter, as I said, covering two years, addressed to the former government; that is your justification for spending the taxpayers' dollar!

What you have been doing is a political charade to try to blame the last government for these debts. You have been spending money like water; you've been worse than any of those Hollywood giveaway games. I say this: you have been fiscally irresponsible and you've broken the law in using special warrants in the way that you've been using them.

MR. LAUK: The letter just filed by the Minister of Education....

Mr. Chairman, I can't help but comment on the old crocodile over there, you know. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is sitting behind the Premier, as you'll notice, and he's like an old, sleeping crocodile. The Premier thinks he's asleep, but he's waiting for you to fall asleep, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on section 1.

MR. LAUK: Then his big jaws are going to go kerchomp! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. We are on section 1.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor, and we are on section 1 of Bill 3.

MR. LOFWEN: We want a good opposition.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You'd like to have a Milquetoast opposition; you're not going to get one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOEWEN: He's forgotten his speech again.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Education filed a letter from the university....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm referring to a letter of the several that you filed, a letter dated March 18, 1976, addressed to Dr. Patrick L. McGeer, Minister of Education, Parliament Buildings. The stamp when it was received is not clear on the copy, and the letter should be read in its entirety. It's from W.M. Armstrong, the chairman of the universities council.

"Dear Dr. McGeer: At the meeting of the universities council held on Thursday, 18 March, 1976, council considered the division of the funds allocated to the universities by order-in-council 687."

The only evidence of a letter from Dr. Armstrong — and I'm interpolating here, Mr. Chairman — was a letter dated after the order-in-council in question. The council decided on the following division of funds: UBC, $4.5 million; University of Victoria, $1.1 million; Simon Fraser, $1.8 million. Total

[ Page 680 ]

amount: $7.5 million.

"The allocation has been made on the basis of the hard commitments faced by the universities in the period April 1 to June 30, 1976."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, 1976.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This letter is proof positive that that government has created a fraud on the public of British Columbia by the bringing of this bill. They have deliberately, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...trumped up deficits...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...so they could embarrass the previous administration.

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

MR. LAUK: It is a dishonorable act. The Minister of Education should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please be seated?

I would like to remind members of the House that order in this House is difficult enough to obtain without having members not paying strict attention to the fact that only one member can stand at one time, and if that one member happens to be the Chairman, then all members in this House will be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order was that offence was taken at this side of the House over a remark made by the member standing and speaking in his place. The remark that was made was "a fraud being perpetrated." I would ask the hon. member if he impugned any member of the government when he suggested that a fraud was perpetrated. If so, I must ask you to withdraw the remark.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw at this stage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the future....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that little member over there has not only accused the government of fraudulent activities; he also accused the Education minister, in his last statement, of deliberately deceiving. That member should withdraw without any equivocation. He's done this now ever since this House opened. He's stood on his feet and made speeches and points of order, and it's about time that member was brought to order for once and for all.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, so that we can proceed with orderly business, may the Chair suggest two things? May I suggest that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdraw, without qualification, the remarks concerning fraud and deceit? Will the member do so?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, out of respect for your chairmanship of this committee, I certainly will do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the member, and will you please be seated?

The second thing the Chair wishes to suggest is to the member for Langley, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I would like to suggest that the member withdraw any term that would belittle the member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, Mr. Chairman,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you please be seated?

Now let's resume orderly business. The Chair has allowed this afternoon some latitude on Bill 3, questions repeatedly, to the point of repetition, under rule 43, questions being asked, and now tonight, the answer being given and I think that that latitude having been given and appreciated on both sides of the House, we will now have to draw the remarks remaining in this debate very, very strictly to section 1 of Bill 3. The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. We're on Bill 3, section 1. Please proceed.

[ Page 681 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, what has transpired this evening raises grave shadows, casts clouds over this administration which I regret, but that have to be cleared away. With respect to the section in question, we are asked to approve section 1 of an Act that the opposition, the NDP, has claimed is a political Act, a crass political Act not required for the good orderly government and financial responsibility of this province. We have said that consistently. We now have what we feel is clear evidence of that political Act. This casts doubt on the responsibility of the ministers involved, the Ministers of Finance and Education.

The order-in-council was passed on February 24, 1976. On March 18 they received a letter from Dr. Armstrong. It is very safe to conclude that the Minister of Education pressed the universities council for the letter. It now seems clear that its motivation was to increase the deficit beyond its rightful proportions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You don't know what responsibility is when you do something like this, Mr. Minister. This is dishonorable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. LAUK: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. All the years you've spent in this House and you do something like this just because of a cheap political Act? It was not enough for them to win the election, but they have to bring into this House this kind of trail of irresponsible activity on the part of the executive council.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, after your excellent presentation of the rules of the House, this member has done it again, used the word "dishonorable" in connection with the Minister of Education. I would say perhaps your earlier good advice to this House was lost upon him and that perhaps, in asking him to withdraw again, you might remind him that the tactics he has continually used in the House this session will not go towards giving the public a good impression of the House, nor for the good conduct of the people's business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order well taken. To the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, would you withdraw the word "dishonourable"?

MR. LAUK: I won't, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe it's unparliamentary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman, but I ask you to reconsider your decision that it's unparliamentary. I don't believe it is. It's been used before in the House of Commons, not with any kind of a serious issue like this.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's not unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're dragging this House down.

MR. LAUK: This kind of criminal Act is dragging this House down.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In review with the counsel at hand here, I would suggest that the member reconsider the objection taken at the Chair's request to withdraw. The proper definition of an unparliamentary word is a word which would reasonably be found offensive by opposition members. As a result, I ask you again to please withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you want the orderly business of this province to continue. This matter has to be cleared up. You expect this opposition to roll over and play dead because there are only 18 of us and 35 of you? You've got another think coming. When this kind of action takes place, when this kind of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you please address the Chair?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when this kind of action takes place in the province, how can this Legislature continue on one other item of business until the matter is settled? How can it? It cannot.

The honour of this House, the integrity of government is at stake and we cannot allow anything to proceed in this House until that minister either resigns or clears up this situation.

It's clearly $7.5 million in last year's budget. That belongs in next year's budget. After a solid 10 days of questioning of that minister, he has steadfastly refused to bring in those letters, and now we know why: because it's proof positive that they were pumping up that budget beyond what it should have

[ Page 682 ]

been — last year's budget.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. McGeer), although justly criticized for his activities in ICBC and other activities since then, was still what one might call carrying out his duties as a minister. But when this has come before the House, and now before the public, he must answer for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Just for the sake of consistency in this House, I would draw to the Chair's attention conflicting rulings that have been made with respect to parliamentary language in this House.

The budget speech of this year, at page 10, the second to last paragraph states this:

"They should have been honest with the public and increased the rates a year ago to put ICBC on a sound financial footing. Instead, their fiscal irresponsibility and political cowardice created serious financial consequences."

Again, on page 35 there is this sentence: "Never again must a government be allowed to engage in such a disgraceful financial cover-up." And further: "Mr. Speaker, the parties that expound this irresponsible use of public funds...."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the House has been called to order. My colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), has been obliged by the Chair to withdraw statements imputing a financial cover-up....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The word "fraud." It was to withdraw the word "fraud."

MR. KING: I suggest that for the purposes of consistency, Mr. Chairman, since the Speaker ruled when this language in the budget was challenged that this was in accordance with parliamentary language, then I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is a conflict in the rules that are being applied in this House, and I would suggest....

AN HON. MEMBER: It was true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) withdraw that. I suggest he withdraw that. If he's accusing us again, and reiterating that we are guilty of financial cover-up, you have already ruled. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you might consult with the Speaker to apply some consistency to the ruling of what will be accepted in this House as parliamentary language.

We objected to this language in the budget. The Speaker ruled it was parliamentary and acceptable. Now we can't stand two standards. We must have an even-handed approach to all concerned in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that the only rulings for which the Chairman can be responsible are those rulings which are made here in committee, and although perhaps some guidance can be taken by rulings made at other times, nonetheless responsibility can only be held for rulings here.

I wish the House to know that a list has been compiled of words considered unparliamentary by parliaments prior to our own, and it may be wise to have that list circulated for all members. If it is the wish of the House to do so, I think that it can be arranged.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't include "dishonourable," I'll tell you that.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, speaking to section 1 of the bill, in light of the documents which the Minister of Education has tabled, I think it's extremely incumbent upon the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) now to tell the House why he felt obliged to honour a special warrant, and to comply with the request for special warrant, when the correspondence tabled clearly indicates that the need for additional moneys would not obtain until mid-year, approximately June of 1976. It clearly indicates, Mr. Chairman, that the obligations to which the university council referred were with respect not only to trade union contracts that would be coming due in that period, but also with respect to the new tenure for faculty staff.

