[ Page 4011 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 158.

Mr. Strongman –– 4011

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4012

Mr. Cocke –– 4012

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4014

Mr. Macdonald –– 4017

Mr. Cocke –– 4018

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4018

Mr. Shelford –– 4018

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4020

Mr. King –– 4021

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4022

Mr. Lea –– 4025

Mr. Cocke –– 4027

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4028

Mr. Macdonald –– 4029

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4030

Mr. Cocke –– 4033

Mr. Barrett –– 4034

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply-, Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 158: minister's office, $133,168 -

continued.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I rise tonight hoping to change the direction of debate.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: The children in the corner obviously are upset about it, but I'm going to continue in any case.

The debate we experienced this afternoon, starting when the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) rose to take his place was of the lowest possible quality. Here we have a minister's estimates being questioned in the House and the Leader of the Opposition stands, tries to introduce political intrigue, tries to begin political sparring, picks up a few points, perhaps, with the press in that he was able to get a rise out of a minister. Did the minister do this? Did the deputy do something else? Were documents stolen? Were documents borrowed? Where are the documents? No one seems to know. The dialogue reads like a Hardy Boys mystery.

For a few political points during the Ministry of Education estimates we choose to ignore the children of British Columbia. We debate one ICBC case - one case - to pick up a few political points, and we do so at the expense of the children of British Columbia. As a father, as a parent, I'm appalled at the obvious lack of concern that the Leader of the Opposition has. He rises in his place strictly for political gain. He's not here to debate the merit, or the lack of merit perhaps, of the ministry's estimates.

I must say that I'm one of the least experienced members in this House but I still cherish what I learned in school about the parliamentary system and what I was elected to defend. That is, there should be reasonable debate, constructive debate, debate that is meaningful to the people who elect us.

I believe that it's up to people, for instance, like myself perhaps, to try and change the direction. Why doesn't the opposition get its priorities straight? Is it a single, isolated case in a Crown corporation or is it the children of British Columbia that we're concerned about? I tell you that they're not concerned, and this party, this government, is.

I'll now get on to the estimates that I think we're supposed to be here debating. One of the points that concerns me, and has for some months, is a problem that is being experienced in the city of Vancouver, especially on the south slope and on the east side. That particular area of the city, for many reasons, tends to attract the new immigrant who enters our country. As we all know, most of the immigrants who come to Canada tend to gravitate towards the~d large urban centres, Vancouver obviously being one very desirable spot to live. When they do arrive in Vancouver, we find that they establish themselves in older areas - for example, the east side of Vancouver, the southeast side, and some of the central core areas.

In speaking to teachers, there seems to be a concern that children who emigrate and come to this country, where English is not their first language, are having great difficulty learning not only what we expect them to learn in school but also the very basic necessity they require to learn - the use of the English language. Teachers have spoken to me on many occasions indicating that they find themselves, especially in schools in the areas that I've just mentioned, spending more and more of their time not teaching mathematics, not teaching spelling, not teaching language, but teaching basic English. That goes not just for grades 1, 2 and 3, but throughout the school system, right up into what would be considered high school.

I understand that there's a programme being developed in the city of Vancouver under the headline "Build." My concern is, what percentage of the budget is actually expended on paying teachers to teach new immigrants to speak English? What percentage of the remainder is used in the administration of a programme? I would like to ask what the budget is? How many students are expected to benefit from this? Under the programme "Build, " how many teachers are actually in the field teaching English to new immigrants? Since the programme is in its infancy, what future do you see for it? How many people are going to benefit? Is the programme going to be expanded? My reason for the question, and I'll sum up in this way, is that so often we introduce programmes in this province, as in other jurisdictions, and the bulk of the money is spent studying the programme, hiring people to administrate it and, finally, putting a few people into the field. By and large, the large amounts of money for programmes like this are, unfortunately, wasted in administration. Mr. Minister, I insist, as a member, that we start looking at the new immigrant in our society and the children of new immigrants and make sure that in the future we can start training them better so that they can be better equipped in our society.

[ Page 4012 ]

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, the project "Build" which the member refers to is not a provincial government programme. It's a programme of the Vancouver school board. Therefore I am unable to supply some first-hand ministry information as to the nature and scope of that programme.

With respect to the general problem of equipping immigrants, I couldn't agree more with the member with respect to the priority that such an activity deserves. Nothing could be more important. The ministry recognizes the nature of it by giving 95 special approvals to the city of Vancouver for that specific purpose. This is so they can get extra teachers in the classrooms and attend to this particular job. But by and large, apart from the special approval route, the Ministry of Education does not programme funds. We give bulk grants to each school district and then they set their own priorities. If we think there are special circumstances, then we give these special approvals, though not for a particular programme. It's just a general manner of giving~ a little extra to those districts which have an unusual problem.

In addition to that, we have had discussions with the federal government and I personally brought it up at two Ministers of Education conferences because immigration does not land equally across the country. Some areas are very heavily immigration-intensive. Vancouver is one of those, certain areas of Vancouver, particularly Vancouver Centre and that eastern part of Vancouver South. It lands with a wallop right in those two areas. We are very conscious of it and while we can't control what the Vancouver school board does, we can certainly say that as far as the Ministry of Education is concerned, this should be the top priority for the Vancouver school board. They should spend everything that they require on this first, and then attend to other priorities. If it were mine, I would place administration at the bottom of the list. We have found in the last few years that where money has become available for education, it seems as though it goes first to administration and then to everything else. That has certainly been the case with the Vancouver school board. Their administrative expenses have built up faster than the other aspects of their total educational expenditure. But we are, Mr. Member, watching the special approvals that we are giving to the Vancouver school board. We are helping them out in their approaches to the federal government. The federal government does fund programmes in education. For example, it gives money directly to the provincial government for the special project of teaching French. While that's a high priority for national unity, in my opinion it is a much greater priority in a city like Vancouver that federal money goes to equip people with English in this part of the country first, and French second. So we would like to see, for

British Columbia, the federal moneys made available to satisfy that urgent problem. We would like to see programme funding from the federal government for that specific purpose and I can assure you that if it were to come, the ministry would, with delight, pass it on to the Vancouver school board. We are going to continue to press the federal government for extra moneys for that purpose.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the change of direction of debate. The member for Vancouver South probably had difficulty getting here last week. In any event, if he were here, he would have known that we had quite a debate on education.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver South talked about political intrigue. That's interesting. We all remember that those are his words. "Where are the documents?" the member asks. I think that I said some days ago that I have the documents. If the member wants to see them, he can make an appointment at my office at any time. Many of them have been tabled already. Mr. Chairman, he talks about a few political points around a single, isolated case. Remember the political intrigue when we are talking about that single, isolated case.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on that when the member finally got around to saying something about education, he made a very short speech on English as a second language. Had he been here last week, he would have heard the member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) give a mighty fine, well-rehearsed, well-researched speech. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, when she did give that speech, the minister's answer was something like "Umm." Today he gets up and gives his normal redneck kind of speech in reply to that particular member's requests.

Mr. Chairman, just for those who are around and about, and that member who hasn't been here very long, the only place that we can discuss the ICBC issues are under the first vote, the minister's salary. Once we get down into the Education votes we cannot talk about anything concerning ICBC other than in the question period. Incidentally, we used the question period for that purpose for some time with good reason.

Mr. Chairman, since I've been away from the House this afternoon I've heard threats and accusations, accusations of wrongdoing and all sorts of smokescreen defences for an indefensible position. I'm not going to ask the minister to answer this question; I'm going to ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to answer this question: has the Attorney-General called in the police? What is the scope of the inquiry'? What does the Attorney-General plan around the ICBC question? Is the Attorney-General going to take the same tack that the Minister of Education has to date in trying to

[ Page 4013 ]

cover up "intrigue" - to quote the member for Vancouver South - by directing the attention of those investigating this issue to the files and where they came from? Or is the Attorney-General interested, as we are, in uncovering the real problems around three claims that should never have been paid by ICBC after pressure from a member of this House?

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Attorney-General can let us know when he started his investigation. According to information that we have, one is not yet in progress. But maybe we'll be all surprised tomorrow morning to find that one is going and the Attorney-General has called it, because he is the only one who can call it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a staff memorandum that I received today that indicates to me the kind of confused state of mind that that ministry is in and the kind of confused state of mind that's created very low morale, which will be increasingly so if this kind of behaviour continues. Mr. Chairman, it's a fear campaign within ICBC to discredit anybody and everybody who might like to feel that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

This memo is dated July 15, and I'm sure that it's fairly generally spread out through ICBC because it's a memo to all corporation employees, I would think. The subject is: Release of Corporation Reports and Information. This is what it says, Mr. Chairman:

"In reading the paper this week you will have seen several excerpts from corporation claim files." That's right; that's not something new.

"Employees are reminded that release of such confidential information is a serious offence and is in violation of section 12 of the Automobile Insurance Act which states: 'Statements, information and reports made or given to the corporation pursuant to section 11, 27, 28, 29 or 30 shall be the property of the corporation and shall not be made public for any purpose whatsoever, except in an action or a proceeding in court to which the corporation is a party, or with the written consent of the person making the statement or report or giving the information.' "

Just to make sure that it stuck in their minds, this staff memorandum goes on to say: "Upon conviction, the penalty can be a fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment or both." This is directed, Mr. Chairman, to someone who has the audacity to show that there has been mismanagement and mishandling of claims. Now, I say, who is responsible for that mismanagement? It's not management; it's the minister, Mr. Chairman. How can anybody suggest for one second that corporation management would go the route that they went without the knowledge and consent of the minister in charge? I charge that that minister had knowledge and gave consent to the route that ICBC took in following the advice of the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . Who has intervened on behalf of the member for Coquitlam? The Premier: " 'Kerster's Intervention Part of an MLA's Job, ' Says Bennett." The same kind of defence has been coming every day from that minister. What should we have seen in this House from the very outset? We should have seen a minister stand up and say: "I'm going to investigate this and we will give a report as soon as we can." Instead of that, Mr. Chairman, every day has been a coverup; every day has been a shower of memos. The member for Vancouver South says: "What are they doing? They're not discussing something important." I tell you, the integrity of this province, the integrity of our Crown corporations and the integrity of a minister is most important to this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, every day a fresh ICBC probe is launched. All of this is about two very simple situations. I will agree that they're simple. They're awfully important but, Mr. Chairman, they're simple. They're simple in this respect - if the minister had gotten up immediately and said: "I'm going to see to it that everything involving these cases is brought out into the open; let the sun shine in, " we would have been satisfied. Instead of that, Mr. Chairman, one day after another we get the same old coverup.

Today, we hear the police are being brought in. What are they being brought in for? They are being brought in to investigate my source - the leak! When we're talking about corruption, they're talking about a leak. That's just a little bit much. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you right now, as I've said publicly before, you can investigate my source all you like because you're not getting any names from me. That's for sure; that's now. This is most important - that people in a free society have the ability to bring these kinds of things to the light of day. It is absolutely imperative in a free society that these kinds of situations are made clear.

That minister, now the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , who used to write his sneaky little memos when he was in the civil service....

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Sick!

MR. COCKE: Sick? I never saw anything so sick or so ... I can't use the term in the House. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, since they have been in government we have seen the kind of editor he was when he was in the public service. Shame on him. Talk about loyalty. He was writing private letters to the then opposition people, telling them what they had to do about the "commies."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to the

[ Page 4014 ]

minister's office, please.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry for leading you astray, Mr. Chairman. The last thing I should do is to do a thing like that. The coverups have been all over. The coverup that I brought to the attention of the House the other day was two conflicting statements. One placed before us is an affidavit; the other is a statement made at the time of a claim. All of these kinds of things that should never have occurred in this House have occurred as a result of the minister not standing up and saying: "I will investigate this matter and bring proper light to what has occurred." It's a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman, and a matter that must not be taken lightly by the Minister of Forests who is suffering and by the member for Vancouver South. Mr. Chairman, I wish that the Attorney-General would let us know his feelings with respect to this police investigation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'll just repeat for the member, who was not here this afternoon, some of the statements I made before dinner. When I found that the ICBC files had been tampered with and was given notice that the NDP planned a political campaign on this particular issue, I did have the matter investigated, as the member suggests. I had in my desk from the first day we sat the results of that investigation. When the first question was asked in the House, I tabled the results of the report of our internal auditor and the report of our senior claims officials. When tile NDP began to put on the floor of the House, one by one, their stolen documents, I had no other course but to keep taking these back to the corporation and saying: "This is what the NDP produced today. Does this affect the report that you gave me?" Each day I gave back faithfully to the House what the senior officials of the corporation said.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked that there be a police investigation when an affidavit, not given to me by the corporation but presented to me.... When one of the parties whose name had been questioned produced an affidavit, the member said: "That's perjury. There should be a police investigation." I said: "The sooner the better." As far as I'm concerned, I hope the RCMP come and take every one of these files and go over them from top to bottom and any others that you would care to raise. But, Mr. Chairman, I can't make the RCMP investigate something which is not to their mind a crime. The corporation can call them in and ask them. There have been two meetings with the RCMP, one on Friday and one today, and I understand that there will be one tomorrow, but I don't order the RCMP around. The corporation, as it should if it's not satisfied, can call in the RCMP, and the corporation did call in the RCMP.

