[ Page 5555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 5555

Mr. Cocke 5565

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some good news with the House. Burnaby Cablevision are the new Canadian junior champions in lacrosse in Canada. Yesterday evening they won the Minto Cup by defeating Ontario 17-10, and thus winning the series four games to two. I'd like the House to know that this is the first time in 22 years that the cup has been won by a western team playing in the east, and it is the first time in 28 years that both the Minto and Mann Cups have come to British Columbia. I think the House would be pleased if we sent a congratulatory telegram on behalf of the Legislature to the team.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today observing the start of our sitting this morning are approximately 3 5 students - mainly from grades 11 and 12, but I think there are one or two grade 10 students - from Lambrick Park Secondary School. I welcome them on behalf of the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , inasmuch as the school is in his constituency. The member may note, however, that a number of the students are actually from Saanich and the Islands. They are accompanied today by Mrs. Patricia Gerard. Would the House make them welcome?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are a number of people I would like to draw to the attention of the House. They are: Mr. Richard Sullivan, shop steward, CUPE 881, a social worker with the Vancouver Resources Board budget committee; Pat Colford, president of CUPE local 881, and another Vancouver Resources Community Board worker; Nick Phillips, recording secretary of CUPE local 881, another Vancouver Resources Board social worker-, Dave Morgan, first vice-president of CUPE local 881; Rhona Will, a Fairview-Mount Pleasant Resources Board financial-aid worker; Jane Wolverton, assistant to the comptroller for Vancouver Resources Board accounting; Ed Hepting, co-chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board joint council of unions; Jean Swanson, secretary of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association; Libby Davies, chairman of Save the Vancouver Resources Board joint committee; and Bruce Eriksen, vice-president of Downtown Eastside Residents Association.

They're in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, to watch the beginning of the debate on Bill 65, and I would like the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today in Victoria are some relations of mine from Holland, Mr. and Mrs. William Van Haigh, and their son Joss; and also my wife, Lillian. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 65.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to initiate the debate and discussion of Bill 65, the Community Resources Boards Amendment Act. My pleasure stems from the fact that much already has been said about this legislation, about what it will accomplish or will abolish, and I think it is important now that we cut through much of the nonsense and misinformation that has been widely circulated by a variety of vested interest groups.

I have heard much talk about the legislation signaling a return to the old days when Vancouver saw long line-ups of down-and-out welfare recipients clamouring for assistance at a few run-down offices sprinkled throughout the city. The suggestion by opponents to this bill has been that we are returning to days of inefficient, heartless and bureaucratic provincial control of social services in Vancouver. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, memories are short.

Before discussing where we will be going with the legislation, I think it is important to review where we have been and where we are or aren't with the delivery of welfare benefits and social services in the city.

First, let me clarify one point. Social services have never been delivered by the Ministry of Human Resources under any of its previous departmental titles in the city of Vancouver. Those with short memories have forgotten that prior to the establishment of the VRB in 1974, there was a tri-level administrative structure in Vancouver. Any allegations of poor service must be directed there and not at the province.

It is quite apparent from all the news reports and material available about this structure that it certainly suffered from inefficiency, duplication and bureaucratic red tape, but it wasn't the province's fault. Welfare was being handled by the city of Vancouver while the Children's Aid Society and the Catholic Families and Children's Services wrestled over jurisdiction of social services delivery in

[ Page 5556 ]

Vancouver.

No one today wants to dispute the fact that the system was a mess, but I recall the wounded cries of anger when, on February 25,1973, the previous minister informed the citizens of the city of Vancouver: "I see my job partly as dismantling empires.-

Anyone who cares to take the time to read back over the newspaper articles of the time will be intrigued, if not amused, to find that the arguments being used today against Bill 65 are the same as those used in 1974 against the establishment of the VRB. It was called bureaucratic. It was blasted for provincial intrusion. It was seen as the end of local input and community control of social services.

In response to the arguments, the minister of the day called it rubbish and charged ahead. He dismantled the tri-level structure and abolished the control of the societies. He emasculated the authority of the city of Vancouver and took over control for himself.

I don't wish to inflict upon this House the full debate of that legislation, but again, those choosing to review the material that is available will find that editorials of the day labelled the move as "Mr. Levi's farcical pragmatism, " and suggested that "Mr. Levi's inspiration for the new neighbourhood welfare and administration system came from Alice in Wonderland. That was a quote in The Vancouver Sun on February 2,1974.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that rulings exist in this House that ministers and members may use copious notes, but the minister is reading a full speech. I'd like a ruling on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware that copious notes and extensive notes can include a very detailed draft of what is to be said in second reading on a bill. It is certainly....

MR. BARRETT: He's reading it word for word.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It is not a pre ce dent -setting incident in this House ...

MR. BARRETT: We want the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

... for a minister to prepare very copious notes when delivering his address in second reading, as it is for members who are the shadow cabinet critics for those particular bills.

MR. BARRETT: We don't read speeches.

MR. SPEAKER: So I see nothing that is precedent-setting or that has not happened before on many occasions in this House.

MR. BARRETT: Is he reading a speech or isn't he reading a speech?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Maybe if the minister could just look away from his copious notes for 10 or 15 seconds, the rules of the House would be satisfied, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is not well founded.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I'd like this clear. Are you ruling that the practice of this House is to read speeches verbatim? Is that acceptable practice in this House? I'd like to know the rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm suggesting to the hon. members, all of whom are well aware of the practice of this House, that copious notes and extensive notes have been used many times by many members. If it is the wish of the House that that not be a continuing practice of the House, I suggest that the members put that suggestion by motion in writing.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it's another rule of this House that those who read from documents should table them. I would ask the minister if, at the conclusion of his speech, he would table the document he's reading from.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not for the House to submit what rules should or shouldn't be. It's for the Speaker to enforce the existing rules.

MR. SPEAKER: That is what I'm doing, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: And they must not read a speech.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in response to the arguments, the minister of the day called it rubbish and charged ahead and dismantled the tri-level structure, abolished the control of the societies, emasculated the authority of the city of Vancouver and took over control for himself.

MR. BARRETT: Copious notes.

[ Page 5557 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't wish to inflict upon this House the full debate of the legislation, but those choosing to review the material that is available will find that editorials of the day labelled the move as "Mr. Levi's farcical pragmatism, " and suggested that "Mr. Levi's inspiration for the new neighbourhood welfare administration system came from Alice in Wonderland."

MR. BARRETT: Attaboy! That's in note form -written by J. Walter Thompson in note form.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the critics of the day insisted that the legislation creating the VRB and its pygmy Community Resources Boards was ill-conceived, and that the minister was flying by the seat of his rumpled pants. Today those same arguments are being used in defence of the VRB by people with political motivation. How memories become clouded, Mr. Speaker.