I find it absolutely appalling that on such a loose explanation from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), on such flimsy justification, a special warrant in the amount of $7.5 million should be awarded in March to comply with a need which was clearly not in evidence until some time in the coming fiscal year. I want the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, to explain how he can justify his obligation to comply with the Audit Act which requires that there be a demonstrable and emergent need for moneys issued by special warrant.

Would the Minister of Finance do that as the person responsible for the purse strings of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to just go over what this bill is about and the position we are in as government. This bill authorizes the Government of British Columbia to borrow up to $400 million to cover an anticipated deficit. That deficit has been

[ Page 683 ]

outlined not only in the Clarkson, Gordon review, but by members of the staff — the professional continuing staff in these buildings. Much of the information given to Clarkson, Gordon was given in consultation with the professional staff. I don't have to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that before we had hardly taken office there was a dispute between a member of the professional staff and the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) about the anticipated deficit.

All of this, of course, had to be cleared up and was cleared up by the bringing in of independent accountants. I say that as a new government we've had trials trying to track down those bills that needed to be paid, bills for which we could find no authorization.

The Minister of Finance this afternoon clearly indicated some of the problems we have, such as an account from the B.C. Central Credit Union for $150,000 for which there is no letter of authorization anywhere. The minister wrote to the former Ministers of Finance, and after clearing up which one of them was responsible, they said: "Well, surely there will be a letter from one of the departments or somebody which had been okayed by Treasury." But there was no letter in any department request to Treasury for the authorization of that amount. But the minister said then that clearly the public all knew that the Savings and Trust was going, so obviously a study had to be done.

Things like this in which no letter of application or record is found either in Treasury or in the department — these situations abounded in this government. Here, in this case, we clearly have a letter that was in the departmental files, not the private possession of the former Minister of Education but belonging to the public of British Columbia and to the Education department. It was dated November 14. It was from Mr. Armstrong of the universities council and it talks about $10 million — $10 million that would be needed. The Minister of Education, because we had run into excessive amounts — indiscriminate spending — was being prudent with our money, the public's money, and he brought in the accountants Price Waterhouse to check the amount. They cut it down to $7 million plus. That's a saving for the people. It was on the earlier letter and their recommendation in the subsequent division. We have three documents filed. I say that minister deserves credit for saving money for the people of British Columbia.

All governments are called upon to make judgments, Mr. Chairman: judgments in the spending, judgments in the money to be saved. I think that clearly in the three months plus that we have been government we have shown good judgment in the way we have saved money far beyond what would have been spent had that government been returned to office, because the economy measures that we had brought in have helped to reduce that deficit — economy measures that do not show up, economy measures that have brought some semblance of saving for the taxpayers' money.

We don't have to go out of our way to prove how incompetent and how bad and how reckless that government was, but we'd like to get this authority. We'd like to get on with the people's business — pass this bill and get on with the business of running the Government of British Columbia.

The people have said time and again: "Stop fighting the election of 1975." Yet since I got in this House I have not heard the election of '75 fought; I have heard the election campaigns of '72 and '69 and '66. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) even refought the election campaign of 1956 the other day, trying to drag up former scandals in an attempt to take the spotlight away from their government's record of misadministration and try to create some semblance of fiscal management so that they could hopefully get their leader into the House in a by-election. I say the important thing is: let's get on with the people's business. The money has to be paid. Let's pay it and let's get on with the job.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that was a most interesting speech. You know, it's a very disappointing speech. The first minister of this province should have been on his feet apologizing to the opposition and the people of this province.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Apologizing?

MR. COCKE: Yes, apologizing.

We asked one specific question: did that minister — we're talking about that minister, not this minister, who is no longer a minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor are you.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and I am no longer Minister of Health. We'll see how you get along.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that he came into the House tonight, produced a letter that came to the old government on November 14, a request that was not adhered to at that time, Mr. Chairman.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Why not?

MR. COCKE: Because it wasn't needed at that time, as is quite amply clear now. Mr. Chairman, he doesn't understand!

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

[ Page 684 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we got the answer tonight, and how they felt that that answer would satisfy the needs of the opposition to find out what was really going on, I don't know. Because, you see, that's the key letter — the November 14 letter. That letter merely says that a letter was written asking for $10 million, some time in the future, on November 14. Mr. Chairman, I suggest earlier this afternoon that there was a real hard decision made in the new executive council, subsequent to the December election, and that decision was to go on a spending spree between the time and March 31, in order to discredit as best they can the old government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we listen to the Premier talk about an election campaign being refought and refought; and I don't care, you know, in what terms he thinks, but we know what kind of a campaign he's fighting right now. When I suggested that they should apologize for this kind of evidence, I really mean it, because we have all sunk just a little bit lower because of this kind of flim-flam being presented to this House as evidence for a request.

What about the early payment on — the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is out of here — the $15 million or more early payment to the farm assurance? What about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about that? Not due until April.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we really have to look at this bill, this $400 million that we're borrowing. We have to look at moving Crown corporation indebtedness in. We have to look at all of the other aspects and, most of all, we have to look at the figures that were presented by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) right at the outset. Those are the figures that look relevant today, not the figures that are coming up here and nobody can defend. When they answer questions they answer in such a way as to try to confuse even further. No, Mr. Chairman, they can't defend their position, and they know they can't defend their position, because they did go on that spending spree beginning late in December. Oh yes, you did.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to tell you...?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I would like you to stand up and tell us a lot of things, Mr. Member. Mr. Slideover....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Please address the chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please! The Minister of Education.

HON. Mr. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster, who was standing on his feet condemning this government for fiscal responsibility...

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsibility.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...was the very same member of the board of directors of ICBC who, in the full knowledge of the budget of that corporation requiring transfer by the government of $110 million in gasoline taxes and motor vehicle licence fees, participated as a board of directors member in the decision to accept that budget, participated as a member of the executive council in approving a budget brought down by this House eight months later that denied to the public and to the members of this Legislature correct fiscal information about the transfer that would be required during that budget year. He participated in what turned out to be a false prospectus, leaving, Mr. Chairman, debts behind him, hoping that the continued accrual of current premiums for ICBC would somehow cover up the debts that they had incurred month by month by month.

When we took over that corporation, Mr. Chairman, in December of last year, we discovered it out of cash, with debts of $169 million in unpaid claims, unable to meet its payroll, unable to pay any of the claims coming in, and two and a half months of the insurance year still left.

Mr. Chairman, that was the end result of the fiscal policies practiced by that member, and still recommended in opposition to this House. Yes, we brought in a special warrant to fulfil the legal contracts undertaken under your administration, and requested by the universities council in a letter to that minister, and she's the one who should have brought in the order-in-council, not us.

I made it clear tonight, Mr. Chairman, that we will have rescued ICBC from its financial problems once this bill goes through. We will then have the investment income that is built into the current year's budget and should have been provided by the former administration over one year ago. That corporation will be rescued financially.

I want to say again that in a comparable vein the financing of our educational institutions will be rescued by then being placed on a pay-as-you-go basis. We have requested from these educational institutions a quarterly report, such as the Crown corporations will provide and such as this government will provide, so that you will know that those institutions have not undertaken, on your behalf, some financial obligation that you will have to pay

[ Page 685 ]

for in next year's taxes. As of now that is the situation, because by passing this order-in-council we have wiped off those past debts, put them on an April-to-April budgeting procedure and now have them on a pay-as-you-go basis. If they want to grant increases during the year, they are going to have to show the universities council and the government how they have laid aside reserves to cover those future contractual commitments. That's their responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time there's common sense in budgeting for education. Just as we are putting ICBC on a sound financial basis by having financial reserves to cover the contractual obligations, so we will do the same for our educational institutions, and the people will know it in ICBC and in education by quarterly reports we will present to the House and to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the remarks of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Vancouver Centre, because they were irresponsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: What — the remarks or the members?

HON. MR. McGEER: Both.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier got up and gave a repetition of his usual speech as if nothing has happened in this committee tonight. That is a condemnation of his high office, in my view. He has nothing to say about a minister that will provide $7.5 million to the universities, unrequested of him. His only excuse is a letter dated November 14 to the previous Minister of Education, and there is no indication that the previous minister would ever even consider the request. And it's for funds that are clearly, in all the documents tonight, only due and payable, if at all, in the fiscal year 1976-77.