Mr. Chairman, I never saw that memo before, but it does reiterate what your legislation said. I didn't pass the legislation; as a matter of fact, I think I voted against it and, as I recall, the minister voted for it. It's your legislation. If you want the legislation changed, why don't you suggest some amendments? There are no amendments to your legislation on the order paper.

As I explained to all the members here, if you think there's something wrong in any ICBC file, and some employee gives you information, that in itself does not constitute a violation of the Act. You know that very well. You have every opportunity to bring up these things in public accounts. If you want to do it publicly, you can do it without slandering people, Mr. Member. It may be that there is fraud involved. If there's fraud involved, Mr. Chairman, the people who are guilty of perpetrating that fraud will be caught by the RCMP and will pay tile penalty for it. But, Mr. Chairman, there is no penalty for people who use information or misuse information in this House and slander people.

That's why I say if there is not fraud involved and you're guilty of character assassination and slander when there were other routes open to you, it's you who should resign. You're not champions of the public at all. What you are is character assassins. You've got methods of bringing this up in the House and protecting until you're absolutely certain that there's been a fraud or until you're certain that somebody is trying to cover up.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): We're certain of that. You're covering up.

HON. MR. McGEER: Then you bring it out publicly. Nobody ever came to me telling me information that was there. All I got was that the files has been tampered with and the NDP were planning a campaign. You could have brought information to me and we could have had a police investigation, if it were necessary, long ago. We've got nothing to cover up and we're not attempting to do it. All I'm saying to you is that there's a proper way to go about this thing without the criticism being laid which must be laid at your feet - that you're doing this as a political vendetta because you're bitter that that man down there beat your leader.

If that's wrong and there has been fraud, the RCMP will smoke that out and the people who perpetrated that fraud will pay the penalty for it. We're not trying to reduce any kind of police investigation; as far as I'm concerned, and I said this last week, the sooner they get into it, the broader their terms of reference and the more they poke into it, the happier I'll be. I say this again: if there are any files that you want to look at, that you haven't yet raised in the House and you want those files the same

[ Page 4015 ]

way that you get vouchers before public accounts, I'll see that they're provided for you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I noted one thing the minister said. The minister said before this all started that he was given the information that the NDP had the documents and they were planning a political campaign. Now where in the world would the minister get that kind of information? And if the minister had that kind of information, why didn't he investigate this matter? Why then didn't he read the files? When then didn't he do his job as the minister? He stands indicted by what he says in this House himself. All the time he turns on me and indicates slander. When every statement that we've made has been proven by documents beyond a shadow of a doubt, the minister stands up and makes those kinds of statements.

How can I get through to that minister, MR. Chairman? He doesn't understand. He continues to talk about stolen documents as the issue. That is not the issue, Mr. Chairman. The issue is that there were three claims paid and a judgment not acted upon which would enhance the position of either the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) or his friends. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that in itself is what should be discussed and should be investigated.

I agree with the minister - if the police are necessary, or the A-G, or whoever, get them involved. Have a good look at all this information to see to it that at least this kind of thing will not happen again and there will not be this kind of pressure placed on our public corporations so that they do things that are not a credit to this institution here and to the province and the taxpayers of this province generally.

Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the toughest policy in ICBC since its inception, everybody is talking about claims handling of that corporation. All those people with claims are grinding their teeth about the very, very tough attitude of not only the claims department but also the claims and coverage committee, in which these cases finally wound up, It is said around the corporation that if you want to get something through the claims and coverage committee - until this case, incidentally - you better have some wings, because ordinary people don't get them through. All of a sudden, out of the blue, we find three claims go right through the claims and coverage committee. They were late claims, bad claims, claims that would normally not even be looked at under any other circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I am saddened about that section of the Act. Maybe the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) can remember, but it seems to me - and I think I'm right - that one of the reasons we put section 12 in was to protect the corporation from requests from other corporations for information that would assist them in selling their product, whatever that might be. We didn't want this to be public. But, Mr. Chairman, in a case such as we now have before us, and to use this kind of threatening language.... Incidentally, that last line, "upon conviction, the penalty can be a fine of $500 or six months in prison, " they had to go to another Act to get that. It was the Summary Convictions Act, as I recall, to get that line. That line isn't in that statement at all.

The minister didn't hear me end the quotes, I guess. There is nothing more or less than a beastly threat. It's blackmail on corporation people.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Imagine what they would have done if we had done that when we were government.

MR. COCKE: That minister stands up today protecting the member for Coquitlam with all his might. That Premier stood up in front of the Sun one day last week and said that the member was just doing his job as an MLA. What that minister is doing is protecting a member. Had we done that when we were government, that man would have been on his feet from then until doomsday.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Or until AirWest left on Friday.

MR. COCKE: That's right. There would have been filibuster after filibuster, points of order, standing on the desk, screaming and hollering. Mr. Chairman, we don't accept the kinds of arguments that are being presented here.

MR. BARRETT: He would have said: "Freedom for civil servants." I can see him now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the next member, the committee will remember that the Leader of the Opposition, just before adjournment time in the afternoon session, requested clarification and a citation. I'd like to draw to the attention of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the most recent edition of Sir Erskine May, the 19th edition, at page 305, talks about incidental interruptions. I think the interruption that we had just before 6 o'clock would fit into this category:

"Besides the interruption, of business at the moment prescribed by the standing orders or by a member rising to move the closure of debate, proceedings in parliament may be interrupted by a matter of privilege or order." It then goes on to cite several examples, and the conclusion of the matter says:

"When the cause of interruption has ceased, or the proceeding thereon has been disposed of, the debate, or the business in hand which was interrupted, is resumed at the point where the

[ Page 4016 ]

interruption occurred."

That is from pages 305 and 306 of the 19th edition. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to refer to that.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. What I need clarified under that ruling is that although the committee was interrupted, in actual fact the committee's proceedings were stopped, rather than interrupted, but I accept that I will check the record.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, again I'd just like to review for the member for New Westminster precisely what the procedure is for handling claims and claims appeals, and what the procedure should be ...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): How do you know? You never read the files.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... in cases where members may feel that a payment has been improperly made.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the corporation takes a tough approach on claims, as I believe it should.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on - $1,850 for a bent fender!

HON. MR. McGEER: And the member has complained about that. But if people are dissatisfied with the decision, there are a series of appeals that can be made. The members have demanded those appeals and the right to make them. It was the member for Vancouver East who spoke eloquently on this very point. I've forgotten whether it was this session, or last session, or every session, but he has.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't know what you are talking about anyway so go ahead.

HON. MR. McGEER: So, Mr. Chairman, we do have a review process. We have a claims review committee and they look at any claims that people complain about. There are several come through my office every day, some directly from individuals, some from MLAs. They all get sent forward to the claims review committee to look at. In most cases, Mr. Chairman, they're turned down and that's the end of it. In some cases, the claims review committee agrees to make the payment, as they did in this case.

Now that's a process that's set up by the corporation. You may agree or disagree with the decisions they make. Occasionally people do disagree with the decision of the claims review committee and it can go all the way to the board for consideration of ex gratia payment.

Mr. Chairman, the point that I wish to make is that in dealing with this question of how you should take up a matter where you think a payment has been improperly made, there is a difference between a judgment on the part of the claims review committee, and I'm never going to try and second-guess that judgment unless it comes to the board for ex gratia consideration.... But if it's a question of criminal fraud, which the member for New Westminster raised in the House, naturally we're prepared to investigate fraud. Trying to second-guess the claims review committee, that's not valid, but you can take any case where you think there has been a question of fraud and nobody's going to object to an employee giving you information providing you use it properly. But if you have not checked your facts out and you're not sure it's correct and you strew it all over the papers, against your own Act, then you're acting improperly because there are other ways of dealing with this question that will protect a person.

Remember the old adage that a person is innocent until he's proven guilty? You've come into this House and you've said "guilty" when you haven't had all the facts. Well, the RCMP will determine that, and if you're right and the person is guilty, then they'll get nailed. The RCMP will decide whether a charge is to be laid. But if you've come in here and you've said a person is guilty before the facts are out, then you are slandering somebody, or are you not?

MR. BARRETT: Look who's talking! You wouldn't even read the files.

MR. COCKE: You've covered up right from the outset.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've not covered up anything.

MR. BARRETT: You have so!

MR. MACDONALD: You certainly have. Read the files.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: As far as I'm concerned, the police can have any file and you can have any file, providing you treat it properly. Just ask for it. Take it up in public accounts and it'll be there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Minister of Education has the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: Don't come dribbling stolen documents in here day after day after day and then

[ Page 4017 ]

plead innocent and say you're doing a great thing for the public.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, what a pile of nonsense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Are you this good at brain surgery?

MR. BARRETT: You make Haldeman look like a good guy.

MR. MACDONALD: I find it so hard to control my temper, Mr. Chairman, in line with your injunctions when I hear these remarks, day after day, by this minister about stolen documents. Mr. Chairman, do you remember Richard Nixon? You know, when the Watergate thing was building up he employed a plumbers unit not to root out corruption, but to destroy the people who were releasing information. He even invaded a dental office - Daniel Ellsberg's. He broke the law to do that.

MR. BARRETT: You make Haldeman look good.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, I think it's absolutely disgraceful that a minister should sit there.... I just can't believe it. You know, he sits there and says, "I won't read the file, " and he's a director of the corporation. Now, you know, a director ought to be fired the next day for sheer incompetency when he says that. You don't know what's in that file, Mr. Minister, and what do you get? Memoranda from the top management of ICBC who presumably are themselves on the spot and want to clear themselves. Even the things that have been filed in this House contain false statements which have been given to the House. Oh, the minister says: "I won't read the file."

MR. BARRETT: What about Winfield?

MR. MACDONALD: Why won't he read the file? Is it because he will find something there that will affect the political fortunes of this new kind of coalition? He'll find that there has been real hanky-panky and it's not just a nice story about the claims and coverage committee. That's what it's called. You had the name wrong, Mr. Minister. It's the claims and coverage committee.

It isn't just that suddenly, after two years, they look at the Surrey Dodge claim where a member of this House has intervened who is paying off on the debenture - actively paying it off - and every dollar that is paid on the claim reduced his indebtedness. Miraculously the claims and coverage committee, after two years, suddenly reached into their pockets and paid $1,850 for damage to a 1969 Mustang where the police report, at the time it was stolen, said: "Damage to left front fender." Still the minister won't even look at the file. And I'm not allowed to use the words "wilful blindness"? What can I use?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Shameful blindness!

MR. MACDONALD: He's deliberately refusing to look at the facts. I think that minister knows, and I think it's a coverup. It's got to be a coverup. There is no director of any corporation in this country who, when a thing is called in question, wouldn't look at the original material, who wouldn't look at that and say "Would you mind bringing the file to my desk?" . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: He's above that.

MR. MACDONALD: ... and look through that file.

MR. LEA: Only an idiot wouldn't.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a coverup. The minister has just been fooling with this House. Now on the matter of the police investigation, Mr. Chairman, the minister has again been totally misleading the people of this province, because if he doesn't know, he has had ample time in the last few days to find out - he's a minister of the Crown - that an investigation of that kind by the criminal fraud unit of the RCMP has to be ordered through the Attorney-General's department. I want to say that twice because the minister is pretending that he doesn't understand these things. An investigation by the criminal fraud unit of the RCMP has to be ordered through the Attorney-General's department.