In all fairness, I don't think either of the positions was, or is, correct. I can't agree that the VRB is not an improvement over the existing tri-level system. To the credit of the previous minister, the effort was better, and social services are more effective in Vancouver today than they were five years ago. People who faced long line-ups and scattered services....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 1 points out that in cases not provided for in this booklet of standing orders, we refer to the customs of the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Sir Erskine May, 18th edition, page 404, on reading speeches.

"A member is not permitted to read his speech, but may afresh his memory by a reference to notes. The reading of written speeches, which has been allowed in other deliberative assemblies, has never been recognized in either House of Parliament. A member may read extracts from documents, but his own language must be delivered bona fide in the form of an unwritten composition."

I understand further, Mr. Speaker, that if....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think Mr. Speaker's listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you blame him?

MR. NICOLSON: I might have to move adjournment of this point of order until the next sitting of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Reader's Digest, Ed.

AN HON MEMBER: Very funny. Nunweiler would make you look good.

MR. NICOLSON: I also understand from the authorities that beyond the two citations which I have given, it is also.... However, we referred some days ago to the reason why we do not ask the motion for leave when we rise from committee and ask leave to sit again. We do not do so, because that is the practice of this House, and it has been an established practice.

So I would like to have it clear. It is obvious that the minister is reading his speech. Is it the practice of this House, then, that we are allowed to read speeches? Let's not play games about this any longer.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite correct, hon. member. Let's not play games with the time of the members of this House. I'd like to quote for the benefit of all of the members of this House from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th edition, page 445: "The Chair does not as a rule intervene unless appealed to and unless there is a good ground for interfering in the interests of debate." It is my observation, hon. members, that everyone in this House at one time or another in the past few weeks has indicated a very great interest in the debate on this bill. It is an important piece of legislation, both from the standpoint of the government proposing it and from the standpoint of those in the opposition who have indicated a particular stand. It is not the intention of the Chair to interfere in the presentation of the remarks of any member in second reading as long as they're in order and are not an abuse of the rules of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order that we do not have to canvass this over and over again.... The reason it is being canvassed is because it is unclear. This is an important debate, but the rules of this House are important also. So I would like it very clearly spelled out that if it is your ruling that members be allowed.... It has been the practice of this House for similar reasons, as you pointed out to me the other day, that we don't really ask leave even though we make a motion that we ask leave to sit again. Is this, then, the ruling of the Speaker - that members can read speeches? I'm not commenting on whether that's good or bad, Mr. Speaker, but we have to bring up a point when it arises. A minister is reading a speech in this House, and we have to know that.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this has really gone far enough. Every member in this House, and particularly those on the

[ Page 5558 ]

opposite side, know that it's been the practice of this House for years and years and years that the minister introducing second reading of a bill has always used speeches, if you want to call them speeches, including those members on that side of the House when they were in government. It's been the practice of this House ever since I've been here. If that member for Nelson-Creston had used notes when he was a minister, the people of this province might have been able to understand what the devil he was talking about.

MR. NICOLSON: I refer you to standing order 9. This is a serious point of order. I have cited from Sir Erskine May. The Minister of Health has gotten up and made a facetious comment in this House, and he's been taking up the time of this House. Let's get this over with so that this point need not come up again and disrupt any other member when he happens to be reading a speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order, please?

MR. NICOLSON: My point of order goes back to page 404 of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition, because that is what standing order 11 of our House tells us to do when our rules are silent.

"A member is not permitted to read his speech, but may afresh his memory by reference to notes. The reading of written speeches, which has been allowed in other deliberative assemblies, has never been recognized in either House of Parliament. A member may read extracts from documents, but his own language must be delivered bona fide in the form of an unwritten composition."

Mr. Speaker, this is a written composition. It's already been proven by virtue of the fact that he lost his place and went back and repeated a full paragraph of that speech for our benefit.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He liked it so much he wanted you to hear it again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, so that we not waste any more time, would you just say if it is your ruling that because of the practice of this House, members are allowed to read full speeches in this House? I'd be perfectly satisfied.

MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest to all of the hon. members of this House that in order to keep within the practices of this House, which have been established not just in recent years but for many years, in order for me to interfere with someone who was presenting their arguments in second reading, it would have to be apparent to me that for some reason they should not be allowed to continue in the manner that they were proceeding and that in the interest of the debate they should be prohibited from using copious notes and manuscripts. That has happened in this House, and I am not about to set aside that practice.

MR. NICOLSON: For him to read his speech, I would ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not necessary, according to the practice of our House.

MR. NICOLSON: Is that a ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am reporting to all of the hon. members that speeches have been read in this House on many past occasions from complete manuscripts. I am prepared to consider that as proof enough that it has happened before, and I would allow it to happen again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that it has been the practice of this House that ministers in second reading of their bills have prepared texts to be read to this House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I can recall on several occasions in this House when members opposite stood up to debate that second reading of that bill and thanked the minister. I recall the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) in particular. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , I believe, thanked him on one occasion for sending them texts of his second reading in advance. It's always been the practice, and you people have put up with it time and time again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources is doing nothing different than when a budget is presented to this House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rest period given me by the opposition. The services, as I said, are better and they will be far more effective still in the city of Vancouver.

I want to clarify another point about the evolution of the VRB, a myth that seems to dominate thinking by the professional critics with short memories. The Vancouver Resources Board, despite what some might say, did not rise phoenix-like from the ashes of the tri-level administration.

The VRB is the creation of the province. It was

[ Page 5559 ]

not modelled unto itself, but on the basis of experience elsewhere in the province of British Columbia. It was designed by Ministry of Human Resources staff on the community and neighbourhood model that can be found in a variety of cities across the province - cities like Dawson Creek, Smithers, Fort St. John, Penticton, Salmon Arm, et cetera.

If the Vancouver Resources Board has enjoyed any success with delivery of services, it is because the model used is the one being effectively employed elsewhere in the province. It was the leadership of the Ministry of Human Resources that gave the VRB direction and eliminated the line-ups, raised staff morale, decentralized services and set up mechanisms to co-ordinate and integrate the services that were being delivered in patchwork fashion by three agencies. I am not afraid, Mr. Speaker, to give the previous minister and his staff credit for trying to pull Vancouver together, though, as we shall see, it was not a very effective effort.

One more point needs to be made clear about the evolution of social services in the province. For several years now throughout B.C., effort has been made by the previous minister, and more recently by myself, to bring the system under some kind of rational control by the province. When I was the mayor of Surrey I complained loudly that municipalities should not have to administer welfare costs. The same feeling prevailed when Penticton was taken over, when Chilliwack was consumed by provincial authority, and so on for Kamloops and Kelowna.