That evidence has been laid before the first minister of this province and he gets up and he makes his usual speech. I can't believe my ears. Anyway, let's press on.

The Audit Act should be referred to in this matter, Mr. Chairman, particularly if I could draw the Minister of Finance's attention to it. He's aware of some of the phraseology but perhaps he's not aware of it all.

Section 25(3) of the Audit Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, Chapter 22, 1960, says:

"If, when the Legislature is not in session, an accident happens to a public work or building which requires immediate outlay for the repair thereof, or any other occasion arises in which an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by the Legislature is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then upon the report of the Minister of Finance that there is no legislative authority, and of the minister in charge of the services in question that the necessity is urgent, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order a special warrant to be prepared."

"That the necessity is urgent"...a report from the Minister of Education. We've heard the Minister of Finance get up — I'm not sure we can blame him, Mr. Chairman, except that his colleague is at fault. He said he received such a report. I'm sure he must be very surprised at the correspondence that was tabled here tonight. He must be amazed. And if he is an honourable man, and there's no reason to doubt that tonight, he should be shocked. For moneys coming in the fiscal year, 1976-77, the Minister of Education used a very feeble defence. His feeble defence, Mr. Chairman, is probably worse than the offence itself.

He says that any request — and this is his theory — will receive a grant, request made before they came to office and requests made after. We've seen this afternoon $17,000 go to Dr. Richards. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) didn't even look at the file; she just signed the cheque. There was $181 million from the Minister of Education to himself as president of ICBC that they didn't need. It's the old double shuffle. Now we have the pièce de résistance, $7.5 million the University Council of British Columbia didn't request — didn't request — and it's for the fiscal year 1976-77, not the fiscal year the warrant was issued.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, if he acted without knowledge, did not breach the Audit Act, but the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) broke the law. The Minister of Education did not report the facts if he reported that the special warrant in question was urgently and immediately required for the public good, because that would have been a false report, as you and I can both agree. If he made that report to the Minister of Finance, it was false. If he did not make that report to the Minister of Finance, then the Ministers of Education and Finance have broken the law. They've broken the Audit Act, as I have cited it to this committee. Who is going to answer for this? Is the government above the law? Can we get the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to lay a charge? Can we do anything about this?

HON. MR, WILLIAMS: You're just a little opposition.

MR. LAUK: That's right, we're just a little opposition, Mr. Minister of Labour, and we're sitting here appalled at the conduct of this juggernaut majority of yours. You don't care what you do. You don't care what laws you break. You have disrespect for this Legislature, disrespect for the public and

[ Page 686 ]

disrespect for the laws passed by this Legislature.

It's a shame, Mr. Chairman, that tonight has happened. It's one of the blackest nights in this Legislature, in my view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't use that word. Rosemary will be angry.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't find any humour in this issue, Madam Member.

MRS. JORDAN: We don't either, and neither do the people of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: You're not kidding. Boy, tonight is a very black night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what more can be said about that, but this opposition is waiting for an explanation, and this opposition is not the only group that's waiting for an explanation. The people of British Columbia are waiting.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot about special warrants tonight, and the Audit Act, and whether requirements are urgently required. I have before me here a special warrant dated December 3, 1975...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right before the election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...signed and requested by the minister who just took his place — the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk).

HON. MR. BENNETT: Urgent. Right in front of the election.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Urgent. The implication in the Audit Act is if, when the Legislature is not in session, an accident happens to a public work or building.... This doesn't sound as if a building fell down or anything, Mr. Minister — Mr. former Minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Read it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It reads: ..."pursuant to the order of the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of the Government of British Columbia has entered into an agreement with the B.C. Central Credit Union which provides for loans to be made by the B.C. Central Credit Union to SIB International Industries." That's $2.5 million, Mr. Chairman, for...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh! Did a building fall down?

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...the purchase of the "Arctic Harvester," a fish boat. This would seem to be a very strange date for such an order to be going through, just before an election — very suddenly and urgently required. I propose that we should investigate this matter because the former Minister of Economic Development was the very person who was complaining about special warrants.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: So I think we've heard just about enough about improper special warrants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disgraceful!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are you on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Finance has raised an issue and suggested that it was in breach of the Audit Act.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

MR. LAUK: That order-in-council, which to my knowledge was not acted upon by special warrant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The minister has made a charge, Mr. Chairman, and I have every right to answer that charge on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not a point of order.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It wasn't in the budget. Here it is right here.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Finance, just before he sat down, seemed to focus on the whole area....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May we have a little attention? The member for Burnaby North has the floor.

[ Page 687 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Minister of Finance, as he was speaking, seemed to focus his entire statement on the timing of special warrants, referring to the timing of a warrant passed by the former government. Therefore my question to you is on a matter of timing, related to timing: why was the special warrant for $7.5 million passed in the fiscal year of 1975-76 when we know it was not needed for that fiscal year? Why was it passed at that time?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has falsely charged that there was a breach of the Audit Act with respect to the special warrant, an order-in-council, on the "Arctic Harvester." The "Arctic Harvester" was a fishboat that was for sale, and the critical events had accrued by that date, on or before that date, that made it necessary for the Indian band to receive that kind of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Mr. Member, please remember that this is a point on which I called the minister to order, and therefore I can just allow a very brief statement. This is away beside the point.

MR. LAUK: I understand. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the minister raised it because it was for the Sechelt Indian Band, and it's an immediate.... You fool, do you know what this order was for? Are you attacking the Sechelt Indian Band?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Vancouver Centre please refrain from using the word "fool"? As a matter of fact, I must ask you to withdraw the word "fool."

MR. LAUK: I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has repeated the question and we must repeat the question again. Why, if the Minister of Finance received a report that this special warrant for $7.5 million was urgently and immediately required, if he received that report from the Minister of Education, that report was false and the Minister of Education should answer for it. If he did not receive such a report, the Minister of Finance must answer why the special warrant was issued. Otherwise, it's a breach of the Audit Act. Every time we ask the question, they drag a red herring across the floor. They try to dig up something else and put it before the committee, because they're trying to avoid the embarrassing truth of what's happening here with this special warrant. Why don't they answer that question?

MR. KING: I wish the minister would explain to the House why he felt obligated to authorize the special warrant which clearly was not needed until the next fiscal year — in fact, some time into the next fiscal year. There was a clear indication in the letters tabled by the Minister of Education that the circumstances outlined by the chairman of the universities council might be the matter for some discussion. There was no suggestion that the money should be forwarded either at that date or on any immediate subsequent date.

It's not good enough, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Finance to get up and attempt to draw out old orders-in-council, which are not at issue here. Even if we were to accept his inference that they had been improperly passed, which I do not accept.... If he has that kind of charge to make, then he should certainly table all of the pertinent correspondence and the order-in-council with the House.

But regardless of that fact, Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Treasury of this province in a government that campaigned on the basis that they were capable business managers, that they were fiscally responsible, would not use some previous alleged misdemeanor to justify non-compliance with law under his administration. I'm appalled at that kind of line of defence, and I want to ask the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman: Has he awarded or approved any special warrants for the fiscal year 1978 on the premise that some undetermined commitment will become apparent through tenure or through collective agreements?

It's just as ludicrous, Mr. Chairman; the proposition is just as ludicrous. There is absolutely no justification presented to this committee so far that would warrant whatsoever the granting of $7.5 million to the universities council, and, if we're to believe the Minister of Finance's colleague, the Minister of Education, all one has to do is demonstrate some shortfall, presumably in a Crown corporation or within any institution of learning in this province, and that minister is prepared to respond in advance with any amount of money, apparently, through this procedure of special warrant.

This is clearly an abuse of the Audit Act. It's clearly an abuse of responsible government, and I think the Minister of Finance should offer at the very least an apology to the committee, Mr. Chairman, and a guarantee and an undertaking that never again will he be prepared to authorize some ill-advised and unsubstantiated request from the Minister of Education or any other minister on that executive council for funds that are not justified and clearly not needed until some point in the distant future —

[ Page 688 ]

indeed, in a new fiscal year altogether.