AN HON. MEMBER: You knew it when you were in opposition.

MR. MACDONALD: And I asked the minister ... yes, it does. I am sorry to tell you that but it's true.

HON. MR. McGEER: Then ask him to.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: When did you ask it? Before you went to the people of this province and talked about the police who were going to rectify all this? Obviously they can't decide what's really happened in this thing. They can find criminal charges and they could look for that, the criminal fraud. But there's far more to answer than any police investigation in this

[ Page 4018 ]

case. But has the minister - I put this simple question to him - taken it up with the Attorney-General of the province of B.C., who is in charge of the RCMP? If so, when and what did he say to him?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'll let the Attorney-General answer for himself.

MR. BARRETT: Ohhh! You're the minister responsible.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: This is the kind of arrogance and pretended ignorance which we have been getting from this minister all along. And we've been getting it because he knows that this is a case of political corruption involving political pressure applied to ICBC, where the premiums have been raised for the ordinary people of the province and the money has been funnelled out the back door to a few favoured Social Credit car dealers. This Minister of Education has to answer the questions now, before going public and saying there's a police investigation. Now he says: "I don't know; ask the Attorney-General." That is flippant and it's arrogant and it is totally unacceptable to this committee as far as I am concerned.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this debate reminds me of a message that I got when I was very young, and that message was: "0 what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" Mr. Chairman, when there's a political coverup of the type which we have seen in the last few days, the minister talks about police investigations; the minister indicates that he's not prepared to read the file. Mr. Chairman, it suggests to me that the minister is either trying to protect himself or he is going overboard on protecting a member of the House, a colleague.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would stand now and indicate quite clearly what he is prepared to do with respect to making a request of the Attorney-General to do a proper investigation if it's necessary - and he deems it necessary because he has been saying it every day of the week - then I suggest that he at least owes us a response to the question that the member for Vancouver East is asking, and that is: when has he asked, what has he asked and what will be the scope of the investigation once it's started?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I can only say, right here and now to the members, as far as I am concerned there should be a complete, top-to-bottom, RCMP investigation of all these files, here and now. Mr. Chairman....

MR. MACDONALD: You're the government. What are you going to do about it?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I say there should be, too. Who's going to order it?

HON. MR. McGEER: Okay. We're in agreement. I don't order the RCMP around. I can tell you what has taken place. To my knowledge, two meetings have taken place between officials of ICBC and the RCMP. It's my understanding that the commercial fraud division of the RCMP is taking this case up. It's my understanding that there will be further meetings tomorrow between ICBC and the RCMP. It's my understanding that ICBC has requested the RCMP to come and investigate these files.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: As I say, I don't boss the RCMP. You can ask the RCMP. ...

AN HON. MEMBER: You boss the Attorney-General right across the floor.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't boss the Attorney-General. If you want the Attorney-General to stand up and say precisely what his office does, ask the Attorney-General.

I'm telling you that as far as I'm concerned, there should be complete, awesome, sweeping investigation of all the claims files. Nobody would welcome it sooner or more than me. I said that last week, but I don't control the police. I haven't met with them. People in ICBC have met with them and will meet with them again. If you're not satisfied that the investigation is broad enough, it'll be broader than asked for. But as I say, you're asking me to go out there and command the RCMP when it's not my responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you resign? That way you'll be totally clean.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I'd like to just say a few words to let the members cool down for a couple of minutes and think it over. I don't mean to speak at length on ICBC because I would say generally that it does a very good job for this province. I would further say that if it wasn't for ICBC in the north country, there are an awful lot of people who couldn't get general insurance at all at the present time. Many large companies are backing out of serving the north country.

It gives all of us up there a great deal of concern on just what might happen, for instance, if there was

[ Page 4019 ]

another ICBC strike. Many agents in the north at the present time have no other connections except in ICBC to work with. We have a very serious problem that's developing in the insurance field and that is the fact that vacant houses.... Some like to say: "Well, you've got more vacant houses around Terrace than anywhere else." That's not true. I find there are more vacant houses per population on Vancouver Island and Kelowna than there is in Terrace. There are several hundred in Kelowna alone that are not insured, and this was given to me by the insurance agents. Companies apparently do not want to insure vacant houses, The only outlet we have at the present time in Terrace and Kitimat is ICBC. I would hope this is kept in mind because it could get even worse. What happens if one of these vacant houses, where people have to move away for one reason or another, happens to burn down? Of course we all know what'll happen. Someone will be coming to government to ask for assistance.

I would like to thank the minister for his co-operation during this last year. It's certainly been excellent and does help out a rural MLA a great deal.

However, I'm certainly not happy with the present training programmes as I think an awful lot more could be done. In my opinion, there is far too much theory and too little practical experience in many of the training programmes. There's very little that can beat on-the-job training for many occupations in the forest and resource-extracting industries. People need this practical experience in order to find their way into the work force where I'm convinced most young people want to go.

In my experience in hiring people for the various independent companies in the north country, to come through the university with an arts degree is like the kiss of death in trying to get a job in the forest industry. I've talked to many personnel managers from major companies and also from a lot of the independent companies, and they won't even consider hiring someone whose only experience is a programme in arts. I think it's very nice to have, but there's certainly room for a little experience in other fields. A lot of these young people certainly want to go to work, and they feel very put out when they're told that they can't fit into the system in the forest industry. I hope this will be considered in future training programmes so that people, no matter what they go in for, at least have some alternative place where they can go.

We have a high unemployment rate in Canada, and again a lot of people always point to Terrace as being one of the worst places in Canada. It's not so; it's about average, I would say, with most other areas. But the thing that concerns me is that with the high unemployment which we do have in Canada - that's recognized - we still have to bring in people from Portugal, Italy, England and other countries to fill positions in companies like Alcan, Eurocan, Can-Cel and other major companies up in the north country. This is where it's extremely important that people are able to receive on-the-job training so that they can fit into these positions. One of the most serious problems I've found was that the people unemployed are normally, physically unfit to go to work.

I think we all know what it's like if we lay around and then all of a sudden you have to go to work. It can be pretty rough. The muscles are all stiffened up and a lot of people have to quit about the day after they start. I remember sending 10 or a dozen up the Nass Valley, and the first day at least three-quarters of them will come back. They will only stick it out one day, and mainly because they're just physically unfit for the job.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: I think if you could stick out one day around here, you could stick with that bush for an awful long time. At least you wouldn't have to be crazy to stay there.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: It certainly helps.

In a training programme for the north country -and I think it's true in all areas - the first thing we should try to do is establish the future needs of the area. How many men will be needed for a new mill or a new forest complex? I've asked this question of Canada Manpower and others. I say to them: "Okay, we know there's going to be a mill open. . . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: How does the member relate this to the Minister of Education?

MR. SHELFORD: The training comes under the Ministry of Education, Mr. Chairman. We're sending an awful lot of young people out of our schools that really have no place to fit. What I'd like to see, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, is a type of training programme where these young people can come out of school and fit into some programme into the resource industries or some other industry in this province. I think that's very important.

First of all, we have to find out how many men we'll need, what projects are starting up, and then what we are going to do about it. It appears now that when companies start in the area, they worry about recruitment about one week before they're ready to start up instead of trying to find out how many men are available and then whether people will have to be trained in the area to fit these slots. Otherwise, again we bring in trained people from Europe and Asiatic countries, and it does seem wrong when we have unemployment and people who really want to work.

[ Page 4020 ]

There are people around who certainly do want to work.

I admit there are problems in the training field, where in certain areas the union insists on full pay before they're trained. Now this quite often can be worked out if someone goes in and talks to the union involved. I'm quite sure this can be overcome without too much trouble.

I would like to deal with a second question. I think most of us agree that it is desirable to have a second language. I know when I traveled across Europe I certainly wished I spoke quite a number of different languages. But I would like to ask the minister whether he is satisfied with the present programme. To a layman sitting on the outside, it does seem strange that nearly everyone in our schools takes French, nearly everyone passes and yet practically no one speaks French. I know I went to a class this year and asked the youngsters whether any of them could order a meal if they went over to France. They all told me in no uncertain terms that they couldn't. I know my daughters and sons who have gone through school all took French, all passed, but they don't speak a word. They don't even speak as much as I do, which is very, very little - and I wish I could. I would say this isn't good enough and we should look at better programmes because an awful lot of money is spent on these programmes.

I would recommend we take a serious look at what they're doing in some of the European countries where they start at the age of three, four and five in teaching language programmes. I had a proposal sent to me the other day from a former teacher in Terrace which I think should be given consideration. He says:

"I am a co-ordinator of a newly formed group, the Terrace Association of Cultural Enrichment of Young Children. The purpose of our group is to introduce English-speaking children, ages three to five, to the French language and culture through games, stories, crafts, songs, fun and play.

"At the same time, the group provides the opportunity for French-speaking children to use their language outside the home in a social situation with their peers. Our group is then a French immersion experience which we have named the Children's Garden."

Now it seems to me there is a lot of merit to a programme such as this, to try and get the young people involved in another language. It doesn't necessarily have to be French. I would hope the minister will consider this programme that is being put forward by Ashley Proceviat of Terrace. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to see how these youngsters made out because I certainly was impressed with the youngsters over in Europe. Some of them could speak two and three languages when they were six years old. I certainly don't think our present programme for second language is working at all.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised two points. First, am I satisfied with the training programmes? The answer is, heck, no, I'm nowhere satisfied with what we're doing, Mr. Chairman. I hope to be able to announce before too long substantial improvements in the matter of expanding the opportunities that our high school and post-secondary students have to develop the kinds of skills that are in demand in the job market in British Columbia.

The tragedy of our educational system is that we fail to give the youngsters in our province the skills that are in demand and then we satisfy our own needs by bringing in immigrants. There were something like 10,000 work permits issued in British Columbia last year, which means we brought in 10,000 people with skills that our youngsters weren't given the benefit of in our training system, and therefore they're unemployed while the people who are on work permits were brought in from outside our province. It's thoroughly unsatisfactory. As I have said before, Mr. Member, that's going to be the top priority for this extra money that we got from the federal government.

With respect to French education, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraging it wherever and with whatever programmes are suggested. We think very highly of the early French education. As the great Canadian neurosurgeon, Dr. Wilder Penfield, pointed out many years ago, when you get the language transmitted to the youngster during those early years when the speech centres are being developed, then you get a much more permanent and lasting command of the language. That's why we think the early training will be particularly good.

At the post-secondary level we're going to increase opportunities, Mr. Chairman, for people to take immersion courses so that they can develop even greater linguistic skill. Speaking personally, I'm unilingual with nothing more to carry me in this bilingual age than the high school French of years ago where we all passed and where none of us could speak French. But even that rudimentary French that we got in those days has been of inestimable benefit to me on many occasions in Europe. I haven't any trouble in Quebec because people speak English there. They like it if you can speak French, but you can get by speaking English because virtually all the people there have a much better command of English than people from the west have of French.

I've discovered in Europe that this pitiful rudimentary high school French of British Columbia will often get you by in Italy and in Greece and in Germany and these countries where just a few stumbled words can often make the bridge for

[ Page 4021 ]

communication. So as one who can't speak French but has only had the benefit of the primitive programmes that we offered in days gone by, I found even that is of inestimable value and, of course, it does give you a reading knowledge even if your speaking is thoroughly hopeless except to mutter a few phrases.

Well, it all says, Mr. Chairman, that the youngsters of today are going to get a much better deal in this respect than the youngsters of yesterday. People are far more cosmopolitan in today's age than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It isn't just for Canadian unity that we do these things; it's because we're terribly unilingual in North America, particularly in the western part, and this extra exposure is going to stand our youngsters in good stead in future years because they'll be moving around the world much more than they have in past times. So I hope that these programmes forge ahead and I think that they're going to.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. KING: I would like to get back to the minister's responsibilities with respect to ICBC. I've been particularly intrigued, Mr. Chairman, by the recitation of events that have taken place in that corporation under the stewardship and direction of the Minister of Education as a director of ICBC. I believe his colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , is also a director of ICBC. Mr. Chairman, I asked the question of the Minister of Education on July 20, some five days ago, with respect to just precisely what his duties and the board's duties entailed with ICBC. I just want to recite to the House what the minister answered on that occasion. It's on page 520 of the Hansard Blues for July 20, the afternoon sitting. The minister had this to say: "Board people have been very heavily engaged in helping to manage the corporation."