Even here, Mr. Speaker, in the city of Victoria, the minister endeavoured to bring various agencies under one control. As a matter of fact, I think it's very curious indeed that so many members of the opposition would seek to criticize Bill 65 for doing what the previous minister did right here in the capital city. It was another schmozzle.

The municipality of Saanich had a bit of control. So did the city of Victoria and so did Victoria Family and Children's Society. Just like Vancouver, there were three levels of administration stepping all over one another at the expense of the very clients that today's critics seem so intent on protecting. Where the province has taken administrative control of social services and welfare, the effort has been consistently to develop small community offices and assure local input. I have continued that effort.

Last September, I announced a takeover of the last eight municipalities still charged with welfare administration. With only one exception, the complaints about this move were relatively minor. Most of the municipalities expressed. satisfaction at the effort, and I would suggest that most of the staff, once they understood our programme, concurred also with the takeover. I think even the exception is worthy of mention, because the criticism is in direct contradiction to those who today claim that we are attempting to grab all of the power under one central authority. In the municipality of Burnaby, the argument was put forward that we should continue to house all our staff in the municipal complex. Council and staff there insisted that social services in Burnaby be centralized.

I recall vividly a letter from council on April 6,1977, suggesting that the proposed decentralization will cause many problems with regard to the continuing quality and quantity of service to the clients because of their removal from the central civic core. I also attended a meeting with Burnaby council where the same concern was expressed by the members there. Our position has consistently been to move local offices. We have rejected Burnaby's argument and will be developing three community-based offices to serve the elderly, the handicapped children and the poor of that very deserving municipality.

Unlike the previous minister, I don't see my job as dismantling empires. Rather, I view this legislation as an effort to create some equity in the provincial social services system. To do this, we must bring the ministry closer to the people. Therefore the move to rationalize the system must extend to staffing distribution as well.

Outside of the institutions run by the ministry, there are about 1,700 staff members employed in Human Resources outside of Vancouver. In the VRB there are another 1,200 serving about one-third of the provincial caseload. . In other words, the VRB maintains about 40 per cent of the total staff complement in the province while serving about one-third of the clients.

There are many reasons for this. First, when the tri-level structure was absorbed, many of the staff-rich programmes were transferred under VRB control. It can be fairly argued that a portion of the differential can be attributed to services in Vancouver that are not performed by Human Resources staff elsewhere. I won't quarrel with the fact that the figures do not accurately reflect all of the factors in staffing. But by any fair account, Mr. Speaker, Vancouver has a disproportionate and inequitable share of the staff in the province. I don't state this as a criticism, but merely as a fact.

There are a variety of other areas where this disparity is evident, but I think the financial assistance worker caseload is fairly typical. The financial assistance worker caseload in Vancouver ranges from 136 to 232, with an average of 177 clients per worker. Elsewhere in the province the range is 171 to 499, with an average of 374. 1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the financial assistance worker caseload in Vancouver averages 177 clients per worker. Elsewhere in the province it averages 374 per

[ Page 5560 ]

worker.

As I say, these differences are not uncommon, and in some eases, agreeably, they are not unwarranted. But there are those who insist that we raise the level of staff elsewhere in the province to match that of the VRB. The suggestion, I suppose, is based on the premise that the VRB, with its higher staff complement, is effective. Quite frankly, in some instances they are. We have for some time now been trying to increase our staff complement to ensure good service in some other areas. However, in a general sense, I can cite as many examples of where the VRB is not as effective, not as efficient and not as responsive as our staff elsewhere in the province. I should mention too that the average for the province with respect to administration costs is approximately $15 worth of service for every $1 of administration. The average figure for the VRB is $7 worth of service for $1 of administration, just slightly more than double the cost for administration in Vancouver. The only other exception in the province is Victoria, which is presently being upgraded as well to change the ratios to a more acceptable level.

I would just give one example where certainly the Vancouver Resources Board is nowhere near as effective as other areas of the province, and that's in the area of family breakups. In dealing with family breakups, I feel very strongly that we take far too many children into the care of this province without first trying to assist parents to deal with problems in the home. B.C. has one of the highest ratios of apprehended children anywhere in Canada. I have endeavoured through new programmes and policy changes to assure that the first effort of our staff is toward helping families work through their problems together.

Between 1976 and 1977, the province as a whole reduced the number of children taken into care by 300, while the VRB with its higher staff ratio could do no better than to reduce its caseload by 90. Bigger is not always better, and I give full marks to staff throughout the province who have demonstrated their concern for keeping children with their families. But I believe by and large that the staff is not an issue with this legislation.

Most of the employees of the VRB are as dedicated to serving those in need as are our staff elsewhere in the province. I am convinced that they will continue to relate that kind of concern regardless of whom they work for.

I don't agree either, Mr. Speaker, with those critics who argue that Vancouver deserves special staffing consideration because it is unique or has special urban problems. I think certainly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) would agree that the Queen Charlotte Islands, in his constituency, are unique and have their own special problems. The same goes for the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who, I'm sure, realizes the difficulty in adequately serving the Slocan Valley. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House hold very special concern for the social and economic problems particular to their own constituency. I find it rather distasteful and elitist to hear that we should always be giving special consideration to Vancouver. Surely, as B.C.'s largest city, it deserves attention, but at whose expense?

I would like to touch briefly on the topic of the board members - the members themselves - and discuss their role as it is presently defined by their actions. First, let me say that three of the members are my direct appointees and I have attempted to make it clear to them that introduction of this legislation is not a reflection on their dedication to the job. They are good people with deep concern and a wide range of service involvement with other responsible organizations and agencies of government, but it is in this very fact - their other involvement -that I think the board has been ineffective in dealing with policy administration. I believe most, if not all, have full-time jobs. Many are elected representatives to other government bodies and must commit extensive time to these duties. Their time is limited - far too limited - and I would suggest that it is far too limited to oversee the administrative details of a $100 million annual budget.

During one of my first meetings with board members, I was told quite candidly that most of their efforts over the previous years have been directed towards making decisions on community grants. I was told by the members that they hadn't involved themselves in administration but that they were now trying to become involved in this aspect of the job as well. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, and in spite of their best efforts, I'm sure, the Vancouver Resources Board members are little more than puppets for a manipulative administration.

The bureaucracy in Vancouver is running itself. Not only does it often determine its own policy, but I would suggest it coerces board members into believing the kind of nonsense that is fed to them.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): And your appointees go along with that, do they?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A classic example is the letter of July 7 that I received from the board chairman, Mr. Ron Fenwick. Among the many points made was some detail regarding the staffing questions I have previously mentioned. Mr. Fenwick had chosen to compare staff ratios of one local office in Vancouver with Burnaby, which until recently had been municipally controlled. I didn't have to go very far, Mr. Speaker, to learn that Burnaby had traditionally maintained one of the higher staff ratios in the province while the local Vancouver office

[ Page 5561 ]

cited as an example by Mr. Fenwick, was among the very lowest in British Columbia.