The Minister of Finance simply has to assure the opposition that he is going to be more responsible as custodian of the public Treasury of this province before we can even consider allowing him to borrow for the funds to the tune of $400 million, which, as far as we know, might also be expended upon the unjustified demands of his cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, this is just not good enough. I'm sure realistic members on the government side, not only in the executive branch but in the backbench too, appreciate the fundamental concern, the fundamental and primary answer and principle that must be demonstrated here tonight before this kind of borrowing authority can be granted to the government. I expect the Minister of Finance to get on his feet, in a serious and humble way, and assure the committee that he is going to take remedial action.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I can only say that any requests of this type as have been discussed here tonight, and all others, receive full consideration by myself as Minister of Finance and by our Treasury Board. I am very proud to say that we have a very active and busy Treasury Board, which is more than I think can be said of the former government. Full and legal procedures were followed as required in these requests, as under the Audit Act.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, you know, it is certainly distressing members of the opposition to see the minister fail, to see the minister try to, perhaps, compensate for failures and mistakes that they've made, perhaps in haste and in the early bloom of enthusiasm of forming a government, and the inexperience. I think some of these things that perhaps.... And it is a serious legal matter, a very serious legal matter, that we're discussing here; yet it might almost be excusable. Nobody's perfect. Perhaps they made a mistake. I wonder how we could hold them legally accountable, even though it is clear that they've broken the law.

But how did this come about? I would ask the minister, and I say this in all sincerity, to be a little bit, through you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is getting completely ridiculous. Members on the opposite side of the House are saying things that are just completely unparliamentary and really should never be allowed in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like what?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Like accusing a member of this House of clearly breaking the law. That's nonsense; it's unparliamentary and must be withdrawn immediately. Mr. Chairman, we must bring some order into this House if we are going to progress at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then stop breaking the law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you requesting that the phrase "breaking of the law"...? It's been used several times in this House and....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

In no instance has objection been taken, and as a result the Chair has not called to order this particular phrase because it did not impugn any individual member, but was always referred to as government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. You know, some of us have sat back and expected that perhaps the Chair might call these members to order. I think the Chair does have the responsibility to keep order in this House, and these members must be brought to order. I think it's time now, because it's gone on too long.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order: Mr. Chairman, we allege that the Minister of Finance broke the law, or the Minister of Education. And I'll read the subsection again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You'd better be bringing in some substantial evidence when you say that.

MR. LAUK: It's a fact! It's a fact, and they can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. They can't have it both ways.

If the Minister of Education reported to the Minister of Finance that this warrant in question was urgently and immediately required for the public good ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...then that was a false report.... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and he broke the law.

[ Page 689 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You've passed the point of order; you're now into the substance and debating the point of order.

MR. LAUK: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I make a ruling on the use of the words and the phrase "break the law"?

If the term "he deliberately broke the law" was used, then clearly the phrase would be unparliamentary. If it were only an opinion expressed by a member, standing in his place, that a law had been broken, not deliberately, then the Chair would have to rule that it is not unparliamentary — at least, not if it's not determined that it is to be deliberate, or by a single individual.

I think that the House, perhaps, maybe would like to have an expression on that particular ruling.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, further to the point of order: I would ask the Chair if the Chair would ask that member whether or not that member imputed that a member of this House deliberately broke the law, because in my opinion that's what he said. If he doesn't have the guts to repeat it right now, and withdraw it, then he shouldn't be in this House at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the Chair remembers the debate, he did not use the word "deliberately" broke the law. As a result, that is the ruling and we ask the member to proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not a matter of guts. I think I proved my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. NICOLSON: What I was getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that I think that in the flush of enthusiastic endeavour in assuming the new responsibilities, perhaps mistakes were made. I think it's an attitude. It has led to what we believe was the improper issuing of a warrant in the amount of $7.5 million, which is a significant portion of the amount being considered under section 1 of this bill.

I think that there is a remedy. It isn't uncommon, Mr. Chairman, when we're considering a bill of this importance, that the Minister of Finance might have at his side the Deputy Minister of Finance. It helps to expedite debate. It's not an admission of weakness. Just because someone has some credential — one might be a chartered accountant — doesn't mean that one has to carry the full weight of one's office. There is help there and it should be used. But the minister, Mr. Chairman, in seeking assistance in this debate has relied upon laymen — laymen like the hon. Premier. I think that that is one of the things which is prolonging the debate on section 1, that is calling into question the necessity of this warrant.

The government is pursuing a course of entrapment. That's against the law, too, Mr. Chairman, but it's not against the law to entrap yourself, fortunately. But they are entrapping themselves, because they fought an election and they've won an election on the issue of fiscal responsibility. They so much won it and were so flushed with success that they actually believe that they are all experts, that they can get along without the years and years of experience of senior departmental officials, that they can fly by the seat of their pants — that the minister can be back east, that the document can be altered without his consent and that they can get away with that, too. That is the type of thing that has led to this very serious error.

We focused in on one; we are focusing in on the $7.5 million warrant which was issued on February 24, to my knowledge, prior to the session as required by law. A covering letter comes from Dr. Armstrong on March 22 or 23 after we're in session. It details how they will divide it between universities. Now that is not fiscally responsible; that is not following the letter of the law as indicated in the Audit Act. That is the kind of mistake which I think could be avoided if, instead of thinking that they were so self-sufficient in their own ability, they would lean a little bit upon the expertise which is at their side, and the long years of expertise of senior civil servants — they could avoid entrapping themselves.

I think that it's up to that minister, when something wrong is done in government, to admit that this is what has happened — that there has been, perhaps, a little bit of overenthusiasm, perhaps a little bit of cockiness. All of us, I think, who have been in the cabinet benches, Mr. Chairman, tend to think that nobody else before or since could do a better job of that. I'm sure that I felt that way; I'm sure that the present Minister of Finance feels that way about his position; I'm sure that all of those ministers over there feel that way. But that's a personal thing. You have to look beyond the personal thing when we're dealing with matters of $7.5 million — $7.5 million which, according to the Audit Act, were spent not urgently, and $7.5 million which are required in a following fiscal year. That isn't in any way related to the smokescreen that the minister tried to bring up about a fishing boat — that fishing boat was bought in the same fiscal year. That is going against the NDP deficit, Mr. Chairman — that expenditure. That has been counted in the balance between receipts and....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has another chance

[ Page 690 ]

to stand up and address himself not to fishing boats, not to other smokescreens, but to this question: does he have any evidence that it had to be spent urgently? The evidence that we have before us here this evening is that it was not urgently required, that it was required for this fiscal year. Can the minister get up and take some remedial action? Could they make a cancelling order-in-council? Perhaps that isn't against the Audit Act to rescind that order-in-council. Perhaps they can do that. Will the minister get up? Will he admit that he's been human, as I think all of us have been at times? We don't expect you to be Superman, Mr. Minister, but we do expect you to do your job, and if you make a mistake, admit it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Premier has returned, because to a degree my remarks are related to the last remarks that he made relative to section 1.

I was somewhat surprised to hear him berate the opposition for not paying attention or not allowing the government to get on with the people's business, and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of whether or not we need to borrow $400 million is certainly the people's business. So I was rather surprised to hear him say this, and I was also surprised to hear him say it was the opposition that was continuing to fight the election because, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it's not the opposition; it's the government that's continuing to fight the election.

Now if I might just repeat my question to the Minister of Finance, he stood in his place a few moments ago and said that the Treasury Board was a very active and a very responsible body which reviewed all applications at great length. I would like to repeat again my question regarding the payment of the farm income assurance to the beef growers, a payment that was not required until April which was made in March, and I would like him to explain to this House the rationale for making that payment.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, in spite of the protracted debate which has taken place on this section, it seems that it is having some value, especially to the opposition and to the people who are observing this debate, because slowly some admissions are coming out of that huge government on the other side.

Just before the supper hour the Minister of Finance said that many things could be included in the Clarkson, Gordon report to increase the deficit and that those things weren't included. That's what he said just before the supper hour. In other words, there was the question of government discretion, whether they could include information in that report that would inflate or deflate the deficit, and that's what he said, and I believe that the Blues will bear us out on this, Mr. Chairman, when they're issued.

So the minister was admitting this afternoon that the inclusion of certain items in the Clarkson, Gordon report was a matter of ministerial discretion. That is borne out again by the Clarkson, Gordon report where it says, on page 9: "We've been advised that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976." Referring to the ICBC grant, and again to the grant of $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro, it says: "We've been advised that these amounts will be paid prior to March 31, 1976." So there was the question of government ministerial discretion as to what funds, or what grants, should be included in this deficit which was created by this government in order to embarrass the previous administration.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's not the question, Mr. Minister. It's a question of government discretion and timing — what the deficit will be — and the Clarkson, Gordon report says exactly that very thing. By the same token, the minister admitted that more items could be included in the Clarkson, Gordon report, and, by the same token, less items could have been included.