Mr. Chairman, I wonder to what extent the Attorney-General and the Minister of Education have been involved in making management decisions within the ICBC corporation. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if they had something to do, either personally or collectively with their other colleagues on the board, with making the management decisions that the Surrey Dodge claim should be paid and that the Wood claim should be paid.

There have been suggestions of coverup, Mr. Chairman, and that's very serious. There have been suggestions that the Minister of Education, the cabinet person basically responsible for the Insurance Corporation of B.C., has set up an RCMP investigation. He made that statement last Friday. We learn today, Mr. Chairman, that there is no RCMP investigation. As of 5:55 this evening there was no RCMP investigation. There had been a request from the internal audit branch of ICBC to the local Surrey detachment for an investigation. The RCMP, who seem to know and understand the process of law better than the Minister of Education, referred the internal audit division of ICBC to the Attorney-General's office. The RCMP at that point had not heard back from the Attorney-General, either giving them authority and direction to proceed with an investigation or telling them: "No, there will be no investigation." But the Minister of Education announced that there was a police investigation. I suppose he did that out of panic, Mr. Chairman, to take some heat off his political hide. Then he comes in here today and he says: "Yes, there is an RCMP investigation. The decision was not made last Friday-, it was made today."

I don't think he knows from one moment to the next what he's going to respond. I think he's responding out of panic. I wonder if the reason that he is so singularly reluctant to talk to his colleague, the Attorney-General, and ask for an investigation into the corporation which that minister holds legislative responsibility for is because he feels that his colleague the Attorney-General is in a conflict-of-interest position too. I wonder if the Attorney-General had something to do with making the management decision to pay those two claims that have created such controversy in this province.

By his own statement the minister said the directors are making management decisions, which I suggest, Mr. Chairman, is highly improper. This comes from a minister of a government who went around this province proclaiming to heaven that there was going to be independence for all Crown agencies in this province. No political appointments, no political influence. And here the minister reporting on July 20 as it's contained in Hansard admits that the board of directors which contains two Social Credit cabinet ministers is actually involved in making management decisions on the ICBC. Is that independence?

I wonder if those management decisions had anything to do with the two very, very curious cases of the questionable payment of insurance for two claims that certainly should by any standard of law, by any standard of morality, by any standard of decency be investigated.

Perhaps the Minister of Education has asked the Attorney-General for an investigation and been turned down. Maybe that's the problem. I can't conceive of a situation where the minister would be reluctant to talk to his colleague of many political years, the Attorney-General, about an affair of this importance. First they were Liberal colleagues together, Mr. Chairman, and now they're coalition Socred colleagues. They know each other very well. Why is he so reluctant to ask the Attorney-General for a police investigation? Is he telling all the facts to

[ Page 4022 ]

the House? Has he already asked the Attorney-General and been turned down?

I think the minister owes the House a far more detailed explanation that he has given thus far. I'm alarmed and I'm extremely concerned by the whole case. But when I review the minister's statement in the House that he blithely and brazenly admits that the political directors of the corporation are making management decisions, then I become even more alarmed. There is really no place for political decision-making in the managing of Crown corporations in this province - none whatsoever. I certainly agree that there is a function in terms of setting general policy; there's a role there for government to play. But it's absolutely improper and it's an absolute abuse for two cabinet ministers to be involved in making management decisions. I certainly can't help but wonder if this is part of the reason why both of these former vocal Liberals are so reticent now about revealing all of the facts of this case to this House and getting on with a police investigation that should be underway.

I want to tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition is very patient. We're very patient and we are certainly in no rush to leave this institution. As long as it takes for him to shed the very flippant attitude that he's had thus far and until he starts levelling with the House and giving some serious responses, then certainly we're prepared to stick around until his attitude changes.

So I think they're valid questions. I'd like the minister to comment further on precisely what management decisions he and his colleague, the director, made. Did those management decisions involve the adjudication of any claims that came in to the Insurance Corporation of B.C.? What were the management decisions that he and his colleague, the Attorney-General, made? Did they involve the Surrey Dodge case? Did they involve the Wood case?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is no. The first I heard about these cases was when I understood the files had been tampered with and got notification that the NDP....

MR. LEA: When was that?

HON. MR. McGEER: This was in May. I don't have the exact date - in May of this year. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many individual cases referred to my office. I don't see them. They're routinely put on to Murray Rogan and there's a procedure for handling them within the corporation. The Attorney-General and I are not involved in management decisions at the corporation. We sit for policy decisions at the time of board meetings. Other directors, and I explained this very clearly at the time I made that statement in the House, are involved in assisting management.

For example, Mr. William Tennant, who at one time built the largest computer company in western Canada, was taken on to the board of directors to help specifically, in addition to his general duties as a director, with the straightening out of the many data processing problems that occurred at ICBC.

Mr. Norman Manning, a retired former chief of the Guardian group of companies in Canada was appointed to the board of directors. In addition to his general duties, he's taken a specific interest in the general insurance division which, until he came on the board, had lost $7.5 million. It is now making a profit.

Mr. Ralph Gillen, whom members have referred to on the floor of the House before, is a director who has taken a particular interest in the corporate organization and who has helped with the recruitment of some new executives who are badly needed in the corporation.

Mr. Don Watson, the former head of Canadian Pacific Airlines, is on the board of directors and has taken a special interest in the financial affairs of the corporation and the auditing function.

I think all of them have done tremendous service to the people of British Columbia, far beyond the call of duty for normal directors, and they've done a fantastic job. They've saved the public of British Columbia millions and millions of dollars and I think they really deserve a round of applause in this assembly. They'll be grateful I'm sure for that brief bit of appreciation.

Now with respect to claims, Mr. Chairman, there's a routine way of handling them and the only way that board members would have an individual claim brought to their attention would be if there was a special request from somebody for an ex gratia payment. In that event, we have a review committee of the board itself which will go into that file thoroughly and make a recommendation to the board. Occasionally a request comes through for ex gratia payments. But I don't even do that.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I've said to you, there are 370,000 claims a year. They pile into my office, and once I start looking at claims and trying to make individual decisions about them, I'd be doing nothing else. It's just a rigid procedure on my part that I'm not going to get involved in that sort of thing. I think the members, if they think about it, will understand that.

Now as far as the RCMP is concerned, the corporation has called them in; there was a meeting on Friday; there was another meeting today; there will be a third meeting tomorrow. From my point of view, I want the whole thing investigated - all the files - from top to bottom. But I think that the members should understand - and we've had a lot of trouble getting this point across - that just because

[ Page 4023 ]

the corporation requests it, it doesn't mean the RCMP will be satisfied, on the evidence that they've presented by the corporation, that the corporation has been defrauded. Now the members opposite are quite convinced about that on the basis of the information they've received and I'm quite prepared to personally take their word. I'd be delighted if the RCMP would start a criminal investigation. But the members have to understand that the RCMP is not my responsibility. I can't order the RCMP and if the RCMP thinks it's a bunch of hot air and baloney coming up in the House here, there's no way that you can make them undertake the investigation.

Again, if the members aren't satisfied and they want to see the whole file in these cases, bring it into public accounts and I'll arrange for the files to be there. They only have to ask for the officials of the corporation - the claims review committee - to come and they can question them directly.

Mr. Chairman, there is no coverup involved. I couldn't be happier, as I said last week, to have the police looking at the thing from top to bottom. It's one that I don't have to worry about. I haven't seen the claims files and I don't want to see them. I'd be delighted if the police would take them and scrutinize them from beginning to end. The police have met with the corporation. I'm able to confirm for the member a meeting on Friday and a meeting today. I understand there will be a meeting tomorrow.

The RCMP will be given all the information that the corporation has, including everything that is brought up in the House. If they feel there is merit to the case, then they are going to take it on. Do you expect the Attorney -General to order them to go off on a wild goose chase when they don't think the information is there? Surely they have to be given the opportunity, on request to the corporation, to review it all and make a decision as to whether there is anything worth investigating. That is why I say to you that if there is fraud involved....

That is something different, Mr. Member, from a judgment on a claim. You could have a particular claim and have all the MLAs sit in this House, and 33 of them might say to pay it and 31 of them might say not to. There is a judgment involved there and at some stage somebody has got to make a judgment. We have a claims review committee to do that. We may agree or disagree with their judgment. It may go to court and we might agree or disagree with what any individual judge says. Judge A might decide a case differently from Judge B. Sooner or later somebody has to make a decision.

The only process that we have, beyond the claims review committee, is to have consideration by the board. But that would only be in circumstances where the corporation was prevented from paying by one of its rules and where, in effect, it appeared that the law is an ass. There is a specific provision in the Act - I can get you the section - which anticipates that kind of thing and which makes it possible. Nobody is going to get me to stand up here and criticize a judgment decision that is made by the officials of the corporation. We may like it or we may dislike it. But you have to, at some stage, say: "That's it, as far as judgment is concerned."

If you come to me and say, "There has been something improper. There has been fraud. Somebody has not just made a bad judgment, but has accepted testimony on faith when they shouldn't have accepted it, " then the corporation is injured. Then the corporation is in a position of saying: "Somebody has come in and taken us." Then they can go to the RCMP and say: "We think there has been a fraud." If the RCMP agrees that there has been a fraud, then they can undertake a criminal investigation. If they do that, then the person is obliged to return the money and take whatever penalties are levied against him in court for that fraud. If what you say is correct, then these people will be nailed in court.

But what I say to you, and perhaps you don't like my style of presenting my argument, is that if you have information placed in your hands by an employee of the corporation, that in itself is not a violation of the Act. It's making it public that is a violation. You can say the end justifies the means, if by doing this we smoke out something that is improper. I think that is probably correct. But there is a way that you can go about this protecting individuals who may just be innocent, Mr. Member. They may just be innocent. If they are innocent, our law says they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty.

Your members have a perfectly good remedy for assuming that the person is innocent and raising the questions in such a way that you can get all the information that you need and more. Then and only then, if you find there has been something improper, sure, give us the devil and get the police in. That's a fair and proper way of doing it. That's not the way you went about it. This is the basis of my criticism of you.

One way or another, if somebody has defrauded the corporation, the police are onto this thing and they are going to smoke it out. Mr. Member, don't expect me to order the police, on the basis of what you present here. They are going to make up their own minds. I can encourage the corporation - and have done so - to call the police in and show them everything and say: "What will you do?" They've had two meetings. They are going to have more.

I'm satisfied with my discussions with the general manager of the corporation that they are going to be certain that the RCMP is apprised of the full extent of the claims that you have made here. They will call the RCMP in to investigate it. If that isn't done, you

[ Page 4024 ]

can always ask for the RCMP judgment of what they found through the Attorney-General. If that still isn't satisfactory, whenever the House will give me half a day and we have an ICBC board meeting, then the board can make a decision about this matter. I'm sure the board would, because despite the fact that you think it is highly political because the Attorney-General and myself are the two responsible ministers.... I'm the president of that corporation, but it is not because of my Act, I can tell you. It's because of your Act. There will be an amendment brought in this session which will make it possible for there to be a non-political president of that corporation. That will please me very much.

As I said at the time I handed in the annual report, I think my job at ICBC is done. It has turned around. The policies that will make that a self-sufficient corporation are in place.

But I tell you this. If you want the corporation to be non-political and you spend all your time in the House discussing individual claims files I can tell you it will be the most political corporation in the world. You have a remedy for getting at wrongdoing without making it a political corporation. What other result do you expect if you are soliciting confidential material all the time in order to bring it up in the House here? Does that make a political corporation or a non-political corporation? What can the employees do? What can the board of directors do if all your time in the House is spent discussing individual claims? As I say, there are 370,000 and could well take up all the time of the House from January 1 to December 31. Mr. Chairman, we have all the news pages in the papers taken up by the details of any individual claim.