I realize that this is a small example, but I bring this to your attention because I don't believe Mr. Fenwick was even in town at the time it was written. I am convinced he did not prepare the material himself.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The VRB manager, an economist with extensive statistical background, supplied him with the information. This manager is a gentleman who, in a recent Vancouver Sun newspaper article, suggested that on six different occasions I had asked him to fire staff. I find that strange because I have not met him on a private basis more than two or three times in the two years I've been in office. The manager is also the person who took it upon himself to release information which I had specifically requested be kept confidential. However, Mr. Schreck authorized its release on the basis of this premise aired by information spokesman John Lynn: "The VRB didn't keep the order confidential because it was public funds and we didn't want to engage in that kind of secrecy. Since there's public discussion on this now, we wanted to make sure that the public got the full details."

Isn't it splendid that the administration have taken it upon themselves to carry the burden of truth and honesty? Isn't it splendid that in spite of their hype about how much control the minister has under the Community Resources Boards Act, a simple request for confidentiality was violated by a civil servant on his own recognizance without reference to the board for whom he works?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The board is being led down the garden path into a wonderland crawling with elusive Cheshire cats. The tragedy of this fantasy is that these good people believe the illusion of information they are given. Well, Mr. Speaker, I question those facts. I ask why. I ask how. I ask: is there a better way? I ask: are we fair to all?

The administration of the VRB has insisted that they always conform to provincial directions and adhere to policy established by the ministry. When we established the provincial inspectors programme, the board balked at following the direction of accountability I wished to establish with the ministry. They resisted hiring the staff required to carry out the direction that I requested. When they finally did accede to the request, they specifically avoided following the hiring guidelines that I set forth for such personnel. With only one exception, they hired financial assistance workers with no previous investigative experience. Moreover, they have insisted upon a convoluted administrative system that prohibits the inspector from taking action without area manager approval.

It's okay for the board to accuse this ministry of establishing bureaucratic impediments, but when this coercive administration doesn't want to follow through a policy, they show little hesitation in throwing up roadblocks.

I think the figures on the number of charges pursued over the last few months is indicative of their commitment to eradicating fraud from the system and assuring accountability. In March 362 cases were initiated by the provincial inspectors but only 45 by the VRB - 12.5 per cent. In April it was 287 versus 67, or 23 per cent. In May in was 308 versus 84, or 27 per cent. Improving? Not so. In June they dropped to 18 per cent by initiating only 58 cases, while the provincial inspectors had 317. When you consider that the VRB comprises about a third of our caseload and they maintain a higher staff ratio, I think the effort or lack of it is quite evident.

The question may still remain: does the VRB administration adhere to provincial policy or do they merely pay lip service to it? I can cite a host of examples to this House which quite clearly show that the VRB makes little attempt to adhere to the policy of this government.

I've been criticized in editorials for failing to offer detailed explanation for dissolving the VRB. Each time that I have cited an example it has been disregarded as insignificant. I agree, by and large, that on the surface they may appear to be minor but, Mr. Speaker, when does a series of nickel thefts become an outbreak of crime? When do smouldering cinders become a fire? Or when do minor skirmishes become a riot? I ask you that.

The facts are that in total the VRB administrative record is rather dismal indeed. If they conform to our guidelines, why do they grant $750 annually to the community resources advisory boards when our guidelines for these boards elsewhere in the province stipulate $500? As I say, I'm sure most of us would consider that to be a minor aberration, but it is a signal along with many others. A long list of concerns has been expressed to me that the VRB has not got the word that we are no longer shovelling money off the back of a truck.

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of an impartial observer, the auditors of the Ministry of Finance. In a report of February, 1977, the comptroller-general stated about the VRB: "A number of irregular items previously reported on have not improved, and some additional problems have come to our attention during the current audit."

Let's see what the audit reveals. The audit indicated that social assistance files supporting a multi-million dollar expenditure have not been

[ Page 5562 ]

adequately controlled at the various offices. Some files could not be located; others had no evidence that original applications had received social worker approval. Some files did not contain original application forms. Others had no supporting financial record cards enclosed. The audit revealed that a large number of fraudulent claims made by social allowance recipients have been documented by board personnel. For instance, the VRB was not confirming immigration status. It was not confirming applications with other areas in the province, thus allowing for multi-area applications.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did it happen?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The board was not conducting home visits to determine continuing entitlement to assistance.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): That goes for every area in the province. You've got to understand that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The audit revealed that the care of children budget provided for special payments in excess of standard rates without the co-ordinator having approved them, and without any reason being given for the special amounts. Is that accountability?

A significant number of irregular disbursements were 'made for payment to various institutions. For example, a house parent was in receipt of $117 per them but also received an additional $1,595 for wages and expenses for two child care workers in April, 1975. However, the house parent was to provide all necessary services from the per them rate.

Another contract was to receive statutory holiday pay in May of 1975 of $244 for one day's pay, but the payment of such an amount is not included in the applicable contract. A house parent received 24 days' holiday, whereas the contract specified only 23. This type of thing was prevalent and certainly isn't available to other people elsewhere in the province.

The audit revealed that the individual contractual agreements are not being enforced by the Vancouver Resources Board. For instance, payment for items not provided in the contract required approval of the regional manager. Yet we discovered numerous incidental vouchers based on social worker or co-ordinator approval.

Another contract specified payments of $135,170, and up to $17,792 variable payments per annum. Because of the large sums, the auditors visited the home to determine if the contractual obligations were being met. Although some accounting records were being maintained, most disbursements made by the contractor were unsubstantiated, due to the lack of supporting vouchers.

Three bank accounts were utilized, but no reconciliations of the balances had ever been attempted. Cash balances in these accounts totalled $7,200. The board supplied a van and insurance to the home. Nevertheless, the contractor also was in receipt of a transportation allowance of $210 per month. The home was staffed by up to eight people, yet the contractor also received payments for house parent relief.

In another case, the audit revealed that payments were made to the New Moon Welcome Centre, based on budgeted figures for the year of $31,510. Yet payments made totalled $35,386, with no accounting, no reasons. Payments to the West Broadway Citizens Committee were made, based on two separate budgets. Because of the existence of these two budgets, an overpayment was made in the amount of $1,050, which apparently has not been recovered.

The audit also revealed that there are inconsistent irregularities in children-in-care payments. For approximately 25 per cent of all goods and service vouchers processed, specimen signatures were not on file and the auditors could not determine that they had been properly approved.