The tabling of the letters tonight by the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) indicated not that the $7.5 million allocated by special warrant was a legitimate expenditure within the 1975-1976 fiscal year, but that it was simply designed to inflate the deficit, and to pursue a political vendetta against the previous government.

In reading the letter of November 14 — and I'm very pleased that the Minister of Education has tabled this letter — it deals almost entirely with questions of operating grants which will be required for the 1976-1977 fiscal year. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fiscal year which is the subject of this section 1 of Bill 3.

The letter doesn't ask for any funds at all. It doesn't indicate any emergency...that these funds be granted. In fact, the final paragraph of the letter says, Mr. Chairman: "I would be happy to discuss the basis of this submission in more detail with you at any convenient time." That doesn't indicate to me that Mr. Armstrong was in any emergent rush to discuss the need for $7.5 million that would have to be expended within the 1975-1976 fiscal year. In fact, throughout his letter he says that the amounts required would not be needed and the figures would not be known until the fall of 1976. So it was obviously a political decision on the part of the Social Credit government to include the figures discussed by Dr. Armstrong, but not requested by Dr. Armstrong, within the 1975-1976 fiscal budget in order to create and inflate a deficit that it was not necessary to

[ Page 691 ]

inflate.

The only information that we have from Dr. Armstrong as to the allocation of the $7.5 million — in fact, the only reference to the $7.5 million — is in a letter dated March 18, 1976, almost a month after the order-in-council was passed. So what we're doing is simply discussing an order-in-council that was passed at the discretion of the government — not of an emergency nature, but one that was passed to inflate the deficit for the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), not speaking on his feet but speaking from his seat, mentioned the amounts of money that the previous government spent like water during the short time previous to the 1975 election, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go over the public accounts of this province for 1971-72.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: Oh, we're talking about.... We've been given great latitude on both sides of the House, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, we are discussing section 1. Section 1 talks about an anticipated deficit.

MR. SKELLY: Right, but we're very....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that we're wandering a little far from the point. May I ask you to address your remarks more strictly? I would just remind you of the order that says in committee particularly debate must be held very strictly to the point. Section 1, please.

MR. SKELLY: But several members on the other side, Mr. Chairman, have got up and piously talked about fiscal responsibility. They've talked about it relative to ICBC, relative to many of the amounts that have been included in the proposed deficit that will make up this $400 million loan that we are supposed to be authorizing for the government. The Minister of Labour, again, was talking about how this government spent money like water in the period just before the election. Perhaps he alluded to some of the money which was included in this $400 million that we are being asked to authorize for the government to borrow to repay a deficit in 1975-1976.

I'd just like to give a few examples of the amounts of money that were spent like water by the previous government just before the 1972 election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $3 million, the Department of the Attorney-General overexpended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $30 million, Department of Highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: $42 million....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please be seated? I think that enough latitude has been granted in discussing the issues that would lead to the anticipated deficit. I believe that to go back into years and years of previous discussion is not serving the House well in this regard. I ask you to change the tack of your speech and make sure that it is relevant to section 1. I must ask you to change the tack of your speech.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your ruling.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) tabled a letter dated November 14, 1975, dealing not with the estimates of the public accounts for 1975-1976, but for a period sometime in the future. The Minister of Labour from his seat shouted that during the last period of our term of office — the NDP term of office — we spent money like water. I was just pointing out to the members that during their last term of office before an election they spent $100 million over estimates in order to attempt to win that election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We are trying to assist the member in trying to keep his discussion as close to section 1 as we can. He is doing better; still we must ask him to improve. We are on section 1. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am improving all the time here. I just felt it was necessary to draw the member's attention to that fact, since it was originally brought up by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Williams).

[ Page 692 ]

I don't feel that we can really pass this section 1 of Bill 3, because not all of our questions have been answered. It's just come down tonight that the $7.5 million special warrant for education was not necessary to repay a part of the deficit for 1975-76 and, in fact, it wasn't necessary at all until October of 1976.

When we originally asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education in this House, they didn't know what that $7.5 million was for. Now we find out that it was for a period sometime in the future.

There are other questions that have been unanswered, Mr. Chairman. We are expected to vote in this section $400 million in debt for the people of this province. Yet even the questions they answer, they bungle. We find out that that money wasn't necessary for the deficit of 1975-76 — it's for some subsequent year. It wasn't even requested by the universities council and by Dr. Armstrong; he simply wanted to discuss it at the minister's convenience.

Now what about the $185.51 million for ICBC? What about the $32.6 million for B.C. Hydro? Again, what about the terms of reference that were initially delivered to Clarkson, Gordon? We haven't had those questions answered. Yet we're expected to vote on this section to approve a section that will put the people of this province into debt to the tune of $400 million, and with which that Social Credit government is attempting to drive the people of this province into debt for the first time in many, many years — to the tune of $400 million. And we're expected to do it almost as a blank cheque, and even....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: We're serious on this side, Mr. Member.

So we are asking questions of that side as to just what the components of that $400 million are, and we're not getting satisfactory answers. What were the terms of reference provided to Clarkson, Gordon? Were they asked to come up with a deficit of $541 million? What were the terms of reference provided to Clarkson, Gordon? Table those in the House. Let's see those. If they are as bad as the ones that were just tabled by the Minister of Education, maybe we should withdraw this bill altogether and bring in a new one.

The only reason that the debate has been protracted is that we simply haven't had the answers to the questions that the people all over this province are asking.

I would ask the Minister of Finance to table those terms of reference in the House. Were written terms of reference provided to Clarkson, Gordon? If so, what are the terms of reference? Which ministers authorized the payment of the grants to ICBC within the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976? Which minister authorized the transfer of $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro within the fiscal March 31, 1976?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next member, I think perhaps the House should be reminded that we are bound by standing order 43. Particularly for new members, may I just recite that section for you?

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker, shall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

Standing order 43 — this is just for your edification.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I believe I do have some new information. I've kept a private list which I'd in a moment like to tell the Minister of Finance about. I'd like, though, to start discussing Bill 3, section 1, by pointing out two obvious matters. They are, I think, equally obvious.

The first is a compliment: I think you've been a very good Chairman, and I appreciate the way you have run our meeting tonight.

The second, just as obvious to me, is that government strategy has fallen apart. It has been exposed.

One of the things that I've discovered is that most new governments enjoy a honeymoon period as a result of the affection and good will generated by a successful campaign and their winning of it. It's obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that this government has enjoyed the shortest honeymoon on record.

I'm not aware of any shorter in the history of British Columbia politics. They have largely thrown away the good will and have begun to throw away the credibility granted to them as the result of a successful election campaign.

I think tonight, though, Mr. Chairman, we've seen that government strategy has been particularly exposed as the result of three elements of fact drawn repeatedly and consistently and, I believe, successfully to the attention of this House. These elements comprise more than half the amount in dollars proposed by Bill 3 in the form of a deficit to be loaded upon the backs of the people of British Columbia. These elements, and I shall name them shortly, have been responded to by the Premier and by the Minister of Education with two of, if I may say it, the most bizarre speeches I have heard in this

[ Page 693 ]

House since I became a member — bizarre and completely irrelevant speeches about fishboats and ICBC.

The Members of the opposition have asked a number of important questions. Important documents have been tabled and have been responsible for other important questions coming forward. The reply to that, not by the Minister of Finance of whom the questions were asked but rather by his faithful defenders, the Premier and the Minister of Education, have been — let me repeat it — bizarre and completely irrelevant. The Minister of Finance is clearly unwilling, or unable, to speak for himself. Anytime, I've noticed, he's attempted to do so, the Premier or the Minister of Education have instead jumped up. There may be reasons for that and we might get to those later.

There are three principal elements in this $400 million fantasy. There are three principal elements in the strategy of the government to blow up a deficit which never existed in that form in the first place. These three elements are simply that sum of $181 million given to ICBC; $15 million to $20 million to the beef growers' association through the Farm Income Assurance Act — information about which will be documented and produced later in this debate by our side of the House — and, finally, the $7.5 million granted unrequested and not due, not for the last fiscal year but for this one we're in now, to the universities council. Three elements in this $400 million fantasy, Mr. Chairman, have been exposed for what they are: a deliberate but unsuccessful strategy attempting to persuade the people of British Columbia that we need suddenly borrowing power in the neighbourhood of $400 million.