If there has been fraud, if there have been improper payments, then there's a route. I for one wouldn't criticize an employee of the corporation for giving you material if you handled it correctly and that presumption of innocence until guilt was at least reasonably established was made. Mr. Member, I don't know what other things I can say here tonight, tomorrow or the next day to satisfy you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member, before you continue. The Chair has no intention of restricting debate in any way on this matter but the same questions have been asked over and over again and the same answers have been given. So I am suggesting that we may be treading very close to contravening standing order 43.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister certainly became a good deal more vocal than he has been for some time in the House. I asked him a number of questions and he went into a long political dissertation. But the one thing he studiously ignored in all of his remarks, Mr. Chairman, is that these two cases are not only a matter of some possible fraud in terms of the initial cases but there's a whole question of political interference here. There's a whole question - and there have been allegations - that undue political pressure was used to persuade management to assent to these claims. The minister doesn't seem to want to recognize that that puts the whole situation to a new dimension altogether, a dimension that should be examined and looked at by some arm's-length, independent agency. Perhaps the RCMP are the best people to do that, I don't know.

Certainly there have been serious allegations made. I think The Vancouver Sun summed it up fairly well in an editorial, and they certainly recognize that there's the taint of political scandal as well as possible fraud involved in this whole case. The minister blithely ignores that. He refuses to acknowledge that, perhaps after he himself made a statement defending the Social Credit back-bench government member who was involved in the six-and-a-half hour meeting in the president's office. The minister found that was completely acceptable. He defended the MLA's right to represent his constituents in that manner. Now he made up his own mind and we have to ask the question: is that minister now competent and impartial enough to stand back in any impartial way and look at all the revelations that have come to light, both in this House and elsewhere? I say no.

I say that if that minister was sincere, if that minister really wanted to clear the air, if he really wanted to be rid of these troublesome cases, then he would simply ask his colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , to commission an impartial and an independent police investigation into the whole matter. But instead he tries to gloss it over with a political statement in the House which completely overlooks the dimension of interference by a government member in terms of the handling and the ultimate payment of those claims. That's the conflict; that's the taint of impropriety about this case. The minister seems completely incapable of understanding that principle, and I say that's an extremely shocking and disconcerting thing.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I could bring into this House a stack of demands from MLAs about claims payments that would stand this high.

MR. MACDONALD: Any like this case... ?

HON. MR. McGEER: I could bring four or five hundred, I suppose, and then you could decide the similarities yourself.

I'll say this, Mr. Chairman. The general manager, Mr. Bortnick, is a very patient man, I'd kick anybody out of my office in five minutes if they came in, but they would get exactly the same treatment. In other

[ Page 4025 ]

words, the case would be decided on its merits, whether they stayed there two minutes, wrote a letter, or stayed six and a half hours. People handle complainants in their own manner. But I can tell you this: MLAs send in letters by the stack. There are something like 300 a month. I would hate to publish the batting average of any of the MLAs, including the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , because it isn't very good.

MLAs are cheaper, Mr. Chairman, but they're less effective than lawyers. The ultimate remedy if you don't get your claim paid is to go to court. I suppose the first try is to get an MLA free and the next try is to get a lawyer to pay him.

MR. KING: Except the member for Coquitlam is even more successful.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, as I say, this is something that every MLA has to face from his constituents. Some are thrilled to be asked to have their problem looked into, some consider it a pain in the neck. I can recall, when I was first elected to this assembly, having a whole flood of Workmen's Compensation cases handed me and I thought: "My, isn't this really something? They think that I'm important enough that I'm the one man who can look into their Workmen's Compensation." Then I found out that every one of these cases they had tried on every other MLA first and that many of them had.... I'll tell you who was a specialist at Workmen's Compensation cases - Mr. Justice Berger. He always had a long file of Workmen's Compensation cases and hammered away at the Workmen's Compensation Board and how unfair they were. He'd try privately and then he'd castigate them publicly.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , I've heard him stand up and rail away about insurance claims on behalf of a constituent. I don't know whether he charged them as an attorney or not, but I do know that he was prepared to take their case up as an MLA. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I can produce, and will produce, for the MLAs, if they so request, 100 or so of these. Then they can judge whether they're the same or whether they're different.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smokescreen.

HON. MR. McGEER: But there is one fundamental point. That is: if there is fraud it will be discovered. I would solicit the members, if they wish, to have the Attorney-General describe the process by which the RCMP work. I'm sure that if the RCMP consider there is something worthy of investigation, then there will be an investigation whether it results from a complaint by ICBC or whether it results as a directive from the Attorney-General. But I don't know, if I were the Attorney-General, that I would go ordering investigations into every charge that this opposition raises. I think that at least the Attorney-General is entitled to find out from the RCMP whether there's a basis for investigation at all. The RCMP have been looking at the ' material at ICBC. They'll be shown all of it and, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing....

May I add, Mr. Chairman - and the Attorney-General knows this - that there is nothing to prevent the Attorney-General, the member for New Westminster, or anyone else, laying a complaint with the RCMP and requesting that it be investigated - nothing at all. If they don't think the job is being done properly - by ICBC officials, by myself, or by the Attorney-General - that's a route that's open to them. If there's substance to their complaint, the RCMP is just as likely to respond to them as to ICBC officials.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you're unreal.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not the Attorney-General. I'm not the ex-Attorney-General. I'm not a lawyer and I don't order the police around.

MR. LEA: What do you do?

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, I'd be quite happy to have the former Attorney-General talk to the present Attorney-General if he wishes. Go ahead and ask him.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, before getting into a few questions to the minister, I'd like every MLA here who has intervened in an ICBC case that would benefit himself, or a company he's involved with, to please raise his hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the minister, not every MLA here.

MR. LEA: Yes, I want every MLA in here who has intervened personally for himself, and for benefit to himself or a company he's involved in, to raise his hand. That's what the minister's saying. He's saying other MLAs have involved themselves in claims with ICBC that would help themselves or a company they're involved with, and the minister owes this House and this committee the names of those MLAs. He owes us that. He owes the people of this province an explanation of who those other MLAs are who are helping themselves at the public trough. That's what we want - the names. The longer that that minister speaks, the more you learn.

We find out, for instance, that the minister said it came to his attention in May that the files had been

[ Page 4026 ]

tampered with. Did the minister report that to the RCMP? What did he do? He said in May he had information that the files in ICBC and, in particular, the file that's under discussion....

MR. LAUK: Did he say that?

MR. LEA: Yes, he did, and he said he quietly asked for a little review and then quietly put it in his desk and waited for the NDP to bring it up. That's what he said.

MR. LAUK: Do you believe it?

MR. LEA: And then he accused us of being political.

MR. LAUK: Do you believe it?

MR. LEA: I don't know whether to believe it or not.

MR. LAUK: He's an honourable minister.

MR. LEA: But why would the minister have a report to himself in May that the files had been tampered with - in other words, somebody had been into the files who shouldn't be - and the minister quietly got a review, shoved it in his desk, and didn't disclose it to anyone. Or, maybe he did, Mr. Chairman. Maybe he told cabinet in its entirety. Maybe he went to the Premier and said: "Look, the files have been tampered with, but I'm not going to report it to the RCMP like I should. I'm going to put it in my desk and I'm going to try and set a trap. I'm going to try and set a political trap for the NDP when they bring it up." He trapped himself.

We have a minister who has, I think, three degrees who has come into the House tonight and told us that younger people learn foreign languages more quickly than elderly people. We learn a lot when we listen to that minister. Anybody else wouldn't have to go to a neurologist to learn that; the minister did. He gets caught up in academic details. He doesn't quite understand that people will listen to what he says, Mr. Chairman, and sift it all out. The ego of the minister won't let him sit one question out. He gets up and flails at every one for all it's worth. That's the ego of the man.

But he set a trap for himself. In May of this year it was reported to the minister that the files in ICBC had been tampered with. What did he do? Let's surmise what he did. I'm going to suggest to you that that minister took that information down to the Premier. Who else would have to be involved, Mr. Chairman? The Attorney-General, because he sits on the board with the Minister of Education over there at ICBC. So we've got the Attorney-General and the

Minister of Education who knew for sure about the tampering with the files and didn't report the crime. Probably the Premier and maybe the rest of cabinet all got together and decided that they were going to hide a crime for political purposes until a little later on.

Is that what happened? The minister says it is. He says that he took part or did it all himself in withholding information from the RCMP that the files in ICBC had been tampered with. I would imagine he means something had been stolen. Yet the minister didn't report it to the RCMP. You have to ask yourself why. There can only be one answer: for political purposes the minister hid a crime from the RCMP and shoved the crime and all the evidence into a drawer in his office desk, to be pulled out when it was politically more expedient. That's what he admits to. What doesn't he admit to?

You know, Mr. Chairman, political coverups are seldom planned. What happens usually is the same thing that happened here: a government backbencher is in a little trouble and the Premier says: "Well, that's not much. I'll just say he was doing his duty." Then he's on record as defending that backbencher. What's the next thing that comes up? The next thing is: "Gosh, it seems a little more complicated than that. It seems that he owned a chunk of the business and still owes some money and would benefit from going and getting that claim settled." Right? But the Premier is already in and the minister is already in a little bit. They've already said: "He was just doing his duty." So when this new thing comes out they say, "He was just doing his duty, " again. They're into the coverup a little more, and a little more, and a little more. They didn't mean to be, but now they're in coverup up to their ears.

The minister responsible for ICBC has done a number of things going back as far as May, when he purposely hid a crime for political purposes. Then he has the nerve to come in this House and tell us that now he is going to call in the RCMP. He'd like to, but he can't. He'd like to ask the Attorney-General to call in the RCMP, but he can't. Why? Because he didn't call them in when the crime was first committed -according to him - back in May. That minister is responsible for hiding what he terms "a crime" from May until his admission here tonight that he took part in trying to cover that up. He started out by covering up the tampering - according to himself. Now he's trying to cover up for a backbencher. Finally, he's trying to cover up for a government and a Premier.

They have a case of political corruption on their hands and they have a minister who's been hiding and covering things up since May, by his own admission. Then he expects to come in this House, Mr. Chairman, and make out that the opposition are the dirty guys for asking about the coverup and why it

[ Page 4027 ]

was covered up. That's all we want to know: why was it covered up by that government? Why did they feel it was necessary to cover up going back - now we know - as far as May?

Something new has been added. In May that minister decided to start covering the tracks of a government p arty backbencher so that his government would look clean and they could blame the opposition. Do you know what the real crime is, Mr. Chairman? It's the stupidity of a person who would come in here and admit that while trying to cover it up. It's absolutely incredible. And I say that as soon as I sit down the ego of the man will get him up on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we continue, I must draw your attention to standing order 43. I've listened very closely and I've heard the same thing stated time after time in different ways, and the same answer has been given. And this is approaching very close to tedious and repetitious debate. I would ask you to use new material if you will, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I can't quite understand your tendency to suggest that one should not explore an area that's very important and all dimensions of that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to restrict debate; strictly use new material, if you will, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) brought up an entirely new point, namely that this minister in May thought there was tampering with the files and did nothing. Now that was new and I don't think it should be suggested that this very important debate is tedious and repetitious. It isn't in the slightest and that was perfectly good and new material, Mr. Chairman. And the minister should answer it.

MR. COCKE: I also want to deal with the question of May. In May, the minister indicated that he heard that there had been tampering with the files. And then he indicated that he asked for information. I submit, Mr. Chairman, and I believe I will prove later, that he certainly should have read the files.

Instead of that, Mr. Chairman, he received a number of documents. One document was dated June 10,1977. This document was written to Mr. Bortnick and was signed by T.F. Holmes. Mr. Chairman, this describes in general Mr. Holmes' impression of what may have occurred in files no. 1958660,1911598,19599443 and 1960175. The first three were the Leslie Wood claims and the fourth was the Surrey Dodge claim. He gives a general outline; he restates the infamous memo that was in the first part of this debate. That was the memo that read: "This was forwarded to you." This was a memo from Winfield - Winfield being the chief counsel - to John Stott of the Surrey claims centre. This was a memo indicating that they pay their lawyer for the judgment that he had taken on Leslie Wood. This memo said: "This was forwarded to you for payment on July 9,1976. As you know, we were instructed on August 24,1976, that a certain member of the Legislative Assembly intervened directly with Mr. Bortnick and we were instructed to close the file and not pursue the judgment. Please pay this account forthwith."