Payments totalling $2,075 for camp supplies were made, without the presentation of receipts. Payments to transition houses approximating $500 every two weeks have been made on unauthorized vouchers, with no supporting documentation.

Under car expenses, the audit revealed that a gasoline supplier was regularly adding $150 to his monthly billing for extra, unspecified services. In one instance, the contract house parent allowed a child in his care to charge gasoline on a credit card provided by the board. All payments made to Outreach children were authorized by a social worker, but they should have been approved by the worker's co-ordinator.

The VRB made regular claims to the Medical Services Commission for reimbursements of insurable medical cost. However, the audit revealed that the claims were not always signed by board officials and that a number of claims were not supported by identical billings from doctors, and no records were obtainable for October and November of 1974 to even verify the accuracy of claims made for those two months.

Is this the kind of accountability and financial administration acceptable from a board that processes 360,000 cheques annually? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not.

When I assumed responsibility for this portfolio, one of the first programmes I initiated was the establishment of a team of internal auditors. This was a group of seven people who circulate through the province, checking policy and procedure in various Human Resources offices. The audits are not simply

[ Page 5563 ]

financial but, just as importantly, deal with operations and effectiveness.

As yet we have not audited every office in Vancouver, but those which have been reviewed offer every indication that policy administration continues to be shaky. For instance, in Point Grey, in direct contradiction to Ministry of Human Resources policies, transients at a youth hostel were being provided with cash to purchase their lodging, because the hostel would not accept goods and service vouchers. So they were simply given the cash.

The audit revealed that in the Point Grey office there were few rent receipts in evidence for the overages being paid. How can staff possibly know if the amounts are correct?

Then there is the tragic case of one family in Point Grey, receiving $1,036.25 per month. This family has several members with handicaps and medical problems, and it certainly deserves every consideration. However, the evaluation audit revealed that there was an overpayment of $280 per month. The family was paying $780 per month rent, and every child was receiving a dietary allowance. In addition to the $1,036.25, the family received $490 for a foster child, and $265 since the father is in receipt of handicapped person' income assistance. This, Mr. Speaker, is equivalent to a taxable income well in excess of $30,000 per annum.

In Point Grey there is a case of a single parent who once attempted suicide and is required to receive psychiatric help. She abandoned her two children at one point, leaving them with a neighbour. She was living with a man, and the record indicates that she was planning to marry him at some point in the future. The kicker, Mr. Speaker, is that a note on the file strongly recommends this person for the placement of a foster child.

In the Fairview-Mount Pleasant office there was an instance where a client indicated net earnings in excess of allowable assistance rates. Although the file contained a notation that the client's assistance should be suspended for one month, there was no follow-up action. I relate these because they are so typical.

One client's most recent application is incomplete and the residency questions have not been answered. The latest two applications, dated February 8,1977, and December 8,1976, indicate different social insurance numbers, neither one of which would pass the validity test for social insurance numbers.

The Hastings- Sunrise office evaluation revealed that of 27 files reviewed, 12 contained applications over one year old - that's almost 50 per cent - nine of which were dated to 1974 or earlier. The team co-ordinator confirmed that approximately 50 per cent of the entire income assistance caseload in that particular office required application updating.

Despite the fact that the administration insists that they are conducting home visits, the evaluation revealed the case of a 30-year-old client who advised the VRB staff that she had separated from her husband and was staying with her sister while two teenaged children continued to live with ~her husband. No facts were provided about shelter costs or even the address where she was staying, so evidently no home visits were made. However, the client was granted a unit 3 income assistance rate, despite the fact that her children were not living with her and she indicated on her application an earning figure of $400. In that same case, the team co-ordinator made the decision that no action for recovery of SA funds should be initiated. The decision should rest with the area manager and not with a team co-ordinator.

The regional manager makes much of the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources policy is followed through. In one case, the regional manager made a decision to grant a single unit rate for a month to an individual who was awaiting unemployment insurance benefits that were being transferred from Calgary. In accordance with the services policy and manual procedures and of policy No. 6, the maximum income assistance rate that may be granted is one-half of the monthly assistance rate where unemployment insurance benefits are pending. Yet the regional manager, Dave Schreck, made the arrangement without reference to the director. In a letter of April 8,1977, from the manager to the comptroller-general, Mr. Schreck indicates that for a full investigation to be initiated, it requires a signed release of a file by an area manager before the investigator can have complete access to any file. This is the manager telling the comptroller-general.

I could go on and on with items such as this, like the negotiations to lease a building at $50,000 annually for 7,500 square feet. A separate arrangement was being considered at the same time with a private client for $1,800 per month. Vancouver Resources Board - $50,000 annually. A private client - $1,800 per month. And the Vancouver Resources Board was having to expend tremendous sums to bring that office up to the type required for their particular services.

Let's go on to the positive. The administration of the Vancouver Resources Board lacks accountability and is not responsible to the direction established by the elected representatives of the people of this province. But even the many examples of poor administration that I have cited and the dozens more that I have chosen to ignore do not constitute the full reason for introduction of the legislation. As I stated at the outset, the essential reason for the action is to rationalize the delivery of social services in every area of the province. In the public eye, social services and welfare in this province are the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources, despite some board that may be established in Vancouver. If I am to

[ Page 5564 ]

carry out my mandate for the people of this province, then a direct line of authority and accountability must be established to ensure that policies are not blocked or sidetracked by a busy board and an unco-operative and inefficient administration.

With Bill 65 we are going to bring some order into the social services system in the province and ensure that all people, regardless of where they live, receive equal consideration and service. We will be initiating a variety of steps in Vancouver to bring the administration into line with the provincial model.

Three or four regions will be developed in Vancouver instead of the one, bringing the total number of Human Resources regions in the province to 15 or 16. A regional manager will be selected for each area, instead of five area managers now in place in Vancouver. Of the total senior administration of the VRB, I see the complement being reduced. Although final details are to be worked out, it is likely that neighbourhood offices already established in Vancouver will continue in the same locations.

Some resources already offered by the Vancouver Resources Board are effective and will continue to service the lower mainland area. These would include PREP, the child-care abuse team, the computer system and the information services section. I think this decision is evidence of the fact that we are prepared to look at the Vancouver Resources Board services in a selective way and to utilize what is there.