The $181 million cheque is now a notorious and hilarious event which has embarrassed, and embarrassed again, the government of this province — a cheque issued two days before the end of the last fiscal year which we were then told would not be cashed and which we were then further told would, if cashed, be loaned back to the government that wrote it in the first place. An absurd course of action for a government which claims itself to be fiscally responsible. This is almost half their justification for the amount that they require under Bill 3, section 1 — $400 million.

Secondly, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has indicated and, let me repeat, we will be producing documentation and evidence to substantiate it, that this government chose as a matter of policy, as a matter of political course and expediency, to increase the alleged deficit by some $15 million to $20 million by making a payment to the beef growers of this province under the Farm Income Assurance Act when it was simply not required, when it was not required until this fiscal year and not paid in the last. Indeed, this is $15 million to $20 million more invented in this $400 million fantasy that they're trying to persuade the people of British Columbia is real life.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Table the documents.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. BARBER: Finally, the $7.5 million, which it is now clear by documents presented by the Minister of Education himself was neither requested nor due, would not even come necessary for payment until July of this year, and somehow mysteriously appeared in the alleged deficit of last year.

What we have seen tonight, Mr. Chairman, is the presentation, consistent, logical and to the point, of evidence which to fair-minded people must be understood as devastating. The $181 million funny cheque to ICBC has already been understood by the people of British Columbia as the weirdest and most peculiar sleight of hand. The $15 million to $20 million to the beef growers will shortly be demonstrated to be more of the same, and tonight we saw clearly in the documents that the Minister of Education himself tabled, evidently yet unaware of their significance, an amount which was neither requested nor due by the universities council.

This evidence is devastating, Mr. Chairman, and it undercuts the whole of their strategy, all of their arguments, and makes it impossible for a responsible opposition to vote in favour of this bill. It is devastating, and it would appear to me that this revelation about the $7.5 million, neither requested nor due, does in fact undercut substantially their credibility in government; and they don't even seem to be aware of it, Mr. Chairman. April 7, 1976, will be recorded as an embarrassing day of the first order for that government when it was made clear that the unwanted and unnecessary expenditure of $7.5 million was exposed and exploded in this House. The action, as has been made clear, comes dangerously close to contravention of the Audit Act. That Act itself will be the subject of much future debate in this House.

One of the problems, Mr. Chairman, that this government has pursuing Bill 3 is that they are a coalition government. Of the cabinet of 15, five of them used to be enemies of the other 10. It's clear that one of the reasons the strategy has collapsed is because they do not trust one another.

They do not trust one another, Mr. Chairman, and they have been unable to get together and tell the same story about the need for the $400 million. Piece by piece, the $400 million which they claim is required has been demonstrated to be not required at all, but rather the result of a deliberate strategy, now collapsing in their hands, to persuade the people of

[ Page 694 ]

British Columbia that we are in fact $400 million in debt.

The reason they have not succeeded, Mr. Chairman, in persuading the people of British Columbia of the need for section 1 of Bill 3 — authority to borrow $400 million, I'm learning — is that the strategy has collapsed. The coalition has fallen apart again because when coalitions come under stress they cannot rely on principle and they most certainly cannot rely on one another. They have to rely on telling the same story and they have been unable to do so.

I have a private list, Mr. Chairman, which may interest the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). I've been keeping it to myself until tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blacklist?

MR. BARBER: No blacklist; it's a simple list. The strategy of this government has been exposed and exploded in part because the Minister of Finance has been unwilling and unable to answer significant questions put to him by the opposition. I've been keeping a count, Mr. Chairman, of the silences. Since Bill 3 was introduced, on 53 occasions this opposition asked questions of the Minister of Finance to which he responded not at all, 53 occasions on Bill 3...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's give courtesy to the member who has the floor, the second member for Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: ...failing to defend the principle of Bill 3 and the alleged need for the $400 million. Fifty-three times the Minister of Finance has kept his mouth shut, has said nothing, has answered questions with silence.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I urge the Minister of Finance to do himself a favour, to either get together at the earliest opportunity with the Premier and the Minister of Education and determine what new chapter of the story is going to be told, or at least get their act together and tell the same story, or to withdraw the bill. It has clearly fallen apart as that element of their strategy to discredit the previous administration. One of the reasons it fell apart, one of the reasons why this $400 million demonstrably is not needed, was given again this evening by the sometimes too candid Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). If I may quote...and it will be in the Blues. I take careful notes, Mr. Chairman, and I wrote this down as well. He is responding to a point made by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and he said: "You know, we could have increased the deficit to $340 million but we didn't do so."

MR. LOEWEN: The Liberal leader said that.

MR. BARBER: No. Check the Blues, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Check the Blues. I recorded it most carefully. The minister, responding to the Liberal leader said: "You know, we could have increased it by $340 million but we didn't," pointing at the official opposition. "You got off lightly."

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Those are the words of a man who is revealing within them the fact that Bill 3 has a political motivation...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR.BARBER: ...and was determined from the outset to be a means of punishing this opposition, the former government and, indeed, generally the people of British Columbia. He did not say that $541 million was the absolutely honest and the real figure of deficit in this province. He did not say that $400 million was what was needed to catch up and he did not say that the additional $340 million, as suggested by the Liberal leader, was a more accurate figure. He said none of those things. He said: "You got off lightly."

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): You did.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: He was revealing a political statement and a political point of view that has been taken with the finances of this province from the beginning.

MR. LOEWEN: You sound like a child.

MR. BARBER: He sounds like a parent chastising a child, saying: "I'll only spank you three times, but I could have spanked you five. You got off lightly."

Interjections.

[ Page 695 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: A minister who responds to serious and thoughtful criticism of this bill and the principle of the borrowing of $400 million, by saying, "Well, you know, we could have made it more; you got off lightly," is confessing for everyone to hear that behind the bill and within it and tonight now too its entire motivation is political and not fiscal.

Finally, I wish to ask — and hope not to hear — the 54th silence, Mr. Minister: why was the money granted in advance of its necessity to the beef growers? The amount was between $15 and $20 million, granted out of the last fiscal year for purposes of expenditure in this.

Secondly, and much more significantly if you don't realize it yet, would you please tell us what the urgent need was for the $7.5 million granted to the universities council, which they neither requested nor needed?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Withdraw the bill, Mr. Minister of Finance. Withdraw the bill; it has been a big mistake from beginning to end.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): The game plan that the Socreds have been developing so carefully over the last few months has fallen apart this evening. The Minister of Education stands condemned, and so do the members of the Treasury Board.

You know, it's a misuse of special warrants to try to gain some credibility with the public out there when they pass warrants which, as the previous speakers have indicated, are neither requested of this government nor are needed in the 1975-76 fiscal year. It's a disgrace. The game plan, I think, has been clearly revealed to the public of British Columbia this evening, and the fact that it has fallen apart, I hope, has also been revealed very clearly to the people.

I assume by now that Clarkson, Gordon must be feeling some embarrassment when they recognize....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Order, please.

Interjections.

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

MS. SANFORD: Clarkson, Gordon, Mr. Chairman, must be feeling some embarrassment at this time when they recognize that ministers have been running around looking up letters that were received by the previous government, issuing cheques to beef growers at least a month ahead of the time at which they were due. They were asked to put into the Clarkson, Gordon report, and include as a deficit for the year 1975-76, $181 million when ICBC is swimming in money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, these areas have been well canvassed.

MS. SANFORD: All right. But there is one area that the previous speaker did not mention tonight, and this, I think, is one which the Minister of Finance has failed to answer as well. That relates to the $9 million which was advanced to the four municipalities that had undergone amalgamation. These funds were advanced every four months.

Interjections.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Prince George mayor, Harold Moffatt, said that his municipality had been receiving the grant in $700,000 instalments every four months until last week when the $2.5 million balance was paid off by the Socreds in the 1975-76 fiscal year — and $2.5 million is not $700,000, as they had been receiving every four months. That again points out that they are attempting by every means possible to present a deficit to the people of this province. Now they're asking us to approve a bill to borrow up to $400 million to cover that so-called deficit. It's a sham!