At that point, Mr. Chairman, upon receiving that part of the file - which incidentally is an indictment - the minister tells us that he did not then ask for the full file; instead, he asked for a report. And he did receive a report. And I have a copy that he tabled in the House on the beginning of this debate. Mr. Chairman, this is all dated June 10, so I guess this is subsequent to his knowledge, before, incidentally, I had knowledge of any of this. But that's interesting.

Subsequent to that, on July 18, the minister presented another document signed Mr. R.D. Blackburn, vice-president, giving a description of the policy that was held by Surrey Dodge. The same day, July 18, he tabled a document regarding non-payment of automobile insurance premiums, which, incidentally, was a redundant document, because we weren't talking about automobile insurance at that time. But subsequent to that, Mr. Chairman, the minister filed an affidavit in this House to support his case. Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it's absolutely gross incompetence for a minister, filing in this House an affidavit which makes certain statements, not to seek the information from the files to secure in his own mind that that affidavit is, in fact, a truthful affidavit. Because as we look at the file, we find that the affidavit was in direct conflict to everything that was in the original statement by the same person, the person who filed the affidavit, Mr. Ronald Richard Hudgins.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the minister is not interested or he is incompetent, or he did read the files and he has decided to cover up the facts. I suggest, Mr. Chairman that when the minister says:

"I don't read all the files of the claims that are made and I don't go through all the MLAs' problems, " it's a totally irrelevant statement; it means nothing.

What we're suggesting here is that a colleague of his sitting on the same side of the House.... Obviously his claims are in some doubt because even by the minister's own reports that he received on June 10, while they do whitewash the case to some extent, they still show clearly that there's a real need to look into this whole case. I would want every document on my desk were I minister in charge of ICBC. I just imagine either the arrogance or the incompetence or whatever of a minister who suggests

[ Page 4028 ]

that he doesn't read the claims information. Wilful blindness is the very best description of this kind of thing.

There are claims that I might take to ICBC on, let's say, behalf of a constituent in New Westminster or a constituent in North Peace River. That's something between ICBC and myself. And the minister is right; the batting average is very bad for everybody but the member for Coquitlam. I suggest that the average is bad for the member for Coquitlam on any of his local constituent claims. The only time the batting average changes is when the member for Coquitlam is making appeals on his own behalf; that's when the batting average begins to change and changes totally. So, Mr. Chairman, that 300 per month with a bad batting average - I would agree with that because I've had the same batting average that everybody else in this House has had with ICBC that's as tight-fisted with their claims as you can be. But all of a sudden out of the blue, ICBC becomes the most altruistic firm under the sun. I would check with any general or automobile insurance company in this country to find out whether they would pay a claim like that, and I suggest to you there would be chorus of noes. Of course there would be a chorus of noes. So the ICBC batting average only changes for one, and that's only if that one is making representation not for a constituent or even for a person in another constituency but for himself, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of different claims mixed up in that latest effort by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . He mentioned the Winfield memo and the Leslie Wood case. I don't know what the member would call a good business decision and what he would call tight-fisted. But as the member knows, there was fraud on the part of Leslie Wood in a particular claim and he collected $630-some-odd.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Leslie Wood got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, wait a minute. In this particular case it was the third party who got it because the wheel came off the car and it ran into the side of the other car. So they paid the claim of the third party.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: They paid the claim of the third party on the policy and then they have a judgment to get Wood, which is still open and which they can collect at any time. The instruction given by the general manager was: don't pursue the judgment because it's an empty judgment. There is no money; the guy is broke.

MR. COCKE: You paid Wood for the car.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, jointly with the finance company.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh yes, on the other claim they did.

But, Mr. Chairman, the point that I'm making is the instruction that was relayed in the Winfield memo on hearsay evidence was to a lawyer to pay the lawyer bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do you know what the lawyer bill was?

MR. COCKE: I don't care if it was five cents.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: You don't care if it was five cents. You are paying a lawyer $388 or something to try and collect $637 in an empty judgment. So he says: "Don't build up any more lawyers' fees. The guy doesn't have any money." I don't know. You may consider that improper or you may consider it a good business judgment by a tightfisted corporation. It's not a lawyers' welfare corporation, I can tell you that. If you are going to pay fees for outside lawyers to press judgments for $630 that are empty judgments, I personally don't think that would be very sound financial advice. I'm not really trying to make a judgment pro or con on whether or not they did the right thing. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to read individual files when there are 370,000 of them. I'd have them sending them to me by the bucket load every day and saying: "Decide this one, Mr. Minister." It's obviously ridiculous for anybody to get involved in that kind of thing. You have a process set up in the corporation and I'll defend the process, unless there has been some criminal act.

Mr. Chairman, just because the member for New Westminster or the member for Prince Rupert stands up and flails his arms and says there has been some kind of criminal act doesn't mean there has been a criminal act. The RCMP of this province are not going to jump to the speeches of the member for Vancouver East or the member for New Westminster

[ Page 4029 ]

or the member for Prince Rupert or the Minister of Education. They will judge a case on its merit after they have had an opportunity to look through the evidence. That process is going on now.

The former Attorney-General, of all people should understand that process. Every time somebody in the opposition or some citizen stands up and says there has been a crime, you leap forward and say there is an investigation. Don't be ridiculous! Don't think the RCMP is a tool of the member for Prince Rupert, the member for New Westminster or the member for Vancouver East for any mischievous or trivial charges to be made. If they examine the facts and there is substance to them, sure they will take it up. But don't expect them to leap to your speeches in the Legislature. That is contempt for the RCMP.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I find this incredible. Let's first deal with the Winfield document. What the Winfield document says is to pay the lawyer who got the judgment. ICBC had in their hot little hands a judgment, and rightly so, on Mr. Woods for $600.

HON. MR. McGEER: They still have it.

MR. COCKE: They still have it and that's criminal.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It is absolutely worthless. However, for a very short period of time they had $3,000 in their other hand to pay two other Wood claims. Why didn't they do the simple ordinary thing that any other business organization would do, particularly a tight-fisted organization, and deduct the $600 from the claim? The claims were invalid anyway. But since they were going to pay them altruistically, why the blazes didn't they deduct the $600 of the judgment that they had against Wood.

Why did they pay this to the finance company? They pay it to Wood but the finance company gets it all. The finance company is the friend of the member for Coquitlam, who financed this car he bought from them. It's a conflict of interest.

Mr. Chairman, that was the significance of the Winfield document. Do you know something else? The minister admitted having Mr. Winfield over to Victoria and having a discussion with him. You know what was the content of the discussion, I'm sure. "Would you please write us a letter telling us you didn't mean what you said on December 16,1976?"

Mr. Winfield, who is not well, no doubt went home, having said no, because the minister has not tabled such a document. This is an indictment, Mr. Chairman. What I'm trying to suggest is that with that kind of evidence the minister holds in his hands for some weeks, waiting to pounce on somebody, and doesn't do a thorough investigation himself, I think it is shocking - gross incompetence.

Don't talk to us about all those other claims. Those other claims are meaningless because those are claims at arm's length, where members are acting on behalf of their constituents. But this is entirely different.

HON. MR. McGEER: Which claims?

MR. COCKE: The claims that you were talking about - the 300 or 600 a month or whatever you get that cross your desk and the complaints from the MLAs. Mr. Chairman, this is the case. The minister should now resolve to go and read that file. He should resolve to read, for example, the document that he tabled, the document that was a sworn affidavit and then read the original claim that was made on behalf of Surrey Dodge by the same person who wrote that affidavit. I wonder why the minister hasn't got up and debated that particular piece of information that he gratuitously put forward.

In indecent haste I could suggest that affidavit was signed on July 20 in Vancouver or in Burnaby on Kingsway in a lawyer's office and hit the floor here at 2 o'clock in the afternoon - or not long after 2 o'clock - on guess what date? July 20.

Talk about airmail! That's the fastest airmail I have ever seen. Zip - over from Kingsway. Signed in the morning and tabled in the afternoon. The ink wasn't even dry on the document. The minister obviously didn't compare it, to his eternal embarrassment. He should be competent enough to at least look into what he puts forward in this House as a minister. What is the responsibility of a minister? Is it to table documents that could be. . ?

MR. KING: It was false. Let's face the facts.

MR. COCKE: Yes it was. Mr. Chairman, the minister has never denied it was false. However, he should have known. If his arrogance or whatever else is going on here is doing what appears to be happening to ICBC, then I suggest to you that it's most unfortunate.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question for the Minister of Education who has spoken of many advances by MLAs to ICBC. Does the minister know of any case where an MLA has made representations with respect to a claim to ICBC where the MLA had a personal financial interest in the result of the claim?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would have to check several hundred to be able to answer that.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, will the

[ Page 4030 ]

minister undertake to bring that' information to the committee tomorrow?

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education, in question period, as reported in Hansard - it was about July 15 - said this, talking about the Surrey Dodge case.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I can cite some precedents, and you can examine them from your roster of these, and perhaps if he doesn't I could explain the contents or he could check his own sources to get fuller material.

Claim 2000104 was the first of the claims referred to as being parallel in some sense by the Minister of Education. I ask the Minister of Education: was that a case where an MLA was personally interested in the result?

HON. MR. McGEER: If the members wish any individual claims files they can be arranged to be presented to that member or a member of the public accounts committee in the same way that vouchers are looked at.

MR. MACDONALD: Summoning all the patience I can at my command, it was the Minister of Education who presented this claim number to the House as being somewhat relevant to what we're discussing in front of this committee tonight.

MR. COCKE: It's a smokescreen.

MR. MACDONALD: Now is it possible that the Minister of Education knows nothing at all about this claim 2000104? Do you know anything about it?

HON. MR. McGEER: I've not read the claims files, Mr. Chairman, and I don't intend to.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, let's just rehearse that answer now and see what we're receiving in terms of ministerial responsibility to parliament. As a debating tactic the minister refers to six other claims. He says: "These will answer the questions that are being raised by the opposition." I think that all the backbenchers of the Social Credit Party should listen to this, because if you ever become ministers and display this kind of ignorance about what you say to the Legislature you won't last as ministers very long. The minister has come into the House and he has said about these claims: "I don't know anything about that claim." I am paraphrasing, Mr. Chairman, but that's what he's saying. Now if there is ever an abuse by a minister of the Legislature, surely it's that. Are we not responsible for what we say in this House and is not a minister particularly responsible for what he files with this House and for what he advances? Can he, with the arrogance of Marie Antoinette, lean back in his chair and turn his back and say: "Oh, I scathed at him. It was an excellent debating point but I know nothing about that file."?

MR. BARRETT: It's good for the day.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's good for the day. Any old answer for the day. Change it tomorrow. File false material with this committee. File a perjured affidavit with the Legislature of B.C. No apology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have proof it was perjured?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we have proof of it. The minister is the director of ICBC and all he has to do is look at the file and he'll find that the original statement of Hudgins, which was made at the time he made the claim, is totally at variance with the affidavit he gave to this House. Yet the minister comes in and scores a great debating point. I say, Mr. Chairman, that never has a Legislature been treated with more contempt by a minister of the Crown.

MR. BARRETT: He learned that from W.A.C.

MR. MACDONALD: He has talked again tonight about the 300 inquiries of MLAs. He doesn't know whether one of them was a case where the claim was statute-barred after the person who was seeking indemnity from ICBC was specifically warned that if he didn't take it to the courts where the courts would adjudicate on the matter within a period of another seven days, his one year would be up and the claim could not be paid. Now have you settled any other cases of that kind, Mr. Minister? Well, if you're going to answer that, I'll be glad to sit down.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I explain very patiently to the member that if he or the members of his party wish to go into individual claims of ICBC, they'll be quite welcome to do it in public accounts through the voucher method or by interviewing officials of the corporation which they have called before public accounts before? That's the proper forum for dealing with details of management of the corporation.

It would be mischievous in the extreme to expect cabinet ministers who are on boards of directors of Crown corporations for the purposes of setting policy to be delving into the individual minutiae of the corporation; I say minutiae because there are 370,000 of these claims. Mr. Chairman, one might as well ask somebody from B.C. Hydro to talk about individual light bills or somebody on the B.C. Rail to talk about

[ Page 4031 ]

the freight loadings on a particular car. Mr. Chairman, it's utter nonsense.