This brings me to the final point: the question of voluntary or community input into the delivery of social services. It has been erroneously suggested that this legislation will wipe out local advisory boards. I think it is important to note that we are already providing for this kind of involvement in other areas of the province, and quite successfully.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the ministry or this government are not committed to encouraging and organizing community support. Advisory boards have been established in Prince George, Surrey, West Vancouver and Victoria to assist regional managers in setting local priorities. Staff are now assisting local community groups in such areas as Richmond and Quesnel to form similar advisory groups. These groups help develop community programmes and ensure their ongoing responsibility to community service. They assist with the establishment of family and children's services and identify problem areas for possible ministry involvement. They examine services to the elderly and the handicapped to make recommendations about future programming. They help with day-care centres, transportation services, achievement centres and the widest range of social considerations.

We have recently developed the Handicapped Guild, with a community-based board of volunteer directors to assist handicapped workshops in developing their capacity to assist the physically and mentally handicapped. We also have developed Project Life to assure community placement of retarded persons now resident in institutions. Again, the people who will assist with this programme will be volunteers from the community with a keen interest in seeing these services provided on a local basis.

I think it is obvious that this kind of voluntary input is a very important ingredient in our human resources programme. Unfortunately, in Vancouver these boards began as elected bodies and have never quite divested themselves of this political origin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was the previous minister who suggested that he didn't want "minor political organizations to dominate the boards." But regrettably we have highly politicized groups such as the Downtown Eastside Residents Association in control. I think the fact that over $4,000 was spent by these advisory boards to stage political protests in Vancouver and Victoria is further evidence of this political orientation.

I was also amused to learn from a recent audit of the boards that one of the delegations thought itself sufficiently elite to take a taxi to and from the ferry terminus when they attended the protest. This is another one of those little insignificant things, another of those so-called "little violations."

I am concerned once again about the attitude that seems to pervade the senior administration of the Vancouver Resources Board when the manager suggests that these boards are free to use their budgets in any way to maintain involvement in the communities so as to scrutinize community services. Is this the kind of open-ended statement that seems to seep into other areas of policy administration?

With all of these reservations, however, I want to see continuing participation in the community according to the guidelines we already have set forth for community resource advisory boards. At present the board gives direction to $1.8 million in community programme funds. I think this continuing involvement is important and worthy of support. I should point out that I think the system elsewhere is already superior, in that the advisory boards can relate directly to the regional manager who has responsibility for the development of community resources in that area. Our boards don't have to go to a senior administrator or to another quasi-political board for final approval. I think this same approach in Vancouver will be a decided improvement.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I see Bill 65 as a positive step to bring social services into an accountable, responsible and responsive provincial system. I think all citizens of the province will be served fairly and equitably, and the taxpayers of B.C. can be assured

[ Page 5565 ]

that their dollars are being properly spent.

Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling an amendment to the bill. The proposed amendment is that we delete section 70 and substitute section 64 (3) . In the proposed subsection (3) we would have the following: (a) by deleting "and" in line 3 of paragraph C; and (b) by adding "and after board" in line 2 of paragraph D; and (c) by adding after paragraph D the following: "Employees of the Vancouver Resources Board become employees of the Crown in right of the province and cease to be employees of the Vancouver Resources Board, " by deleting the proposed sections 64 to 69. 1 will table this proposed amendment of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I think it is important that all British Columbians know that their dollars are being well spent and that the services are being provided in a manner which they can agree with and which they expect from this government. I can assure you that we will develop a far superior system in Vancouver to what presently exists and that we will return full accountability directly through and to the ministry.

I would urge all members to support Bill 65.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has done this House the discourtesy of filing amendments which may be consequential to this debate as he finished his speech and not providing copies to the opposition. I would ask Your Honour to declare a short recess while members of the opposition have an opportunity to obtain copies of these amendments and study them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's telling you before committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not uncommon in second reading of bills for the minister introducing second reading to refer to the fact that he will be introducing amendments. The amendments are laid on the table. The fact that the hon. minister gave notice of that - that he was about to lay amendments on the table which will be discussed in committee - should not be considered something out of the ordinary, hon. members.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just asking for a recess. Let us study them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member well knows that amendments can be studied before we get to the committee section of this bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed something new and strange, and I'm sure that all of us would like to congratulate the minister on his opening for his new leadership campaign.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just confirm one thing? Are you speaking as a designated speaker?

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not. We have someone on our side who has asked particularly that that someone be our designated speaker. It will be announced, I'm sure, in due course who that might be.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Can we play 20

questions?

MR. COCKE: Presently I'm the speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are watching a leadership campaign that was launched this morning. I must confess this: it's a strange new kind of campaign. A campaign built around smear, Mr. Minister, is not a good campaign; it's not a good way to start. I feel that is the way you have launched your campaign and I think it is unfortunate that so many little people were used as examples by that minister. You know, he can find them elsewhere; he can find them throughout his ministry if he wants to look. But he decided to look specifically in Vancouver with a microscope and find so many little areas.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the comments being made by the hon. member, but I overlooked moving second reading at the end of my comments. So I move second reading.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Too late!

MS. BROWN: A comedy of errors.

MR. SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the hon. minister moved second reading of the bill at the conclusion of his remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Look at the Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Will the hon. member please refrain from comments from his seat? The matter can certainly be attested to by the Blues, and that is what I would do.

There are two ways to proceed, hon. members: either by leave to move second reading by the hon. minister at the moment, or at some other time during the debate. When some other member of the government side of the House or a cabinet minister takes the floor, they can certainly move second reading on the minister's behalf. But if the debate is to continue now, then there should be a motion to move second reading of the bill.

MR. BARBER: There's no question on the floor; the bill is dead.

[ Page 5566 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be proper to move second reading by leave now. Is the minister asking for leave?

MR. BARNES: He wouldn't dare.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in my final remarks I asked for support of the bill, but I didn't use the words "second reading." So I mention the point of order as a matter of clarification to assure that everything was proper. However, if you feet that leave is required for this, I would ask for leave to move second reading.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there would seem to be some dispute as to whether or not second reading was moved. It is the recollection of one of the Clerks-at-the-Table - at least it is his belief - that in rising to open second reading of the bill, the minister did in fact move second reading. I think in order to clarify the matter, I will declare a short recess so that I might examine the opening and concluding remarks of the minister in order to determine exactly where we're at.

The House took recess at 11: 25 a.m.

The House resumed at 11: 40 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, proceeding this morning with the business of the day, I think all of us will agree that in the calling of the order of business today it was clear that the House Leader, when introducing the business of the day, called second reading of Bill 65. We proceeded on that basis with the hon. minister introducing second reading of the bill. The problem that has arisen is with respect to the moving of second reading formally, either at the start of the remarks by the minister or at the conclusion. Either place would have been the correct method because both are used in this House.