MR. KING: There is the author of the budget right there. Think about this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. SANFORD: Even the former Socred member in this House, Mayor Frank Ney, said that he personally was surprised to get the money that was sent to them. Surprised, because it was not due at that time, and it was a deliberate attempt to include in the 1975-76 budget.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not due, not due!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you accusing Frank Ney of lying?

MS. SANFORD: I assume that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) is suggesting that either Frank Ney does not know what's going on in

[ Page 696 ]

his council or that he isn't really revealing the truth in this article.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was surprised that he paid off his debts.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, I see. I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: So was the mayor of Kamloops.

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

MS. SANFORD: I've only one other brief point, Mr. Chairman. I do think that the Minister of Finance should explain to the House tonight — we have a right to know — who it was that authorized that $181 million cheque to ICBC. Was it the Minister of Education, the Minister in charge of ICBC? Was it the Minister of Finance? Was it the Premier? Was it the general manager of ICBC? That answer we have not received, and I think that we must know that before we vote on this bill. We will receive it? Thank you.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: We have received it already?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance did attempt to answer question 56 by saying that he's given us that information already. As I recall, when that question was asked previously, his answer was that the information was passed on to Clarkson, Gordon by different people at different times, which is not a very explicit reply to the question: who authorized the payment to ICBC? For example, that very specific one the government did. The government at different times authorized the different payments.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of Education isn't in the House at the moment, because it's hard to divorce a discussion of ICBC from this discussion of section 1 of Bill 3, because almost half of the money required in this bill is related to ICBC.

I can't say the Minister of Education was intentionally leading us astray, or intentionally telling a falsehood, but I just don't understand his statement to the effect that this government hid the information that $110 million was needed to pay bills when he assumed command of ICBC. I don't know how that ties in with a report that he filed in this House which showed that a maximum of $28.5 million was required, not by that date — the day he assumed office — but as late as February of 1976. The maximum amount that was required up to that point in time was still less than $28.5 million. I don't know how that can possibly be reconciled with his statement to the effect that when he arrived $110 million was needed. There's some discrepancy there that I just don't understand.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Eight months before, Dave.

MR. STUPICH: The $110 million was eight months before?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: You're all aware of the fact that ICBC needed no outside cash until it started borrowing from the banks, and the Minister of Education filed the information in the House. It didn't start borrowing from the bank until December 29, 1975; that was the first borrowing, and it needed no outside cash until that point in time. Its maximum borrowing was less than $28.5 million, and the information given since shows that it has something like $169 million cash on hand now.

The Minister of Education went on to say that the cash it presently has on hand is enough to meet all of the claims and expenses of ICBC, even without taking into account the reduced accident rate, because that information came out more recently. There's enough cash on hand to keep it operating until some time in October, and this is not taking into account the information that he has not yet given us, because he doesn't have it available, I assume, so he couldn't have taken it into account, and that is the instalment accounts receivable. He made some other very curious statements in his remarks in that same debate — that's why I feel I can relate it to section 1 of Bill 3.

There are the instalment accounts receivable that are still available. Now we don't know how much is there. I suppose something like $100 million, but I'm guessing and I don't have anything better than to guess at this point. Beyond that there's a $100 million bank line of credit. It could get along quite well.

The actuary for ICBC, a director, said that the current premium level is more than enough to meet all the claims and expenses of ICBC in this fiscal period, more than enough to meet all of them without any outside cash at all, and that also was before there was an apparent very real drop in accident rates.

Now these are some of the questions that would lead us to believe that certainly the amount requested in this bill could be scaled down by half to start with.

Earlier on, the Premier got into this debate and accused us of making a political battle of it. Mr. Chairman, I ask you, who started making a political battle of this whole thing? Who has been fighting the

[ Page 697 ]

political battle for the last three years and just forgot to stop on December 11? He's been fighting it for three years. For three years when we were busy in this House attending to the people's business, he was spending very little time in the House, Mr. Chairman. He was out campaigning and doing his best to unseat us, and he succeeded. The election is over, and yet at the very point at which he arrived in office, on December 22, the first thing he did was to engage outside chartered accountants to come in and add up the figures that were made...that's not what he said. What he said was "a full independent research and review."

But during his remarks he said a couple of other things that have been referred to by other people, to the effect that they could have made the deficit much larger, had they chosen. For example, there was the business of the gas money, of the income tax that was due to Ottawa. He said that this, too, could have been included. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that perhaps he didn't read the Clarkson, Gordon report, because Clarkson, Gordon make it quite plain that this could not have been included in the deficit for this fiscal period.

AN HON. MEMBER: But they made note of it?

MR. STUPICH: They made note of it, yes.

Mr. Chairman, Clarkson, Gordon make it quite plain that there was no way this figure could have been included in the $400 million, and yet the Premier, in speaking, said they could have included it and could have made it look worse.

Now the Minister of Finance isn't where it is, the Premier isn't, and maybe members aren't. This isn't much, but I would like to read: "Until such time as the producers file the appropriate information returns with the province, the amount of the liability cannot be determined." We don't know how much it is.

Mr. Chairman, Clarkson, Gordon, in another part of the same report, on page 7, say: "British Columbia's surplus or deficit in a given year represents the difference in that year between the cash revenues and the cash expenditures." As the Minister of Finance properly agrees, Mr. Chairman, that amount could not have been included. There are other items of revenue that are accruals that could not have been included. So we have to leave out of our discussion with reference to Bill 3, and any discussion of additional items that could have been included, or additional revenue items that could have been included should not be a part of the discussion of section 1 of Bill 3. I'll try to confine myself to items that were included.

Earlier, I believe, I think that we were kind of getting some measure of agreement with the Minister of Finance. I believe that he was almost at the point of agreeing that some $436 million of the difference between the figures added up by Clarkson, Gordon and the figures presented by Mr. Barrett and myself on December 18...some $436 million of that difference is accounted for by straight political decisions. Clarkson, Gordon say there's nothing wrong with the decisions that were made. I've not been trying to get the government to admit that they made a mistake or that they were doing anything that they shouldn't have done. I'm simply trying to get the Minister of Finance to admit that these decisions were made for political purposes, in spite of what the Premier said, in spite of him saying that we are the ones who introduced politics into this debate.

He introduced politics into this debate when he instructed the Clarkson, Gordon firm of chartered accountants — that's a proper instruction — that he was going to include these items in expenditures for this period. Nothing wrong with it at all. Clarkson, Gordon point out several places in the report that this is an option that is open to government.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what number question this will be, but I would like the Minister of Finance to stand up and say: "Yes, we did include those items. It was our choice. We put them in politically because we wanted to charge them against that fiscal period rather than against any other fiscal period." If he would say that with respect to the money going to ICBC, money which we all know now, Mr. Chairman.... You followed my presentation of the figures. You certainly agree with me that the money was not needed by ICBC, will not be needed in this fiscal period and won't be needed in the next, for that matter, with the premiums the way they are. So it was a political decision....

AN HON. MEMBER: The record will show that the Chairman nodded.

MR. STUPICH: The record will show that the Chairman at least was listening. Unfortunately, Hansard will not record that the Minister of Finance made no response. But again, Mr. Chairman, we'll just assume that silence means assent and that it was a straight political decision in an attempt to cast doubt, or rather, to lay charges against the previous administration to try to convince those 40 per cent of the voters who continue to vote NDP that they had done the wrong thing. In attacking those and in trying to get even with all the people in the province, the government chose to include this $175 million figure in the deficit.

The BCR, $35 million: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I spoke of documentary evidence to the effect that these were not grants. They were loans, although they were described originally as grants. The Minister of Finance would agree that the documentary evidence is there to show that these were loans, rather than grants. Again, he is neither

[ Page 698 ]

nodding or shaking his head nor is he giving any indication of wanting to answer the question, Mr. Chairman. I will assume that his silence, again, means assent, and that he knows that the documentary evidence.... He is shaking his head. Well, I'll present.... I don't have it with me. But I think that perhaps tomorrow, if we do get into discussion of Bill 3 again, I will bring the documents here to prove to you, Mr. Chairman, and to prove to him that these were, indeed, loans and not grants.