But we do have a mechanism set up in the Legislature by which this process can be discussed. We have a public accounts committee. We don't discuss in this Legislature individual vouchers of the thousands and thousands of votes that go before estimates. We have a public accounts committee where any voucher can be called for and where an MLA can investigate it.

I have certainly extended, I think, Mr. Chairman, a suggestion that the NDP never extended during their term of office, and that is the opportunity to look at individual claims files if they wish to do so. But if they expect to stand up in the House and ask this minister to go chasing after every individual claim file they might raise, they're not going to get it. We're here, Mr. Chairman, as ministers to set broad policy in the corporation.

If management is incompetent, management should be dismissed. I'm not satisfied there's any evidence that management has been anything but completely competent. If there has been criminal actions, we have the police to determine that. If that affidavit which they have so positively asserted knowing guilt or innocence in this House.... Perfect judges - able to determine just like that what's right or wrong in a situation-, claiming that the minister is arrogant, while they stand up and make those kinds of judgments about people who can't come in the House and defend themselves.

You're the people who are standing over here, supposed to be the champions of human rights. Those are the speeches which sound to me at this point in time just a little bit sanctimonious, Mr. Member. I've heard so many of them from you over the years. Yet when the test comes to say a person is innocent until they're proved guilty - no, we don't wait for the police to go into this. The member stands up in the House and says: "The minister knew it was false. He knows the member is guilty. He knows he came into this House with something that was perjured."

I don't know that at all, Mr. Member, and I wouldn't presume to make statements on the basis of something that I might have read from a stolen file or a file that wasn't stolen. We have courts of law, and as a lawyer and as a former Attorney-General and as somebody who has stood up in this House year after year after year championing human rights and the previous protection that an individual has in society against the abuses of big government or vicious MLAs, you of all people, Mr. former Attorney-General, are violating the rights of the individual, standing up as if you were the prosecutor and the judge and the jury about what an individual may have had in his claim file.

Shame on you! A disgrace! The worst performance you've ever put on in this House.

Well, Mr. Chairman, thank heavens we have courts of law in this province to protect the people of British Columbia against the kind of vicious, unprincipled attacks that an MLA will bring forward in this House - not just an ordinary MLA, not an inexperienced man who's here for the first time, but a man who has sat in this House longer than almost any person here, a man who has been an experienced person in opposition, a lawyer who's appeared many times in court, a person who sat not just as a minister of the Crown but as an Attorney-General. The one abusing rights of individuals, judging on in this floor innocence or guilt. Shame on you, Mr. Member! Shame on you!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Is that why we passed Motion 15, Pat?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to pay any attention to this "Shame on you" business because we're going to do our duty. In terms of that affidavit, Mr. Chairman, the facts are abundantly clear and have never been denied by the minister. He filed an affidavit in this House which flatly contradicted the information the same individual gave at the time he made the claim. Now those facts can't be denied. Are we wrong to bring those things out? No, he thinks it's funny; he says "Shame on you" and so forth.

Now I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, just what we're dealing with tonight because I want to try and sum it up.

Here we have a minister of the Crown who answers oral questions in the Legislature. He refers to a number of claims and he has not the faintest idea himself what those claims are about. Now if I'm wrong about that, I'd like the minister to get up and say that he knows this claim - for example, 2000104 - was comparable in some respects to the Surrey Dodge claim. That's what he said it was. Does he know anything about it at all? He has virtually admitted to the committee that he knows nothing about the Surrey Dodge claim, or he says lie doesn't. He hasn't read the file. He knows nothing about the Wood case, he knows nothing about these claims that he said were comparable.

MR. BARRETT: Does he have the courtesy to look you in the eye?

MR. MACDONALD: No, he turns his back and then he says "shame, " when we raise these points. We're not going to be deterred by that kind of speech from the hon. minister.

The basic issue tonight is that a minister, when he is elected to the Legislature and becomes a minister of the Crown ought to be responsible for knowing

[ Page 4032 ]

something about the information he gives this House.

MR. BARRETT: Can't you face the committee?

MR. MACDONALD: And this minister doesn't; he turns his back. Well, he's joined the party of W.A.C., Bennett. Do you remember W.A.C. used to love to do that? He would roll around in his chair and show his back. He used to complain about it. Do you remember that? He'd swing around in his chair, the picture of arrogance.

But I want to be sure what we should tell the people of British Columbia about this, Mr. Chairman. I think it's very clear. If I'm not stating it correctly, let me know.

He comes in as the minister, he talks about claims and he hasn't the faintest idea of what those claims are about. In the important three claims we have brought to his attention he makes a virtue about knowing nothing about them and not reading the file. He's a director of the corporation concerned. Now if I'm wrong about that - that this minister just files things without having any knowledge of what they're about in this House - then I'd like to be corrected, but I presume that's correct and that's what we're receiving. Surely that is the height of arrogance to.... You know, it's almost unbelievable.

We've always thought that a minister of the Crown who got up in question period or in Committee of Supply - not public accounts committee; we're dealing with this in Committee of Supply, as we have a right to do - would stand behind the answers he gave, that he would have some research and some knowledge of what he was saying when he stood up and answered questions, not just a flip answer and then when he's challenged on something, say: "Well, I haven't read the file. I really don't know anything about that case." Who is the real minister? Is it a public relations man who is making up these answers for the minister?

MR. BARRETT: Well, fire him if he is.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, some of them have been false. They were false as we pointed out this afternoon when he filed an answer saying that the Surrey Dodge claim has never been denied. Well, it obviously had been denied, It was a false answer he gave the Legislature. Now that is the height of ministerial irresponsibility and arrogance to make statements to this Legislature and not know what you're talking about and know nothing about the claim, and to cite the actual claim number and know nothing about it. Now if I have been overstating the thing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to understand. That's what I gather from the minister's performance tonight, and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I take it that of the six claims that he mentioned on July 15 and he said were comparable, he doesn't know anything about any one of them. I think that for a minister of the Crown, in any government, that is highly irresponsible behaviour. Before he speaks in the Legislature he should have some knowledge of what he's speaking about. Are we debating with some shadowy person in the background who has said: "Claim 2000104 is comparable to the Surrey Dodge case."? Who is he? Who is the person who gave us that nice gem for which the minister says now: "I have no idea whether that answer I gave is true or false because I know nothing about it."?

I think I've summed it up correctly. I think this is the end of ministerial responsibility. I think the Premier ought to take a look at this, Mr. Chairman, if he's got ministers who are standing up in question period and referring to claims about which they know nothing. They haven't bothered to read the file -they don't know whether it's an auto accident, or a horse ran into a barn or what it is - but they answer because it suits the needs of the moment. If this is the, standard of performance of this government on question period and on answers to questions in this Legislature, the people of the province ought to know about it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I did say I would be prepared to read a file under certain circumstances. You table the material that you've stolen and I'll compare it with the true file. Or I'll produce the true file for you in public accounts and you can compare it with the material you've got that's stolen. Then you'll know, Mr. Chairman, whether you've got complete information or incomplete information. I don't know whether you have or whether you haven't, but I know this: you've made a lot of charges in this House. If they're true, somebody's guilty of fraud and they'll be up in a criminal investigation and pay the penalty for it. If they're not, and it won't be decided, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of debates in the Legislature or on the basis of press reports. It will be decided where these things must be decided - in a court of law. You may take the attitude in here, and it might suit your political convenience for you to say: "Guilty until proven innocent." That's what you've done, Mr. Member. You have a double standard. You have one standard for the people whom you want to represent and you've got another standard for the others.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: You're hypocritical, Mr. Member, that's what you are. You're not a champion of human rights. You violate them right here on the floor of this Assembly and try and justify it. Shame on you, Mr. Member.

[ Page 4033 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! I'll have....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. I have two complaints on what the minister has said. When he says: "Shame on you, " that's little boy stuff and I'm not objecting to that. Let him say that. But when he says that I stole documents, I want that withdrawn, and when he says I'm hypocritical, I want that withdrawn. I want unqualified withdrawals on both. Unqualified. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! Would the minister please withdraw the offending phrases?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I said that you stole them, I certainly do withdraw that. I meant to say they were stolen. Now, Mr. Chairman, I won't make my own judgment and I do withdraw the "hypocritical." I'll let the other members judge for themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered. Just withdraw. It doesn't need any qualification.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll withdraw it, without qualification.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just interrupt long enough - and you're not the offending member -but I must take a moment of the committee's time and remind all hon. members that it is very difficult for the Chair to maintain order, particularly when members are not addressing the Chair. May I rehearse again what addressing the Chair is? It means we must direct our debate to the Chair - not to members opposite, but to the Chair. The member who is now speaking is one of the best in this regard.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's particularly easy tonight because it's very difficult to address the back of a head in any event and so I'm only too delighted to address the Chair under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to your attention one thing the minister said. He said, and he was talking about Mr. Hudgins: "A person who cannot come into the House and defend himself." I would like to bring to the attention of the House that Mr. Hudgins sent us a message. He gratuitously signed an affidavit which was able to fly over the pond, because it was signed on July 20 and tabled in the House early in the afternoon of the same day.

MR. BARRETT: That's service!

MR. COCKE: That person is unable to come into the House to defend himself. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to that person who is unable to come into the House to defend himself, that he shouldn't be sending messages into the House through the minister as his messenger and expect the House to have absolute mercy with respect to what he says. I just want to very quickly review what he said in his affidavit.

MR. BARRETT: Are you the monkey or the organ grinder?

MR. COCKE: In his affidavit, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hudgins said:

"During the month of June, I telephoned ICBC Surrey claims office and advised the person who answered the phone that the vehicle in question which had been stolen, namely a 1969 Mustang, had been recovered. The person to whom I spoke told me to wait until the strike was over."

Now I'm going to compare that with what he said again in his signed document at the time of the claim, March 25,1976: "We did not report this to ICBC at the time of the theft due to the strike." Then his sworn declaration says: "Approximately one week after the ICBC strike was over I again spoke to someone at ICBC Surrey claims office by telephone and was told to go ahead and have the Mustang fixed and submit the claim." But listen to this. In his original statement he said: "In September, when the strike was over, the car was sitting waiting for repairs and was completely forgotten about as far as the insurance claim was concerned."

MR. BARRETT: Oh well, change the story again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, even a Social Credit minister....

MR. BARRETT: He's pushing the core programme and he can't even read.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Even a Social Credit minister should recognize the conflict here. If he didn't read the original file under these circumstances when he's putting forward something as important as an affidavit, what's he doing as minister of anything?

MR. BARRETT: He talks about little kids not being able to read.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's not good enough. The last two statements in the document are equally contrasting. There's no point in me reading them again, other than to say this: the minister has had this material for very close to a week, from July 20 to

[ Page 4034 ]

July 25 - five days - but to this moment he has not mustered any defence whatsoever for himself having put forward the affidavit or for Mr. Hudgins who made the affidavit nor has he made any argument whatsoever with respect to the conflict.

Mr. Chairman, his arguments have holes. Every time he stands in this House he mentions the police, police, police, police. The reason is to take at least some assistance from a smokescreen that he's inventing to try to defend himself in an indefensible position.

The minister also raises public accounts. He said we can get vouchers from ICBC. What kind of vouchers is he talking about? Public accounts are for financial vouchers. I just don't understand him. If that's the case, I would like to seek a voucher right now. I would like to find out whether or not Surrey Dodge owed any other money to ICBC. I'd sure like that voucher.

Mr. Chairman, I suspect the minister, when he talks about my colleague having a double standard and being hypocritical, is begging every question that the former Attorney-General, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , raised. He knows full well that the member for Vancouver East raised some excellent arguments that have not been answered in this debate; nor have they been answered for the last number of days when the minister has been under attack, and justly so, for mishandling this claim situation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think it was Orwell who invented the words "doubletalk" and "doublespeak." I think it was Orwell who gave the world a description of 1984 and people in authority. . . .

MR. LEA: In Animal Farm.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that was the name of the book - Animal Farm. "Any answer will do, " and "Big Brother will give you all the answers you need." When the going got tough it was always doublethink and doublespeak, with a certain arrogance attached to a position.