I've checked the Blues and there was no indication in the opening remarks, or in the concluding remarks, of the hon. minister of an intent, that I can determine, to move second reading. However, it is a matter that it is the business appointed for the day. In order to recognize and proceed with the business of the day, it is competent upon a member of the government to act on behalf of a colleague in all cases. That's pointed out in the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May at page 392. So it would now be a matter of a minister moving, or a member of government moving, on behalf of the minister, second reading of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as you know, when we recessed I had the floor. I still have the floor other than if I am interrupted by a point of order or a point of privilege. Neither of those affords an opportunity to anybody in this House to move a resolution while I have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: While you have the floor is correct, hon. member, but if we are to proceed and allow you to speak on Bill 65, then we must have a motion moving such procedure.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 65, and on behalf. . . .

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all of the hon. members please take their seats?

MR. GIBSON: The minister must be on a point of order. That's the only way he can rise.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got the floor. There's no second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. What was your point of order, sir?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that if the minister is to be recognized it can only be on a point of order - no other way - because the hon. member for New Westminster has the floor. That is the only way you can recognize the Minister of Health, sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't have the floor because he wasn't speaking on a bill.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has been neglected in your statement in your review of events - and not a ruling - is that you, sir, asked the minister to ask for leave to make the motion that would have put this bill into second reading. You did on record formally ask for leave. Leave was denied, and the only course is now to go on to other business. You have no other course. Too bad, Garde - you goofed it. Let's get on with the rules and the business.

AN HON. MEMBER: It looks like he arranged it this way. He didn't want the bill....

[ Page 5567 ]

MR. BARRETT: You put the fix in, Garde. You're thwarting his leadership ambitions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'm already dealing with a point of order, hon. members. The situation that we're in is that the business of the day was clearly set out in calling Bill 65. At the conclusion of the minister's remarks, and after having recognized the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , on a point of order, the hon. minister stood on his feet and asked leave to move second reading of the bill. Leave was denied, which means that as far as the minister asking for leave to move second reading, it was denied and that will be recorded in our Journals.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. Leader of the Opposition. We are now in a position that the hon. member for New Westminster, who has the floor, is not speaking to Bill 65, and has no other business to speak to at the moment, hon. members, unless the House is agreeable to allowing a member of the government to move formally second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. They don't have to agree.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: As is pointed out to me, it's not a matter of asking leave. The member has the right to move second reading on behalf of his colleague. The minister has that right.

The hon. Minister of Health.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would everyone except the member for New Westminster please take their seats? It is true the member for New Westminster has the floor. He has the floor on a matter of a point of order or nothing else at the moment until such time as the government, which they have a right to do, formally moves second reading.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition restrain himself?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, since there is no business before the House, and Bill 65 is not before the House, I move adjournment of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster, I believe, recognizes that I cannot accept that motion. It's a motion that can only be moved at this stage of the proceedings by the House Leader, if that were to be done. That's according to the rules of our House, hon. members. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor. The motion that he has tried to move is one that I cannot accept. I think he understands that.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I refer you to standing order 31 (1 ): "Questions put by members and notices of motion, not taken up when called, may upon the request of the government be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed." That means it would be at another day. It was mentioned that the House Leader of the government had an interest in perhaps debating this. One person got up and spoke for over an hour but didn't move the motion, so we have no business before us. That question was suggested as a topic for discussion today but it's obvious that we have gone past that point, Mr. Speaker. That has dropped and that cannot be before this House again today.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, in dealing with your point of order, that is not correct. The business of the day was appointed by the House Leader when we came into session this morning. The business of the House is second reading of Bill 65. 1 admit that we are at an impasse or hung up on a technicality at the moment. The hon. member for New Westminster has possession of the floor, but he does not have possession of the floor to speak to Bill 65 until such time as the motion for second reading has been moved.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to me that I still have the obligation to recognize the member for New Westminster at the moment.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for New Westminster retains the floor, Mr. Speaker, but I have a point of order, if I may. My point of order is this. The House Leader called the business of the day. The minister made an extended statement. He put no question in front of the House. He concluded his statement and sat down. I would suggest that it is now incumbent upon the House Leader, or upon the

[ Page 5568 ]

Speaker to call upon the House Leader, to call the next order of business once the hon. member for New Westminster has concluded his remarks, whatever they may be. In any event, this order of business has been exhausted for the day. That seems quite clear to me. There has been no question put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, speaking to the point raised by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, it's an improper assumption that the member has taken. The business which is before the House is a discussion of Bill 65. There is no authority to back up the suggestion that you have made that we must now move on to other business. There is a requirement - and it's a technical one - of formally moving second reading. I have to recognize the hon. member for New Westminster because he has the floor. Before I can recognize other people, other than on points of order.... I must recognize them, but I must point out to them that until such time as a member of government has moved second reading of Bill 65, it would be improper to engage in any form of debate on Bill 65.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that, and certainly I will follow the Speaker's instructions implicitly in that regard and will have nothing to say whatsoever because there is no motion before us with respect to Bill 65. However, I plan to retain the floor until the Speaker instructs me as to what I can speak on, because I have the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, there's the weather!

MR. COCKE: I could talk about Surrey Dodge.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I think you are probably aware of the fact that there are probably only three methods which are open to you at the present time to retain possession of the floor: one is to speak to a point of order; another would be if there was a point of privilege before the House, or one that you wished to raise; the third method would be to speak to the motion of the business that's before the House. Now if you have a point of order I must listen to it. Other than that, the hon. member will obviously be out of order unless there is something else that he can determine that would be a proper sequence of events at the present time.

MR. GIBSON: I have a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I must determine, first of all, if the hon. member for New Westminster is on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: No. I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

I'm prepared to yield on a point of order only.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: My point of order is this. The hon. minister just concluded extensive remarks without speaking to a motion. It would seem to me that any other member in this House must have the same right as was just exercised by the hon. minister.

MR. SPEAKER: You're not on a point of order, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am. If the hon. minister just spoke without a motion on the business that was....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member full well knows that he's not acting in a proper manner at the present time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker. the minister spoke without a motion on the business that was called by the House Leader. Now any other who is recognized has the same entitlement.

MR. SPEAKER: It's quite in order, hon. member. I think you're well aware that it's quite proper to speak to a motion before the House and formally move that motion either at the beginning of the speech or at the end. Quite often it is done - as a matter of fact, it has been done twice in this House -in opening remarks and in closing remarks. But the fact is that that motion was not moved. It is not competent, then, for any other member of the House to speak to the motion in second reading or to debate the bill until that motion has been moved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated to all the members of the House - and they agree - the order of business was called from this desk, and it was second reading of this particular bill. The hon. minister spoke at length upon the bill, obviously directing his remarks to second reading. It appears that he inadvertently did not move second reading at the time of sitting down.