The B.C. Harbours Board, $25 million that could have been recovered. It's not being recovered because a political decision was made not to recover it. That's not improper, nothing improper about it at all. All I want, Mr. Chairman, is an admission from the Premier or from the Minister — if the Premier is back now, I welcome him — or from....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, no criticism intended at all. I'm just saying that the Minister of Finance is unable to make.... I saw you wandering around. The Minister of Finance is unable to answer these questions...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. STUPICH:...without your assistance sometimes. I assume you are the fellow who goes around changing documents without telling him. Who was it? Just another question — there must be one....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, please continue to address the Chair.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I should remember that, because you at least do give me your attention.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, Marc Eliesen's name has been brought into this. Marc Eliesen was not the one who expurgated the first edition of the budget speech. The Minister of Finance said he didn't do it; he said he didn't even know it was done. The Premier has not yet admitted in this House....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't know it was done.

MR. STUPICH: You didn't know it was done either.

AN HON. MEMBER: It came from the galleries.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I suppose the fellow who wrote it was the guy who expurgated it. I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're on section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman.

I mentioned the BCR agreement. We have been told that this is not a good agreement for the province and that's why we're not getting the money. But, Mr. Chairman, we have yet to be told that any new study is being undertaken or that any different people have been hired who will bring in a different report from the ones who recommended to the previous administration that after two and a half years of negotiation they had reached a good agreement. Now we have not been told that anything new is going on, any new people, any new study or anything else. We can't help but suspect that all they are waiting for is the passage of this bill to collect that $30 million and include it in revenue of this fiscal period. That may happen.

The transit agreement has been talked about — again, a political decision. The Hydro, BCPC — obviously, Mr. Chairman, that was.... It can be nothing else because it was government policy to have BCPC pay over all of the cash that it made. All the profits that that corporation made were going to be turned over the consolidated revenue. That was government policy. The new administration apparently changed that policy and, according to Clarkson, Gordon, decided to leave some $27 million in that account presumably to be taken into the next fiscal period. There's nothing improper with that. They have that choice.

They can change decisions made by the outgoing administration. But in so doing they are, for political advantage, and in spite of what the Premier said about us using these documents for politics.... He is the one who has been carrying on the political campaign for the last three years and right up until today, We didn't bring politics into this. We didn't say that we were appointing outside auditors to do an audit, and then have the auditors report to us that all you asked them to do was add up the figures.

Mr. Chairman, those are political statements not by us, but by the Premier. The political statements in the budget speech were made by the Premier, not by us. If he would give up fighting the last campaign, we would give it up; we'd like to get on with the people's business as well. But Bill 3 is nothing more than an attempt to carry on with the battles of the last political campaign.

Mr. Chairman, we discussed this earlier this evening, you and I, and I think we agreed — at least you didn't disagree — that there's no need to proceed with this bill at this time. What you're asking for is

[ Page 699 ]

retroactive approval of a deficit, a political deficit that was manufactured by this administration in an attempt to cast reflections on the previous administration. A political deficit was calculated and we are now being asked to give legislative approval to that deficit.

Now we know we are going to have to some day. We've been told that we don't know how much the deficit is yet — I can understand that — and we won't know for some time. But having reached the point where it will have to be retroactive approval of something that the government did some seven days ago, having reached the point that it must be retroactive, why not let this bill sit on the order paper until we determine the exact amount of that deficit, and then proceed with something that is known? It will still be politics, Mr. Chairman, because it was still political decisions that made any deficit at all. There need not have been any deficit at this point in time had it not been for the political decisions that were made by this administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. This point has been well canvassed.

MR. STUPICH: There was no need to borrow anything, Mr. Chairman. You know, had we been in office, we would have not have borrowed at this point.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That is the point.

Mr. Chairman, there is a point that I think has not been well canvassed. I did mention it....

Mr. Chairman, I'm getting these interjections, and they do interrupt me and prompt me to reply. He says the speech was in yesterday's Blues. As the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barker) has pointed out, we have to repeat some of these questions because not only do we not get answers.... As I said before, if the minister would simply stand up and say that he's not going to answer that question, we'd let it go. But he doesn't do that. He doesn't answer them; he doesn't say he doesn't know and he doesn't say he's not going to answer them. So we're just sort of stuck. So we do repeat some of the questions because we kind of lose track, too, of some of the things.

But it did seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that when I introduced these figures yesterday, I believe it was, and when I pointed out that there is one figure.... When you analyze the Clarkson, Gordon report and the figures for revenue and expenditures that are presented there, compare them with the figures for revenue and expenditures that were presented by Mr. Barrett and myself on December 18, you find a difference of almost $500 million. But when you analyze that $500 million, you find out that all of it can be accounted for by political decisions, with the exception of $80 million, a difference....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This point has been well canvassed.

MR. STUPICH: Only once, Mr. Chairman. Only once has this question of the $80 million come up. I thought the minister looked surprised, and I thought, having had time to think about it, he might have an answer.

Just the $80 million — that's the only item of current revenue and expenditures that is different between the Clarkson, Gordon figures and ours. And there was a difference of one month. The Clarkson, Gordon figures were prepared on the basis, I assume, of December information. My statement was on the basis of November information.

Now we have the budget speech — and this is the point, Mr. Chairman — we find the $80 million gap has been narrowed by $30 million because we find out that the projection of revenue in the budget speech is $19 million higher than was the projection of revenue in the Clarkson, Gordon report. Now presumably the budget speech is based on January figures and we still have two months to go. The figures for expenditures are $11 million lower than those projected in the Clarkson, Gordon report. On that basis we have closed that $80 million gap by $30 million, and there are still two months to go.

Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that this $30 million narrowing of the gap....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier is interjecting again, Mr. Chairman, and he's saying that the narrowing of the $30 million gap is achieved by his government's saving of money. Yet we've had examples this evening of the government's haste to pay out money before the end of the fiscal period in an attempt to maximize that deficit. And there's been ample evidence of that; there can be no question about that any more.

I was asking, Mr. Chairman, if, in the light of the fact that we are now up to April 7, and that by now the Minister of Finance will have the first figures from the comptroller-general for up to March 31 — not the final ones, I agree — but, nevertheless, the first reports of the March 31 figures....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, we should have them. Times have changed, Mr. Chairman. Obviously things have

[ Page 700 ]

gone all to pot since the new administration took office. Those figures should be on his desk by now.

In any case he would certainly have the February ones which were not available when the budget was calculated. Certainly I wonder if the Minister of Finance is prepared to tell us whether that $80 million gap has been....

Interjections.

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

MR. STUPICH: The only real difference between the Clarkson, Gordon report and the report that was presented by myself and Mr. Barrett in December was $80 million, and, in that, $30 million was recovered in one month. Since there are still two months to go, can the minister tell us whether or not that gap was closed completely by the end of March, or give us some indication that that was the case?

Mr. Chairman, it has been drawn to my attention that the hour of adjournment is approaching. Would the government accept a motion to adjourn the debate until the next sitting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rise and report progress.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I took two questions as notice, one from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) with regard to finance contracts outstanding, one from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) with regard to the number of motor vehicle transactions. I've been waiting until both members were in the House so that I could table the information in their presence. I don't think we're going to get to that stage, and I just file this document with the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McGeer files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask leave of the House to query the government on when they intend to bring forward Bill 10. I think it is a matter of some public importance that interim supply be granted, and I wonder why the government is not bringing the bill up for debate. As I recall, it's only been brought before the House twice since it was initially introduced, and I wonder what their reticence is.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the query, I think, is really out of order. Shall leave be granted?

Interjection.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: It's a matter, Mr. Speaker, that the government indicated to us by essence of bringing in a bill for interim supply...was of some emergent nature, and as I recall it, the bill was debated one afternoon for about an hour. I believe it was only introduced for discussion on one point since that for a period of about 15 to 20 minutes, and I assured the government and the House at that time, as did other opposition members, Mr. Speaker, that we certainly had no desire to delay passage of interim supply, because we recognize that many people in the province....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think if the government is sincere about their need, they have an obligation to bring this matter forward to the floor of the House for debate and for passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. Leader of the Opposition. You were granted leave to ask a question, not make a speech.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to ask leave of the House tonight, if they would give us leave to debate this bill that the opposition leader has....

Leave granted.

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

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1976

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On the preamble.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on the preamble, I would just like to make this observation that this is the first time, to my recollection, in the history of parliament where the official opposition has taken official charge of the business of this province to ensure that the people receive their recompense and

[ Page 701 ]

their remuneration, and I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we shall always be a responsible opposition, and we intend to continue on with the business of the people in the future of this session.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Supply Act, No. 1, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, with such a great mood in the House perhaps the House would grant leave to discuss Bill 3.

Leave not granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn I'd just like to advise the government that the order of business tomorrow will be consideration in committee stage of Bill 3.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 06 p.m.