If I may make some observations that are permitted in a debate like this about this minister, I find it ironic that it's that minister who displayed his back to us tonight, in perfect copy of W.A.C. Bennett. I think it's appropriate to remind the House of what W.A.C. Bennett said about that minister -it's just a little short reminder - when that member caught a whale. They had a whale captured for six months, and he went around proclaiming that the whale was a female and pregnant. When the whale died - and that member was part of the scientific team that examined the whale - they discovered after some lengthy examination that the whale was a male.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you can't be right all the time.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct! And I remember one particular night that minister, in his usual doublespeak, was up attacking W.A.C. Bennett, and W.A.C. Bennett got up and said in his usual style, both arms up: "Aha! How could anybody believe any member who couldn't tell something as obvious as the sex of a whale - especially a male?" There it was! W.A.C. speared him in a hurry.

MR. LEA: He was just going from memory.

MR. BARRETT: Just going from memory - he certainly wasn't going by feel!

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have seen this same arrogance and the same performance from this member who learns absolutely nothing other than every 24 hours is a separate day and, by golly and by gosh! "What I say from day to day does not have to be connected because it's a new day and yesterday's history." He's a charmer. He's a compartmentalizer. He's able to really convince himself that what he said a day or a week ago or what he may say tomorrow has absolutely no relevance to what he says at the moment.

We've seen a contradiction of statements that makes the whale error look like a mouse. Mr. Minister, we've seen you say in this House: "The NDP stole documents." And you particularized it and withdrew the remark. I appreciate that. Then you said: "Oh, don't judge anybody, Mr. Former Attorney-General; don't make slanderous statements. The defender of human rights." But it's okay for you to say the NDP stole documents. That's doublespeak.

Now you also tell us in this House that you knew in May that the documents were gone. Is that correct? I think you can nod your head from that chair, but you can't speak from that. He said he knew in May, and that the NDP were going to raise it.

I'd like to ask the minister, if he knew that the stolen documents were stolen in May, as he says, and it was the NDP, why you didn't go to the RCMP and lay a charge with the RCMP that the NDP had stolen documents. He tells the Attorney-General: "You can go lay a charge, Mr. Former Attorney-General." He makes a great public to-do through doublespeak that he says the NDP stole files. He says he knew in May, but he never went to the RCMP and said: "Charge the NDP with theft."

Did he think the NDP would raise the stolen documents the Premier used in the last election campaign? Oh, excuse me, I didn't mean to raise that, Mr. Chairman. That's doublethink and doublespeak. They had stolen documents too, but they were Social

[ Page 4035 ]

Credit, you see; and when they have stolen documents, it doesn't count. Doublethink, doublespeak. Excuse me, this poor, humble socialist daring to ask such a free-enterpriser capitalist for some consistency in his argument. After all, why should I do that? There's been no consistency in his politics. He'll join any party for power.

I beg your humble pardon, Mr. Chairman, that I should dare to talk to a university professor in these quizzical tones. After all he's pushing a core programme, Yes, he's the one who's pushing the core programme.

My friend asked him the question: "Where did he get the affidavit within 12 hours of it being sworn out?" He didn't read it; he just filed it in the House. Would you please tell us who gave you the affidavit?

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Education: where did you get the affidavit? Would you like to write that down? One question: would the minister please tell this House where he got the affidavit? Was the affidavit brought to him by Mr. Kerster? Was the affidavit delivered to ICBC and then to the minister? Was the affidavit solicited by the minister? Who gave you the affidavit and was it requested? Have you got those down? Who gave you the affidavit? Okay, that's one.

Why did you not go to the police if you knew in May that the files were missing or tampered with? That's two.

Three, can you bring any evidence to this House that any sitting MLA has tried to intervene for himself on behalf of any policy which they have a direct or indirect connection with in ICBC? If you cannot do that, sit, I think that you're trampling on privilege because you are impugning that some other MLAs have interfered in cases that affect them.

Four - I think it is - do you think it is proper for an MLA to take up a case with ICBC or with any Crown corporation, in which that MLA may have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest? Do you think that's proper? I think there's even a House rule. What is the standing order? Standing order 18. The Premier thinks it's all right that an MLA bring up a case that involves himself or herself directly. But does the minister think that's proper? And does he know of any other MLA who's done it? Does the minister understand that there may be some question in the public mind that it may not be proper for an MLA to represent himself or herself at a Crown corporation with a case involving their direct or indirect financial interest? Did the minister, when he got up along with the Premier, saying that an MLA has the right to defend a constituent, include in that definition the constituent, i.e., himself as the MLA? When you said that it's the right and the duty and the responsibility of an MLA to get in there and fight for their constituents, does that include fighting for an MLA who has a direct or indirect interest in the case?

What would you do, Mr. Chairman, if I cracked up a car and came to the ICBC and said, "Hey, settle my claim" and it was the Leader of the Opposition sitting for 61/2 hours in the corporation director's office? Would you come to the House with that information in May or would you wait until someone else raised it? Do you know what I think? I think Mr. Member for Vancouver East, that that minister has a selective process of administration and rules. I have a deep suspicion, Mr. Chairman that if the member for Vancouver East had owned Surrey Dodge; if the member for Vancouver East was on the short end of a note; and if the member for Vancouver East went and sat for six and a half hours in Mr. Bortnick's office; that the minister would call a press conference immediately upon learning that the member for Vancouver East was in there for six and a half hours and say the member for Vancouver East is trying to get some undue advantage for himself at ICBC. I think he would do that if it were you.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no way I would stay there for six and a half hours.

MR. BARRETT: No way you'd stay for six and a half hours. That's no offence to Mr. Bortnick's company. No, certainly not. It's a double standard, and also, of summing up in the one description, doubletalk. How ironic that fate has compressed events into this short space of time for us to be able to remember very clearly how that champion, as leader of the Liberal Party, vilified Social Credit's arrogance. How ironic that on this night of July, 1977, we have the back turned to us, the personal attack in response to questions, and the doubletalk. What is the book that he wrote? Yes, and then he laughs about the book he wrote. Mr. Chairman, it's all funny when the minister says these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) please restrain his exuberance?

MR. BARRETT: I think what the member for Prince Rupert wants is someone to autograph the book twice, in the beginning and in the back, so you know it's the same person in the middle who wrote the book.

Mr. Chairman, those of us who have a longer time here can smile, and share a smile with the minister, because you think it's all a game, don't you? It's all been a great big fun game. It's been a great day.

MR. MACDONALD: Tomorrow it will be different answers.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, different answers tomorrow. Strike the clock at midnight and today is over and I don't have to be responsible for what I said today.

[ Page 4036 ]

Tomorrow is another day and I can give another set of answers. It's all fun in the long run, isn't it, Mr. Minister? Yes, it was all fun when you sat there and made those speeches about Social Credit. You have been able to upstage them in their arrogance, yes. Mr. Chairman, even in the highlights of the days of Robert Bonner, when he was the great defender of the faith - namely, W.A.C. - we have never seen such an arrogant performance as we have tonight from that minister. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's all fun, Walk out of here and smile and think: "We've really confused the newspapers and the opposition." Have a little laugh with your leader and say: "I told them. And you ought to see the answers I've made up for tomorrow. I can hardly wait." One day at a time, one answer at a time, without answering any of the questions that have been directed. Don't stand behind your own statements. Don't display the traditional responsibility not only for cabinet solidarity but also for your own statements.

My colleague, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) , came in this House, Mr. Chairman, and named specific cases. He didn't bring them up; they were brought up by the minister. The reason the minister brought them up was because he wanted to draw attention, according to the minister's own words, to similar cases that he said were close to the ones we brought up.

So my good friend, in his very open manner said: "I ask the minister to tell me what those cases have in similarity to the Surrey Dodge case and the Wood case." Guess what? It was another 24 hours; it was another 48 hours. It was a different day, different answers. He said: "Don't ask me to talk about those claims that I brought up, that I said were similar, because I don't know anything about those claims that I brought up and I said were similar."

Orwellian? I think it embarrasses poor old George's memory. I'm not talking about the member for Coquitlam. I'm talking about the late George Orwell. Poor old George's memory has been abused tonight. We have double-doublespeak and double-double think - a new invention for the core curricula of British Columbia.

The minister then went on to say: "I want to call in the police now. I don't know how to get them. I tried to blow a whistle last Friday and that didn't work. I thought I might talk to the Attorney-General because I do think that the Attorney-General is the chief law officer of this province." Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He couldn't see the Attorney-General so he didn't talk to the chief law officer. But he did beg the leader of legal brains in this House, my colleague here, the former Attorney-General: "Could you please go to the cops?

1 blew the whistle and nothing happened. I don't know if the Attorney-General is going to go, but will you, the member for Vancouver East, please go and get the police?" They had the file since May and didn't call the police. He never even went up to a box and rang the bell and said "Coppers!" No sir, not a word.

Then he came into the House today and he said: "On Friday there was a meeting." I phoned ICBC and ICBC said the first contact was today. So tonight he comes in with a story: "Well, the meeting was Friday. There was one today and there is going to be another one tomorrow." Now we're going to have another meeting tomorrow that he knows nothing about. He didn't know anything about a meeting on Friday until he changed his story tonight. He wasn't sure about the meeting today. He tries to tell us there is going to be another meeting with the police tomorrow but he doesn't know he is going to discuss because he doesn't want to interfere.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Ah, come on.

MR. BARRETT: Here is the Minister of Health groaning back in the back bench. Mr. Chairman, he is stirring. Let's not stir the crocodile.

So there we are. We get three different stories in one day and five different stories in two days. You come in here with files and you say these are comparable. The former Attorney-General asked you to compare them and you said you didn't know anything about them. Now to cap it all off, what is the latest twist, what is the latest device? I'm almost embarrassed to repeat it. He says: "Go to public accounts." They've got legislation in this House that I will not discuss, Mr. Chairman, that is designed to emasculate public accounts by taking away any authority that public accounts has with Crown corporations. Oh, we forget about that. That's tomorrow's debate. Don't remind people of that.

What has happened in public accounts? I have to remind the committee because we're two different groups. An attempt was made to erase tapes in the public accounts committee Nixonesque style. Who initiated that attempt? Why none other than a Social Credit backbencher who appears to have some connection with the Surrey Dodge case. He crops up in the most unusual places - front bench, back bench.

He's been silenced, yes. The Speaker said: "You can't burn tapes. Look what happened to Richard Nixon. He got burned." Oh, they didn't want to burn all the tapes, Mr. Chairman; they just wanted to erase a few sections. I mean let's be fair about it. They don't want to burn the whole thing - just rub out a few spots, that's all.

Can I get an answer before I I o'clock as to who gave you the affidavit? Could you tell me that? Can

[ Page 4037 ]

you give me the name of who gave you the affidavit before I I o'clock?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can't do that; that's for tomorrow, Mr. Member. You've got to understand that he's thinking up an answer for tomorrow which doesn't fit in to what he said today. I'm addressing this member to stay in order because it was your question, Mr. Chairman, and I tried to direct it to him.

So, Mr. Chairman, what do we have? We've had a whole day of the minister running downhill, away from the peak of his own statements, running away from the great heights of oratory he took this House in his defence, making up little bits as he goes along, answering the member for Vancouver East by attacking him personally, being forced to withdraw by the Chairman who did a very good job.

Mr. Chairman, I've seen an awful lot of arrogance in this House, but I've seen nothing that matches the arrogance of the present Minister of Education who sits as a board member on ICBC. Studied arrogance -inherited attitude of the right to rule. He comes from the Liberal Party with his great statements, joining that coalition group and presuming, like all converts, that he has to be more fanatic than the basis of the group he's joined. A level of arrogance that I have not seen matched in this House. Not a shred of guilt, not a shred of pain, not a shred of awareness, Mr. Chairman, of how he has flaunted and abused this committee all day and all evening. Then, when it's all over, turn your back and giggle and have a little laugh with the Premier because it will all go away tomorrow. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's not going to go away tomorrow. This smells and the odour is going to linger for a long time.

I draw your attention to the clock, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed I- Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While in committee my attention was drawn to the clock, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 0 1 p.m.