But I would draw your attention to this fact, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for New Westminster got up, he addressed himself to second reading. He addressed himself to a motion that he felt had been moved as well, so he was essentially speaking contrary to the motion that he felt had been moved by the hon. minister. The member for New Westminster quite clearly attorned to the situation and attorned to the fact that in his view - and certainly I think in the view of all the members of the House - until it was brought to the attention of the

[ Page 5569 ]

hon. minister.... In fact, he was of the opinion that second reading had been moved and it hadn't. So we run into a little bit of inadvertence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. GARDOM: You know, the opposition is having a lot of fun with it and there is nothing wrong with that. This is the adversarial system.

But I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker. I think the purpose of this forum is to do the business of the people and not obstruct it, and the opposition is doing nothing more at the present time than having an interesting little political game. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) can only have the floor on a point of order, which occurred to him as the result of the member requesting leave. But before that the member for New Westminster was clearly speaking contrary to the principle of the bill. He was addressing himself to a motion.

There is no question of a doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the government will move second reading of this bill. I'm just asking the opposition: let's get on with the business of the people and have it done.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. members, just because leave was denied to the hon. Minister of Human Resources does not mean that we move to the next order of business. I must make it very clear that that is not the procedure that we would follow, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you are saying which the House Leader conveniently forgot that after the minister asked for leave under the rules of this House and leave was denied, that we can now continue to go on with this, then I would like you to cite your authority. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that once leave is denied, there is no other course but to go on to other business, unless leave is asked for again.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition's point of order, there is no authority for the proposition that you have suggested, and that is that we would have to move to other business rather than the business that is before the House. It is clearly stated and it is a fact, hon. members. Would the hon. members please take their seats?

It is a clear fact of this morning's proceedings that the business of the House was properly called -second reading debate on Bill 65. The error that has occurred is one of a technical nature. I don't think that anyone can disagree that the minister, in concluding his remarks, did not formally move second reading of the bill. That is correct. So in order for the House to proceed in debate on the bill, we have to determine, according to May what would be the proper procedure. The proper procedure is that another member of government may act on behalf of his colleague in all cases.

Unless the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , who is in possession of the floor, has a point of order which is relevant to the matter at the moment, he has no matter to speak to.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the House determined, as you pointed out, that it wished to go to Bill 65. That is indeed what happened. The minister then made a statement on Bill 65, as is correct with the rules. The next step would have been, if the minister wished us to continue the debate, for him to move a motion. An error was made; you call it technical. Nonetheless, the rules, sir, must be followed. An error was made in the rules. The error was that the minister did not move the motion. That is correct.

After he made the error, he made, under the rules, the effort to correct that error. The effort to correct the error was to ask for leave of all the members, because it is the House that determines the business -not the Speaker but the members of the House. The minister then asked, according to the rules, for leave that the rules be suspended and that he make the motion. That is what leave is all about.

Leave to suspend the rules was denied. Therefore the rules are in place and the only subsequent order in business is to deal with the next item on the order of business for the day. No one in this House gave up their right that the rules be followed through completely. As a result, the minister did not get leave that the rules be suspended. I suggest that the only course of action is to follow the rules and get on with the next order of business.

No member's right to deny suspension of the rules should be abrogated, even if it was a technical error. If rules are to be manipulated by technical error, we will lose democracy in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: May I repeat, hon. member, speaking to the Leader of the Opposition, who has been on a point of order, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition holds the proposition that because of the fact that leave was not granted to the Hon. minister, we must proceed to other business. That, in fact, is not correct, hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It is a matter that the minister was refused leave to move second reading of his bill, but that does not displace the business of the House. The business of the House - that which was called by the hon. House Leader, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) -is second reading of Bill 65.

MR. BARRETT: We're past that now.

MR. SPEAKER: We haven't, hon. member.

[ Page 5570 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what you neglect to address yourself to is the impasse that came about when the minister asked for leave and was denied leave. As a result, we were left with a situation where the member for New Westminster had the floor on a matter that doesn't exist.

MR. SPEAKER: Only the minister was denied leave, hon. Leader of the Opposition, which does not displace the business of the day.

MR. BARRETT: I'll point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that once leave is denied and we've dealt with an issue, there is no way we can deal with the same issue immediately following, because how would someone else get the floor? There would have to be leave granted again to let a minister have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Well, what is he getting up on? There's no business. The member for New Westminster has the floor on no business, and I hope that the rules apply to no business as they do to business.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): All the other ministers are listening in their office. They're behind the bill.

MR. BARBER: Just remember who put you up to this. it's Allan Williams' bill. Leadership contest, here we come.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the discussion with respect to the point of order, and wish to canvass the following with respect to it. There was on some previous day a motion that was passed by this House that Bill 65 be placed on orders of the day for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the process of bills getting on the order paper is one that's well known to all members of the House. Now what is your point of order, please?

MR. LAUK: I would ask for Mr. Speaker's patience. I want to canvass each fact in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in the form of a debate. The hon. member, if he's on a point of order, must state the point of order.

MR. LAUK: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the motion of the House on some previous day was to place Bill 65 on orders of the day for second reading. Now second reading was called today. In order for that order to be fulfilled when the bill is called on orders of the day, a motion for second reading must be put and debated. If a motion for second reading is not put and immediately subsequently debated, the order passed by this House to place Bill 65 on orders of the day for second reading is automatically discharged and dropped.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member. That is....

MR. LAUK: May I just finish? I don't plan to get up time and time again. I want to complete my point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I am listening, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I appreciate that.

The Speaker has cited an authority in May that, with great respect, has absolutely no relevance or bearing on this situation. The citation that Mr. Speaker has given to the House, although creatively and energetically put, is not relevant. The proposition in May that's quoted by Your Honour means simply that when a minister is incapacitated or not present in the chamber, another minister may, upon that minister's behalf, make certain motions. The minister, to our knowledge, is not incapacitated, and is present in the chamber. The proposition that another minister may act on that minister's behalf of course is unassailable, but only in the situation that I have put to Mr. Speaker. Therefore your citation is totally....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you stick to a point of order and not a debate?

MR. LAUK: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that your citation is wrong. Your ruling is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: That's an improper assumption and one which.... I question very much the validity of the fact that a member should be putting it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I can read May as well as anyone else. The proposition that another minister may act or put motions on behalf of another minister is quite clear.

MR. SPEAKER: It cannot become argumentative, hon. member, and you're well aware of that.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, are you going to stick to your ruling on the basis of an improper citation in May? It's a most unfortunate situation. I'm quite shocked.

Interjections.

[ Page 5571 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I can only listen to one point of order at a time.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising, do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I must take that motion, as it is a custom to do so when the House Leader moves a motion of adjournment.

MR. BARRETT: How did he get the floor? The member for New Westminster had it.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:13 p.m.